[jolepp]

... our achievements have many ingredients, and the contributions from agency or free will are intertwined with the contributions from social and random factors—to the point that it seems unreasonable to give by default all credit to agency or free will, which libertarians try to do in order to justify the rewards of the market.

What Do We Deserve? | The Humanist

[GeneV]

What Do We Deserve? | The Humanist

Very thought-provoking.

[Ash]

Good prose. Takes a guy who's developed success in the world sense to reflect on his life in this way.

Life is, and has never been, fair. We cannot justify what opportunities or privileges we have, they are merely gifts. So indeed no-one 'deserves' anything, but we have what we have anyway. This statement "Citizens are assured equal basic liberties, and the distribution of income and wealth is determined by the free market" may be reality but the fortune of being born into an endowed family, and been given chances to excel in life make these liberties into desires well-realised.

My small issue with the writer is that he suggests life is a race, and due to runners all not starting from the same point, some have unfair advantages. To me it's rather a marathon, still mattering where we start off at, but we ought to learn contentment with where we are in life and make the most of what we are given to us (parable of the talents comes to mind). Comparing ourselves to others breeds discontentment, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for our life goals.

Of course it is unjust that the higher eschelons of society are increasing in worldly gains at the cost of the poor; it would be a better society if greed were no longer a vice that drives us, the competitive spirit would be used for the benefit of others rather than ourselves. The rich even know that their wealth is somewhat dependent on the industry and existence of the poor. But let's get real - as we are selfish beings (on the whole) it is an idealistic view to consider the rich exercising altruism over their wealth. So the author's contemplations are apt and confronting - perhaps not confronting enough to those who need the confronting the most...

[jeffkrol]

honest critique of how one obtains success......... Very few I I I I I I I did this I did that..
Dead giveaway it wasn't written by an American..........

[Ash]

Dead giveaway it wasn't written by an American

Swallowing pride is a hard pill to swallow for most of us.
Humility is quite an elusive virtue.
Kudos to this fellow who does well to avoid the 'I's in the article.

[wildman]

Well written and thoughtful.

What struck me first was the use of of these words:

Happy
good life
deserve
fair
unfair
justice
free market
equal basic liberties
egalitarian
social contract
social equality
fair equal opportunity
liberty
equality
entitlements

They all have one thing in common - they do not exist in nature. They
are all normative statements about what ought to be and essentially
moral statements.

It has always struck me how often, when we talk about broad social
concerns such as this post, there is a strong tendency to think in terms
of an answer and that there is only one right answer rather like a law
of physics.

When in fact we could decide to have a society based on slavery for
instance and the universe wouldn't care. It could be functional and
stable and persist for centuries.

My own take on all this is that we need to renegotiate the balance
between individual and communal interests in the USA. This is not only
a legitimate but necessary function of government. Defense and
protecting property and wealth are not the only outstanding interests of
a civilized society.

My two cents worth.
It's getting late and I need some sleep.
Good night.

[Ash]

we need to renegotiate the balance between individual and communal interests

...not just in the US. This is a basic tenet of moral society looking out for each others' welfare and interests. Thanks for sharing your views. Good analysis on the word usage in the article too.

[newarts]

Good ideas clearly expressed!

[GeneV]

Well written and thoughtful.

What struck me first was the use of of these words:

Happy
good life
deserve
entitlements
fair
unfair
justice
free market
equal basic liberties
egalitarian
social contract
social equality
fair equal opportunity
liberty
equality
entitlements

They all have one thing in common - they do not exist in nature. They
are all normative statements about what ought to be and essentially
moral statements.

It has always struck me how often, when we talk about broad social
concerns such as this post, there is a strong tendency to think in terms
of an answer and that there is only one right answer rather like a law
of physics.

When in fact we could decide to have a society based on slavery for
instance and the universe wouldn't care. It could be functional and
stable and persist for centuries.

My own take on all this is that we need to renegotiate the balance
between individual and communal interests in the USA. This is not only
a legitimate but necessary function of government. Defense and
protecting property and wealth are not the only outstanding interests of
a truly civilized society.

My two cents worth.
It's getting late and I need some sleep.
Good night.

Interesting thoughts.

On the word choice, I'm reminded of the contrast with Thomas Hobbes' description of natural society: "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." "The natural state of men, before they were joined in society, was a war, and not simply, but a war of all against all."

In the social contract, the people agree to give up some freedom in exchange for peace in this war. Locke and Rousseau's versions of this social contract were the basis of our Declaration of Independence.

[wildman]

...not just in the US.

Indeed.
I singled out the USA because things are particularly out of balance here and the author was writing primarily from a viewpoint gained while living in the States.

Thomas Hobbes' description of natural society: "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Sounds like the life of the poor in many of the cities in the so-called third world.

but a war of all against all.

I have often wondered if this isn't, in fact, the Libertarian ideal - Laissez-faire capitalism as war by other means. Only instead of war we now use the euphemism competition.

Hobbes, of course, was a product of the 16th century and a political philosopher and certainly not a biologist. I think Hobbes' view of a state of nature is very much a projection onto the natural world of the human social conditions of 16th century England. There is evidence for this. It is thought by many historians, for instance, that the average life span of pre columbian native peoples of N. American was longer then that of an English pheasant or serf coming to N. America in the 15th century.

Modern understandings of evolution and the requirements of evolution have very much tempered such an extreme view of a state of nature. E.O. Wilson for instance.

Anyway thanks for the positive response to my post - maybe I'm on to something.

[GeneV]

Indeed.
I singled out the USA because things are particularly out of balance here and the author was writing primarily from a viewpoint gained while living in the States.



Sounds like the life of the poor in many of the cities in the so-called third world.



I have often wondered if this isn't, in fact, the Libertarian ideal - Laissez-faire capitalism as war by other means. Only instead of war we now use the euphemism competition.

Hobbes, of course, was a product of the 16th century and a political philosopher and certainly not a biologist. I think Hobbes' view of a state of nature is very much a projection onto the natural world of the human social conditions of 16th century England. There is evidence for this. It is thought by many historians, for instance, that the average life span of pre columbian native peoples of N. American was longer then that of an English pheasant or serf coming to N. America in the 15th century.

Modern understandings of evolution and the requirements of evolution have very much tempered such an extreme view of a state of nature. E.O. Wilson for instance.

Anyway thanks for the positive response to my post - maybe I'm on to something.

I'd agree about the Randian libertarian vision.

I don't think Hobbes needed to be a biologist to understand human nature.

Before there was a civil society, life was much more brutal and short. Many pre-Columbian peoples of North America had a fairly organized and complex civil society, but the average life span was also nothing we would consider long, and it was not significantly different from Europe in the Middle Ages. Life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ihasa]

I am very suspicious of those figures for pre-colombian north american people life expectancy. Are these based on records from after contact with the white man?

[GeneV]

Well, isn't "pre-Columbian" by definition before white men?

[ihasa]

Well yes they are 'Pre-colombian' people, but I am not sure whether the estimates of life expectancy have come from the observatations of early white settlers. The figure in the Wikipedia article leads to an article entitled Pre-European Exploration, Prehistory through 1540.

Here is a quote from the article:

It is possible that diseases brought ashore in Mexico reached native people living in and around Arkansas a full generation before Hernando de Soto and his Spanish expedition crossed the Mississippi River into Arkansas in 1541. Although direct evidence of disease has not been found, changes are apparent in settlement patterns and cultural practices around 1500, especially in the Caddo area. The first native Arkansas people described by members of the de Soto expedition may therefore have already been affected by European invasion of the Americas.

Anyway. Even if life expectancy was short by today's standards, nasty and brutish - really? That's not what we tend to see in the few remaining 'non-assimilated' tribal communities today... They're treated brutishly by settlers, for sure!

[GeneV]

Well yes they are 'Pre-colombian' people, but I am not sure whether the estimates of life expectancy have come from the observatations of early white settlers. The figure in the Wikipedia article leads to an article entitled Pre-European Exploration, Prehistory through 1540.

Here is a quote from the article:


Anyway. Even if life expectancy was short by today's standards, nasty and brutish - really? That's not what we tend to see in the few remaining 'non-assimilated' tribal communities today... They're treated brutishly by settlers, for sure!

I'm not here to defend or detract from Wikipedia, but archeologists can tell from bones a lot about how old people were when they died and how healthy they were. The life expectancy with tribal wars and the lack of medical care or consistent food and shelter seems pretty much the same all over the world in temperate climates.

I would suspect that you could find tropical areas where conditions are so ideal for life that people might live longer than elsewhere. As to the disease, the settlers were not beneficial or beneficent. Nevertheless, germs have a way of getting around the world eventually from some source.

Again, if we find a pre-Columbian society, say in the Andes, that did very well in a temperate zone, it is likely to have had a high level of civilization, and Hobbes and Locke would be right.