Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

From Self-protection To Protection From Oneself


Methinkshe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good luck on that.

The most poisonous and pernicious form of power is control of property, while property exists, power exists (power of individuals over other individuals). When we recognise property is just an opinion, we are half way to sorting the mess out.

What do you mean by the term "property"?

My pack of half-smoked B & H is my property, is it not?

Do not confuse general ownership with ownership of land. Nor even with ownership of the means to work that land and sustain a living.

"You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."

The recognition in law of property rights is and always has been the basis of all civilisations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

As a society, we have moved a long way from the principles of self-protection and personal responsibility that have been foundational to our society for centuries and which have served us well.

These principles of personal responsibility were displaced by growing demands for state protection from the harmful effects on self of other individuals and institutions, which engendered the so-called nanny state.

But I believe we have moved one step further - we now demand protection from ourselves - from the consequences of our own stupidity and/or greed.

We no longer accept responsibility for our own stupidity or cupidity but rather seek compensation from the state; thus, for instance, those who bought property at the top of arguably the biggest speculative bubble in history, now believe that it is the state's job to compensate them, to save them from themselves - from the consequences of their self-inflicted harm.

Those who invested in Icelandic banks demand full-compensation. Yet it was greed that persuaded them to seek an extra percentage point or two in interest, and that blinded them to the need for due diligence. No-one frog-marched them to an Icelandic bank at gun-point and forced them to invest.

Is there any lower we can go as individuals than demanding to be saved from ourselves? This surely is the end of the road for our civilisation as we know it......isn't it?

We need to trust ourselves (and others) to "do the right thing"... if we don't where does that end up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to trust ourselves (and others) to "do the right thing"... if we don't where does that end up?

But what is "the right thing"?

I am sure that Gordon Brown et al are convinced that what they are doing is "the right thing".

Unless one accedes to an objective standard of rightness one has either to defer to rightness as a collective decision of the majority or an imposed definition by the elite. Either way, rightness is determined by humankind, collectively or individually....and on the hoof - according to the dictates/fashions of the day.

Personally, I prefer an objective standard of rightness - but I get shouted down on this site as being a complete idiot if I dare mention that possibility......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is "the right thing"?

I am sure that Gordon Brown et al are convinced that what they are doing is "the right thing".

Unless one accedes to an objective standard of rightness one has either to defer to rightness as a collective decision of the majority or an imposed definition by the elite. Either way, rightness is determined by humankind, collectively or individually....and on the hoof - according to the dictates/fashions of the day.

Personally, I prefer an objective standard of rightness - but I get shouted down on this site as being a complete idiot if I dare mention that possibility......

An objective standard of rightness: is there such a thing? We all have different standards of behaviour, I guess all I asking is that we don't impose that view on each other.

Live and let live... and what is you unspeakable preference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An objective standard of rightness: is there such a thing? We all have different standards of behaviour, I guess all I asking is that we don't impose that view on each other.

Live and let live... and what is you unspeakable preference?

God.

The Creator of the human race who is in essence good and from whom all good and right derives and without whom good and right do not exist and against whom all rightness and goodness has to be measured.

In a time gone by I might have referred you to such a book as John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" for an understanding of the way God interacts with His creation. But even I, old as I am, have to admit that he is a little out of date. These days I have begun to recommend a book called The Shack by William P Young as one that gives an insight into the nature of our Creator God and his relationship with us, His Creation.

Edited by Methinkshe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God.

The Creator of the human race who is in essence good and from whom all good and right derives and without whom good and right do not exist and against whom all rightness and goodness has to be measured.

In a time gone by I might have referred you to such a book as John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" for an understanding of the way God interacts with His creation. But even I, old as I am, have to admit that he is a little out of date. These days I have begun to recommend a book called The Shack by William P Young as one that gives an insight into the nature of our Creator God and his relationship with us, His Creation.

We don't know that good and right exist... but I'm sure we all have our individual sense of what they might be. Why would God impose a standard of ethics within the world why not make it impossible to trespass outside what is good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know that good and right exist... but I'm sure we all have our individual sense of what they might be. Why would God impose a standard of ethics within the world why not make it impossible to trespass outside what is good?

He also made you able to eat choclate biscuits all day but you can't stop getting fat.

I think we are supposed to notice what works and what doesn't and then use that to guide our actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't know that good and right exist... but I'm sure we all have our individual sense of what they might be. Why would God impose a standard of ethics within the world why not make it impossible to trespass outside what is good?

God does not impose a standard of ethics, He just is who He is - absolute goodness - from whom all goodness derives. And if it were impossible, through personal choice, to stray outside of God's absolute goodness, then we would be a race of robots instead of the free-choosing individuals that we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also made you able to eat choclate biscuits all day but you can't stop getting fat.

I think we are supposed to notice what works and what doesn't and then use that to guide our actions.

God does not impose a standard of ethics, He just is who He is - absolute goodness - from whom all goodness derives. And if it were impossible, through personal choice, to stray outside of God's absolute goodness, then we would be a race of robots instead of the free-choosing individuals that we are.

Perhaps it is impossible to stray outside God's goodness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is impossible to stray outside God's goodness.

That's a nice thought but you only have to look at, say, child murder and rape to realise that we, humanity, do stray outside God's goodness.

Not that we ever move beyond His compass, only that through choice we ignore the one who IS goodness.

Oh, btw Injin, if you read this post, while I was reading the book recommended in my previous post (The Shack) I thought of you. There is a reminder in the book that God is a verb, "I am that I am" and not a noun. I know how keen you are on verbs! And God is the ultimate state-of-being verb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a nice thought but you only have to look at, say, child murder and rape to realise that we, humanity, do stray outside God's goodness.

Not that we ever move beyond His compass, only that through choice we ignore the one who IS goodness.

Oh, btw Injin, if you read this post, while I was reading the book recommended in my previous post (The Shack) I thought of you. There is a reminder in the book that God is a verb, "I am that I am" and not a noun. I know how keen you are on verbs! And God is the ultimate state-of-being verb.

:)

http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk214.htm

Edited by Injin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A system of ethics is a system of human behaviour.

All you have to do is take a statement, apply it to people and see if it works. It's dead easy and scientific.

Does taking money from Bob and giving it to John make Bob or John happier - no to both - not even in the long run for John, who will become a zombie if he doesn't do stuff for himself.

Does making Bob work even though he's got enough resources for a day off any happier - no of course it doesn't.

So we can safely say that it's not going to work for a society, because that's just a load of Bob's and Johns assembled in a concept.

The example you give above describes something very far removed from anything Marx proposes so I don't see the point in discussing it. If anything it describes capitalism, so I guess events at least this far have proven your suspicions and "method" wrong.

Edited by Cogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example you give above describes something very far removed from anything Marx proposes so I don't see the point in discussing it. If anything it describes capitalism, so I guess events at least this far have proven your suspicions and "method" wrong.

It seems to me that Marx was as guilty as any of misunderstnding the nature of power. He proposed that power resides with, and rests on, an hereditary claim to land and the wealth that is associated with the ownersip of land. However, he has since been proved spectacularly wrong. In Zimbabwe, where land has been wrenched from white owners who have farmed it for decades and been given to Mugabe's cronies, wealth has not been transferred with land, it has been destroyed.

And that was Marx's great mistake - to think that wealth was a transferrable commodity, largely accumulated and held by the owners of land, but which could be transferred along with the ownership of that land. He totally neglected the possibility that land requires management to produce wealth, and to examine what such management entails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a society, we have moved a long way from the principles of self-protection and personal responsibility that have been foundational to our society for centuries and which have served us well.

These principles of personal responsibility were displaced by growing demands for state protection from the harmful effects on self of other individuals and institutions, which engendered the so-called nanny state.

But I believe we have moved one step further - we now demand protection from ourselves - from the consequences of our own stupidity and/or greed.

We no longer accept responsibility for our own stupidity or cupidity but rather seek compensation from the state; thus, for instance, those who bought property at the top of arguably the biggest speculative bubble in history, now believe that it is the state's job to compensate them, to save them from themselves - from the consequences of their self-inflicted harm.

Those who invested in Icelandic banks demand full-compensation. Yet it was greed that persuaded them to seek an extra percentage point or two in interest, and that blinded them to the need for due diligence. No-one frog-marched them to an Icelandic bank at gun-point and forced them to invest.

Is there any lower we can go as individuals than demanding to be saved from ourselves? This surely is the end of the road for our civilisation as we know it......isn't it?

Hey, maybe we'll soon see a rash of court cases, but wait a minute...who would you sue...yourself? Ok, to get round that we should have something along the lines of the HRA, the Self Protection Act, then we could be compensated... by the state.

Of all the whining "investors", the ones that really get to me are those that were not only greedy enough to put their life savings in an Icelandic bank, but in order to avoid paying a few hundred pounds in tax, used an IOM or Channel Island branch. Here's a particularly heart warming example:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-ne...91466-22073966/

Couple face losing home and £1.2m after Icelandic bank failure

"But six months after the sale which he celebrated by buying his wife a Porsche Boxster, Mr Johnston has just been told that he can no longer access his savings.

The couple now face losing their four-bedroom £500,000 home in Denbigh, and the prospect of pulling their sons 13-year-old Harry and George, 10, out of private schools.

Mr and Mrs Johnston also face a £120,000 capital gains tax bill on their vanished profits"

I know the mention of the Porsche will not escape the notice of HPCers, who will, I am sure, have been saddened at the predicament of this young family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The example you give above describes something very far removed from anything Marx proposes so I don't see the point in discussing it. If anything it describes capitalism, so I guess events at least this far have proven your suspicions and "method" wrong.

No, it says we should remove the state and keep the market, which is actually the right solution.

I said exactly what Marx proposed and we know this because of what's happened every time anyone has used his ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Marx was as guilty as any of misunderstnding the nature of power. He proposed that power resides with, and rests on, an hereditary claim to land and the wealth that is associated with the ownersip of land. However, he has since been proved spectacularly wrong. In Zimbabwe, where land has been wrenched from white owners who have farmed it for decades and been given to Mugabe's cronies, wealth has not been transferred with land, it has been destroyed.

And that was Marx's great mistake - to think that wealth was a transferrable commodity, largely accumulated and held by the owners of land, but which could be transferred along with the ownership of that land. He totally neglected the possibility that land requires management to produce wealth, and to examine what such management entails.

Not sure about this. Marx's analysis of the Acts of Enclosure is really the basis of the whole thing, and it is all about the management of land. If we own lots of little strips of land, we can only grow so much modern techniques being what they are. We can't, for example, work it very efficiently and we can't really operate much by way of crop rotation or leaving it fallow (or we'll starve). We can live off it, but not reliably produce a surplus. The capitalists grabbed all these bits of land, kicked the workers off it and then cultivated it "scientifically" to great yield. So for Marx, there is a bit of a problem here. Not in so far as the "wrong" thing having the "right" outcome, that is entirely expected as are all the other benefits capitalism brings, at least for a bit. But what next? We can advocate giving everyone their bit of land back, but we've already said that is inefficient. If it is all owned by the capitalist, we won't see much of what is produced. So what do we do...? This is his toy problem as such, and the answer is we put our bits of land together, cultivate it "scientifically" just like the capitalist, and take our share of what it produces, including the surplus.

It depends what you mean by "manage" I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about this. Marx's analysis of the Acts of Enclosure is really the basis of the whole thing, and it is all about the management of land. If we own lots of little strips of land, we can only grow so much modern techniques being what they are. We can't, for example, work it very efficiently and we can't really operate much by way of crop rotation or leaving it fallow (or we'll starve). We can live off it, but not reliably produce a surplus. The capitalists grabbed all these bits of land, kicked the workers off it and then cultivated it "scientifically" to great yield. So for Marx, there is a bit of a problem here. Not in so far as the "wrong" thing having the "right" outcome, that is entirely expected as are all the other benefits capitalism brings, at least for a bit. But what next? We can advocate giving everyone their bit of land back, but we've already said that is inefficient. If it is all owned by the capitalist, we won't see much of what is produced. So what do we do...? This is his toy problem as such, and the answer is we put our bits of land together, cultivate it "scientifically" just like the capitalist, and take our share of what it produces, including the surplus.

It depends what you mean by "manage" I suppose.

Exactly.

Marx and others want better (or different) human farming techniques.

The correct thing is to not treat otherhuman beings as livestock at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God.

The Creator of the human race who is in essence good and from whom all good and right derives and without whom good and right do not exist and against whom all rightness and goodness has to be measured.

In a time gone by I might have referred you to such a book as John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" for an understanding of the way God interacts with His creation. But even I, old as I am, have to admit that he is a little out of date. These days I have begun to recommend a book called The Shack by William P Young as one that gives an insight into the nature of our Creator God and his relationship with us, His Creation.

Pass me my pistol, this is going to be an understandable mistake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Marx and others want better (or different) human farming techniques.

The correct thing is to not treat otherhuman beings as livestock at all.

Ludicrous rhetoric is no substitute for doing the reading! ;)

Actually Marx wrote a great deal on the subject of why humans should be classified and treated differently from animals.

As I'm sure you have it on your bookshelf, dip into Collected Writings Vol 3.

Humans act with explicit purpose and make plans. It is no good treating them as if they were livestock.

I'm sure if you keep it up you'll say something that isn't completely wrong purely by chance.

You are having a bad run though.

Edited by Cogs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ludicrous rhetoric is no substitute for doing the reading! ;)

Actually Marx wrote a great deal on the subject of why humans should be classified and treated differently from animals.

As I'm sure you have it on your bookshelf, dip into Collected Writings Vol 3.

Humans act with explicit purpose and make plans. It is no good treating them as if they were livestock.

No shit.

That's why all governmental systems break down, regulations and laws don't work, communicm and socialism are total failures in every tie and place they are tried and markets actually always return no matter how much they are stamped on.

I'm sure if you keep it up you'll say something that isn't completely wrong purely by chance.

You are having a bad run though.

You haven't addressed anything I've said, so I assume you just agree with me but don't like it - hence the daft ad homs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No shit.

That's why all governmental systems break down, regulations and laws don't work, communicm and socialism are total failures in every tie and place they are tried and markets actually always return no matter how much they are stamped on.

You haven't addressed anything I've said, so I assume you just agree with me but don't like it - hence the daft ad homs.

No Injin, you haven't actually addressed anything I've said at all. And you began with an ad hom yourself.

I certainly don't agree with all the things you've said that are factually incorrect. No amount of sophistry will get you off the hook I'm afraid. As I've said twice above, this is not advocacy for what Marx wrote, merely that we should break with the trend towards dumbing down and actually consider what he wrote rather than what you and other people imagine he wrote.

I don't really see what your problem is with that (and the 2nd para, predicted by Marx, including the failure of socialism and communism in advance of the collapse of capitalism... you want to take that up with Lenin and Trotsky, not Marx).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Injin, you haven't actually addressed anything I've said at all. And you began with an ad hom yourself.

You haven't said much of anything at all to respond to.

I certainly don't agree with all the things you've said that are factually incorrect.

Which were...?

No amount of sophistry will get you off the hook I'm afraid. As I've said twice above, this is not advocacy for what Marx wrote, merely that we should break with the trend towards dumbing down and actually consider what he wrote rather than what you and other people imagine he wrote.

Lets take a simple Marx premise - there are different classes of people.

Let em check that against reality...nope, he's wrong. No such thing.

I don't really see what your problem is with that (and the 2nd para, predicted by Marx, including the failure of socialism and communism in advance of the collapse of capitalism... you want to take that up with Lenin and Trotsky, not Marx).

...............and everyone else who has tried to use his ideas at any point in history. You have to admit that the empirical record against communists and socialists is one of 100% failure and economic collapse, everywhere and everywhen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.