thinkdr wrote:Thank you, Karpal for your thoughtful response.
I value freedom as highly as anyone.
Tell us more about the ethics that these others advocate. Be more specific, less vague.
What exactly bugs you about the theory of Ethics that I have proposed (which I say, time and again, is tentative and which welcomes upgrading and wants to incorporate any improvements into its synthesis.) What very specific criticism do you have of it?
I welcome your suggestions!
thinkdr wrote:In my previous post, I typed "Violation with consent...." when I meant to say: "Violation without consent...." This led to a misunderstanding, for which I apologize. It was a typo. Mea culpa !!!
See especially p. 19 of the STRUCTURE OF ETHICS booklet which I scribbled. There it explains that creating value in human encounters so that everyone concerned feels that they won is Intrinsically valuable for us. This is a non-zero sum move in 'the game of life.' It is an active process.
}creating value in human encounters so that everyone concerned feels that they won is Intrinsically valuable for us. This (active process) is a non-zero sum move in 'the game of life.'
Ecmandu wrote: People just don’t give a shit. The reason they don’t give a shit is that on earth, consent violators have the best lives.
Those were assertions, not reasoning. Which doesn't mean he is either wrong or irrational on the topic. It's just that it's not an argument, what you quoted there. The second sentence does not justify the first sentence. The second sentence is not justified by the first sentence. In fact it could all be a single sentence assertion. You disagree and make a counter-assertions. Perhaps some reasoning is about to happen where the argument supporting his assertions meets the counterargument supporting your assertion.thinkdr wrote:.
{After thinkdr wrote: ...}creating value in human encounters so that everyone concerned feels that they won is Intrinsically valuable for us. This (active process) is a non-zero sum move in 'the game of life.'Ecmandu wrote: People just don’t give a shit. The reason they don’t give a shit is that on earth, consent violators have the best lives.
I ask you, Readers, is what Ecmandu wrote good reasoning? Does it follow -even if it were so - that "violators have the best lives" ... does it follow from that that "people just don't give a shit"? or does the converse, or the obverse follow? Is there any relation between the two assertions?
And/or iIs he claiming: that since people believe that consent-violators live the best lives, therefore most people aspire to be consent-violators?
The latter is a proposition which, I would argue, is not true.
thinkdr wrote:I will state, simply, what I learned from a wise Philosopher named Robert S. Hartman.
Let us here apply Ethics to the concept "economic system."
A good economic system creates wealth.
A bad economic system gives rise to poverty and permits extreme and abject poverty to exist.
As I explained earlier, when discussing the Hierarchy of Value (the HOV) formula, moral value has primacy over economic value.
I > E and I > S.
Hence the lack of morality in what is referred to as 'the free-enterprise system' leads to impoverishment.
A good economic system creates wealth.
A bad economic system gives rise to poverty and permits extreme and abject poverty to exist.
d0rkyd00d wrote:Thanks for the explanation! The reason I was asking was because you said:A good economic system creates wealth.
A bad economic system gives rise to poverty and permits extreme and abject poverty to exist.
thinkdr wrote:I will state, simply, what I learned from a wise Philosopher named Robert S. Hartman.
Let us here apply Ethics to the concept "economic system."
A good economic system creates wealth.
A bad economic system gives rise to poverty and permits extreme and abject poverty to exist.
As I explained earlier, when discussing the Hierarchy of Value (the HOV) formula, moral value has primacy over economic value.
I > E and I > S.
Hence the lack of morality in what is referred to as 'the free-enterprise system' leads to impoverishment.
That is one more reason why we need Ethics: so that the economic system under which we live can create more wealth, and that all citizens can share in enjoying some of it.
Do we need now to put into effect the UBI - which stands for "Universal Basic Income." Or some well-thought out form of it? Can you suggest a better reform? It would at least have to be one that will put some resources in the hands of the needy, so that they can possibly participate constructively in creating even more wealth for all of us to share.
Do we need to engage in a campaign to back the U.S. Dollar with some standard? Bucky Fuller suggested that the standard be: (global) productivity per man/hour. Can this index today be measured? Are economists or statisticians capable of this?
Your ideas??
thinkdr wrote:https://institute.coop/ownershipnow?mc_cid=24ea8fe2af&mc_eid=ff3747cd62
What are your views on this?
Do you agree that we need more democracy in the workplace?
Is there anything you can do personally to encourage this movement?
Do you see clearly why this process is Ethics applied to Economics?
Some feedback from readers would be appropriate......
Two things are infinite --
the Universe
and human stupidity.
thinkdr wrote:Recently came upon this quote from Philosopher-Scientist Albert Einstein. He wrote this in his role as philosopher:Two things are infinite --
the Universe
and human stupidity.
thinkdr wrote:hi there, obervr
What is it exactly that you have against the idea of workers in a company owning a piece of the business?
For that is what the worker co-op represents.
thinkdr wrote:They call it "democracy at work" since the employee/owners get to vote on their hours and their pay; they have a voice in the matter. They also vote on whether to hire an outside manager, to help guide company policy. The major difference with other businesses is that rule that the new manager can only be compensated at four-to-six times what the lowest-paid worker makes in pay; in contrast with the 160-times as much which is often the case now in non-co-op businesses. And this ratio enables the top officials in conventional businesses to get very wealthy, thereby intensifying the inequality imbalance that damages our economy by keeping it unstable.
thinkdr wrote:In the 1950s the U.S. was more in balance, as it had a strong middle-class. We don't have that any more today. Do some research: investigate the policies that Dwight Eisenhower campaigned on ...and actually delivered. {How much did assembly-line workers who had a strong union get paid on average then?}
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]