The 10 Biggest Myths About Our Economy

[Econ4every1]

How do “those in power” exist in a state in which there is no government?

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Yemen have large part of those nations that have no defacto government. What rights do you suppose you have in those areas? Whoever controls those areas at the moment. If you want to call those "governments" I suppose you can, but that's not what I mean when I say government. Areas of those nations are controlled by whoever can exert the greatest use of force and those people. Whatever "rights" people have in those areas are extended by the people with the best/ most fighters and equipment.

So what you’re really arguing is there are no rights

No, I'm not arguing that. Rights are a human construct, like the system of measurements. Just because there's no "natural measurement" doesn't mean that I don't believe that system of measurement exist or that they are useful and can be beneficial. What I'm saying is there are no more an objective set of "rights" that exist external of the people that agree to extend and respect with each other.

with one possible exception being the right of might

Who enforces systems of measurement? We'd all be better off if we claimed the rules of the system don't apply to us, yet virtually everyone accepts them and follows them without the need to extend to external force. That said, should you fill your empty pickup with gas and drop $5 on the counter and leave, yes, you are likely to encounter force.

So what you’re really arguing is there are no rights, with one possible exception being the right of might, which Jean-Jacques Rousseau brilliantly shot down in his essay The Social Contract.

Finally, a reply with some meat on it.....
I appreciate you bringing up Rousseau, but I think you're mischaracterizing my position. I'm not advocating for 'might makes right,' and I agree with Rousseau's core point that force alone does not create a legitimate right. In fact, I believe that Russo was spot on when he said, 'Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will' is a fair summary of my position. Hopefully we've found some common ground?

My argument is about the nature of rights themselves. I'm saying that rights are a human construct, a social agreement, much like our system of measurement. Just as there's no 'natural' unit of length inherent in the universe, there's no 'natural' set of rights existing outside of human agreement and enforcement. This doesn't mean rights aren't real, important, or beneficial – just like the system of measurements are. The foot was created by a king measuring his own foot, does that make the foot any less real or useful?

Rousseau's ideal of a social contract based on the General Will is a powerful concept, and I agree that it is the greatest and most legitimate source of legitimate rights. However, in reality, we often see situations where governments or power structures don't perfectly embody that General Will. In these cases, the rights that are practically enforced are those recognized and upheld by the powers that be, regardless of whether they align with a broader notion of justice or the common good.

To be clear, I'm not endorsing any particular power structure or its definition of rights. I'm simply observing that the practical application of rights is often tied to the realities of power. Ideally, we should strive for societies where the social contract does reflect the General Will, as Rousseau envisioned. In order to do that, we must recognize that rights are a social construct, they do not exist external to human society. By recognizing this, we can then work to build a society with an agreed upon set of rights that we wish to extend to each other because we choose to, not because they exist as some nebulous rules about human behavior that exist outside of the same.

So, I'm not saying there are no rights, nor am I saying that 'might makes right.' I'm saying that rights are a product of human agreement and that understanding their nature and how they are enforced in different contexts is crucial for creating a more just and equitable society.

 

[Econ4every1]

I don’t ascribe to a world devoid of morality

Nor do I, but I hold a similar view, morality can be imposed (to an extent) or agreed upon. For example, the Constitution finds it's roots in morality. An attempt to ascend to a higher level of agreement and legitimacy for the ideals it espouses.

I don’t think a person having the ability to snuff out the life of another human being has a moral right to do it simply because he can.

Nor do I, and I apricate you giving me the opportunity to make my position clear. And in fairness I can see how you might have believed what you said, but hopefully now we're clear.

But in your world if a democratic majority decides to enslave black people and treat them as chattel property that’s okay, because it’s democratic and the rights of black people only exist if government grants them, correct? Is that your argument?

Hopefully, now that you've reached this point you know that I don't. What I was pointing out when I said those that wield power decide your rights is, in all reality true, what I didn't make clear and now regret is that the power can be wielded justly as Russo talks about. But, my point of contention is the idea that rights are "natural", as if they exist externally. Rights can be given by force or by agreements with foundations in freedom, justice and liberty with the latter being superior to the former.

 

[Ahlevah]

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Yemen have large part of those nations that have no defacto government. What rights do you suppose you have in those areas?

De facto, de jure, or morally? Because, unlike human beings, not all rights are created equal. Morally, I have the same rights in Syria or Afghanistan that I have anywhere else. ISIS or the Taliban certainly wouldn’t have a moral right to murder me.

No, I'm not arguing that. Rights are a human construct, like the system of measurements.

Just as a system of measurement is a means of describing dimension, natural rights as a reflection of duties are a way to describe a moral system. Humans didn’t create dimension. Neither did they create reason or the ability to engage in it. So I don’t believe reason would disappear from the universe if humans did any more than dimension would if the Earth got sucked into a black hole. So according to my limited human intellect, it’s reasonable to conclude that one living, intelligent, sentient being does not have a right to kill another one simply because it feels like it.

Just because there's no "natural measurement" doesn't mean that I don't believe that system of measurement exist or that they are useful and can be beneficial. What I'm saying is there are no more an objective set of "rights" that exist external of the people that agree to extend and respect with each other.

Well, when did people agree to become slaves?

So, I'm not saying there are no rights, nor am I saying that 'might makes right.' I'm saying that rights are a product of human agreement and that understanding their nature and how they are enforced in different contexts is crucial for creating a more just and equitable society.

I would say rights, such as legal rights, within a societal framework are a product of agreement. But outside of that your claim is individuals possess no natural rights, correct? It’s the law of the jungle? If I decide to murder someone it’s perfectly acceptable, correct? If it’s not, on what basis do you make the moral choice?

 

[dockside]

The gap doesn't bother me in the least.

For as long as you can say, "I've got mine, to hell with the rest of you."

 

[Pedestrian]

Reich: "Many Americans believe the system as a whole is rigged against them. So, how did this happen .. and how can we fix it?"

Nothing like opening with a glaring logical flaw. How many is "many" and why should we believe the assertions of those "many" that the system is rigged against them?

Capitalism as of 1756 was pejorative. Meaning capital's capture of govt. That was correct as America's capitalist has capture govt. and has had it for about 200 years save for the 20 year period when govt. actually protected labor.

Hell, it wasn't until FDR the capitalist stopped killing people who wanted more than industrial feudalism. Rockefeller got the Col. NG to burn and shoot down 62 men, women and children to death over .04 cents./hr. and Sundays off.

That's the rigging part. Things like something called capital gains, carried interest and stock dividend the classic immoral tax favors is a good start. Immoral prima facie.

Capital [property] now ruled free [political] speech so now the investor class owns almost all of America's free speech. America is now Animal House. [Orwell] The investor class 'free speech rights are quite a bit MORE equal than yours.'

Then there are the 1,000s of labor act violations simply undressed by govt.,, while the repubs deny the dems the money to address that huge backlog.

Reagan almost killed the EEOC and NLRB putting Clarence Thomas in charge who should have been fired to incompetence and absenteeism. [reverse racism]

Question, how is it that my house when bought was $20,000 was assessed at $400,000 in 2008 ? Anybody got any idea at all ?

 

[Econ4every1]

De facto, de jure, or morally?

I think we should take a step back. Because I feel like we're debating at a higher order when we haven't established we agree on the fundamentals. If we cannot agree on the fundamentals, we're just going in circles.

Would you agree:

1. Our interactions with the world, from infancy onward, shape our understanding of good, bad, right, and wrong. These experiences, interpreted through our senses, form the bedrock of our moral development and shape our conception of value. Basically our experiences are the basis of our moral intuition. Without experiences, we'd have nothing to base our preferences on.
2. Most sane and reasonable healthy people prefer to avoid unnecessary or unwelcome pain, suffering and/ or sickness. This preference is a basic driver of human behavior and a cornerstone of our understanding of well-being. It is our experience of pain and suffering that frames our ideas of well-being. If you never suffer, ever, then how might that effect a persons evaluation of good or bad?
3. There is a hierarchy between experience and rights that looks like this: Experiences---->Values---->Morality---->Rights

Now, I'm keeping this a high level, there are obviously lots of opportunities for nuance here. Mental and physiological states, innate vs environmental factors and others. So let's see if we can agree on a fundamental level before we go objecting on nuance.

So, at the end of the day if I asked a person what they would prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream I think we could agree that the choice is about as subjective as it gets, but if I asked a person what they'd prefer a bowl ice cream or a bowl of molten hot shards of steel, I think we can say that most people, of sane mind and reasonably healthy body would avoid the molten hot steel. As a matter of fact, they would likely go to extreme lengths to avoid eating molten shards of steel.

Choices are shaped by experiences (or desire to avoid the experience) which leads to the valuing avoiding that experience (thanks to the human capacity for empathy, and awareness not everything we wish to avoid has to be experienced first hand) which in turn might lead to the value of believing that no one should force you to eat molten hot shards of steel which in turn could be enshrined as a right which would likely encompass all sorts of actions that would cause unnecessary or unwelcome pain and suffering.

But how to we get from morals which are personal (some might call this ethics), to morality (which is purely a social construct)?

The recognition that cooperation leads to better outcomes for everyone.

How are we doing so far?

 

[NatMorton]

For as long as you can say, "I've got mine, to hell with the rest of you."

Those are your words, not mine.

Though thank you for demonstrating a point I made in a related thread earlier today. The primary objective in advocating for progressive economic policy is that it provides an opportunity to virtue signal, and you couldn't have given us a clearer example. Well done.

 

[NatMorton]

Capitalism as of 1756 was pejorative. Meaning capital's capture of govt. That was correct as America's capitalist has capture govt. and has had it for about 200 years save for the 20 year period when govt. actually protected labor.

Hell, it wasn't until FDR the capitalist stopped killing people who wanted more than industrial feudalism. Rockefeller got the Col. NG to burn and shoot down 62 men, women and children to death over .04 cents./hr. and Sundays off.

That's the rigging part. Things like something called capital gains, carried interest and stock dividend the classic immoral tax favors is a good start. Immoral prima facie.

Capital [property] now ruled free [political] speech so now the investor class owns almost all of America's free speech. America is now Animal House. [Orwell] The investor class 'free speech rights are quite a bit MORE equal than yours.'

Then there are the 1,000s of labor act violations simply undressed by govt.,, while the repubs deny the dems the money to address that huge backlog.

Reagan almost killed the EEOC and NLRB putting Clarence Thomas in charge who should have been fired to incompetence and absenteeism. [reverse racism]

Question, how is it that my house when bought was $20,000 was assessed at $400,000 in 2008 ? Anybody got any idea at all ?

I really haven't the slightest idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Ahlevah]

I think we should take a step back. Because I feel like we're debating at a higher order when we haven't established we agree on the fundamentals. If we cannot agree on the fundamentals, we're just going in circles.

Would you agree:

1. Our interactions with the world, from infancy onward, shape our understanding of good, bad, right, and wrong. These experiences, interpreted through our senses, form the bedrock of our moral development and shape our conception of value. Basically our experiences are the basis of our moral intuition. Without experiences, we'd have nothing to base our preferences on.

I don’t necessarily agree that human perception or experience defines the boundaries of moral truths. Our ability to reason is limited. A baby barely has any awareness of its surroundings, let alone its rights. That doesn’t mean someone has the right to murder it.

1. Most sane and reasonable healthy people prefer to avoid unnecessary or unwelcome pain, suffering and/ or sickness. This preference is a basic driver of human behavior and a cornerstone of our understanding of well-being. It is our experience of pain and suffering that frames our ideas of well-being. If you never suffer, ever, then how might that affect a persons evaluation of good or bad?

Sure, but that doesn’t explain why people experience empathy, or why they would choose not to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal.

1. There is a hierarchy between experience and rights that looks like this: Experiences---->Values---->Morality---->Rights

Well, again, I’m not going to assume that human experience, limited by our senses and basic intellect, can determine the boundaries of moral truths, assuming they exist.

How are we doing so far?

I don’t think we’re going to agree on much, man, because I adhere to the Founding Fathers’ Enlightenment view of rights and the central purpose of civil government.

Yes, views evolve—no doubt about it. But natural rights are firmly rooted in fundamental aspects of human behavior. I mean, wake me up when we get to the point at which Americans volunteer to be slaves or human sacrifices, or never have an opinion on anything.

 

[BabaVoss]

Most people have no real appreciation for the actual difference between one million and one billion.
Here is the most illustrative example I have seen;

An easy way to understand the difference between a million and a billion is to use seconds.​

One million seconds is 11.5 days​

One billion seconds 31.7 years.​

ELEVEN DAYS VS 31 YEARS.​

.​

 

[noonereal]

Reich: "Many Americans believe the system as a whole is rigged against them. So, how did this happen .. and how can we fix it?"

Nothing like opening with a glaring logical flaw. How many is "many" and why should we believe the assertions of those "many" that the system is rigged against them?

Yawn

You have anything of substance to debate?

 

[Pedestrian]

Problematic situation? The refuge of the demogogue is the unequal distribution of wealth which only government meddling can resolve. The philosophy of pounding down every nail that sticks up appeals to resentment by those who rather than strive for achievement cheer on the government looting the assets of the rich based on the wane hope the government overlords will share the spoils. Never mind that in actual practice government and cronies get rich while the wealth producers either flee or stop trying.

 

[Pedestrian]

Well, that’s… a very common sentiment. This idea that capitalism, and specifically its marriage with democracy, is solely responsible for lifting people out of poverty. Now, there’s no question that market economies have generated immense wealth and have contributed to improvements in living standards for many people around the world. That’s undeniable. But to suggest that it’s the only or even the primary driver of poverty reduction is, again, an oversimplification. There are historical and contextual factors that you seem all to willing to ignore to maintain your idealized Conservative utopia.

Let’s be clear. I’m not advocating for some utopian vision of perfect equality. The kind of top-down, centrally planned economies you’re referring to – the Soviet Union, Maoist China – they were, without a doubt, disastrous failures. They led to immense suffering, economic stagnation, and the suppression of basic human freedoms. I agree with that.

But the fact that those systems failed doesn’t mean that any attempt to mitigate inequity or to create a more just economic system is doomed to failure. That’s a false dichotomy. It’s a straw man.

The truth is, the relationship between capitalism, democracy, and poverty reduction is far more complex than your simplistic narrative suggests. As a matter of fact, that's how the right is winning, because Conservative ideology has abandoned good faith arguments and now trades entirely on oversimplified emotional arguments that appeal to emotion. Many other factors have played crucial roles: technological advancements, increased access to education, public health initiatives, the rise of global trade, and yes, even certain forms of government intervention and social safety nets. And while it is my hope to admit that the right may have won the battle, when people see the results it produces, assuming the authoritarians are not allowed to solidify their grasp on power from the top down, it's only a matter of time before America rejects the right and it's morally and socially bankrupt ideals.

Furthermore, even within the framework of market capitalism, there are different models. There’s the kind of unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism that some people seem to idealize, and then there are more regulated, socially conscious forms of capitalism that prioritize things like environmental protection, worker’s rights, and a more equitable distribution of wealth. And the evidence suggests that these latter models tend to produce better outcomes for a larger number of people.

Look at the Scandinavian countries, for example. They have robust market economies, but they also have strong social safety nets, high levels of social mobility, and relatively low levels of income inequality. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they demonstrate that it’s possible to have a thriving capitalist economy without sacrificing social justice and economic fairness.

So, to simply dismiss any attempt to address inequality as “wealth redistribution” and to equate it with the horrors of communist regimes is intellectually dishonest. It’s a way of shutting down a much-needed conversation about how we can create a more just and sustainable economic system. We need to be able to have nuanced discussions about these complex issues without resorting to these tired and misleading clichés.”

What the capitalist cult believes is the same as religion. What they don't want to realize is that capitalism has never served society at large, does not now and never will, without being forced by govt.

CAPITALISM had its criminal managers/owners just shoot people down who first tried to create a middle class. Until FDR, America was industrial feudalism paid in co. script. 'Yo 16 tons and whaddya get, another day older and deeper in debt.'

What we see now in America is a middle class such as it remains and only by the numbers, is a mirage if debt, $106 trillion in total debt requiring [she] borrow $12 billion a day just to pay the interest.

The elephant in the room is extreme income inequality. How big is this elephant? A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades.

 

[Econ4every1]

I don’t necessarily agree that human perception or experience defines the boundaries of moral truths.

Ok, so what is it about the act of particularly violent crime like rape that makes it wrong in your opinion? I thought about posting a video where a person describes their horrifying experience of rape here, but that's probably inappropriate even if it supports my point. But as I'm sure you can imagine it's heart wrenching and at the same time infuriating to think about someone could do that to another person. Even worse if you imagine that person being someone you know.

Since I think you can imagine what a description of rape might sound like, how much of the explanation do you think relates to experience? What would rape be like if instead of making a person feel the way I'm certain you can imagine, imagine it felt good and made a person happy, like winning the lottery. Would rape be wrong?

It's really strange reading your response where you deny that experience is the foundation of morality. I mean, we've truly reached an impasse if you refuse to acknowledge that our experiences are the foundation of our ideas of right and wrong.

Our ability to reason is limited.

Limited in what sense, how does this statement apply to anything?

A baby barely has any awareness of its surroundings, let alone its rights. That doesn’t mean someone has the right to murder it.

I have no idea why you said that in response to what I wrote. I'm almost afraid to ask, but if you want to clarify, I invite you to do so.

Sure...[something about empathy....]

So then we agree on the substance of "reasonable healthy people prefer to avoid unnecessary or unwelcome pain, suffering and/ or sickness."

Sure, but that doesn’t explain why people experience empathy....

First, I'm not sure what explaining where empathy comes from has to do with the idea I quoted above.

Next, I think there are some very good ideas of where empathy comes from.

Lastly, do we have to know where it comes from in order to observe it's affects and make qualitative statements with regards to it?

or why they would choose not to inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal.

By definition people who feel empathy might choose not to inflict unnecessary suffering of any kind because they can imagine what it might feel like (again, were back to experience, actual or imagined).

Well, again, I’m not going to assume that human experience, limited by our senses and basic intellect, can determine the boundaries of moral truths, assuming they exist.

I didn't say the "boundaries of moral truths", I said the foundation, as without experience would there be right and wrong as we know it? Sure, you might find spiritual reasons not to do things, but I don't believe for a second, that a person being stoned to death has as their first thought that what's happening to them is wrong because it's an affront to god/s, the universe, or whatever spiritual idea they might have. It doesn't take a lot of reason to understand that big rock that someone threw on your foot is bad because of how the experience is perceived.

 

[Econ4every1]

don’t think we’re going to agree on much, man, because I adhere to the Founding Fathers’ Enlightenment view of rights and the central purpose of civil government.

I think the founding fathers agree with me. Maybe you can explain how my views are incompatible with enlightenment ideas?

But natural rights are firmly rooted in fundamental aspects of human behavior.

Again, how your idea of "natural rights" superior in your opinion, to what I've laid out?

I mean, wake me up when we get to the point at which Americans volunteer to be slaves or human sacrifices, or never have an opinion on anything.

That's just a read herring that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Natural rights as you are describing them=Things should be a certain way because reasons.

Acceptance and understanding of knowledge and information at a societal level is how morality evolves and improves. Unfortunately, humans can choose the wrong path, often lead, ironically, by people with severe personality disorders.

Ringing any bells?

 

[dockside]

Those are your words, not mine.

Though thank you for demonstrating a point I made in a related thread earlier today. The primary objective in advocating for progressive economic policy is that it provides an opportunity to virtue signal, and you couldn't have given us a clearer example. Well done.

Better virtuous than uncaring.

 

[Econ4every1]

What the capitalist cult believes is the same as religion. What they don't want to realize is that capitalism has never served society at large, does not now and never will, without being forced by govt.

CAPITALISM had its criminal managers/owners just shoot people down who first tried to create a middle class. Until FDR, America was industrial feudalism paid in co. script. 'Yo 16 tons and whaddya get, another day older and deeper in debt.'

What we see now in America is a middle class such as it remains and only by the numbers, is a mirage if debt, $106 trillion in total debt requiring [she] borrow $12 billion a day just to pay the interest.

The elephant in the room is extreme income inequality. How big is this elephant? A staggering $50 trillion. That is how much the upward redistribution of income has cost American workers over the past several decades.

I think of Capitalism as a tool. It is only as good or bad as the people that wield it. The promise of America is that it would be a government of, by and for the people, and it almost was and I hope it can reinvent itself someday and live up to the hype.

That said, while I think I agree with your sentiments and the level of debt relative to the real wealth that the bottom 80% currently holds (about 1/2 of what was held in 1980), I'm curious, do you think Capitalism can be redeemed? Is there a world in which a government of, by and for the people could constrain the worst tendencies of capitalism and realize it's best aspects?

If not, what is the alternative?

That said, Middle Out, not Top Down is the only foundation of an America that lives up to it's promise, at least if you are over 40.

How big is wealth in equality?

Here is a good source that is constantly updated to answer that question.....

Wealth:

Keep in mind that line at the bottom, the one that barly moved (especially if you account for inflation), that's the bottom 1/2 of Americans. And while things were just as bad in the 1990's the disparity was smaller.

We can also index each group and start them at the same place and see how each grows relative to each other over time....

 

[Econ4every1]

Better virtuous than uncaring.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

[rahl]

I don’t necessarily agree that human perception or experience defines the boundaries of moral truths.

Morality is purely a human construct and is completely subjective.

Our ability to reason is limited. A baby barely has any awareness of its surroundings, let alone its rights. That doesn’t mean someone has the right to murder it.

Humans have decided that it is not ok to murder. Outside of humans agreeing to this, the right to not be murdered doesn’t exist.

 

[Ahlevah]

Ok, so what is it about the act of particularly violent crime like rape that makes it wrong in your opinion?

I ask myself this question: if there were nothing wrong with it, imagine a world in which everyone engaged in it. What ramifications would that have for our society? Would it make people happier? I mean, besides a handful of sexual deviants or psychopaths, I’m going to take a wild guess and say no. The idea is to treat others as ends in themselves, not simply as means to an end. Rape violates that principle.

It's really strange reading your response where you deny that experience is the foundation of morality.

I didn’t say that. I said, “I don’t necessarily agree that human perception or experience defines the boundaries of moral truths.” Human suffering is experience, is it not? Death? How could I claim there is a natural right to liberty or speech if no one experienced it?

I mean, we've truly reached an impasse if you refuse to acknowledge that our experiences are the foundation of our ideas of right and wrong.

I will just respond thus:

Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.​

Immanuel Kant

Limited in what sense, how does this statement apply to anything?

We’re probably not as smart as we think we are. We’re limited by our experiences based on human perception, as well as our intellect.

I have no idea why you said that in response to what I wrote. I'm almost afraid to ask, but if you want to clarify, I invite you to do so.

It was kind of meant to reinforce the same point: when it comes to determining moral truths, we’re limited by our perception, experience, and intellect.

First, I'm not sure what explaining where empathy comes from has to do with the idea I quoted above.

Well, again, it references the role reason plays when it comes to determining a moral truth. I don’t think it’s always necessary to experience pain or suffering in order to conclude that a particular result is “bad.” I don’t need to have been in a concentration camp and experienced starvation or witnessed mounds of bodies to know that something was massively wrong there. My ability to empathize, at least to some degree, can allow me to be an observer but still have useful insight.

I didn't say the "boundaries of moral truths", I said the foundation, as without experience would there be right and wrong as we know it?

My comment was intended more as a reflection of my own point of view than an attempt to nail you down on yours. But I don’t know. In a universe where we can now observe events that occurred 13.8 billion light years ago, are there any limits to reason? In the grand scheme of things, when I look within the realm of possibility, experience strikes me as rather pedestrian by comparison.

 

[rahl]

Morality is a product of rational thought. Humans didn’t invent the ability to think.

Yes they did. “Morality” doesn’t exist in nature.

At one time humans decided the Earth was at the center of the universe. Now they think they are. Some of them, anyway.

Yep. Morality is a human construct and completely subjective. It’s why it has changed and evolved throughout human history.

 

[Ahlevah]

Yes they did.

Humans invented rationality? The ability to think? When? Who did it? Does that mean the principles that govern the physical world, such as geometry, wouldn’t exist if humans had not come onto the scene?

“Morality” doesn’t exist in nature.

Well, that’s the essence of the debate:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Yep. Morality is a human construct and completely subjective. It’s why it has changed and evolved throughout human history.

No, the basics have stayed pretty much the same. Throughout human history, people have generally not volunteered to become victims: slaves, raped, murdered, robbed…. Sorry, but you’ll never convince me that in an earlier time Hitler might have been considered “moral,” regardless of what people in general thought at that time.

 

[Dans La Lune]

lmao robert reich

As opposed to who? Milton Friedman?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Anyone who uses the term “debunked” is a quack.

You mean a word in the English language that has a legit meaning?

debunk​

verb​

de·bunk (ˌ)dē-ˈbəŋk

debunked; debunking; debunks
Synonyms of debunk
transitive verb
: to expose the sham (see sham entry 1 sense 2) or falseness of
debunk a legend

 

[Dans La Lune]

Historically—in pre-Google days—for most people that would have been their labor, or the product of it, whether it be fish, meat, berries, grain, nuts, furs, timber, baskets, weapons, cooking utensils, tools, domesticated animals, protection—whatever. In our modern technological society, people increasingly have traded their knowledge, intellect, or creativity for money or other goods or services. AI is upending that calculus. The people who will profit in the future will be those who offer goods or services that can’t be easily outsourced to a foreign country or performed by a computer or robot. Young people today might be better off purchasing a pressure washer or taking a few online courses on auto-detailing and starting a business rather than taking on massive amounts of student debt in order to learn software coding.

What is your actual point if it isn't an affirmation of "sheep skins" as a standard currency?

Force or cunning. Back in the good ol’ days that would have been becoming proficient with weaponry, relocating or hiding, diplomacy, or building a fortress. Keep in mind I’m not advocating this.

You again didn't answer the question. What entity uphold your property rights? And if you have to personally defend it, how are those rights?

I’m just saying any claim that government is required for people to engage in trade is bullshit. It’s no more required than it would be to practice religion.

I didn't say trade, did I? I was specific. I said ECONOMY. Trade is a specific act, an economy is a system that depends on some form of standard currency and a degree of regulation and enforcement.

Sure. People have found through practice that ensuring basic rights is more easily done in civil society rather than training everyone how to be a warrior.

How is a right a right and not simply an exercise of personal force? How outside of a civilization do rights exist?

Reich is correct in pointing out that the rules a society lays down, including those involving property rights and trade, determine how moral or just that society is. He noted that Adam Smith didn’t consider himself to be an economist. He really was a moralist. Smith also didn’t call the system he espoused “capitalism.” He called it “the system of natural liberty.” “Liberty” allows people to behave like dicks if they want. Civil society requires people behaving civilly. That includes following the Golden Rule and respecting the property of otters. But I can’t think of a freer economic system in which a willing buyer is permitted to strike a bargain with a willing seller for the transfer of ownership of property to which the seller is rightly entitled.

Again, barter is not an economy any more than a rainy day is a climate. And you're going to need to define who enforces property rights (outside of a government) in order for your argument to hold. If it's the rule of the jungle, then your property isn't a right and there is nothing to prevent the "barter" from ending in bloodshed.