Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
For a market system to exist money, land, and labor must become organized under the laws of pricing. “A market economy is an economic system controlled, regulated, and directed by market prices; order in the production and distribution of goods is entrusted to this self-regulating mechanism.â€
Labor was the last market element to be organized under the new industrial system. The final key in unlocking this self-regulating market system apparently necessitated inhuman techniques for forcing the people off subsistence farming and into a system wherein they must become objects of commerce living in community and controlled by pricing. Labor must become commodified through market price law just as was land and money.
Regulation of a new form had to be constructed. This new regulations must provide a safety net for providing food and some form of shelter for the laboring class as they were forced from subsistence farming into laboring in the industrial mills and large farms.
Within the broad scope of this mass movement of the common people from rural to urban communities the Speenhamland Law occupied a vital position.
A group of justices met in Speenhamland in may 1795, a time of great distress brought about by the enclosures, in order to calculate some form of subsidies to the common people to alleviate their suffering. A minimum amount of aid to wages was agreed upon and granted in accordance with a prescribed scale that was dependent upon the price of bread. This was so that the common people were supplied with an assurance of a minimum wage required to survive irrespective of their earnings.
“This was meant as an emergency measure and was informally introduced. Although commonly called a law, the scale itself was never enacted. Yet it became the law of the land over most of the countryside, and even, in a much diluted form, in a number of factor towns; actually it introduced no less a social and economic innovation than the “right to liveâ€, and until abolished in 1834, it effectively prevented the establishment of a competitive labor market.â€
This “law†forced the common laborer to work for whatever wages he might find. They were compelled to work or starve; relief in aid of wages was “neither intended nor given…the employer could obtain labor at almost any wages; however little he paid, the subsidy from the rates brought the workers’ income up to scale. Within a few years the productivity of labor began to sink to that of pauper labor.â€
Quotes from The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time by Karl Polanyi
The following is a condensed form of the Speenhamland Law copied from Wikipedia:
Essentially, families were paid extra to top up wages to a set level according to a table. This level varied according to the number of children and the price of bread.
Unfortunately, it tended to aggravate the underlying causes of poverty in any particular parish. The immediate impact of paying this poor rate fell on the landowners of the parish concerned. They then sought other means of dealing with the poor, such as the workhouse funded through parish unions.
The Speenhamland System appears to have reached its height during the Napoleonic Wars, when it was a means of allaying dangerous discontent amongst a growing rural proletariat faced by soaring food prices, and to have died out in the post-war period, except in a few parishes.
The Poor Law Commissioners' Report of 1834 called the Speenhamland System a "universal system of pauperism". The system allowed employers (often farmers) to pay below subsistence wages, because the parish would make up the difference and keep their workers alive. So the workers' low income was unchanged and the poor rate contributors subsidized the farmers.
This system of poor relief, and others like it, lasted until the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834.
Mark Blaug's classic 1960 essay The Myth of the Old Poor Law charged the commissioners of 1834 with largely using the Speenhamland system to vilify the old poor law and create will for the passage of a new one.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
I don't think there has ever been a pure market economy that is left to regulate itself. Neither do I think a 100% self-regulating market economy would prevent starvation or pauperism.
In my view, we have already become an economic appendage. Just about everything, even human life, is given a monetary value.
That is my opinion.
In my view, we have already become an economic appendage. Just about everything, even human life, is given a monetary value.
That is my opinion.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
In a world with limited resources, everything needs to be assigned a relative value if simply to generate a priority system. It is better to expend limited resources for the greatest gain.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
OpenMind;1155773 wrote: I don't think there has ever been a pure market economy that is left to regulate itself. Neither do I think a 100% self-regulating market economy would prevent starvation or pauperism.
In my view, we have already become an economic appendage. Just about everything, even human life, is given a monetary value.
That is my opinion.
I agree that we have already become an appendage.
It appears to me that American society is controlled by economic considerations rather than that the economic system is controlled by human considerations. Humans are determined by their role as labor not as their role as humans. Labor, i.e. humans have become commodified; they have become ciphers just as land and money within an economically determined culture.
I am writing about the foundations of our economic system because few Americans have any comprehension of such matters. I think that this book is important in our understanding of what our culture has become.
In my view, we have already become an economic appendage. Just about everything, even human life, is given a monetary value.
That is my opinion.
I agree that we have already become an appendage.
It appears to me that American society is controlled by economic considerations rather than that the economic system is controlled by human considerations. Humans are determined by their role as labor not as their role as humans. Labor, i.e. humans have become commodified; they have become ciphers just as land and money within an economically determined culture.
I am writing about the foundations of our economic system because few Americans have any comprehension of such matters. I think that this book is important in our understanding of what our culture has become.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
coberst;1156201 wrote: I agree that we have already become an appendage.
It appears to me that American society is controlled by economic considerations rather than that the economic system is controlled by human considerations. Humans are determined by their role as labor not as their role as humans. Labor, i.e. humans have become commodified; they have become ciphers just as land and money within an economically determined culture.
I am writing about the foundations of our economic system because few Americans have any comprehension of such matters. I think that this book is important in our understanding of what our culture has become.
It's not useful if that is all you read. I think it's safe to say he is on the right of then political spectrum. Why don't you do some research in to what was happening around this time and what people living at the time had to say about it. You should also look at the poor law reform act of 1834 and what it led on to. The last workhouse was finally closed in the UK in 1947.
A group of justices met in Speenhamland in may 1795, a time of great distress brought about by the enclosures, in order to calculate some form of subsidies to the common people to alleviate their suffering. A minimum amount of aid to wages was agreed upon and granted in accordance with a prescribed scale that was dependent upon the price of bread. This was so that the common people were supplied with an assurance of a minimum wage required to survive irrespective of their earnings.
At the time the establishment were **** scared there was going to be revolution in Britain just as there had been in france. Do bear in mind we had cut off a king' head long before the french thought of it. It was only the fundamentalist christian military dictatorship that followed that event that made bring a monarch back seem like a good idea.
It's being taken out of context. If you think people just accepted the enclosures without violent protest you are very much mistaken. You need to understand the action of the speenhamland justices in the light of the very real fear there would be an uprising. That it had the effect of keeping wages low is an unintended consequence that the right like to seize on to argue against any kind of help for the poor.-as proof that leaving things to the market place solves all problems and usually because they regard the general population as a supine body that clever political theorists can understand and are best suited to govern. Be it left or right, communist or fascist, it is a common delusion, people will never simply be an economic appendage.
There were large scale riots up and down the country throughout this period and in to the following century and all throughout Europe as people made what they thought of the economic change they were going through abundantly clear.
Revolutions of 1848 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The phrase all property is theft wasn't first said by karl marx it was a French anarchist and it was these enclosures he was referring to when common land was taken by big landowners. and it was happening all over europe. The modern day equivalent is in places like brazil were small farmers are force off their land and then have to work for the big estates on property that was once theirs. Nowadays you see similar conflicts over resources in nation states. Who actually owns them-the people of the country or those who exploit then for their own profit and should they be able to do so without regard for those around them.
You had the same phenomenon in america. your literature-particularly western literature is full of stories of small landowners having to defend themselves against large cattle barons that thought they had the right to take what they wanted or landowner that could mine as they liked and strip cut forests without regard to the consequences for those who also worked the land. From jack shaeffer and shane to clint eastwood and pale rider, the basic theme is the same the powerful taking from the weaker because they think it is their and what is good for them is automatically good for the nation.
What happened in america over this period was influenced by what went on in europe but it also went on in isolation. Your establishment have always had a fear of radical ideas brought in by immigrants you still suffer from that worry that permeates your culture. Hitker and the nazis ideology had a lot of support in the US, obviously it became less overt during ww2 but if you take a look at some of the targets of McCarthy for instance it was aimed at intellectuals and their radical ideas as much as any real fear of the communists.
the story of enclosures and similar acts rumbles on in the US
YouTube - jan232009stripminingfromroanetokentuckyborder
posted by open mind
I don't think there has ever been a pure market economy that is left to regulate itself. Neither do I think a 100% self-regulating market economy would prevent starvation or pauperism.
In my view, we have already become an economic appendage. Just about everything, even human life, is given a monetary value.
That is my opinion.
Can't say I share your pessimism. The self regulating bit is a creature of the right wing. The progenitors of capitalism never saw the economy as being separate from society and indeed viewed it as essential that some things were not left to the market place as they were too important for society as a whole. What you have in america (and here as well to some extent) is not capitalism but corporate socialism
It appears to me that American society is controlled by economic considerations rather than that the economic system is controlled by human considerations. Humans are determined by their role as labor not as their role as humans. Labor, i.e. humans have become commodified; they have become ciphers just as land and money within an economically determined culture.
I am writing about the foundations of our economic system because few Americans have any comprehension of such matters. I think that this book is important in our understanding of what our culture has become.
It's not useful if that is all you read. I think it's safe to say he is on the right of then political spectrum. Why don't you do some research in to what was happening around this time and what people living at the time had to say about it. You should also look at the poor law reform act of 1834 and what it led on to. The last workhouse was finally closed in the UK in 1947.
A group of justices met in Speenhamland in may 1795, a time of great distress brought about by the enclosures, in order to calculate some form of subsidies to the common people to alleviate their suffering. A minimum amount of aid to wages was agreed upon and granted in accordance with a prescribed scale that was dependent upon the price of bread. This was so that the common people were supplied with an assurance of a minimum wage required to survive irrespective of their earnings.
At the time the establishment were **** scared there was going to be revolution in Britain just as there had been in france. Do bear in mind we had cut off a king' head long before the french thought of it. It was only the fundamentalist christian military dictatorship that followed that event that made bring a monarch back seem like a good idea.
It's being taken out of context. If you think people just accepted the enclosures without violent protest you are very much mistaken. You need to understand the action of the speenhamland justices in the light of the very real fear there would be an uprising. That it had the effect of keeping wages low is an unintended consequence that the right like to seize on to argue against any kind of help for the poor.-as proof that leaving things to the market place solves all problems and usually because they regard the general population as a supine body that clever political theorists can understand and are best suited to govern. Be it left or right, communist or fascist, it is a common delusion, people will never simply be an economic appendage.
There were large scale riots up and down the country throughout this period and in to the following century and all throughout Europe as people made what they thought of the economic change they were going through abundantly clear.
Revolutions of 1848 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The phrase all property is theft wasn't first said by karl marx it was a French anarchist and it was these enclosures he was referring to when common land was taken by big landowners. and it was happening all over europe. The modern day equivalent is in places like brazil were small farmers are force off their land and then have to work for the big estates on property that was once theirs. Nowadays you see similar conflicts over resources in nation states. Who actually owns them-the people of the country or those who exploit then for their own profit and should they be able to do so without regard for those around them.
You had the same phenomenon in america. your literature-particularly western literature is full of stories of small landowners having to defend themselves against large cattle barons that thought they had the right to take what they wanted or landowner that could mine as they liked and strip cut forests without regard to the consequences for those who also worked the land. From jack shaeffer and shane to clint eastwood and pale rider, the basic theme is the same the powerful taking from the weaker because they think it is their and what is good for them is automatically good for the nation.
What happened in america over this period was influenced by what went on in europe but it also went on in isolation. Your establishment have always had a fear of radical ideas brought in by immigrants you still suffer from that worry that permeates your culture. Hitker and the nazis ideology had a lot of support in the US, obviously it became less overt during ww2 but if you take a look at some of the targets of McCarthy for instance it was aimed at intellectuals and their radical ideas as much as any real fear of the communists.
the story of enclosures and similar acts rumbles on in the US
YouTube - jan232009stripminingfromroanetokentuckyborder
posted by open mind
I don't think there has ever been a pure market economy that is left to regulate itself. Neither do I think a 100% self-regulating market economy would prevent starvation or pauperism.
In my view, we have already become an economic appendage. Just about everything, even human life, is given a monetary value.
That is my opinion.
Can't say I share your pessimism. The self regulating bit is a creature of the right wing. The progenitors of capitalism never saw the economy as being separate from society and indeed viewed it as essential that some things were not left to the market place as they were too important for society as a whole. What you have in america (and here as well to some extent) is not capitalism but corporate socialism
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
gmc;1156220 wrote: Can't say I share your pessimism. The self regulating bit is a creature of the right wing. The progenitors of capitalism never saw the economy as being separate from society and indeed viewed it as essential that some things were not left to the market place as they were too important for society as a whole. What you have in america (and here as well to some extent) is not capitalism but corporate socialism
Indeed, I agree that the economy is not separate from society as it is the product of society. Nonetheless, the capitalist's interests are in conflict with those of the labour force hired. It is in the interests of the capitalist to reduce every cost to him to maximise the profit. The labour force is another cost factor to the capitalist. It is only through the introduction of laws that the labour force is protected from the ruthless nature of capitalism. (Note that I said capitalism here and not capitalist as I respect that there have been capitalists who had a concern for the welfare of the people they hired.) The more people there are with the skills required by the capitalists, the less those people earn. Ultimately, those people's lives have been reduced to a monetary value in terms of the economy.
Indeed, I agree that the economy is not separate from society as it is the product of society. Nonetheless, the capitalist's interests are in conflict with those of the labour force hired. It is in the interests of the capitalist to reduce every cost to him to maximise the profit. The labour force is another cost factor to the capitalist. It is only through the introduction of laws that the labour force is protected from the ruthless nature of capitalism. (Note that I said capitalism here and not capitalist as I respect that there have been capitalists who had a concern for the welfare of the people they hired.) The more people there are with the skills required by the capitalists, the less those people earn. Ultimately, those people's lives have been reduced to a monetary value in terms of the economy.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
OpenMind;1156370 wrote: Indeed, I agree that the economy is not separate from society as it is the product of society. Nonetheless, the capitalist's interests are in conflict with those of the labour force hired. It is in the interests of the capitalist to reduce every cost to him to maximise the profit. The labour force is another cost factor to the capitalist. It is only through the introduction of laws that the labour force is protected from the ruthless nature of capitalism. (Note that I said capitalism here and not capitalist as I respect that there have been capitalists who had a concern for the welfare of the people they hired.) The more people there are with the skills required by the capitalists, the less those people earn. Ultimately, those people's lives have been reduced to a monetary value in terms of the economy.
Don't agree with you entirely there. You're thinking in terms of old unskilled industrial system. The capitalist needs an educated motivated workforce in order to compete and it's in his interests to pay his workers well just as it's in his interests to have a good education system and provide further training etc. He cannot exist separate from the society in which he is based. I would agree that many do not see things quite that way and we need regulation to control the excesses. given a chance there will always be those who will exploit however short sighted it might be. Of itself capitalism is not ruthless human nature does that. Self regulating does not work you need some kind of external check to keep the balance of power. An employers right to pay what he can get away with has to be balanced by a workforce right to resist and withdraw their labour without fear of force being used against them-on the other hand in the UK we have seen the result of the workforce having too much power when they can use it regardless of the impact on the employer.
Arguably as well in a high tech industry where intellectual skills are paramount the worker truly does own the means of production i.e his knowledge-so how far can an employer go to prevent someone (say a software developer) changing jobs if offered more money? Contracts preventing a skilled worker joining a rival with his knowledge of the business are of dubious legality and morality-you can't prevent someone earning a living.
Intellectual property, open source vs against microsoft maybe the business model is changing.
The more people there are with the skills required by the capitalists, the less those people earn. Ultimately, those people's lives have been reduced to a monetary value in terms of the economy.
The capitalists success depends on being able to keep skilled people-he is at their mercy.
Don't agree with you entirely there. You're thinking in terms of old unskilled industrial system. The capitalist needs an educated motivated workforce in order to compete and it's in his interests to pay his workers well just as it's in his interests to have a good education system and provide further training etc. He cannot exist separate from the society in which he is based. I would agree that many do not see things quite that way and we need regulation to control the excesses. given a chance there will always be those who will exploit however short sighted it might be. Of itself capitalism is not ruthless human nature does that. Self regulating does not work you need some kind of external check to keep the balance of power. An employers right to pay what he can get away with has to be balanced by a workforce right to resist and withdraw their labour without fear of force being used against them-on the other hand in the UK we have seen the result of the workforce having too much power when they can use it regardless of the impact on the employer.
Arguably as well in a high tech industry where intellectual skills are paramount the worker truly does own the means of production i.e his knowledge-so how far can an employer go to prevent someone (say a software developer) changing jobs if offered more money? Contracts preventing a skilled worker joining a rival with his knowledge of the business are of dubious legality and morality-you can't prevent someone earning a living.
Intellectual property, open source vs against microsoft maybe the business model is changing.
The more people there are with the skills required by the capitalists, the less those people earn. Ultimately, those people's lives have been reduced to a monetary value in terms of the economy.
The capitalists success depends on being able to keep skilled people-he is at their mercy.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
Again, as more people train in the skills that command a high pay, the reward goes down in accord with supply and demand. Technology is also used to replace the workforce.
But these specifics are not what I am actually arguing about. For all that we all have lives outside of work, we become monetary units in the economy. Our value is determined by economic forces and we are dehumanised. I wonder how many people pursue careers of interest against those who pursue careers with the most gain. I find that wherever I work, the workforce are so damned pleased to get home at the end of the day or week. I have only come across a few that I can number on one hand that actually enjoy their jobs.
But these specifics are not what I am actually arguing about. For all that we all have lives outside of work, we become monetary units in the economy. Our value is determined by economic forces and we are dehumanised. I wonder how many people pursue careers of interest against those who pursue careers with the most gain. I find that wherever I work, the workforce are so damned pleased to get home at the end of the day or week. I have only come across a few that I can number on one hand that actually enjoy their jobs.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
OpenMind;1156493 wrote: Again, as more people train in the skills that command a high pay, the reward goes down in accord with supply and demand. Technology is also used to replace the workforce.
But these specifics are not what I am actually arguing about. For all that we all have lives outside of work, we become monetary units in the economy. Our value is determined by economic forces and we are dehumanised. I wonder how many people pursue careers of interest against those who pursue careers with the most gain. I find that wherever I work, the workforce are so damned pleased to get home at the end of the day or week. I have only come across a few that I can number on one hand that actually enjoy their jobs.
Do you live to work or do you work to live? It's a very subjective thing. If your sense of self worth is tied up in what you do for a living then you are in deep trouble as eventually you will lose it (the status your job gives you I mean ). It's one of the reasons some cannot handle being made redundant or passed over for promotion too much of their sense of well being has been at stake. Some of the happiest people I have met have "ordinary " jobs they do to the best of their ability but what matters to them is home and family. Yes they have an economic value but to them it's the least of their worries what they do for a living is a means to an end not the end in itself. There is a tendency to assume everybody wants the archetypal career with prospects and feel a failure if they don't have it. In reality most just want enough to have a good life. Political theorists like to think they can explain the way people feel and how society works but I suspect that it's a given that those who think they understand have demonstrated their lack of understanding. Yes to some extent we become monetary units in the economy.
Our value is determined by economic forces and we are dehumanised. But only if that's the way you feel about it. Frustration is not the same as being dehumanised. feeling exploited and helpless is not the same as being dehumanised. The "establishment" for want of a better word may view the population as cogs in a machine for an end they think they have chosen but time and time again ordinary people turn round and say up with this I will not put. Usually to the complete surprise of those that thought they were in control.
OK I'm biased but I think burns out it most eloquently.
A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that!
But an honest man's aboon his might -
Guid faith, he mauna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities, an' a' that,
The pith o' sense an' pride o' worth
Are higher rank than a' that.
It really doesn't matter where you are in the machine your value is determined by you and by no one else. Your sense of worth has nothing to do with where you are in the food chain.
But these specifics are not what I am actually arguing about. For all that we all have lives outside of work, we become monetary units in the economy. Our value is determined by economic forces and we are dehumanised. I wonder how many people pursue careers of interest against those who pursue careers with the most gain. I find that wherever I work, the workforce are so damned pleased to get home at the end of the day or week. I have only come across a few that I can number on one hand that actually enjoy their jobs.
Do you live to work or do you work to live? It's a very subjective thing. If your sense of self worth is tied up in what you do for a living then you are in deep trouble as eventually you will lose it (the status your job gives you I mean ). It's one of the reasons some cannot handle being made redundant or passed over for promotion too much of their sense of well being has been at stake. Some of the happiest people I have met have "ordinary " jobs they do to the best of their ability but what matters to them is home and family. Yes they have an economic value but to them it's the least of their worries what they do for a living is a means to an end not the end in itself. There is a tendency to assume everybody wants the archetypal career with prospects and feel a failure if they don't have it. In reality most just want enough to have a good life. Political theorists like to think they can explain the way people feel and how society works but I suspect that it's a given that those who think they understand have demonstrated their lack of understanding. Yes to some extent we become monetary units in the economy.
Our value is determined by economic forces and we are dehumanised. But only if that's the way you feel about it. Frustration is not the same as being dehumanised. feeling exploited and helpless is not the same as being dehumanised. The "establishment" for want of a better word may view the population as cogs in a machine for an end they think they have chosen but time and time again ordinary people turn round and say up with this I will not put. Usually to the complete surprise of those that thought they were in control.
OK I'm biased but I think burns out it most eloquently.
A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that!
But an honest man's aboon his might -
Guid faith, he mauna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities, an' a' that,
The pith o' sense an' pride o' worth
Are higher rank than a' that.
It really doesn't matter where you are in the machine your value is determined by you and by no one else. Your sense of worth has nothing to do with where you are in the food chain.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
I don't know Burns' works that well but I enjoyed that. Thanks.
I'll be back to this after work tonight.:-6
I'll be back to this after work tonight.:-6
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
It really doesn't matter where you are in the machine your value is determined by you and by no one else. Your sense of worth has nothing to do with where you are in the food chain.Value exists meaningfully only when subjectively agreed upon. A drawing made by your child is invaluable to you, but to anybody else it is probably worthless. If you can't convince others to agree with your supposed value, you don't actually have that value in a way that matters.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
Devonin;1156867 wrote: Value exists meaningfully only when subjectively agreed upon. A drawing made by your child is invaluable to you, but to anybody else it is probably worthless. If you can't convince others to agree with your supposed value, you don't actually have that value in a way that matters.
I think you mean objectively rather than subjectively cos you go on to contradict yourself.
A sense of your own value as a human being that depends on the opinion of others is not IMO a real sense of your own worth. The view you have of your own value as a human being (you sense of worth) is purely and simply subjective what others think of you or your station in life only matter if you decide it does. Stand on your own two feet, be your own man, think for yourself, grow up, our language is full of phrases that emphasise how much that sense of worth means to us. I'm not talking about worth in a monetary sense. If you allow someone to tell you you are a person of little worth they may have a point.
If the drawing matters to you and to your child-the transaction is personal and not about it's economic value- does it really matter that others don't value it? The intrinsic worth is not monetary and is still there is it not? I don't think people will ever become just cogs in an economic machine. It's a way of looking at things that has it's uses but I can't see us knocking off our old people because their economic value has ended and they are now a drain on our resources or drowning the mentally and physically handicapped at birth because they are not going to be productive. Although that obviously happened in the past when it was brutal matter of survival. Most people have a visceral reaction to the idea of eugenics and find it morally repugnant.
I think you mean objectively rather than subjectively cos you go on to contradict yourself.
A sense of your own value as a human being that depends on the opinion of others is not IMO a real sense of your own worth. The view you have of your own value as a human being (you sense of worth) is purely and simply subjective what others think of you or your station in life only matter if you decide it does. Stand on your own two feet, be your own man, think for yourself, grow up, our language is full of phrases that emphasise how much that sense of worth means to us. I'm not talking about worth in a monetary sense. If you allow someone to tell you you are a person of little worth they may have a point.
If the drawing matters to you and to your child-the transaction is personal and not about it's economic value- does it really matter that others don't value it? The intrinsic worth is not monetary and is still there is it not? I don't think people will ever become just cogs in an economic machine. It's a way of looking at things that has it's uses but I can't see us knocking off our old people because their economic value has ended and they are now a drain on our resources or drowning the mentally and physically handicapped at birth because they are not going to be productive. Although that obviously happened in the past when it was brutal matter of survival. Most people have a visceral reaction to the idea of eugenics and find it morally repugnant.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
I think you mean objectively rather than subjectively Nope, I meant subjectively. If things had objective value, that value would exist independant of your opinion of it. I'd suggest that nothing has objective value, just mutually agreed upon subjective values.
cos you go on to contradict yourself. Please show me exactly where I said something contradictory?
The view you have of your own value as a human being (you sense of worth) is purely and simply subjective what others think of you or your station in life only matter if you decide it does.Next time you think your hard work and dedication means you truly deserve that big promotion, and your boss denies the request, make sure to tell them that their view of your station and value doesn't matter to you, because -you- are sure you deserve the promotion.
If the drawing matters to you and to your child-the transaction is personal and not about it's economic value- does it really matter that others don't value it?It simply demonstrates that just because -you- think something is of high value, doesn't mean anybody else will agree that it is of high value. And since value only has meaning in a transaction, value can only exist meaningfully when agreed upon.
I've played a number of collectible card games in my life, and anybody who has collected anything is aware of the existance of pricing guides for collectibles. They purport to establish the current value of the objects listed. However, if I own a card that the pricing guide says is worth 100.00, it does not actually have an objective value of 100.00. If I'm missing only one card to complete a set, and it is worth 75.00, and I'm willing to trade my 100.00 card for it because I value the completed set more than I value that single other card, the value of the missing card is either increased in our transaction, or the value of the trading card is decreased in our transaction. Any objectively stated value is only actually true if you can convince someone else subjectively to accept the value you've assigned to it.
Applying monetary value to something I never intend to buy or to sell is meaningless because, again, value only exists in transaction.
Our role in the economics of our culture is completely embedded already. Any job you have requires you and your boss to come to a subjective agreement on how much pay your labour is worth, every product you buy is the result of you subjectively deciding that the asking price is the same or lesser than the personal value you assign to the product.
but I can't see us knocking off our old people because their economic value has ended and they are now a drain on our resources Actually, we did a fairly clever thing. Instead of simply killing our old people once they could no longer produce, instead we instituted a system where for their entire productive lives, we made them set aside money they'd earned whether they wanted to or not, so that when they were no longer productive, there were already resources set aside to feed the drain until they died. It's really the same thing as just killing off the non-productive people, we just did it in a way that doesn't actually involve death, they've had to have less resources their whole life in order to justify keeping them around later.
drowning the mentally and physically handicapped at birth because they are not going to be productive.But who provides the resources to keep such people alive and living what quality of life they can manage? It's just subjective values again. The parent has made the subjective decision that they personally value the life of their mentally or physically handicapped child more than they value the things they could acquire with the same resources. If an individual wants to expend a percentage of their resources on providing for someone who cannot produce, they are perfectly able to do that, they've subjectively established a value there for these transactions. Not intending to compare such people to animals, but we create the exact same kind of transaction with regard to pets. We've decided that the benefits we feel we get from owning a pet are worth the percentage of our resources we have to reallocate to provide for them.
People who decide the benefits outweigh the costs do so, people who don't, do not.
Most people have a visceral reaction to the idea of eugenics and find it morally repugnant. I think if you asked most people to explain to you why they have a negative view of eugenics, assuming you got an educated answer, it would probably read something like "The potential costs don't nearly outweigh the potential benefits" which, you'll notice, is nothing but economics again.
cos you go on to contradict yourself. Please show me exactly where I said something contradictory?
The view you have of your own value as a human being (you sense of worth) is purely and simply subjective what others think of you or your station in life only matter if you decide it does.Next time you think your hard work and dedication means you truly deserve that big promotion, and your boss denies the request, make sure to tell them that their view of your station and value doesn't matter to you, because -you- are sure you deserve the promotion.
If the drawing matters to you and to your child-the transaction is personal and not about it's economic value- does it really matter that others don't value it?It simply demonstrates that just because -you- think something is of high value, doesn't mean anybody else will agree that it is of high value. And since value only has meaning in a transaction, value can only exist meaningfully when agreed upon.
I've played a number of collectible card games in my life, and anybody who has collected anything is aware of the existance of pricing guides for collectibles. They purport to establish the current value of the objects listed. However, if I own a card that the pricing guide says is worth 100.00, it does not actually have an objective value of 100.00. If I'm missing only one card to complete a set, and it is worth 75.00, and I'm willing to trade my 100.00 card for it because I value the completed set more than I value that single other card, the value of the missing card is either increased in our transaction, or the value of the trading card is decreased in our transaction. Any objectively stated value is only actually true if you can convince someone else subjectively to accept the value you've assigned to it.
Applying monetary value to something I never intend to buy or to sell is meaningless because, again, value only exists in transaction.
Our role in the economics of our culture is completely embedded already. Any job you have requires you and your boss to come to a subjective agreement on how much pay your labour is worth, every product you buy is the result of you subjectively deciding that the asking price is the same or lesser than the personal value you assign to the product.
but I can't see us knocking off our old people because their economic value has ended and they are now a drain on our resources Actually, we did a fairly clever thing. Instead of simply killing our old people once they could no longer produce, instead we instituted a system where for their entire productive lives, we made them set aside money they'd earned whether they wanted to or not, so that when they were no longer productive, there were already resources set aside to feed the drain until they died. It's really the same thing as just killing off the non-productive people, we just did it in a way that doesn't actually involve death, they've had to have less resources their whole life in order to justify keeping them around later.
drowning the mentally and physically handicapped at birth because they are not going to be productive.But who provides the resources to keep such people alive and living what quality of life they can manage? It's just subjective values again. The parent has made the subjective decision that they personally value the life of their mentally or physically handicapped child more than they value the things they could acquire with the same resources. If an individual wants to expend a percentage of their resources on providing for someone who cannot produce, they are perfectly able to do that, they've subjectively established a value there for these transactions. Not intending to compare such people to animals, but we create the exact same kind of transaction with regard to pets. We've decided that the benefits we feel we get from owning a pet are worth the percentage of our resources we have to reallocate to provide for them.
People who decide the benefits outweigh the costs do so, people who don't, do not.
Most people have a visceral reaction to the idea of eugenics and find it morally repugnant. I think if you asked most people to explain to you why they have a negative view of eugenics, assuming you got an educated answer, it would probably read something like "The potential costs don't nearly outweigh the potential benefits" which, you'll notice, is nothing but economics again.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
posted by devonin
Please show me exactly where I said something contradictory?
Nope, I meant subjectively. If things had objective value, that value would exist independant of your opinion of it. I'd suggest that nothing has objective value, just mutually agreed upon subjective values.
here
Value exists meaningfully only when subjectively agreed upon. A drawing made by your child is invaluable to you, but to anybody else it is probably worthless. If you can't convince others to agree with your supposed value, you don't actually have that value in a way that matters.
If I consider something like a child's picture valuable that is my subjective opinion.
subjective
• adjective 1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2 dependent on the mind for existence. 3 Grammar relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.
objective
• adjective 1 not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. 2 not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. 3 Grammar relating to a case of nouns and pronouns used for the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.
Something like a child's drawing I would agree is worthless to anyone not immediately related. The value to me subjective to anyone else it is objective though they can probably understand why I would value it. Their opinion of it is not likely to make me change my mind as to it's value. If I am selling my labour or an object I have made then that has an economic value that can be arrived at objectively-cost of materials, labour etc etc. Though whether someone wants to buy that object at the price I set is subjective so I think I see what you mean about agreed subjective values
It simply demonstrates that just because -you- think something is of high value, doesn't mean anybody else will agree that it is of high value. And since value only has meaning in a transaction, value can only exist meaningfully when agreed upon.
That is patently obvious that others might not agree but I am not talking about an object that I want to sell I'm talking about self esteem a sense of personal worth.
posted by devonin
Next time you think your hard work and dedication means you truly deserve that big promotion, and your boss denies the request, make sure to tell them that their view of your station and value doesn't matter to you, because -you- are sure you deserve the promotion.
It his-perhaps subjective opinion that I don't deserve the promotion-or maybe objectively speaking I am demonstrably crap at my job. However, my sense of worth as an individual, as a human being as a free man is something I determine and no one else. Maybe I need to change occupation and my ability to generate an economic value is not as good as I would like but that is a different problem. I don't feel diminished because of the failure.
Our role in the economics of our culture is completely embedded already. Any job you have requires you and your boss to come to a subjective agreement on how much pay your labour is worth, every product you buy is the result of you subjectively deciding that the asking price is the same or lesser than the personal value you assign to the product.
Actually I'm self employed and earn a living by convincing people I am worth what I expect them to pay. I'm not always successful But I don't waste any time being depressed about it. I also deal with people all across the spectrum of types and occupations PHD's to guys that clean out the toilets-maybe it's a british thing but their sense of worth is not tied up in what they do for a living.
posted by devonin
I think if you asked most people to explain to you why they have a negative view of eugenics, assuming you got an educated answer, it would probably read something like "The potential costs don't nearly outweigh the potential benefits" which, you'll notice, is nothing but economics again.
No I think most people's gut reaction is anger that someone is arrogant enough to think they can decide who gets to breed, who lives who dies. The most extreme example in recent times is the nazi death camps. economics had nothing to do with the outrage.
Please show me exactly where I said something contradictory?
Nope, I meant subjectively. If things had objective value, that value would exist independant of your opinion of it. I'd suggest that nothing has objective value, just mutually agreed upon subjective values.
here
Value exists meaningfully only when subjectively agreed upon. A drawing made by your child is invaluable to you, but to anybody else it is probably worthless. If you can't convince others to agree with your supposed value, you don't actually have that value in a way that matters.
If I consider something like a child's picture valuable that is my subjective opinion.
subjective
• adjective 1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2 dependent on the mind for existence. 3 Grammar relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.
objective
• adjective 1 not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. 2 not dependent on the mind for existence; actual. 3 Grammar relating to a case of nouns and pronouns used for the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.
Something like a child's drawing I would agree is worthless to anyone not immediately related. The value to me subjective to anyone else it is objective though they can probably understand why I would value it. Their opinion of it is not likely to make me change my mind as to it's value. If I am selling my labour or an object I have made then that has an economic value that can be arrived at objectively-cost of materials, labour etc etc. Though whether someone wants to buy that object at the price I set is subjective so I think I see what you mean about agreed subjective values
It simply demonstrates that just because -you- think something is of high value, doesn't mean anybody else will agree that it is of high value. And since value only has meaning in a transaction, value can only exist meaningfully when agreed upon.
That is patently obvious that others might not agree but I am not talking about an object that I want to sell I'm talking about self esteem a sense of personal worth.
posted by devonin
Next time you think your hard work and dedication means you truly deserve that big promotion, and your boss denies the request, make sure to tell them that their view of your station and value doesn't matter to you, because -you- are sure you deserve the promotion.
It his-perhaps subjective opinion that I don't deserve the promotion-or maybe objectively speaking I am demonstrably crap at my job. However, my sense of worth as an individual, as a human being as a free man is something I determine and no one else. Maybe I need to change occupation and my ability to generate an economic value is not as good as I would like but that is a different problem. I don't feel diminished because of the failure.
Our role in the economics of our culture is completely embedded already. Any job you have requires you and your boss to come to a subjective agreement on how much pay your labour is worth, every product you buy is the result of you subjectively deciding that the asking price is the same or lesser than the personal value you assign to the product.
Actually I'm self employed and earn a living by convincing people I am worth what I expect them to pay. I'm not always successful But I don't waste any time being depressed about it. I also deal with people all across the spectrum of types and occupations PHD's to guys that clean out the toilets-maybe it's a british thing but their sense of worth is not tied up in what they do for a living.
posted by devonin
I think if you asked most people to explain to you why they have a negative view of eugenics, assuming you got an educated answer, it would probably read something like "The potential costs don't nearly outweigh the potential benefits" which, you'll notice, is nothing but economics again.
No I think most people's gut reaction is anger that someone is arrogant enough to think they can decide who gets to breed, who lives who dies. The most extreme example in recent times is the nazi death camps. economics had nothing to do with the outrage.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
If I consider something like a child's picture valuable that is my subjective opinion. Still failing to see a contradiction there. Maybe you could be a little more clear in showing exactly which things I said contradicted other things? Those statements say "There's only subjective value" and "If you value something subjectively, it has value to you, not necessarily to someone else" I don't se a contradiction.
I'm talking about self esteem a sense of personal worth. But the thread, the OP, and my statement are all about economics, not self-esteem. You can think you're a great person, but that has nothing to do with what was being discussed, which was that people are -also- assigned values in terms of their worth to the society in which they live. Coberst's claim was that he felt everybody was already assigned a monetary value. That each person ADDITIONALLY can have their own internal sense of their value doesn't work in opposition to anything being asserted in the OP. My point is simply that if your personal internal sense of value -differs- from the monetary value you've been assigned by the society in which you live, it's going to be that latter value that you will be treated as having, even if you personally disagree with the assessment.
Actually I'm self employed and earn a living by convincing people I am worth what I expect them to pay. I'm not always successful But I don't waste any time being depressed about it. I also deal with people all across the spectrum of types and occupations PHD's to guys that clean out the toilets-maybe it's a british thing but their sense of worth is not tied up in what they do for a living.Again, I wasn't arguing this point at all. Their sense of worth as a person may not be tied up in what they do for a living, but once again, their chosen subjective value for themself only has any actual -meaning- if they can get other people to also agree that such a value is correct. If I think I'm God's gift to humanity, that doesn't get me -anywhere- if nobody else believes it too.
No I think most people's gut reaction is anger that someone is arrogant enough to think they can decide who gets to breed, who lives who dies. The most extreme example in recent times is the nazi death camps. economics had nothing to do with the outrage. The nazi death camps also had nothing to do with eugenics. At least, nothing -actually- to do with eugenics. The eugenic model of aryan superiority in Germany would have been applied whether death camps existed or not, and the undesireable types would have been forced out of the country in any case, and not all people who failed to meet the standards of the aryan supremacy theory were types of person made to go to death camps either.
I'll also point out that I said "If the answer is educated" the gut reaction of "Oh dear God, we'll end up with a master army of blond-haired blue-eyed supermen taking over the world!" is not actually the educated answer.
The educated answer would involve first assuming that eugenic theory wasn't being applied as an excuse to exterminate a people, and with the actual putatively noble goal of improving the lives of people generally by trying to weed out genetic predisposition for diseases, conditions, and syndromes, etc etc.
The bioengineering debate dovetails nicely with the non-medical concepts of eugenics (Where you aren't modifying anything, just only allowing "qualified" people to reproduce) wherein the objections stem from a refusal to consider that one is personally detrimental to the whole.
There are many things we ought to be doing from a purely "benefit of humanity as a unit" standpoint that we don't do because humans value the rights of the individual over all else. Cultures that subordinated individual preference and desire to the benefit of the whole have existed, and generally by many standards, done quite well at it. The counterargument is that individuality breeds creativity to a greater degree, and thus encourages people to find an ever-increasing number of temporary bandaid solutions to the major problems.
To be completely honest, simply removing about a billion people from the earth would do a -lot- to increase the overall standard of life on the planet, and I bet a lot more people than you think would support such an action if they could be personally guarenteed that every single person they know and care about would not be one of the billion people.
The outrage stems from the idea that it could be them next.
I'm talking about self esteem a sense of personal worth. But the thread, the OP, and my statement are all about economics, not self-esteem. You can think you're a great person, but that has nothing to do with what was being discussed, which was that people are -also- assigned values in terms of their worth to the society in which they live. Coberst's claim was that he felt everybody was already assigned a monetary value. That each person ADDITIONALLY can have their own internal sense of their value doesn't work in opposition to anything being asserted in the OP. My point is simply that if your personal internal sense of value -differs- from the monetary value you've been assigned by the society in which you live, it's going to be that latter value that you will be treated as having, even if you personally disagree with the assessment.
Actually I'm self employed and earn a living by convincing people I am worth what I expect them to pay. I'm not always successful But I don't waste any time being depressed about it. I also deal with people all across the spectrum of types and occupations PHD's to guys that clean out the toilets-maybe it's a british thing but their sense of worth is not tied up in what they do for a living.Again, I wasn't arguing this point at all. Their sense of worth as a person may not be tied up in what they do for a living, but once again, their chosen subjective value for themself only has any actual -meaning- if they can get other people to also agree that such a value is correct. If I think I'm God's gift to humanity, that doesn't get me -anywhere- if nobody else believes it too.
No I think most people's gut reaction is anger that someone is arrogant enough to think they can decide who gets to breed, who lives who dies. The most extreme example in recent times is the nazi death camps. economics had nothing to do with the outrage. The nazi death camps also had nothing to do with eugenics. At least, nothing -actually- to do with eugenics. The eugenic model of aryan superiority in Germany would have been applied whether death camps existed or not, and the undesireable types would have been forced out of the country in any case, and not all people who failed to meet the standards of the aryan supremacy theory were types of person made to go to death camps either.
I'll also point out that I said "If the answer is educated" the gut reaction of "Oh dear God, we'll end up with a master army of blond-haired blue-eyed supermen taking over the world!" is not actually the educated answer.
The educated answer would involve first assuming that eugenic theory wasn't being applied as an excuse to exterminate a people, and with the actual putatively noble goal of improving the lives of people generally by trying to weed out genetic predisposition for diseases, conditions, and syndromes, etc etc.
The bioengineering debate dovetails nicely with the non-medical concepts of eugenics (Where you aren't modifying anything, just only allowing "qualified" people to reproduce) wherein the objections stem from a refusal to consider that one is personally detrimental to the whole.
There are many things we ought to be doing from a purely "benefit of humanity as a unit" standpoint that we don't do because humans value the rights of the individual over all else. Cultures that subordinated individual preference and desire to the benefit of the whole have existed, and generally by many standards, done quite well at it. The counterargument is that individuality breeds creativity to a greater degree, and thus encourages people to find an ever-increasing number of temporary bandaid solutions to the major problems.
To be completely honest, simply removing about a billion people from the earth would do a -lot- to increase the overall standard of life on the planet, and I bet a lot more people than you think would support such an action if they could be personally guarenteed that every single person they know and care about would not be one of the billion people.
The outrage stems from the idea that it could be them next.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
posted by devonin
Still failing to see a contradiction there. Maybe you could be a little more clear in showing exactly which things I said contradicted other things? Those statements say "There's only subjective value" and "If you value something subjectively, it has value to you, not necessarily to someone else" I don't se a contradiction.
Value exists meaningfully only when subjectively agreed upon. A drawing made by your child is invaluable to you, but to anybody else it is probably worthless. If you can't convince others to agree with your supposed value, you don't actually have that value in a way that matters.
If it's subjective is is your opinion and what others might think is not relevant and doesn't affect the value in your eyes. You value it in a way that matters to you if to no one else. If you can't convince others to agree with your supposed value, you don't actually have that value in a way that matters Do you really need to convince others to share your subjective value for it to matter? The value exists to you and that's what matters.
Take my wedding ring. It has an objective value as an object because it's gold. It has a subjective value to me way beyond that cash value and I don't need to convince others to agree with me for that value to be real and to matter to me because it is purely subjective.
posted by devonin
Again, I wasn't arguing this point at all. Their sense of worth as a person may not be tied up in what they do for a living, but once again, their chosen subjective value for themself only has any actual -meaning- if they can get other people to also agree that such a value is correct. If I think I'm God's gift to humanity, that doesn't get me -anywhere- if nobody else believes it too.
Your sense of self worth. Does that depend solely on others or does it exist regardless of what others might think of you?
The nazi death camps also had nothing to do with eugenics. At least, nothing -actually- to do with eugenics. The eugenic model of aryan superiority in Germany would have been applied whether death camps existed or not, and the undesireable types would have been forced out of the country in any case, and not all people who failed to meet the standards of the aryan supremacy theory were types of person made to go to death camps either.
They were a logical extension of it. It was actually a world wide phenomenon with sweden having the most "successful" programme
Social Democrats implemented measures to forcibly sterilise 62,000 people
BBC NEWS | Health | Background Briefings | International | Sweden to compensate sterilised women
Canada was at it as well.
Compulsory sterilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most successful sterilization program in Canadian history was afforded via the passing of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928. From the years 1928 to 1972, sterilizations, both compulsory and optional, were performed on nearly 3000 "unfit" individuals of varying ages and ethnicities. In total, over 2800 procedures were performed. Initially, the act only provisioned sterilizations where consent was given by the subject or legal guardian of the subject, depending on the competency of the individual scheduled to undergo the operation. The 1937 amendment to the act allowed for sterilizations to be carried out without consent in the case of those deemed mentally defective. Sterilization of individuals deemed mentally ill still required consent. At the end of World War II, while other eugenic sterilization programs were being phased out, Alberta continued on, even increasing the scope of eligibility for sterilizations. They continued until 1972, when approximately 50 persons were operated upon.
Reality is more horrific than any horror or sci fi film could possibly be.
The outrage stems from the idea that it could be them next.
And the realisation that you are allowing someone to decide who is or is not worthy. People who support such things never think it could be them-the arrogant racist bastards that should be sterilised out of existence.
There are many things we ought to be doing from a purely "benefit of humanity as a unit" standpoint that we don't do because humans value the rights of the individual over all else. I wonder why?:sneaky:
But the thread, the OP, and my statement are all about economics, not self-esteem.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
I would say yes because humanity will not accept being secondary to purely economic considerations and resist those who would have us do so. Just as we no longer will accept someone's god given right to rule over us.
posted by coberst
It appears to me that American society is controlled by economic considerations rather than that the economic system is controlled by human considerations. Humans are determined by their role as labor not as their role as humans. Labor, i.e. humans have become commodified; they have become ciphers just as land and money within an economically determined culture.
Sometimes it seems things are going that way for a while but human nature will out every time. That's why marx got it wrong imo he saw society as a kind of machine with an inevitable course that defined how things were going to turn out. Those on the right make the same mistake. They convince themselves things are this way and are flabbergasted when the great sweating mass of humanity don't behave as expected. Some of your establishment leaders are still trying to come to terms with what went wrong-their economic machine is broken and somehow it's not their fault, they're in shock meanwhile the lumpenproletariat are thoroughly pissed off and expressing their reluctance to become commodified and are far from being ciphers and god help anyone that tries to tell them otherwise. I think successful resistance is a given.
Still failing to see a contradiction there. Maybe you could be a little more clear in showing exactly which things I said contradicted other things? Those statements say "There's only subjective value" and "If you value something subjectively, it has value to you, not necessarily to someone else" I don't se a contradiction.
Value exists meaningfully only when subjectively agreed upon. A drawing made by your child is invaluable to you, but to anybody else it is probably worthless. If you can't convince others to agree with your supposed value, you don't actually have that value in a way that matters.
If it's subjective is is your opinion and what others might think is not relevant and doesn't affect the value in your eyes. You value it in a way that matters to you if to no one else. If you can't convince others to agree with your supposed value, you don't actually have that value in a way that matters Do you really need to convince others to share your subjective value for it to matter? The value exists to you and that's what matters.
Take my wedding ring. It has an objective value as an object because it's gold. It has a subjective value to me way beyond that cash value and I don't need to convince others to agree with me for that value to be real and to matter to me because it is purely subjective.
posted by devonin
Again, I wasn't arguing this point at all. Their sense of worth as a person may not be tied up in what they do for a living, but once again, their chosen subjective value for themself only has any actual -meaning- if they can get other people to also agree that such a value is correct. If I think I'm God's gift to humanity, that doesn't get me -anywhere- if nobody else believes it too.
Your sense of self worth. Does that depend solely on others or does it exist regardless of what others might think of you?
The nazi death camps also had nothing to do with eugenics. At least, nothing -actually- to do with eugenics. The eugenic model of aryan superiority in Germany would have been applied whether death camps existed or not, and the undesireable types would have been forced out of the country in any case, and not all people who failed to meet the standards of the aryan supremacy theory were types of person made to go to death camps either.
They were a logical extension of it. It was actually a world wide phenomenon with sweden having the most "successful" programme
Social Democrats implemented measures to forcibly sterilise 62,000 people
BBC NEWS | Health | Background Briefings | International | Sweden to compensate sterilised women
Canada was at it as well.
Compulsory sterilization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most successful sterilization program in Canadian history was afforded via the passing of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act of 1928. From the years 1928 to 1972, sterilizations, both compulsory and optional, were performed on nearly 3000 "unfit" individuals of varying ages and ethnicities. In total, over 2800 procedures were performed. Initially, the act only provisioned sterilizations where consent was given by the subject or legal guardian of the subject, depending on the competency of the individual scheduled to undergo the operation. The 1937 amendment to the act allowed for sterilizations to be carried out without consent in the case of those deemed mentally defective. Sterilization of individuals deemed mentally ill still required consent. At the end of World War II, while other eugenic sterilization programs were being phased out, Alberta continued on, even increasing the scope of eligibility for sterilizations. They continued until 1972, when approximately 50 persons were operated upon.
Reality is more horrific than any horror or sci fi film could possibly be.
The outrage stems from the idea that it could be them next.
And the realisation that you are allowing someone to decide who is or is not worthy. People who support such things never think it could be them-the arrogant racist bastards that should be sterilised out of existence.
There are many things we ought to be doing from a purely "benefit of humanity as a unit" standpoint that we don't do because humans value the rights of the individual over all else. I wonder why?:sneaky:
But the thread, the OP, and my statement are all about economics, not self-esteem.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
I would say yes because humanity will not accept being secondary to purely economic considerations and resist those who would have us do so. Just as we no longer will accept someone's god given right to rule over us.
posted by coberst
It appears to me that American society is controlled by economic considerations rather than that the economic system is controlled by human considerations. Humans are determined by their role as labor not as their role as humans. Labor, i.e. humans have become commodified; they have become ciphers just as land and money within an economically determined culture.
Sometimes it seems things are going that way for a while but human nature will out every time. That's why marx got it wrong imo he saw society as a kind of machine with an inevitable course that defined how things were going to turn out. Those on the right make the same mistake. They convince themselves things are this way and are flabbergasted when the great sweating mass of humanity don't behave as expected. Some of your establishment leaders are still trying to come to terms with what went wrong-their economic machine is broken and somehow it's not their fault, they're in shock meanwhile the lumpenproletariat are thoroughly pissed off and expressing their reluctance to become commodified and are far from being ciphers and god help anyone that tries to tell them otherwise. I think successful resistance is a given.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
Everything that we think, know, or perceive is subjective to one degree or another. There is no objective in the sense that objective means mind-independent.
Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.
Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
coberst;1157390 wrote: Everything that we think, know, or perceive is subjective to one degree or another. There is no objective in the sense that objective means mind-independent.
Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.
In the context of this thread (IMO) Objective means not influenced by personal feeling. That is why I emphasised that portion of the definition.
Subjective is influenced by personal tastes and feelings. Clearly my opinion of a childs painting is influenced by my personal relationship it can only be objective if there is no personal connection-to me it is an unrelated object and my opinion is NOT influenced by personal tastes and feelings.
Not dependent on the mind for existence means that you have been able to satisfy your self that an object or situation is not an hallucination. Someone hallucinating is undergoing a subjective experiences and will be unable to prove to themselves objectively that the experience is real or not (arguably they won't really be to concerned about trying to do so). I feel it better keeping to the first two parts of the definitions. Although I find it interesting you chose to pick up on the second part of the definition rather than the one I quite deliberately put in bold. The semantic of a word varies with the context and in this thread I would suggest the second meaning is not relevant.
Eugenics is shocking to most people because instinctively they find it wrong to think of themselves and others as animals to be bred for better characteristics. More to the point it's accepting the reality that you are allowing someone to make those kind of judgements and in doing so you are accepting that your opinion is of lesser value. It's also the shock that someone can be so arrogant to believe they gave the right to determine who lives and who dies.
As a part of society your worth may have an economic placed on it by the society you live in because you are being viewed as an economic unit or object. Some are given higher status with no regard to economic value. (priests for instance)
Subjectively your sense of worth is only affected by that objective opinion if you decide it should be. That sense of worth depends on your opinion and yours alone. Many people will share the same opinion that man has a value way above that placed on it by any economic or political theory and will not tolerate their becoming merely an economic appendage. Economics is a major facet of society but by no means the whole of it. A major deciding factor perhaps but one at the mercy of society not the other way around. Your economic status varies throughout life eventually we all become something other than what were with lower economic and social status. (retired____)Economic factors can stop people resisting for a while but ultimately they always do and they will always win out.
I used the quote from burns quite deliberately as it is a sentiment that resonates all around the world and many understand what he was referring to. There are also many who don't get it and probably never will no matter how you attempt to explain it. I doubt hitler or stalin did for instance and I doubt Bush and blair do either but that sense of worth is what will always imo prevent society becoming an economic appendage.
Course you realise we might end up just not agreeing about it don't you?:D
Objectivity is our shared subjectivity.
In the context of this thread (IMO) Objective means not influenced by personal feeling. That is why I emphasised that portion of the definition.
Subjective is influenced by personal tastes and feelings. Clearly my opinion of a childs painting is influenced by my personal relationship it can only be objective if there is no personal connection-to me it is an unrelated object and my opinion is NOT influenced by personal tastes and feelings.
Not dependent on the mind for existence means that you have been able to satisfy your self that an object or situation is not an hallucination. Someone hallucinating is undergoing a subjective experiences and will be unable to prove to themselves objectively that the experience is real or not (arguably they won't really be to concerned about trying to do so). I feel it better keeping to the first two parts of the definitions. Although I find it interesting you chose to pick up on the second part of the definition rather than the one I quite deliberately put in bold. The semantic of a word varies with the context and in this thread I would suggest the second meaning is not relevant.
Eugenics is shocking to most people because instinctively they find it wrong to think of themselves and others as animals to be bred for better characteristics. More to the point it's accepting the reality that you are allowing someone to make those kind of judgements and in doing so you are accepting that your opinion is of lesser value. It's also the shock that someone can be so arrogant to believe they gave the right to determine who lives and who dies.
As a part of society your worth may have an economic placed on it by the society you live in because you are being viewed as an economic unit or object. Some are given higher status with no regard to economic value. (priests for instance)
Subjectively your sense of worth is only affected by that objective opinion if you decide it should be. That sense of worth depends on your opinion and yours alone. Many people will share the same opinion that man has a value way above that placed on it by any economic or political theory and will not tolerate their becoming merely an economic appendage. Economics is a major facet of society but by no means the whole of it. A major deciding factor perhaps but one at the mercy of society not the other way around. Your economic status varies throughout life eventually we all become something other than what were with lower economic and social status. (retired____)Economic factors can stop people resisting for a while but ultimately they always do and they will always win out.
I used the quote from burns quite deliberately as it is a sentiment that resonates all around the world and many understand what he was referring to. There are also many who don't get it and probably never will no matter how you attempt to explain it. I doubt hitler or stalin did for instance and I doubt Bush and blair do either but that sense of worth is what will always imo prevent society becoming an economic appendage.
Course you realise we might end up just not agreeing about it don't you?:D
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
gmc
I would say that everything that we think, know, or perceive is affected by our feelings in one degree or another. What is important is the recognition of this fact so that we can compensate for it much as a sharpshooter compensates for the wind.
I would say that everything that we think, know, or perceive is affected by our feelings in one degree or another. What is important is the recognition of this fact so that we can compensate for it much as a sharpshooter compensates for the wind.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
coberst;1158203 wrote: gmc
I would say that everything that we think, know, or perceive is affected by our feelings in one degree or another. What is important is the recognition of this fact so that we can compensate for it much as a sharpshooter compensates for the wind.
You mean you can metaphorically stand to one side-setting aside personal feelings and look at the situation objectively? and then decide what you are going to do about it. That's basically what I am saying. You can look at things objectively but at the end of the day you assess your own worth or the validity of what you are being asked to accept -perhaps taking in to account how things are going financially and your status in society and but ultimately that pith o sense and pride of worth is all that actually matters.
posted by devonin
My point is simply that if your personal internal sense of value -differs- from the monetary value you've been assigned by the society in which you live, it's going to be that latter value that you will be treated as having, even if you personally disagree with the assessment.
That statement I fundamentally disagree with. Freedom lodges in that basic inclination to stand up and say no to those kind of judgements and a refusal to put up with them.
Right back in 1776 your founding fathers sat down and debated who should be able to vote-men of worth (i.e proprty owners) or all men equally. There have even been some threads on this forum where it has seriously been suggested that those that pay he most taxes should have a greater say in how they are spent-have more political power in other words.
That you now live in a liberal democracy where all are entitled to vote regardless of station in life should tell you something of how such debates inevitably conclude and how IMO they always will. Society will never be just an economic appendage. It might seem that way at times but always just for a little while.
Maybe Europeans just have got an egalitarian streak in them that north americans are lacking:sneaky:
I would say that everything that we think, know, or perceive is affected by our feelings in one degree or another. What is important is the recognition of this fact so that we can compensate for it much as a sharpshooter compensates for the wind.
You mean you can metaphorically stand to one side-setting aside personal feelings and look at the situation objectively? and then decide what you are going to do about it. That's basically what I am saying. You can look at things objectively but at the end of the day you assess your own worth or the validity of what you are being asked to accept -perhaps taking in to account how things are going financially and your status in society and but ultimately that pith o sense and pride of worth is all that actually matters.
posted by devonin
My point is simply that if your personal internal sense of value -differs- from the monetary value you've been assigned by the society in which you live, it's going to be that latter value that you will be treated as having, even if you personally disagree with the assessment.
That statement I fundamentally disagree with. Freedom lodges in that basic inclination to stand up and say no to those kind of judgements and a refusal to put up with them.
Right back in 1776 your founding fathers sat down and debated who should be able to vote-men of worth (i.e proprty owners) or all men equally. There have even been some threads on this forum where it has seriously been suggested that those that pay he most taxes should have a greater say in how they are spent-have more political power in other words.
That you now live in a liberal democracy where all are entitled to vote regardless of station in life should tell you something of how such debates inevitably conclude and how IMO they always will. Society will never be just an economic appendage. It might seem that way at times but always just for a little while.
Maybe Europeans just have got an egalitarian streak in them that north americans are lacking:sneaky:
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
That statement I fundamentally disagree with. Freedom lodges in that basic inclination to stand up and say no to those kind of judgements and a refusal to put up with them.
Disagreeing with it doesn't actually change it, you just remove yourself from the whole process.
If I go into a store and an item is priced at higher than I think it is worth, I have every right to stand up and say "That price is ridiculous! I won't pay it!" The consequence of that action is that they say "Fine then, don't pay it, bye now"
Yes, you've asserted your difference in opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the item still costs what it costs
Your option when your personal sense of self-worth, as in my example, differs with the economic sense of worth that society applies to you, is to stand up and say no to that judgement and refuse to put up with it, but that again, won't actually -change- the value, just give you the option to walk away and not put in your half of the transaction.
Disagreeing with it doesn't actually change it, you just remove yourself from the whole process.
If I go into a store and an item is priced at higher than I think it is worth, I have every right to stand up and say "That price is ridiculous! I won't pay it!" The consequence of that action is that they say "Fine then, don't pay it, bye now"
Yes, you've asserted your difference in opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the item still costs what it costs
Your option when your personal sense of self-worth, as in my example, differs with the economic sense of worth that society applies to you, is to stand up and say no to that judgement and refuse to put up with it, but that again, won't actually -change- the value, just give you the option to walk away and not put in your half of the transaction.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
Devonin;1158335 wrote: Disagreeing with it doesn't actually change it, you just remove yourself from the whole process.
If I go into a store and an item is priced at higher than I think it is worth, I have every right to stand up and say "That price is ridiculous! I won't pay it!" The consequence of that action is that they say "Fine then, don't pay it, bye now"
Yes, you've asserted your difference in opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the item still costs what it costs
Your option when your personal sense of self-worth, as in my example, differs with the economic sense of worth that society applies to you, is to stand up and say no to that judgement and refuse to put up with it, but that again, won't actually -change- the value, just give you the option to walk away and not put in your half of the transaction.
This is a discussion forum. sometimes you will come across people who don't agree with your point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean you are right and they are wrong it means you disagree about something. Sometimes you just disagree with someone and you have to accept that and leave it at that.
posted by devonin
If I go into a store and an item is priced at higher than I think it is worth, I have every right to stand up and say "That price is ridiculous! I won't pay it!" The consequence of that action is that they say "Fine then, don't pay it, bye now"
Yes, you've asserted your difference in opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the item still costs what it costs
You are talking about an object that has an economic value depending on whether you want to buy it or not. Such an object has two elements in it's price-how much it cost to produce and how much someone will pay for it. A hand made suit costs more to produce than one made by a machine. Some people might pay more for it because it's hand made or designed by someone like armani. Supply and demand plays a part s well. people need food and will pay the price for it because they have to whether they think it outrageous or not if they don't have access to other sources of supply. Assuming of course they don't choose to go to war over it. Most wars have an economic basis to them.
posted by devonin
Your option when your personal sense of self-worth, as in my example, differs with the economic sense of worth that society applies to you, is to stand up and say no to that judgement and refuse to put up with it, but that again, won't actually -change- the value, just give you the option to walk away and not put in your half of the transaction.
That's exactly my point. It is different and most people see it as such and of being more important and in doing so make the economic value you might have in society redundant and most definitely of secondary importance. People reject economic value as the sole measure of value wholesale and have done so throughout history.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I can find dozens of examples right throughout history of such sentiments expressed in different ways and even without the religious overtones the sentiment is still very potent. Shortly after that declaration was made they were arguing that some men were actually created less equal and weren't really men at all and so it rumbles on.
just give you the option to walk away and not put in your half of the transaction.
The value is only real if others accept it as being so and are ready top pay the price. Throughout the centuries and generations people have walked away and refused to accept their part of someone else's transaction. They always have and they always will which is why IMO society will never be merely an economic appendage. There's a big debate in america just now about universal healthcare. Clearly a lot of people are not prepared to be seen as merely an economic appendage and some things are too important for economic value to be the sole decider. It's the buyers, if you like, that decide the price of such things not the sellers
It doesn't really bother me that you don't agree with me- lot of people don't actually- believe it or not. A lot think, for instance, the idea that are all created equal and are of equal worth is nonsense-people are after all born with different levels of intelligence many think women are inferior and second class citizens. A surprising number think the right to vote should be directly related to your economic worth and the rich should have all the power. Ask a muslim or christian (of the you're going to hell because you are not a christian like me variety) fundamentalist if they are merely just as good as the next man or do they believe that are somehow superior.
The pith o' sense an' pride o' worth
Are higher rank than a' that.
The sentiments expressed in things like "a man's a man " echoes around the world with many. A lot of people just don't get it or understand it and perhaps never will.
If you have a sense of self worth is based solely on your perceived economic value to society then you have my sympathy. I doubt very much that it is though.
If I go into a store and an item is priced at higher than I think it is worth, I have every right to stand up and say "That price is ridiculous! I won't pay it!" The consequence of that action is that they say "Fine then, don't pay it, bye now"
Yes, you've asserted your difference in opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the item still costs what it costs
Your option when your personal sense of self-worth, as in my example, differs with the economic sense of worth that society applies to you, is to stand up and say no to that judgement and refuse to put up with it, but that again, won't actually -change- the value, just give you the option to walk away and not put in your half of the transaction.
This is a discussion forum. sometimes you will come across people who don't agree with your point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean you are right and they are wrong it means you disagree about something. Sometimes you just disagree with someone and you have to accept that and leave it at that.
posted by devonin
If I go into a store and an item is priced at higher than I think it is worth, I have every right to stand up and say "That price is ridiculous! I won't pay it!" The consequence of that action is that they say "Fine then, don't pay it, bye now"
Yes, you've asserted your difference in opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that the item still costs what it costs
You are talking about an object that has an economic value depending on whether you want to buy it or not. Such an object has two elements in it's price-how much it cost to produce and how much someone will pay for it. A hand made suit costs more to produce than one made by a machine. Some people might pay more for it because it's hand made or designed by someone like armani. Supply and demand plays a part s well. people need food and will pay the price for it because they have to whether they think it outrageous or not if they don't have access to other sources of supply. Assuming of course they don't choose to go to war over it. Most wars have an economic basis to them.
posted by devonin
Your option when your personal sense of self-worth, as in my example, differs with the economic sense of worth that society applies to you, is to stand up and say no to that judgement and refuse to put up with it, but that again, won't actually -change- the value, just give you the option to walk away and not put in your half of the transaction.
That's exactly my point. It is different and most people see it as such and of being more important and in doing so make the economic value you might have in society redundant and most definitely of secondary importance. People reject economic value as the sole measure of value wholesale and have done so throughout history.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I can find dozens of examples right throughout history of such sentiments expressed in different ways and even without the religious overtones the sentiment is still very potent. Shortly after that declaration was made they were arguing that some men were actually created less equal and weren't really men at all and so it rumbles on.
just give you the option to walk away and not put in your half of the transaction.
The value is only real if others accept it as being so and are ready top pay the price. Throughout the centuries and generations people have walked away and refused to accept their part of someone else's transaction. They always have and they always will which is why IMO society will never be merely an economic appendage. There's a big debate in america just now about universal healthcare. Clearly a lot of people are not prepared to be seen as merely an economic appendage and some things are too important for economic value to be the sole decider. It's the buyers, if you like, that decide the price of such things not the sellers
It doesn't really bother me that you don't agree with me- lot of people don't actually- believe it or not. A lot think, for instance, the idea that are all created equal and are of equal worth is nonsense-people are after all born with different levels of intelligence many think women are inferior and second class citizens. A surprising number think the right to vote should be directly related to your economic worth and the rich should have all the power. Ask a muslim or christian (of the you're going to hell because you are not a christian like me variety) fundamentalist if they are merely just as good as the next man or do they believe that are somehow superior.
The pith o' sense an' pride o' worth
Are higher rank than a' that.
The sentiments expressed in things like "a man's a man " echoes around the world with many. A lot of people just don't get it or understand it and perhaps never will.
If you have a sense of self worth is based solely on your perceived economic value to society then you have my sympathy. I doubt very much that it is though.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
I gather the issue is not so much that we disagree, but I'm either failing to communicate my point well enough, or you're failing to get what I'm trying to say. Either way, I suppose simply moving on is the easier course if nothing else.
The value gained from trying to get you to understand what I'm saying is no longer outweighing the cost of trying to explain myself over and over.
The value gained from trying to get you to understand what I'm saying is no longer outweighing the cost of trying to explain myself over and over.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
Devonin;1158521 wrote: I gather the issue is not so much that we disagree, but I'm either failing to communicate my point well enough, or you're failing to get what I'm trying to say. Either way, I suppose simply moving on is the easier course if nothing else.
The value gained from trying to get you to understand what I'm saying is no longer outweighing the cost of trying to explain myself over and over.
There are three basic perspectives for understanding society as per social science. All are valid and correct and all tend to disagree to a certain extent.
No one's opinion is any more right than anyone else's. They are simply different opinions taken from different perspectives.
The value gained from trying to get you to understand what I'm saying is no longer outweighing the cost of trying to explain myself over and over.
There are three basic perspectives for understanding society as per social science. All are valid and correct and all tend to disagree to a certain extent.
No one's opinion is any more right than anyone else's. They are simply different opinions taken from different perspectives.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
Devonin;1158521 wrote: I gather the issue is not so much that we disagree, but I'm either failing to communicate my point well enough, or you're failing to get what I'm trying to say. Either way, I suppose simply moving on is the easier course if nothing else.
The value gained from trying to get you to understand what I'm saying is no longer outweighing the cost of trying to explain myself over and over.
I kind of feel he same way. We can spend all year going round in circles on this. I do get what you are saying I don't agree with it.
The concept that you are the equal of any regardless of their particular station in life is one many have rouble grasping and find even harder to believe. They always want to qualify it with examples that show we are all subject to the views of the society of where we stand in the pecking order and whether you accept it or not doesn't matter cos you can't change it. If we all thought like that society would never have progressed progress to the point we are at now.
Fascism, communism etc etc all argue the state is supreme and the individual a mere cog in the machine. Bollocks to that idea
The value gained from trying to get you to understand what I'm saying is no longer outweighing the cost of trying to explain myself over and over.
I kind of feel he same way. We can spend all year going round in circles on this. I do get what you are saying I don't agree with it.
The concept that you are the equal of any regardless of their particular station in life is one many have rouble grasping and find even harder to believe. They always want to qualify it with examples that show we are all subject to the views of the society of where we stand in the pecking order and whether you accept it or not doesn't matter cos you can't change it. If we all thought like that society would never have progressed progress to the point we are at now.
Fascism, communism etc etc all argue the state is supreme and the individual a mere cog in the machine. Bollocks to that idea
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
That also wasn't what I was saying.
If anything it was more an attempt to claim that the word "value" doesn't even have any meaning outside the tenets of an exchange. If we aren't agreeing that A and B are worth roughly the same thing to each other, there's no actual application of "value" at all.
It's the same sort of reasoning that says the word "pagan" has no meaning outside the context of the judeo-christian tradition (In that a pagan is anybody who is not a christian, jew or muslim) So if you simply reject those traditions outright, applying the word 'pagan' to yourself in any context loses its intrinsic meaning.
Put another way: Things only have -value- if someone else is willing to acknowledge that value. That's the word 'value' in the context of economics, which is what the discussion was centreing on. The word 'value' has other meanings outside of economics, and I think what was happening is that you were applying my statements about economic value to the other kinds of value, and thus finding fault in them.
If anything it was more an attempt to claim that the word "value" doesn't even have any meaning outside the tenets of an exchange. If we aren't agreeing that A and B are worth roughly the same thing to each other, there's no actual application of "value" at all.
It's the same sort of reasoning that says the word "pagan" has no meaning outside the context of the judeo-christian tradition (In that a pagan is anybody who is not a christian, jew or muslim) So if you simply reject those traditions outright, applying the word 'pagan' to yourself in any context loses its intrinsic meaning.
Put another way: Things only have -value- if someone else is willing to acknowledge that value. That's the word 'value' in the context of economics, which is what the discussion was centreing on. The word 'value' has other meanings outside of economics, and I think what was happening is that you were applying my statements about economic value to the other kinds of value, and thus finding fault in them.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
Devonin;1158955 wrote: That also wasn't what I was saying.
If anything it was more an attempt to claim that the word "value" doesn't even have any meaning outside the tenets of an exchange. If we aren't agreeing that A and B are worth roughly the same thing to each other, there's no actual application of "value" at all.
It's the same sort of reasoning that says the word "pagan" has no meaning outside the context of the judeo-christian tradition (In that a pagan is anybody who is not a christian, jew or muslim) So if you simply reject those traditions outright, applying the word 'pagan' to yourself in any context loses its intrinsic meaning.
Put another way: Things only have -value- if someone else is willing to acknowledge that value. That's the word 'value' in the context of economics, which is what the discussion was centreing on. The word 'value' has other meanings outside of economics, and I think what was happening is that you were applying my statements about economic value to the other kinds of value, and thus finding fault in them.
This sounds like the social construction of reality through language. Different languages reflect the different perspectives developed by their respective societies.
If anything it was more an attempt to claim that the word "value" doesn't even have any meaning outside the tenets of an exchange. If we aren't agreeing that A and B are worth roughly the same thing to each other, there's no actual application of "value" at all.
It's the same sort of reasoning that says the word "pagan" has no meaning outside the context of the judeo-christian tradition (In that a pagan is anybody who is not a christian, jew or muslim) So if you simply reject those traditions outright, applying the word 'pagan' to yourself in any context loses its intrinsic meaning.
Put another way: Things only have -value- if someone else is willing to acknowledge that value. That's the word 'value' in the context of economics, which is what the discussion was centreing on. The word 'value' has other meanings outside of economics, and I think what was happening is that you were applying my statements about economic value to the other kinds of value, and thus finding fault in them.
This sounds like the social construction of reality through language. Different languages reflect the different perspectives developed by their respective societies.
Can society resist becoming an economic appendage?
posted by devonin
Put another way: Things only have -value- if someone else is willing to acknowledge that value. That's the word 'value' in the context of economics, which is what the discussion was centreing on. The word 'value' has other meanings outside of economics, and I think what was happening is that you were applying my statements about economic value to the other kinds of value, and thus finding fault in them.
You're right to some extent. However, the question was can society resist becoming an economic appendage. That is not imo simply a question about economics. I would say yes it can because people will not accept being regarded as simply and economic appendage.
posted by devonin
Again, I wasn't arguing this point at all. Their sense of worth as a person may not be tied up in what they do for a living, but once again, their chosen subjective value for themself only has any actual -meaning- if they can get other people to also agree that such a value is correct. If I think I'm God's gift to humanity, that doesn't get me -anywhere- if nobody else believes it too.
Let's say for arguments sake that Canadians decide that everyone from ontario is only fit to be a slave. Clearly the ontarians subjective value of their worth is probably at odds with those around them, by your logic that subjective sense of worth has no meaning because those around them don't share it. Do you think the ontarians would just accept that assessment of their worth or would they have a sense of worth that doesn't need the approvals of others?
Peasants and serfs didn't accept their position society, realistically there might not have been much they could do about it, they might have even been so conditioned that they accepted their lot as an economic appendage ( a brief glance through the history of medieval times would show you otherwise) but there were always those who resisted and set out to change things and there always will be. How you fit in economically-your value as an economic unit is only a major component of your sense of self worth if you decide it matters to you. A lot of people now losing their jobs and unable to find another are busy thinking about that question even as we write.
From the original post
Labor was the last market element to be organized under the new industrial system. The final key in unlocking this self-regulating market system apparently necessitated inhuman techniques for forcing the people off subsistence farming and into a system wherein they must become objects of commerce living in community and controlled by pricing. Labor must become commodified through market price law just as was land and money.
What happened next, did labour (society) just accept their status as an economic appendage? Read on coberst
Put another way: Things only have -value- if someone else is willing to acknowledge that value. That's the word 'value' in the context of economics, which is what the discussion was centreing on. The word 'value' has other meanings outside of economics, and I think what was happening is that you were applying my statements about economic value to the other kinds of value, and thus finding fault in them.
You're right to some extent. However, the question was can society resist becoming an economic appendage. That is not imo simply a question about economics. I would say yes it can because people will not accept being regarded as simply and economic appendage.
posted by devonin
Again, I wasn't arguing this point at all. Their sense of worth as a person may not be tied up in what they do for a living, but once again, their chosen subjective value for themself only has any actual -meaning- if they can get other people to also agree that such a value is correct. If I think I'm God's gift to humanity, that doesn't get me -anywhere- if nobody else believes it too.
Let's say for arguments sake that Canadians decide that everyone from ontario is only fit to be a slave. Clearly the ontarians subjective value of their worth is probably at odds with those around them, by your logic that subjective sense of worth has no meaning because those around them don't share it. Do you think the ontarians would just accept that assessment of their worth or would they have a sense of worth that doesn't need the approvals of others?
Peasants and serfs didn't accept their position society, realistically there might not have been much they could do about it, they might have even been so conditioned that they accepted their lot as an economic appendage ( a brief glance through the history of medieval times would show you otherwise) but there were always those who resisted and set out to change things and there always will be. How you fit in economically-your value as an economic unit is only a major component of your sense of self worth if you decide it matters to you. A lot of people now losing their jobs and unable to find another are busy thinking about that question even as we write.
From the original post
Labor was the last market element to be organized under the new industrial system. The final key in unlocking this self-regulating market system apparently necessitated inhuman techniques for forcing the people off subsistence farming and into a system wherein they must become objects of commerce living in community and controlled by pricing. Labor must become commodified through market price law just as was land and money.
What happened next, did labour (society) just accept their status as an economic appendage? Read on coberst