Let us dispose of the tradtional view of tyrrany from here on out. For that view is outdated, at least in terms of our present society. Tyrrany, for the colelctive purpose of this arguement is nothing but the oppression of the common man. Let us not waste time mincing words and deffinitions about a single word. Let it represent its basic meaning, which is, oppression. We cannot hold to the idea of a tyrant in our society in the true sense unless we wish to say that out tyrant has the ability to fall only to be replaced with a new tyrant whenever the people decide. No, while the notion is absurd in some regards, it is not wholly inaccurate, however, it cannot serve as a true foundation for this argument at hand.
Democracy is indeed the perfect form of tyrrany because of its subtlety. How does the ruling party stay in power? How does the opposition gain power? Fearmongering to a mass population of, for the most part, uneducated working class members. It is with this fear that there is control. One may argue that anyone with the education can become a president or a prime minister, however, by the time that the person in question has reached such a lofty height they are no longer who they first were. Indeed they have been changed by society itself into the shape that power in our society must take. And that is someone who will not always be around. Someone who the people can remove if they so wish it. However, this is but an illusion in some regards. In a traditional state of tyrrany you have the tyrant. The tyrant is a visible force of oppression. Something and someone that is a symbol of all the suffering and troubles of the society in which he rules over. However, in thos senario the common man can only be pushed so far until he eventually wakes up to realize that there is more of him than there is of the tyrant and the tyrant's ruling class. Once the tyrant is removed however, society either creates a new visible tyrant on one of subtler nature, something more...democratic. In democray it is true that a party can rise and fall at the whims of the people. Or so it seems. The people are largely undereducated on the politics and policies of the opposing parties and often vote either out of habit, coercion from surrounding individuals, or the fearmongering campaigns launched by the parties. Often the former and latter situations are the most prevailent. So with this in mind then the commonality is caught in a blissful illusion of power that is fueled by the politicians themselves. However, it is the rich and powerful who pull the strings by feeding the commonality with the deceit and lies that are required to either stay in power or remove their foes from the power they covet. Let us take a look at our ecomonic system.
A small upper class A medium middle class A large lower class
This hierarchy provides the balance the ruling class needs to maintain its grip on society. Often times the poor are uneduacated in many regards and thus fear and the idea of salvation from this fear are key motivators. While the middle class is educated to a decent extend in some regards they still lack, largely, the political education required to make informed choices, this is in fact a form of oppression. The oppression of knowledge. Many will argue the internet solves this, however, the key motivator is still fearmongering. The threat of an enemy either real or imagined, or simply blown our of proportion will do the work for the politicians and rich. This system has created a society based around the idividual wants and needs of the person, not the collective needs of the community. Thus we suffer from apathy, a lack of morality and the chains of debt and poverty, yet we would call it freedom. Had I the ability I'd bring this system crashing down and replace it with an ideal form of society. True equality, where no one leads and other help eachother for the morality of it instead of the self serving interests we see today. However, I know this ideal is nothing short of impossible unless humans change fundamentally in a social manner. Also, how does one take down such a system as this? Oh I have my solution, however, it is once more, another impossibility.
that does not cater to new ideas or companies who don't have a massive amount of start up funding.
In a free market, companies who fail were unable to provide a service to the people - they consumed more than they provided. Thus, in failing, they have now done a service to people by allowing the resources they consumed to be used for other purposes.
But if you're telling me that the recession was caused by banks taking too big of risks, then you are mistaken.
The small banks took too big of risks. And, frankly this was due to the governments' actions.
[...]But the Fed rejected calls from one of the nation's top banking regulators, a professional accounting board and the Fed's own staff for curbs on the bank' use of special debt securities to raise capital that was allowing them to mushroom in size.
Then-Chairman Alan Greenspan and the other six Fed governors voted unanimously to reaffirm a 9-year-old rule allowing liberal use of what are called trust-preferred securities.
This was like a magic bullet for community banks that had few ways to raise capital without issuing more common stock and diluting their share price. The Fed allowed the banks to account for the securities in a way that left them free to borrow and lend in amounts 10 times or more than the value of the securities being issued.
Bottom line as a former Reagan advisor said: "the Fed's easy money policies spurred a frenzy of irresponsible borrowing on the part of banks and consumers alike"
I truly am an idealist in this idea, because my idea goes against all of human nature's need to dominate. The idea is simple: people live their lives in true equality, everyone has enough food and water, a form of shelter, and, should they need it, medical care. People are helped for the sake of needing help.
Who decides who should go to medical school? If we are all living equal and I have access to everything I need, why in the world am I going to do the medical school grind? So I can help take care of the guy with sclerosis of the liver because he drank instead of going to medical school?
Humans are naturally selfish. Life is naturally selfish. If life were not selfish, it would not be able to protect itself, sustain itself or procreate. If life were not selfish, you would not exist to dream about a Utopian society where life is not selfish.
Humans are naturally selfish. Life is naturally selfish. If life were not selfish, it would not be able to protect itself, sustain itself or procreate. If life were not selfish, you would not exist to dream about a Utopian society where life is not selfish.
Comments like this are why people dislike egoists.
This is how I think you should explain it.
Look at the word: "selfish"
Is there anything in that word that says that we put other people down? Self - ish. No - it only refers to the self. It means doing that which is conducive to your own happiness, however you perceive that.
This does not necessarily imply we are hurting others, and it does not preclude altruism. In fact, all rational altruistic actions are necessarily self-ish, because only then are they mutually beneficial: They benefit the person receiving the goods, and they benefit the person giving, because it is conducive to their happiness.
All else is irrational - it is irrational to NOT have actions that are conducive to your happiness.
In fact, in a free-market society, those actions that are conducive to your happiness are most likely (unless you are making an uninformed trade) conducive to others' happiness.
All else is irrational - it is irrational to NOT have actions that are conducive to your happiness.
Perhaps you would like to back that statement up with psychological evidence? Doing my homework brings me no happiness at all, perhaps it may lead to a happy conclusion but that's an unknown variable.
In fact, in a free-market society, those actions that are conducive to your happiness are most likely (unless you are making an uninformed trade) conducive to others' happiness.
In any capitalist society, assuming that capitalist is equivalent to any society that is based upon the acquisition of capital through labor and is not specifically labor based, this is true on the assumption that my work rewards me with a monetary again that can then be traded for capital. In this situation my work allows me to gain a service or product that another's labor created thus rewarding them for their creation or service. It's easy to see that my happiness, if based in materialism, comes from the amount of money and capital I have. It's also easy to see that actions beneficial to my happiness will be equivalent to other's happiness because I am awarding them money, and thus capital, for their labor.
However this scenario assumes that there are only two members of society who benefit from each trade of money for capital, this is generally not correct. Let's say I'm the owner of a business that employs 5 individuals; I make more than all five employees because I labor to ensure we have individuals who want to purchase our goods, control our finances, and put in more hours. One day I decide that I need more capital to make me happier, unfortunatly I can't find more customers to pay me more money to gain more capital. So, in order to be happier, I fire two employees; I'm happier because I have less individuals to pay while the two employees that I fired are not happy at all. The other three workers are now forced to work more hours without more pay, there happiness is also reduced. So, in summation, one individual is happy while 5 are not; your argument falls apart in actual application.
In a free market, companies who fail were unable to provide a service to the people - they consumed more than they provided. Thus, in failing, they have now done a service to people by allowing the resources they consumed to be used for other purposes.
No, in a completely "free market" monopolies will form that destroy newer companies chances of making advances in a certain sector even if they have better ideas it will be impossible for them to start a business.
