about that thread, globalization, cultural death, politics, sociology, and this community ....

[DD_Arthur]

 you want equality of outcome I only believe in equality of opportunity 

 

This bit!  Isn't this what its all about?  Equality of opportunity to give equality of outcome?   Just how do you go about it.........

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It seems I fill this desperate need for a classical liberal (maybe even a libertarian, who knows ...) considering capitalism the most just system so far developed. Shame I didnt find myself earlier here, but as it happens I was getting two jobs under evil capitalism 

Despite all my sincere attempts to research countries trying to follow so called "3rd Way", seeking a compromise between socialism and capitalism (the so called capitalism with a human face) I dont seem to find them appealing or even successful. For many of those countries, previously enjoying high levels of development and GDP increase, nowadays its tiny increase at best.  Stagnation is quite apparent.

 

 

 

 So IMHO the sad state of affairs in the world is that the discussion of capitalism versus socialism is largely moot and a western luxury problem since for a serious portion of the world’s populations they still believe life should be lived based on a religious, not secular foundation. 

 

No state was ever fully secular. It is another pursuit of impossible, since everywhere in the world people have some defining systems of beliefs and ideas. As it happens those attempting to be religion-free systems were also the most violent and cruel - to bring most notable France during XVIIIth Century revolution (it still boggles my mind how people can celebrate that event which led to extermination of a decent portion of french society), Russia during bolshevist and communist rule, etc. Religious fanatics are equally bad but this could be said about any kind of fanatics. Anyone who happened to meet Greenpeace activists knows that. 

 

I'm however finding a belief in secular state to be largely misleading, a simple thing is that natura horret vacuum and if you attempt to remove one value system, other is given an opportunity to raise or worse space with no values is created leading to a horror. But to put a blame on religion for all the problems of this world is so wrong. The thing is that we are here (as in Europe) because of certain systems and values that have roots in Greek philosophy, Roman law and Christian belief doctrine. Any médiéviste can tell you that. 

[Nocke]

@Uwe: Thank you for this. Its seems we are somehow, measured in the usual political coordinates, really far away from each other. Often people like us literally start fighting each other. Talking this way, gives me an absolutely new possibility to listen to and try to understand what you are saying. Doesn't mean I agree to all, of course! I will need some time to read your post (all the posts), and answer in a manner it deserves. S!

Edited April 2, 2017 by 216th_Nocke

[Retnek]

So IMHO the sad state of affairs in the world is that the discussion of capitalism versus socialism is largely moot and a western luxury problem since for a serious portion of the world’s populations they still believe life should be lived based on a religious, not secular foundation.

Don't think it's that bad ... nearly all the (even the truly, naively) religious people I met had a clear sight on the fact religion is no way to organize a society. Some rules, some corner posts were set by religion, but even that usually is done with the secular argument to "keep the society together". They all know about the human impact on any religion, priests are sinners and the believers know it. I think most of the people feel (and often know) religion is just a human construct for questions otherwise not to solve. But a useful construct, as "religion keeps the society together" is a worldwide vehicle to preserve the leadership of the usual old men ...

  This healthy distance to religion is true for religious communities in (relative) peace, feeling somewhat safe and balanced. I don't want to idealize this state, there's still much injustice, prejudice and permanent need for elucidation and self-reflection. But I don't see a common peoples need to live in societies based on a religious foundation. That's wishful thinking by the full-time customers of religious organizations (for obvious reasons) and a minority of blinded believers.

 

Problems rise if people (and in a larger scale societies) loose there balance, are not allowed to adapt, are forced into an unwanted, unknown situation. Living in a war-zone is an extreme example, but the hire-and-fire-habit of capitalistic societies produces this permanent civil disturbance, too. Then people tend to loose their usual quiet manners, tolerance and confidence, opening their minds for preachers and prayers of any kind.

Edited April 2, 2017 by 216th_Retnek

[Holtzauge]

 

No state was ever fully secular. It is another pursuit of impossible, since everywhere in the world people have some defining systems of beliefs and ideas. As it happens those attempting to be religion-free systems were also the most violent and cruel - to bring most notable France during XVIIIth Century revolution (it still boggles my mind how people can celebrate that event which led to extermination of a decent portion of french society), Russia during bolshevist and communist rule, etc. Religious fanatics are equally bad but this could be said about any kind of fanatics. Anyone who happened to meet Greenpeace activists knows that. 

 

I'm however finding a belief in secular state to be largely misleading, a simple thing is that natura horret vacuum and if you attempt to remove one value system, other is given an opportunity to raise or worse space with no values is created leading to a horror. But to put a blame on religion for all the problems of this world is so wrong. The thing is that we are here (as in Europe) because of certain systems and values that have roots in Greek philosophy, Roman law and Christian belief doctrine. Any médiéviste can tell you that. 

 

Sorry, but I do not agree. That atheism is equal to a cold society where people do not care about each other is something religious people have been toting for ages. It’s simply wrong. I agree with Klaus and his analysis about evolutionary fitness and religion fits right in there. Religion has served its evolutionary purpose by bonding large groups of people together around a common cause and allowed them to dominate their surroundings. Now its simply passe. Why do you think all those religions arose in the first place? It’s because it has been an evolutionary advantage and why people all over the world for ages have been making up all kinds of myths about who we are, who created us and for what purpose. How many old gods have faded from memory? Where have all those fervent believers ended up? What about the Norse creation myth I posted? Why is the current creation myth the right one?

 

Sorry, but for me it’s the exact opposite: Religious people kill and main others for being "unbelievers", atheists don’t. Atheists realize you have one shot at it and that is making the place we live in a better place here and now, not getting your reward in heaven or getting a free pass there by topping off the unbelievers. Just go back to the 30 year war in Europe. What was that all about ? Catholics and protestants topping each other off for silly reasons. See any similarities in today's world? Religion causes more problems than it solves. Period.

 

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

 

Amen to that.

Edited April 2, 2017 by Holtzauge

[Holtzauge]

Don't think it's that bad ... nearly all the (even the truly, naively) religious people I met had a clear sight on the fact religion is no way to organize a society. Some rules, some corner posts were set by religion, but even that usually is done with the secular argument to "keep the society together". They all know about the human impact on any religion, priests are sinners and the believers know it. I think most of the people feel (and often know) religion is just a human construct for questions otherwise not to solve. But a useful construct, as "religion keeps the society together" is a worldwide vehicle to preserve the leadership of the usual old men ...

  This healthy distance to religion is true for religious communities in (relative) peace, feeling somewhat safe and balanced. I don't want to idealize this state, there's still much injustice, prejudice and permanent need for elucidation and self-reflection. But I don't see a common peoples need to live in societies based on a religious foundation. That's wishful thinking by the full-time customers of religious organizations (for obvious reasons) and a minority of blinded believers.

 

Problems rise if people (and in a larger scale societies) loose there balance, are not allowed to adapt, are forced into an unwanted, unknown situation. Living in a war-zone is an extreme example, but the hire-and-fire-habit of capitalistic societies produces this permanent civil disturbance, too. Then people tend to loose their usual quiet manners, tolerance and confidence, opening their minds for preachers and prayers of any kind.

 

Of course and I agree completely. Most religious people are sensible and accept that their religion takes second seat to secular society. However, that does not change the fact that a lot of the troubles in this world can be traced back to religious conflict.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

A delusion to say the least. Religion is not a matter of passe and I highly disagree with such a cultural relativism. 

Anthropology and archaeology tells us in particular that even neanderthals had some beliefs and for the earliest human groups it was common practice to bury their brothers and sisters with some ceremony and to practice some kind of beliefs, leading to a conclusion that they had some sense of their spiritual existence. We may believe or not, agree or not, but fact remains that this had a lot more sense than merely gathering around people and to dominate surroundings. 

Regardless, I'm not going to get so easily pulled into discussion over religion and whether its real or not. I leave it to everyone's personal choice.  

 

 

 

Sorry, but for me it’s the exact opposite: Religious people kill and main others for being "unbelievers", atheists don’t. Atheists realize you have one shot at it and that is making the place we live in a better place here and now, not getting your reward in heaven or getting a free pass there by topping off the unbelievers. Just go back to the 30 year war year in Europe. What was that all about ? Catholics and protestants topping each other off for silly reasons. See any similarities in today's world? Religion causes more problems than it solves. Period.

People kill people. Placing a blame on a religion is another relativist choice. Atheists killed people for believing. I've seen and read numerous accounts from revolutions where the so called "one shot" was considered as a lack of responsibility. If there is no penalty for sins and no afterlife than why bother with morality. Killing others became so easy. In fact life was so cheap that millions could be exterminated because they refused to accept "enlightenment"  or false premise of "equality". 

Yes, there were many atheists that in pursuit of a better place turned their place into hell for others. Ever heard of colonnes infernales ? The secular leaders of Great Revolution were far from respecting freedom of belief. Not to mention the great achievements of that time, like "Noyades de Nantes" from which its not far too far to Zyklon B or Gulag. I'm not even going to start on Khmer Rouge. Greatest and most cruel systems were those that negated any religion and tried to impose their own system. But I'm not going to say that atheists or atheism causes more problems than it solves like you did with religion. People simply create problems. Period. 

[Guest deleted@30725]

I work 2 to 3 weeks on and 2 to 3 weeks off. Many people ask me how I can stand being free and home for 3 weeks, none ask me how I can stand working for 3 weeks. 

I do not believe we are individuals, we are a cheep hird

 

I think for many work becomes their life and I know some people who get bored if they're not working. To me work is a means to and end even though my hobby is my job so rather than doing it at home I get to be paid for it and just do it at work! As long as it pays enough then I'm not going to kill myself for a company. I've bust my gut for companies in the end doing lots of extra hours, etc and in the end I didn't get jack for it. I have plenty of other hobbies and interests I'd rather being doing than working, but unfortunately I need money and the only normal way to do it is to have some sort of job or task that pays money. My main interest is travel and although I own a camper van which helps my illusion of freedom I still very much need a job for money since it requires fuel and at the moment fixing.

 

My father worked hard all his life to get a good retirement. He died early fifties. I'm going to live while I'm still alive.

[Holtzauge]

A delusion to say the least. Religion is not a matter of passe and I highly disagree with such a cultural relativism. 

Anthropology and archaeology tells us in particular that even neanderthals had some beliefs and for the earliest human groups it was common practice to bury their brothers and sisters with some ceremony and to practice some kind of beliefs, leading to a conclusion that they had some sense of their spiritual existence. We may believe or not, agree or not, but fact remains that this had a lot more sense than merely gathering around people and to dominate surroundings. 

Regardless, I'm not going to get so easily pulled into discussion over religion and whether its real or not. I leave it to everyone's personal choice.  

 

 

 

People kill people. Placing a blame on a religion is another relativist choice. Atheists killed people for believing. I've seen and read numerous accounts from revolutions where the so called "one shot" was considered as a lack of responsibility. If there is no penalty for sins and no afterlife than why bother with morality. Killing others became so easy. In fact life was so cheap that millions could be exterminated because they refused to accept "enlightenment"  or false premise of "equality". 

Yes, there were many atheists that in pursuit of a better place turned their place into hell for others. Ever heard of colonnes infernales ? The secular leaders of Great Revolution were far from respecting freedom of belief. Not to mention the great achievements of that time, like "Noyades de Nantes" from which its not far too far to Zyklon B or Gulag. I'm not even going to start on Khmer Rouge. Greatest and most cruel systems were those that negated any religion and tried to impose their own system. But I'm not going to say that atheists or atheism causes more problems than it solves like you did with religion. People simply create problems. Period. 

 

Again, I think the age old argument that empathy, morality and compassion etc. stems from and is dependent on religion is just not true: Just like Klaus pointed out earlier those human traits fit just as well with evolution because they are positively selected for. Anyway, I don't think we will get much further on this since it's obvious we have a fundamentally different opinions on how religious belief affects the world. Parts of this thread has been about the problems society faces and how to improve on that and my point was and remains that religion is in many cases an obstacle and not an enabler and that the world will be a better place when people come around to this fact. However, It's pretty obvious that we disagree so let's leave it at that.

[Original_Uwe]

I quite agree Holtzauge.

[Retnek]

A delusion to say the least. Religion is not a matter of passe and I highly disagree with such a cultural relativism. 

...

Regardless, I'm not going to get so easily pulled into discussion over religion and whether its real or not. I leave it to everyone's personal choice.

...

I know the very personal phenomenon religion is often misused as a political vehicle, the news are full of actual backslashes, still a long way to go. But it's more and more accepted to deny the "god-given" extra-status people grant religions until today. No need to condemn, there's a lot of cultural wisdom gathered in religions. But today for several hundred million people it's acceptable to check religiously founded constructs with Occam's razor like any other postulate, hypothesis or theory. Religiously stamped people all over the world see there is no danger to question the gods. There is no lightning throwing down the sceptic heathen!

Edited April 2, 2017 by 216th_Retnek

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

My point is that placing all or most of the blame on religion for problems is simply a false idea. Problems happen because of people, those who believe and those who do not believe. As I have stated large number of infamous crimes against humanity was committed by systems deeming themselves atheist and free of that "opiate for masses". Many other were committed by religious fanatics. It doesn't make atheists evil, doesn't make those who believe evil. I'd make a point that all kinds of extremism lead to distortion of systems and result in monstrous things. Nationalism for instance, another form of extremism, lead to a great deal of acts against humanity - like a topic I am researching recently, Ukrainian massacres of Poles in Volhynia in 1943 where neighbors were killing neighbors,  brothers were killing sisters and husbands were forced to kill their wives, often in most cruel ways in the history. And all in the name of a hope to build an independent state, clean of any other ethnic groups. 

 

But it's recently a very popular and à la mode thing to put all the blame on the religion. And just to make it clean, I'm not a person that would be considered a great believer, rather the opposite. But I refuse to let things being presented in such a simplistic manner. Always consider more than one perspective in understanding things.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I feel a need to come back to this one, somehow, I feel something has been left on the road at that point:

 

Just to be sure: Was that you telling me that =r4t=shadow was refering to the principle? Or the other way round? Or telling shadow that Finkeren was refering to the principle?

I tend now to believe the last one? (seriously, not trolling!)

 

In any case: Why should that principle be incompatible with socialism? I feel somewhere around here hides a very important and fundamental misinterpretation about socialism. Is it the idea that socialists will come, take away all your stuff, and then force you to do together with all others all the same stuff, which you dont really want to do?

The Non-Aggression Principle is incompatible with socialism because in order to give, the governing authority must first take. This is fine, so long as everybody is willing to allow that.

 

However, some within your system will inevitably work harder than others, or provide a more crucial service than others. At this point they may begin to feel resentment because their work is more valuable than their comrades', yet they both receive the same in return. Perhaps they simply feel they could accomplish more if they kept their earnings.

 

At this point, for a socialist society to be compatible with the non-aggression principle, it must allow those people to opt out of it if they don't want to contribute to or receive the social benefits. It must allow them to keep all of their earnings if they wish. Of course they will not allow that to happen, because if they allow that, the entire system begins to break down as those with the highest value determine that they can do better than what the system is providing them. Soon, the only participants in the socialist system would be the lowest value contributors.

 

The socialist system cannot do this and continue to function, so it must force those high value contributors to participate. Using force to compel another's actions (in this case forcing them to pay taxes) is an act of aggression.

 

And to be clear, this is not just a problem with socialism. This applies to taxes under all forms of government. All taxes, unless voluntary, are a form of aggression; because what happens if you don't pay your taxes? You will go to jail. If you resist going to jail, you will be forcibly put there, and potentially injured or killed while trying to resist.

 

The only place you don't see this type of aggression is in entirely voluntary cooperatives. Which I actually support, but which are entirely unsuitable as a form of government.

Edited April 3, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Finkeren]

However, some within your system will inevitably work harder than others, or provide a more crucial service than others. At this point they may begin to feel resentment because their work is more valuable than their comrades', yet they both receive the same in return. Perhaps they simply feel they could accomplish more if they kept their earnings.

This is another common misconception about socialism: The idea, that in a socialist society everyone receives equal pay for their work regardless of their skill and how hard they work. This is false.

 

In an ideal communist society it's "everyone works according to their ability and receives according to their needs". This is not how socialism works. Under socialism it is simply equal pay for equal work, meaning that if the work you provide is more valuable, involves greater responsibility or you simply work harder than others, you will get proportionally higher wages.

 

The difference from Capitalism is, that part of your work no longer goes to enriching the people who own the means of production. Any profit your work might turn out simply goes back to society to help the less fortunate and build up an even better society for all.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Finkeren

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Actually it is not a misconception at all. I didn't say pay. That was deliberate. I am referring specifically to services provided by the state, including assistance for as you say less fortunate; but from the state's perspective, low value.

 

Suppose a person is successful, and wishes to opt out of the national healthcare system, or public assistance program. They make enough money that they feel they will never need such a program, and would prefer to provide for their healthcare with private funds or private insurance. Or feel that keeping their earnings would allow them to do so and receive better quality or availability of care.

 

If a socialist state was to abide by the non-aggression principle, it would need to allow that person to opt out as they wish. However, because a socialist system needs its high value contributors to subsidize the low, it cannot allow that. Therefore it must compel the participation of the person in our example; thus violating the principle.

 

Also the very idea that in your system people receive equal pay for equal work doesn't hold up to scrutiny. In order for a socialist system to work, the top earners will invariably have their earnings taken from them in greater proportion than those at the bottom. It must. Or the system fails to work. If workers are being paid equally according to their effort of expertise, then they must be taxed equally, or you are in effect paying the top earners on a diminishing scale, which acts as a disincentive past a certain point.

 

We can "no true Scotsman" this to death (leftists have been doing it forever!); but unless your version of socialism is entirely at-will it will by its very nature violate NAP.

Edited April 3, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Finkeren]

I never bought into the idea of the non-agression principle. Like communism it is an ideal, one that may be pursued but cannot be fully realized by any society that can be created at this point. Like communism it would require society to prodice an almost infinite surplus to be fully implemented.

 

Any state will invariably violate some people's free will at some point. The challenge is to keep these violations to an absolute minimum.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Finkeren

[Retnek]

...

The socialist system cannot do this and continue to function, so it must force those high value contributors to participate.

...

This sentence shows the complete dilemma - truely "high value contributors" have the insight to share with the community what they earn within the community. Else they are egoists - period. It's that simple. To share the most within a proper state - high taxes - is (or was?) the concept of the Scandinavians. And they lead the world rankings in common welfare and happiness. No, it's still not a paradise up there, but living there is FAR better than in gods own country, f.e.

 

  Allow egoism to determine important parts of your society you end up in today's capitalism. The phrase "free market" claims to be scientific or academic, but for 150 years we know there is not much behind it. Just a tiny little model without any proof became a modern religion with a lot of preachers calling themselves professors of economy. For the "common people" there is not much difference between the "state-capitalism" visible in former communist countries or loosing their former welfare because of twitter-prophets, megalomaniac wannabe caliphs and all the other kleptocrats claiming to be part of the "great western culture".

[Finkeren]

Also keep in mind, that in a well-functioning socialist state, you likely won't need a progressive tax system. Since everyone is paid proportionally to their work, a flat tax might do just fine.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I never bought into the idea of the non-agression principle. Like communism it is an ideal, one that may be pursued but cannot be fully realized by any society that can be created at this point. Like communism it would require society to prodice an almost infinite surplus to be fully implemented.

 

Any state will invariably violate some people's free will at some point. The challenge is to keep these violations to an absolute minimum.

I read an interesting paper once, where they surveyed a large group of people, and asked them what portion of their earnings they would voluntarily donate to fund the government; then worked out what the US budget would be based on those figures.

 

The results were interesting because it left most of the essential portions of the budget intact. Military would take a big cut. However healthcare and public welfare programs (which account for more than half the budget) would have needed to be slashed; but were still considered sufficient if the programs would have been used to provide only for the most vulnerable. The conclusion reached was that based on voluntary contribution, a system of government like that found in the US could function, albeit in a significantly reduced form.

 

It would be interesting to see, if people had their way, if what people will willingly give would be enough to support a socialist society.

 

Also keep in mind, that in a well-functioning socialist state, you likely won't need a progressive tax system. Since everyone is paid proportionally to their work, a flat tax might do just fine.

I'd be for trying that out. I think such a pledge would be a game changer. I do not have faith in the government's ability to make that work though. Even the scandinavian social states use a tiered system right now, and they run through their budgets every year. Going to a flat tax would require large cutbacks.

 

Personally I have seen some of the potential merits of socialism. Something that has always bugged me is that I pay taxes close to those paid by people in my theoretical bracket in socialist states, yet unlike them, I do not qualify for many of the programs I pay for. This has always been a bit frustrating to me.

Edited April 3, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Allow egoism to determine important parts of your society you end up in today's capitalism.

 

Current state of affairs is that few countries are capitalist in a classical meaning, most, including United States, have a high portion of its spending related to public redistribution. When Government is involved so deeply into the economy it's not exactly the egoism. Or well, it is egoism, of those who have power.  

 

 

 

The phrase "free market" claims to be scientific or academic, but for 150 years we know there is not much behind it. Just a tiny little model without any proof became a modern religion with a lot of preachers calling themselves professors of economy.

Because economy is not only about math, fancy graphs and over-complicated structures despite what people like Thomas Piketty would lead you to believe. It's also about understanding human actions, reactions and dilemmas. Free market simply represents the possibility and I'd argue the opposite, that there is a lot of evidence behind it. And it;s model that is working, unlike the communism or socialism. 

[Finkeren]

I read an interesting paper once, where they surveyed a large group of people, and asked them what portion of their earnings they would voluntarily donate to fund the government; then worked out what the US budget would be based on those figures.

 

The results were interesting because it left most of the essential portions of the budget intact. Military would take a big cut. However healthcare and public welfare programs (which account for more than half the budget) would have needed to be slashed; but we're still considered sufficient if the programs would have been used to provide for the most vulnerable. The conclusion reached was that based on voluntary contribution, a system like that in the US could function, albeit in a significantly reduced form.

 

It would be interesting to see, if people had their way, if what people will willingly give would be enough to support a socialist society.

There is no question that when surveyed on issues rather than party politics, the US population is way more socially liberal and way to the "left" on the economy compared to their rulers in Washington and on Wall St.

 

However, I still don't think a tax system based on voluntary contributions would work, especially in a large society, where the individual cannot directly observe the effect of his contribution or lack thereof.

 

Unlike what socialists are often accused of, I don't believe that people are fundamentally "good", nor will I blindly trust them to do the right thing. I wish it could work out the way you want, but I just don't see it happening in a world of finite ressources.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Finkeren

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I'm just theorizing. I can actually live with the taxes we pay now. I just would like more say in where they go.

 

For example: Let me (on a voluntary basis, because many don't care) allocate 50% of what I pay (by percentage) to those programs and functions I support. Let the government allocate the remaining 50% according to their need. Use this to determine how money will be spent in the following year.

 

Let the budget for the following year be determined more organically, according to the wishes of those who are paying for it.

Edited April 3, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

We actually have that option here, can determine where 1 % of our income tax is going - it can be given to any organization or foundation. It's a great way to support them and comes with little effort since a person only has to give details of such foundation in his/her tax declaration. 

[Finkeren]

I'm just theorizing. I can actually live with the taxes we pay now. I just would like more say in where they go.

 

For example: Let me (on a voluntary basis, because many don't care) allocate 50% of what I pay (by percentage) to those programs and functions I support. Let the government allocate the remaining 50% according to their need. Use this to determine how money will be spent in the following year.

 

Let the budget for the following year be determined more organically, according to the wishes of those who are paying for it.

 

See, under the right circumstances, I could probably see something this working. I see no reason, why it couldn't work in a socialist society either. IMHO a socialist society needs to have a high degree of direct democratic participation to function, which is also the main reason why most (all?) socialist states have failed so far. 

[Finkeren]

Furthermore you seem to think that the states we are blessed to live in just are. Quite the contrary. My country just 500 years ago was utterly unused and unrealized land, largely empty by modern standards, and inhabited by primitives who were at least 7,000 years behind the men who ended up conquering them. My ancestors worked very, very hard to first take this land from said primitives, then develop it into the massive industrial and military powerhouse it is today. Within this context Ive worked very, very hard to bring myself up from poverty to the middle class. By the sweat of my brow and literally bleeding for it I have made a comfortable life for my family so that my children will be able to advance further than I can. That is how people and nations develop and thrive.

 

This I feel I have to respond to. In interest of keeping the discussion civil, I will keep it short: In my opinion, there is no moral justification for driving out and murdering indigenous people and taking over their land, no matter how "primitive" you perceive them to be. This has happened many times and in many places throughout history, and in most cases, we are well beyond the point, where it makes any sense to try to mend the damage done (though in the case of the U.S. I don't think we're at that point yet. Case in point: Standing Rock) but in any case we should never celebrate genocide, ethnic cleansing and enslavement as something to be admired. I don't care how hard someone's ancestors had to work to murder other people and take their land. My thoughts are with the victims, not the perpetrators.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

So I guess Uwe isn't fundamentally opposed to the Idea of "Lebensraumerweiterung" I guess. As long as Americans do it of course. The Germans were so bad when they murdered their way through Russia, built on Slave Labour and Terror. 

 

In other Words then Uwe, the USA are the Third Reich that made it? Wasn't American Democracy more inline with Fascism in that only a very Specific Group of People decided on Policy and Genocide was actively encouraged? 

 

You know the Primitve People (Untermenschen) Excuse was one used to Justify the War Crimes commited?

 

But it's  alright when America does it, because they are the good ones by default. 

 

I'm pretty sure the Germans who would have moved into Russia would  have been very thankful and hard working people as well. That's no excuse for crimes against humanity though. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Europeans didn't do anything the natives wouldn't have done to each other given the same advantages (and honor where it's due, it took the Europeans 400 years! We name our deadliest killing machines after native American tribes in respect of their prowess.). We have accounts of tribal warfare and even annihilation that occured between them even after Europeans arrived and started doing it. Conquest is part of the human condition.

 

Some day it will happen to us, and there will be people who lament it, and others who will glorify it. With both completely missing the point.

 

It's no excuse for what happened; but it's crying over historical spilt milk at this point.

 

It's funny, because I grew up near tribal lands. I went to school with them, we played football together. We barbequed in their back yards. Through all that, I never heard one of them or their family complain about what happened in the past. They had complaints about current policies; but not once did they play the victim or guilt card.

 

I didn't ever see that pulled until I started spending time with white liberals.

Edited April 3, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I was a supporter of Labour for years but there has been a slow but steady swing (globally) in the ideology and agenda of the political left. Their grass roots voters (the working class) have been replaced by minority groups and academia, has been infested with the doctrine of critical theory.

If you don’t conform to the ideals being forced upon you then you are branded a bigot, racist or a Nazi.  
The politically correct agenda is a device to control and shut down any dissent. Anyone who has read 1984 can see frightening parallels with what is happening in the world today.

 

Yuri Bezmenov in 1984

.

 

The waters of politics today have become mudded and on the extremes, the far left and the far right are almost indistinguishable in their action.The only difference is the target group they wish to pour their hatred onto. 

I personally believe that globalism is something everyone should be concerned about regardless of which political view you may hold

 

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
~ Winston Churchill

 

What is cultural marxism? It's complcated but this chap explains it fairly well.

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Retnek]

... economy is ... about understanding human actions, reactions and dilemmas. Free market simply represents the possibility ...

Wishful thinking at it's best, in the lowlands of every-days politics the dogma of a "free market" is unquestioned like a religion and in use without the reservations you make. Yes, market mechanism do work, but just as a solution for some detail problems like goods distribution. There's no reason to transform economic concepts into politically relevant guidelines. Like the religions that western economic mainstream isn't able to deliver concepts to organize a human society.

  There's an experiment running in world wide scale since the break-down of the iron curtain - "capitalism unleashed". We see growing economic imbalance and the worldwide ecological disaster speeding up every year. No need to become a Marxist to admit it, it's evident. There's a disastrous failure of those praised "market mechanisms", they don't serve us, there's not enough checks and balance. The last 25 years gave us an experimental proof those blown up market mechanisms don't work for human societies. It's fine to keep some elements of the market religion in mind, but we still have to search.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

The dogma of a free market is so unquestioned, yet markets are heavily regulated. The criticism of capitalism in this or that form is part of every mainstream party policy in Europe. Listen to EU Parliament sessions and their way of thinking, the overwhelming bureaucracy that is coming from EU institutions along with my country bureaucrats leaves little of that free market to be free.

Besides, why do we need a concept how to organize a human society ? Society is a living organism and its organizing itself, methods employed to organize societies the other way failed.

 

There is no such experiment, believing that is a nonsense. There was no unleashed capitalism, most of the eastern European countries, formerly communist or socialist, went though various forms of transformation to a semi-capitalist system with big government and high levels of regulation. Polish transformation, despite numerous critics, was one of the better ones with peaceful transition of power and rapid economic growth. The way countries like Romania or Ukraine approached the topic gave them different results, but its hardly "unleashed capitalism" or a shock therapy as a certain left wing celebrity calls it. 

 

You see a growing imbalance but do you really see that extremes ? For my grand grand father it was a bigger thing to get a house in the outskirts of Warsaw from his military pension before the war. After the war we "enjoyed" socialism with some elements of communism which made everyone equal in poverty, except for the party members of course. The change of the system in 1989 and "opening" of the economy created a huge opportunities that my parents could never dream about when they were young. By their hard work in this free market I am where I am and can build on that. There is more than necessary regulations existing already and it's their failure along with poor government policies that led to major crisis in eurozone in last decade. But hey, its easy to blame others, markets and evil capitalists for all faults of the world.   

 

Sidenote : Neither were native Americans primitive nor was that land empty ->

Edited April 3, 2017 by =LD=Hiromachi

[Wulf]

Capitalism, like democracy, isn't perfect; I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise but it's certainly the best system currently available.  If you disagree, name another system, any other system, that has taken more people out of poverty than capitalism.  Fact is you can't because no such system exists.  Look at China and India today as examples.  Millions of people lifted out of grinding poverty by the opportunities afforded by capitalism.  Try telling those people who now have real jobs, and therefore hope, that they would be better off going back to the ignorance and servitude of their pre-capitalist existence and see what sort of reaction you get. 

 

Where capitalism fails it is largely because of 'government intervention'.  The recent GFC is a classic example.  People tend to blame the 1 percent, the greedy banks and a lack of government regulation for the disaster but in reality it was the exact opposite.  The banks were required, by regulation, to extend mortgages to people who were incapable of servicing their debts.   Because of the resulting spike in demand for property the real estate market boomed and valves skyrocketed until of course the chickens all came home to roost and the market collapsed as people, who for the most part had no home equity at all, just walked away from their mortgage commitments.  In a purely capitalist world the crisis would never have arise, because the sub-prime market would not have become established in the first place, and if it had, it would have resulted in a quick market correction.  That of course wasn't allowed to happen in 2008.  Governments intervened once again and banks and businesses that should have paid the price for their malinvestments were deemed 'to big to fail' and 'saved'.  The US government (and the european central banks) then decided to smooth out any harmful market corrects arising from the GFC by money printing and borrowing, which has now resulted in a bubble in the US share market as banks and corporations inflate the value of their own stock by buy-back schemes funded with phoney money from the Federal Reserve and central banks.   The US national debt is now in the order of $20 trillion.  In the space of about 25 years the US has gone from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation.  This state of affairs can only stay afloat as long as interest rates remain at record lows but of course this has a disastrous distortionary impact on the rest of the economy.    What happens when all this comes crashing down God alone knows but what is clear is that the people at the bottom, the people who rely on government support to survive will largely have to be abandoned and left to their own devices.   That's how bad things will become.  And that misery will be a product of government intervention, not capitalism.

 

Government involvement in an economy is in most instances a bad thing.  Minimum wage regulations are another prime example.  In the interests of equity and fairness governments arbitrarily set minimum wages even though in many cases in doing so they over-price the value of the labour.  The result, unemployment.  People who may once have been able to get a starter job now find themselves unemployable and what is more, employers are then forced to look seriously at automation of the workplace in order to limit their exposure to government induced insolvency.

 

If you want real global prosperity you need to get governments out of the economy and allow market forces to work effectively. That's not a popular position to take in this day and age but it's the truth.  In the not too distant future we are going to find out the true cost of recent government intervention in the US and European markets and for many it's going to be a shocking financial cataclysm.  

Edited April 3, 2017 by Wulf

[Nocke]

So I guess Uwe isn't fundamentally opposed to the Idea of "Lebensraumerweiterung" I guess. As long as Americans do it of course. The Germans were so bad when they murdered their way through Russia, built on Slave Labour and Terror.    In other Words then Uwe, the USA are the Third Reich that made it? Wasn't American Democracy more inline with Fascism in that only a very Specific Group of People decided on Policy and Genocide was actively encouraged?    You know the Primitve People (Untermenschen) Excuse was one used to Justify the War Crimes commited?   But it's  alright when America does it, because they are the good ones by default.    I'm pretty sure the Germans who would have moved into Russia would  have been very thankful and hard working people as well. That's no excuse for crimes against humanity though. 

 

 

Klaus, 

 

For me the idea of this thread was to see if it could be possible to have a civil discussion with people of absolutely different opinions and ways of thinking. I have to admit that Uwe´s post struck me as well, I have actually spend the last 2 days thinking if, and if so, how to respond to that. I do think now that this experiment here only makes sense, if we all sincerely, and absolutely, respect each other. What ever anybody says, and however cruel or stupid that may sound to someone else. Just assume everybody is sincerely believing what he is saying, and combine that with the idea that everybody of us has, due to his personal situation and development, perfect reasons to think how he thinks - otherwise he wouldnt thinkso, right? Just sometimes we have been socialized in so different ways, that we apparently cant understand each other any more. Nevertheless, we should not judge or assess anything beeing said. Just try to understand, and argue.

I think your way of answering is a little over the edge for that purpose. You are e.g. using ad hominem arguments, which you critized somewhere above yourself, saying things like "its alright when America does it".

Sorry if I sound perhaps like a censor, or paternalizing, or whatever, but please dont drive Uwe away from this. As the apparently politically most opposite guy to me here, I, personally, would really like to have him staying here, and to see if we can somehow come to terms.

 

Or, in other words, even if Josef Stalin, Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler appeared here making a contribution, I would like to be strong enough to take, whatever they say, as their personal belief, which they have accquired or come to for some reason, and to answer respectfully.

(and no, Uwe, I do not want to compare you to them, just in case ...)

 

There have been so many great posts and thoughts here in the meantime, that I would like to try to generalize a little, at least after having been away just 2 days, there is so much new stuff that I (or anybody) cant find a way to refer and react to everything.

 

I propose the following hypothesis for discussion, in an attempt to not get lost in thousands of arguments above this and the other „detail“:

 

What really separates us (pardon the simplification, anybody) left- and rightwingers, is our fundamental idea of what a human beeing is. We could refer to them, in terms of our beloved sim, as the red and the blue (without wanting to imply anything about anybody flying a given side, of course!). I did not work this out beforehand, I am thinking while writing, maybe it trivial, dunno, just going ahead now, and please correct me!

 

Blue:

 

Believe in that everybody is the master of his own fate. People are, as they are, psychologically or in their personal structure, because they made themselves to be like that using a strong will. They, or some of them, also believe in important genetically determined differences, which can not be overcome.

They also believe thats it is important to build small groups, for a stronger mutual support, therefore a high valueing of smaller entities like family, region, or nation.

And, of course, this leads to a strong support for capitalism. The idea that hard work needs to be rewarded, that stupid and lazy people need to be punished, somehow, because its their own fault. There is also the fundamental belief that life is fighting, and that this is only justly reproduced in a competitive society.

I cannot say too much more, because I am a „red“ one, and will probably know more to write about them, so please some „blue“ can fill up the list, or correct it?

 

Red:

 

Believe that everybody is basically equal at birth, but then, by education, culture, generally surroundings driven or programmed into becoming what one is later, when grown up. That also means if somebody screws it up, society is to blame, not that person. Of course I can only talk from my personal inner view, and assume we are somehow all the same, inside. So, from her, inside of me, it looks like this: I was born into a world where I did not understand anything. As a baby or child, I simply copied all I saw around, something I have really strongly also observed with my own 2, now grown up, children: In the beginning, they just look and observe, they see their parents, think „ahaaaa... so that is how human beeings are“ .... and copy you. Later then, if lucky, we develop a little self consciousness, get aware of some of our programs, and perhaps, sometimes, even manage to re-program a tiny little aspect of our behaviour. Another important factor determining ourbehaviour and thinking is, of course social pressure. We are afraid of beeing alone. and quickly adopt ourselves to the dominant rules of the society we have been born into by chance, this has been proven by many, many sociological experiments.

 

 

Just a proposal. There are crossovers as well. But I have the feeling from these two positions you can easily derive the general preference of an individual for „left“ or „right“ in politics.

 

(edited for orthograpy..)

 

...l. and another edit: that red and blue labeling was probably a bad idea. Take it as a failed joke, please ...

Edited April 3, 2017 by 216th_Nocke

[Retnek]

...

Where capitalism fails it is largely because of 'government intervention'.

...

 

 

Come on, that's an excuse, 30 years ago those evil commies were the last block on the road to enterprisers paradise, now there's still some government intervention? Any excuse will not become true by repeating it. During the lifetime of the last generation there have been dozens of different setups to "develope unprogressive economies". Not a single one was successful, the experiments failed. The more market-radical the setup was, the more fatal it ended for the people. The common people had to endure being subject of an experiment burning their wealth, while those high-priests of capitalism were protected by their professorships and deficit guarantees.

 

Some lessons are learned now, even the "World bank" admits their own enforcement of "pure capitalism" during the 1990 has been a disaster. IMHO there is no longer any need to argue: capitalism, it's praised market mechanisms and all the stuff constructed around it like "Compassionate conservatism" failed. That stuff was disproved theoretically since Marx and by experiment during the last 25 years. We have have to stop that nonsense now. Nearly 50% of the US voters, living in the motherland of capitalism, are that desperate they voted for THAT president. This man in that position is the final proof for the malfunction of capitalism!

Edited April 3, 2017 by 216th_Retnek

[Nocke]

Conquest is part of the human condition.

 

I doubt that. Only in times of trouble. People started leaving europe  to conquer the world, because the situation here was really bad. The forrests had been cut down, no fishes in the rivers anymore, population exploding. 

Happy people dont go abroad to unknow places to fight there for a new living.

Give people material security, and they are all friendly and staying home, except for some tourism, perhaps.

 

edit: again orthography, need to learn typing ...

Edited April 3, 2017 by 216th_Nocke

[Holtzauge]

Klaus, 

 

For me the idea of this thread was to see if it could be possible to have a civil discussion with people of absolutely different opinions and ways of thinking. I have to admit that Uwe´s post struck me as well, I have actually spend the last 2 days thinking if, and if so, how to respond to that. I do think now that this experiment here only makes sense, if we all sincerely, and absolutely, respect each other. What ever anybody says, and however cruel or stupid that may sound to someone else. Just assume everybody is sincerely believing what he is saying, and combine that with the idea that everybody of us has, due to his personal situation and development, perfect reasons to think how he thinks - otherwise he wouldnt thinkso, right? Just sometimes we have been socialized in so different ways, that we apparently cant understand each other any more. Nevertheless, we should not judge or assess anything beeing said. Just try to understand, and argue.

I think your way of answering is a little over the edge for that purpose. You are e.g. using ad hominem arguments, which you critized somewhere above yourself, saying things like "its alright when America does it".

Sorry if I sound perhaps like a censor, or paternalizing, or whatever, but please dont drive Uwe away from this. As the apparently politically most opposite guy to me here, I, personally, would really like to have him staying here, and to see if we can somehow come to terms.

 

Or, in other words, even if Josef Stalin, Osama Bin Laden or Adolf Hitler appeared here making a contribution, I would like to be strong enough to take, whatever they say, as their personal belief, which they have accquired or come to for some reason, and to answer respectfully.

(and no, Uwe, I do not want to compare you to them, just in case ...)

 

There have been so many great posts and thoughts here in the meantime, that I would like to try to generalize a little, at least after having been away just 2 days, there is so much new stuff that I (or anybody) cant find a way to refer and react to everything.

 

I propose the following hypothesis for discussion, in an attempt to not get lost in thousands of arguments above this and the other „detail“:

 

What really separates us (pardon the simplification, anybody) left- and rightwingers, is our fundamental idea of what a human beeing is. We could refer to them, in terms of our beloved sim, as the red and the blue (without wanting to imply anything about anybody flying a given side, of course!). I did not work this out beforehand, I am thinking while writing, maybe it trivial, dunno, just going ahead now, and please correct me!

 

Blue:

 

Believe in that everybody is the master of his own fate. People are, as they are, psychologically or in their personal structure, because they made themselves to be like that using a strong will. They, or some of them, also believe in important genetically determined differences, which can not be overcome.

They also believe thats it is important to build small groups, for a stronger mutual support, therefore a high valueing of smaller entities like family, region, or nation.

And, of course, this leads to a strong support for capitalism. The idea that hard work needs to be rewarded, that stupid and lazy people need to be punished, somehow, because its their own fault. There is also the fundamental belief that life is fighting, and that this is only justly reproduced in a competitive society.

I cannot say too much more, because I am a „red“ one, and will probably know more to write about them, so please some „blue“ can fill up the list, or correct it?

 

Red:

 

Believe that everybody is basically equal at birth, but then, by education, culture, generally surroundings driven or programmed into becoming what one is later, when grown up. That also means if somebody screws it up, society is to blame, not that person. Of course I can only talk from my personal inner view, and assume we are somehow all the same, inside. So, from her, inside of me, it looks like this: I was born into a world where I did not understand anything. As a baby or child, I simply copied all I saw around, something I have really strongly also observed with my own 2, now grown up, children: In the beginning, they just look and observe, they see their parents, think „ahaaaa... so that is how human beeings are“ .... and copy you. Later then, if lucky, we develop a little self consciousness, get aware of some of our programs, and perhaps, sometimes, even manage to re-program a tiny little aspect of our behaviour. Another important factor determining ourbehaviour and thinking is, of course social pressure. We are afraid of beeing alone. and quickly adopt ourselves to the dominant rules of the society we have been born into by chance, this has been proven by many, many sociological experiments.

 

 

Just a proposal. There are crossovers as well. But I have the feeling from these two positions you can easily derive the general preference of an individual for „left“ or „right“ in politics.

 

(edited for orthograpy..)

 

...l. and another edit: that red and blue labeling was probably a bad idea. Take it as a failed joke, please ...

 

Sure, one can see the "Blue" and “Red” description above as a joke but in truth it does set the finger on an important aspect of the 20^th century:

 

It’s interesting in that the "Red" way of viewing the world has dominated much of the 20th century and social engineering by "politically correct" left leaning liberals has been in vogue and really smothered any other ideas than the one the we all come as a blank slates primed to be good citizens just as long as we get the right “software” via our environment. That the “hardware” you run this software on has any impact on the end result was just brushed away as conservative narrowmindedness.

 

When it comes to us being blank slates or not, you can form your own opinion watching this IMHO really good TED talk by Harvard Professor Steven Pinker who wrote a book titled just that: The blank slate. Highly recommended.

[Nocke]

@Uwe, answering your long post answering my long post:

 

In a way, I think I have layed out what I think is the base of our very different views at the world in my above post about fundamentally different views regarding humans, but I still would like to answer in some detail to your post.

 

Here we go. Yes, you are right, its hard

 

There are several ideas I do not share at all. One possible summarization is that you seem to be making a big difference between „us“ and „them“, or generally seem to be seeing mankind as a bunch of groups constantly fighting each other for resources and power. You also seem to be seeing this as „natural“. You also claim (I think) that this fighting actually has advanced us as a whole, somehow liberating the energies that were necessary to drive progress.

I have a different view on this. Repeating myself, but I believe that people only fight, when they are in trouble. About the historical progress you see: It depends perhaps on the time scale you are looking at.T here is also the (to me convinving) idea, that human life before the bronze age actually was rather pleasant. There where not so many people that they had to fight for resources, they where so few they could select to live in the „good“ places, where they actually could get along with just a few hours of work (hunting, collecting) a day. Since the begin of development of technology, we are obviously in trouble, those times are over, and the power of technology was not enough to feed everybody, but good enough to enable some serious fighting all around the planet. But nothing is forever - we might get to that star trek world, and I would bet people would turn out to be something completely different from what they seem to be now.

There is also this interesting story about chimpanzees and bonobos, which I like very much. Apparently, these two groups have developed from common ancestors, which have been separated around 1.5 million years ago, when the Kongo river formed. To the north developed a rather arid zone, where it was more difficult to survive, while south of the river a rain forest with ample food for everybody persisted. The apes north to the river developed into very the hierarchical, aggressive chimpanzees, who even fight wars and hunt other apes, while in the south you got these peaceful bonobos, arranging their social problems with a lot of sex, and living generally a very harmonic and peaceful life...

So, I believe, there is no such thing as a „natural“ human behaviour, and everything can change, as well.

 

One more point I would pick out of what you wrote: You say redistribution is theft, because one has to take away from those who have, to give to those who not have. But - isnt it more than obvious that nobody has what he has only from his own work? If we all had to work alone we would have nothing. We all and absolutely depend (at least if we want to maintain this lifestyle..) on a common infrastructure. We have perhaps inherited some stuff. We share stuff with our family. Communism is just about extending the idea of who is your family a little further, perhaps.

And about letting hope reign, not fatalism.

[Nocke]

@holtzauge:

Twin studies are difficult terrain.

In exchange to Mr. Pinker I could throw this at you:

 

The Gene Illusion^[1] is a 2003 book by clinical psychologist Jay Joseph,^[2] in which Joseph challenges the evidence underlying genetic theories in psychiatry and psychology. Focusing primarily on twin and adoption studies, he attempts to debunk the methodologies used to establish genetic contributions to schizophrenia, criminal behaviour, and IQ. In the nature and nurture debate on the causes of mental disorders, Joseph's criticisms of genetic research in psychiatry have found their place among those who argue that the environment is overwhelmingly the cause of these disorders, particularly with psychiatry critic Jonathan Leo,^[3][4] and with Oliver James.^[5][6][7] Some of the conclusions of The Gene Illusion have been criticized in book reviews by spinal surgeon Daniel Hanson, M.D., and psychologist F.M. Spinath.^[8][9]

 

 

Personally, I dont feel like REALLY reading their books and studies with an open mind, I dont have the time and the necessary statistical background.

I watched the video you linked with Mr. Pinker, but, sincerely, to me that looked like some interesting color pictures in the beginning, followed by a long part of just ridiculizing other peoples reaction to his work.

I dont know. But those colorful brain pictures just show there are correlations in the brain structures of twins, and more so in the brain structures of monozygotic twins. So what?

I would not claim we are blank slates. O course there are inherited things, also determining an unknown part of the structure of our brain. But the open question is how far do this things affect "high level" parts of our personality?

My impression, from observation, also is that we are beeing programmed rather radically much earlier as we tend to think, in the first or second year of our life, perhaps the basical structure of our mindset and character is already set. Theses Minnesota twin studies, if I remember correctly (please correct me), are based on twins separated at age 11 or earlier.

 

 

In any case, the governing doctrine in science in this aspect just seems to be changing every 20 years. I do not really care.

 

From a practical point of view, I indeed prefer to believe that nobody is born as a psychopath, and that that would mean there is nothing to be done for him anymore. And its basically just about that.

 

.... edited for typos, once again ..

Edited April 3, 2017 by 216th_Nocke

[Holtzauge]

<snip>I have a different view on this. Repeating myself, but I believe that people only fight, when they are in trouble. About the historical progress you see: It depends perhaps on the time scale you are looking at.T here is also the (to me convinving) idea, that human life before the bronze age actually was rather pleasant. There where not so many people that they had to fight for resources, they where so few they could select to live in the „good“ places, where they actually could get along with just a few hours of work (hunting, collecting) a day. Since the begin of development of technology, we are obviously in trouble, those times are over, and the power of technology was not enough to feed everybody, but good enough to enable some serious fighting all around the planet. But nothing is forever - we might get to that star trek world, and I would bet people would turn out to be something completely different from what they seem to be now.<snip>

 

Funnily enough just this subject: "the noble savage" myth and the history of violence is also something Steven Pinker has also both written a book about and done another TED talk about. Brief synopsis: Scientific evidence would have us believe the opposite: Life was hard and brutal in hunter-gatherer societies and males ran a very high risk of meeting a violent end which apparently is still evident in the few tribes outside civilization that still exist today. Also, despite what the news would have us believe, we have less violence today thanks to civilization not more.

[Nocke]

I just dug out another counter quotation to your Steven Pinker - but that doesn't really make sense, does it? Just throws a light on how we all tend to believe what fits us, and to read what reassures our already fixed opinion. Need to think about a different approach to this

[coconut]

On the subject of genes and predisposition for crime: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212

 

 

A genetic analysis of almost 900 offenders in Finland has revealed two genes associated with violent crime.

Those with the genes were 13 times more likely to have a history of repeated violent behaviour.

The authors of the study, published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry, said at least 5-10% of all violent crime in Finland could be attributed to individuals with these genotypes.

But they stressed the genes could not be used to screen criminals.

Many more genes may be involved in violent behaviour and environmental factors are also known to have a fundamental role.

Even if an individual has a "high-risk combination" of these genes the majority will never commit a crime, the lead author of the work Jari Tiihonen of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden said.