Professor Massimo Pigliucci is a brilliant mind, and I know of no one who combats Creationists better than him. I have the privilege to have him as a "friend" on Facebook, and although I admire him very much, I disagree with his political views. Recently he wrote a blog where he "endorsed" Michael Moores new film "Capitalism: A Love story", and in the piece, attacked (for lack of a better word) Capitalism. I questioned this, and the following debate took place (I am Aarya Amir Shayan):
Aarya Amir Shayan
I have the outmost respect for you, Prof. Pigliucci , as a scientist, and a debater, especially when confronting Creationists. But as a political analyst? I would suggest that you check the facts and see what the same model of Capitalism you and Michael Mooron attack, has actually done to countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Mauritius etc. Or have a... Read More look at the poverty rate in the world and how it has been declining thanks to that system. Apply the same scientific method you use in biology to this subject. Read Johan Norbergs book "In defense of Global Capitalism" and see who makes a better case. In fact, I am willing to challenge ANY person on the planet who claims to have any arguments left (double meaning there) for any other system than Capitalism (and then I´m talking about FREE, UNREGULATED CAPITALISM) after they´ve read that book. It might sound as idolatry or fundamentalism on my part, but it´s only based on EMPIRICAL FACTS. I am even willing to buy you a copy of it if you´re interested? And for tax not being stealing... If one is voluntarily giving it away, then it is not stealing. If one is being forced to give their money away, then it is. Slavery on the other hand is when a person is owned by another person. Very dishonest analogy, and extremely incorrect.
XXXX
I don't remember Mr. Pigliucci dismissing P&T for their political beliefs so much as for ignoring things which go against them on Bullshit which presents itself as being not coming from one political point of view. Moore, on the other hand, is apologetically coming from a liberal viewpoint and makes no bones about it. I respect Moore more than P&... Read MoreT because he's honest about where he is coming from and makes no claims about being balanced. The fact that many on the left join in gleefully with the right in bashing Moore says an awful lot about why the left seems incapable of governing effectively any more.
Aarya Amir Shayan
Mr. Jones, are you joking? Seriously???
Watch the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olj-sGfHZlk&feature=channel, from 07:57. Unfortunately, the video coming straight after this has been deleted from youtube, but Penn actually goes on to elaborate what the difference between the two are, and I would´ve thought that anyone with half a brain would be able to see the difference.
XXXX
You know Aarya, there is a reason that the Libertarian party gets about 5% of the vote in the US. We tried that form of government in the late 1800s and we really didn't like what we had. I've read Norbergs book and it, like most Libertarian thought, requires the same thing Communism requires to be a workable, real world system. It requires a ... Read Morefundamental change in the way human beings think and interact with each other. Like Communism, it's a pipe dream which has no basis in the real world. Norbergs world might be something worthy of working towards, but until humanity has changed the way it deals with each other it is simply untenable.
I prefer to deal with problems in a way that is actually possible to pull off. Of course, since I have read the book and didn't fall down in adoration for the writer and concept I might not be "full brained" enough for you.
Aarya Amir Shayan
Well Mr. Jones, thank you for your reply. I am going to go for two options here, and I am going to be brutally honest in expressing them. I apologize in advance if you feel that I insult you, it is not my intention. Option 1: You haven... Read More´t read the book at all, and you´re fabricating the fact that you have. Option 2, which I believe to be more likely: You have read the book, but you haven´t understood a single word of it. Something to to work towards? Something to aspire? Norbergs book doesn´t talk about any of the above in their singularity, he shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, through scientific, methodological, empirical data, from the most authoritative sources available that: WHEREVER CAPITALISM AND FREE MARKETS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FLOURISH, THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY AND PHENOMENALLY POSITIVE. What exactly are you talking about, sir, when you say "I prefer to deal with problems in a way that is actually possible to pull off."??? Do you mean that the unimaginable progress of Mauritius, India, Taiwan, Botswana, Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia (I could go on), which are unprecedented in the history of our species, have worked in theory but not in practice??? How much proof do you need that this system HAS WORKED AND IS WORKING AS WE SPEAK??? If you´ve read the book and still disagree, YOU have two options: 1. Prove that the claims are wrong, or 2. Admit that you are a fundamentalist who refuse to accept empirical evidence. Your move.
YYYY
Mr Jones (I like how that sounds) a few weeks ago Mr. Pigliucci rightly corrected me for using P&T as a source on organic foods. I knew that then, but Moore is even worse as a course to cite, and does far more to damage a liberal cause than some extremists think. Just remember how Al Gore's exaggerations were used as a target in An Inconvenient ... Read MoreTruth, and extrapolate that. Only, even only a small percentage of the left wing is willing to take Moore seriously, after all his lies and self-aggrandizing.
ZZZZ
I wonder about the premise that more regulations and regulators will mean less greed and less corruption.
I agree with the above comments suggesting Michael Moore should present the track record of worldwide capitalism lifting people out of poverty.
What keeps him from offering paradoxical or conflicting information? The demands of his narrative, or anecdotal, style? His ambition as a revolutionary? ... Read More
I think he's in the Oliver Stone camp. He's given up on the search for truth. Viewing the world as a conflict among myths. Asserting himself, like Stone, as a mythmaker.
Aarya Amir Shayan
And, dear Peter, they both do awful films! I mean, did anyone see "W"??? Has to be the worst political film ever made.
Massimo Pigliucci
Aarya, didn't anyone teach you that CAPITALIZES SENTENCES ON A POST ARE IMPOLITE? I find the rest of your writing to be a combination of ad hominem attacks (a logical fallacy) and an extremely simplistic view of the world (I mean, you really think that the truth of any political system can be 'proven scientifically?' c'mon).
Aarya Amir Shayan
Prof. Pigliucci, please point out where my argumentum ad hominem occurs, and I will apologize and clarify immediately. I do apologize if I have done anything of the sort, I am replying as I go, so if it has occurred, I assure everyone that it is an unfortunate mistake. And as for capitalizes sentences... Well, I did not mean to be impolite, just to stress the point.
Now to your argument about "Truth of political systems". I do not believe I have mentioned or implied anything of the sort. If I have, you are absolutely correct, I am wrong in doing so. What I did try to communicate is the following:
All empirical data available suggests that Free Market Capitalism is the most altruistic system known to man, the most effective system to combat poverty, oppression, lack of freedom etc. Wherever this system has been applied, it has produced these results. Is it perfect? No, and I don´t know of anyone who would claim it to be. And as for the social-democrats you mention in your blog. Well, I grew up in Sweden, the most social-democratic state in the world, and it is not a coincidence that the Social Democrats lost the last election, and seem to be loosing the upcoming one. And this is the case around Europe, people are more and more turning away from the leftist parties, in favor for other parties. Of course, the reasons for some of these, as in Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Austria, just to mention a few, are at times more xenophobic than economical, but this certainly wasn´t the case in Sweden. ... Read More... Read More
Also, I intentionally use the word "system" as oppose to "ideology", because that is what Capitalism in fact is. It is an economical system, the best one we have. And the less regulated it is, the better it is. Again, I would recommend Johan Norbergs book "In defense of Global Capitalism", where he shows clearly how Capitalism has been the system that has helped hundreds of millions of people to escape poverty, to achieve liberty, to acquire wealth and so forth. And I am more than willing to admit that I am wrong if any empirical data proves me so. I also recommend this documentary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5633239795464137680&ei=HjA5SpnzLYKl-Aas6vD6Bg&q=johan+norberg#
Thank you for your reply, prof. Pigliucci, it is an honor I cherish more than I can express.
Massimo Pigliucci
Aarya, when you accuse someone of either being stupid or a lier (as you implicitly did to Jones), that's ad hominem.
As for the empirical data, they show that capitalism in a broad sense works from an economic perspective. They do not show that unbridled capitalism is best for society at all. Indeed, the higher standards of living and social ... Read Morecontentedness tend to be seen in European, especially Scandinavian, countries, which have precisely the sort of controlled capitalism that I (and Moore) advocate.
ZZZZ
Government regulation of the economy produces high standards of living and social contentedness?
I thought the relative satisfaction of Northern Europeans was due to wealth, low unemployment, homogeneous populations, low expectations psychologically, family and social structures, and plentiful alcohol.
Send URL's supporting your government intervention thesis.
Massimo Pigliucci
So you think the fact that European countries have those characteristics has nothing to do with the kind of society, and government, they have? Really??
ZZZZ
No, I wouldn't hide behind that unprovable negative. It's possible that some kind of controlled capitalism is particularly compatible with a good life, a sense of satisfaction. I just don't think the point is proved yet at all. China will be an interesting case study in the coming years.
I wonder why Michael Moore chose Japan and Germany for his dramatic conclusion, and not Denmark. The FDR narrative demanded it, I think. Meanwhile, most informed people know that economic intervention by the Japanese government condemned its citizens to decades of a very low standard of living. And why doesn't Germany ever appear on those "Happiest People" lists?
And maybe Scandinavia has an ideal system dependent on an ally and unbridled capitalist trading partner, the United States, who, among other things, has paid for its defense?... Read More
Complicated. I'm not saying you're wrong.
I suspect you know more than me about the science of complex systems. Aren't top-down solutions full of unintended consequences, and therefore a bad idea? Aren't stable improvements initiated from the ground up?
Aarya Amir Shayan
Prof. Pigliuicci, I´ve always admired your venomous replies when debating Creationists, but I never thought I would be the subject of the same rhetoric!
Now to your points. Have you ever actually lived in Scandinavia, or are you assuming the standard of living is higher because of some report or such? I am asking honestly, not in anyway disrespecting you.
I have lived in Sweden for 18 years, and also lived in Norway for 2 years, so I hope you will grant me some authority in the matter. In Sweden, the Social Democrats were voted out of office in the last election, as I am sure you are aware. In Sweden, people have to wait for up to six months for a simple toe X-Ray. In Sweden, many people die every year whilst waiting to get medical treatment, either in the emergency rooms or whilst in line. In Sweden, the increasing rate of students failing basic education is at an all time high. In Sweden, teachers, doctors and scientists are fleeing the country because they feel they are not rewarded for their efforts. But I guess the grass is always greener on the other side.
Creationists seem to believe that if they manage to find a fault or a flaw within the Theory of Evolution, they win by default, and at times I feel the same way with the left. I certainly do not propagate the American Model of Capitalism, but it certainly doesn´t mean that because that has failed (which it, undoubtedly has), the social democratic movement wins by default.
A question I personally believe we need to address here is from which point of view we are discussing Capitalism. From a philosophical point of view? Moral one? Pragmatically? Practically?
I have always admired the Lefts outspokenness on fighting poverty, but their efforts have always been inadequate. When you say: "They do not show that unbridled capitalism is best for society at all. Indeed, the higher standards of living and social contentedness...", I am forced to ask: Compared to what??? Capitalism has led to the metamorphosis of dozens of countries in the last 30-40 years from being developing countries to becoming industrialized nations, evaporating poverty, injustice, oppression, malnourishment, inequality and providing instead wealth, freedom, democracy and education. These have been achieved in countries in Asia and Africa through the same tenants the left so fiercely oppose! How is this possible??? I stand by my claim that Mr. Jones has not understood a single word of the book in question, because if he had, he would see that the correlation between Capitalism and the massive decline in poverty around the world is undeniable, and unprecedented in the history of human civilization.
As for the ad hominem... I was under the impression that an ad hominem meant that one would disregard an argument, by proposing that the person who makes the argument is bad, or such. Therefore, I believe I am innocent of the accusation, because I have not done anything of the sort.
I could go on for hours, talking about the tele-market in Sweden, before and after it was deregulated. I could speak of what´s happening to SJ (Swedish Railways), when they are loosing their monopoly and how it affects the people positively. The slogan "Power to the people" actually only works in a deregulated market, because the fate of every corporation is then in the hands of the consumers. If we don´t like something about a certain company, we buy from their competitors and they are run out of business. We don´t need a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats to do the job for us. For the interest of our discussion, I will end my post here, and again encourage you to read "In defense of Global Capitalism". It will enrich your life.
Massimo Pigliucci
Aarya et al.,
wow, way too long a discussion for me to reply to every single point. Still, no I don't think one is an authority on a country because he has lived there. Personal anecdotes and opinions are important, but my view of Scandinavian and other European countries is based on surveys of self reported happiness and satisfaction, where they all beat the crap out of the US.
As from the point of view I am attacking unbridled capitalism, it is the moral one, not the pragmatic. If slavery worked, pragmatically speaking, would you be in favor of it?... Read More
Oh, and yes, attacking the character of the opponent in lieu of addressing his arguments *is* an ad hominem fallacy.
Peter, I never said that any country has an ideal system of anything. That's a straw man. But that doesn't mean that the almighty US can't learn a thing or two from other places.
Aarya Amir Shayan
And there we have it... We´re not discussing capitalism here, we´re discussing the US...
I agree with you that I am not an authority, I merely suggested that I *have* some authority in the matter. As for beating the crap out of the US, how about comparing it to, say Taiwan? Or Estonia? Or that real vessel of capitalism, Hong Kong?
And as for the point of view of attacking Capitalism... I am more than willing to discuss it from a moral point of view. Here´s the challenge, if I may: Capitalism has led to the industrialization of dozens of developing countries in the past 30-40 years, bringing wealth, prosperity, increased standard of living, freedom and democracy. Had the left had its way, Taiwan, Ghana, South Korea, India, Mauritius and others would still be in shambles, with a massive rate of absolute poverty. Yet the left always claim to have moral superiority over the right. I can´t see how anyone can morally justify attacking a system that has brought so much goodness to developing countries. Maybe you could be so kind to explain? Explain why India would be better off without Capitalism. Explain why Taiwan should be on the same level as Rwanda in terms of development? Explain why that would be moral.... Read More
This is the reason I defend Capitalism. That it´s the only system that has successfully combated poverty and everything that comes with it. And to claim to have moral high ground when going against this system is an oxymoron.
The US isn´t a good representation of Capitalism at all. I could go on for several hours showing why United States version of Capitalism, which is more like "state capitalism", is as representative of Capitalism as Stalins regime was for Communism. But that´s another debate.
Finally, if that definition of ad hominem stands, I think we are all guilty of it, and it doesn´t even matter. You can label an argument X, but it doesn´t make the argument better or worse because of it. I have heard you several times implying to Kent Hovind or Jonathan Wells that they are either dishonest or they have not understood what they are attacking. I did the same with Mr. Jones.
Again, thank you for taking time for this interesting discussion, I appreciate it very much.
Massimo Pigliucci
Aarya, please re-read my post carefully: I do *not* attack capitalism, I merely suggest that it needs to be kept in check because it carries negative social consequences. For one thing, it is primarily responsible for environmental disasters; and secondly it has put millions of people in the streets in order to enrich a few shareholders. I consider... Read More both immoral.
As for US vs. other countries, again where did I ever say that the US is the worst country in the world? I guarantee you that if that's what I thought I wouldn't be living here. But that doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. Much improvement.
Aarya Amir Shayan
Millions of people in the streets? Can you please tell me how you arrived at this conclusion? In fact, what it has done is that it has *given* homes to *hundreds of millions* of people around the globe. And what has happened when it is "kept in check", as you propose? Well, have a look at the EU regulations for import and export for farmers inside and outside its body, and how this has affected African farmers, and further down the line, the economy in the countries affected.
I am somewhat surprised that you wish to have these regulations. I assume that you know or know of Michael Shermer. I recommend his latest book, "The mind of the market", on how the Market works much like Evolution, in a bottom-up design.
As for the Environmental disasters, again I would humbly suggest that this is incorrect. Which countries are mostly responsible for toxic waste being spread in to the atmosphere, the ones with open markets, or the ones with regulated markets? Across the board. I am more than willing to present you with data clearly proving this, and you can also find it presented in Johan Norbergs brilliant book.... Read More
I never implied that you said that the US is the worst country in the world, and I completely agree with you that there are rooms for improvement. I would on the other hand suggest, although I might be wrong, that the improvements need to lead to more free, unregulated markets, not less.
One problem with these sort of debates is that we compare countries, as oppose to entities and institutions. I might be incorrect, but I believe that the more honest approach would be to compare businesses that deal in a free market to those that function in a regulated market. But then again, I might just be conspicously trying to divert the topics to a path that would benefit my point of view.
Massimo Pigliucci
Aarya, I doubt either one is going to convince the other. Yes, I know Michael and I've read his book. I think he is completely off in terms of both science and morality, and I told him so. That's precisely the problem when skeptics turn libertarian, like Penn & Teller. Oh well.
Aarya Amir Shayan
Prof. Pigliucci, you are a brilliant mind, one I admire and respect beyond what I can express in words. I would never dream of trying to convince you of anything I believe in. I use this platform more to test my knowledge than anything really, and I´m sorry for that.
I don´t really care about about labels such as "Libertarian", or "Social-democrat" or such, because I find them restrictive. But if I had to place myself in any box, it would be that of Libertarianism (propertarian). I believe your blog about Libertarianism has some ad hominems and straw man arguments, and I believe it to be fundamentally incorrect, just as I am sure you believe my convictions are. I became a supporter of Capitalism from having been a devout Socialist, because the data proved me wrong. I am yet to hear a single argument from the Left that I believe is not debunked, unproven or "topped" by arguments in favor of Free Market Capitalism, but if I find any arguments to the contrary, I´ll have no problems in admitting to be wrong and change my point of view.
We can discuss which system is the best system for the rest of our lives and never reach anywhere, but I will always defend the system that has helped millions of people out of poverty in to wealth. And that is my moral stand. That is capitalism.... Read More
Finally, I wish to thank you once more for a very interesting and enriching debate. I find it astonishing to interact with someone I have admired for so long, and to be able to measure my arguments with. Thank you for your time, and I hope this won´t be the last time I have the pleasure.
Yours truly,
Aarya
Friday 9 October 2009
Saturday 3 October 2009
Child Labour and why we shouldn´t condemn it!
About a week ago I went to see a play in London called "An Indecent Incident", which is based on Dostoevskys "A nasty story". Before we, the audience, were summoned in to observe this promenade, I was approached by a beautiful lady who was also attending the play. She offered me a flyer, and being the mammal I am, I showed great interest in her, and did not take too much notice of the manifesto I now held in my hand. Only once she had left to pursue her recruitment, did I notice the message she was trying to convey to me. There, in my hand, was a piece of paper exclaiming with large, bold letters:
"BOYCOTT CHILD LABOR!"
Now, unfortunately I can´t remember the exact content of the flyer, so any attempt to quote it will be incorrect, so I will paraphrase the rest. It encouraged people not to buy product, especially items of clothing and shoes from companies that deal with child labor. It went on to explain the awful conditions of these factories and also asked the reader to take action and put pressure on the British government to stop trading with certain countries where child labor is taking place.
As we went in to watch the brilliantly performed play about a young, naive, upper class man who wishes to connect with those whom he sees lesser than himself (i.e the poor), by preaching the philosophy of kindness, not realizing how condescending he is being in his feeble attempts, I could not help but feel a hint of irony.
Obviously, one can always draw parallels in these situations. My hero, Christopher Hitchens, tells a story about doing a rapport in Czechoslovakia during the fall of the country. He says that before writing his article, he had promised himself that he would not mention Kafka, because it would be the obvious temptation to do so. But he suddenly found himself being arrested one night. When asked the soldier or officer who held a gun against him, what he was being arrested for, what he was being charged with, he was met with the answer:
"We don´t have to tell you!"
So, allow me to draw the parallels. In the beginning of play, Ivan, the self proclaimed protagonist, is having drinks with two fellow civil servants. After a few too many drinks, Ivan starts going on about how the rich should at times lower themselves to help the poor, to treat them more like pets than cattle, if you wish. As he leaves the two gentlemen, he stumbles upon a wedding celebration of one of his subordinates, and sees a golden opportunity to put in to practice what he had preached. He crashes the party, that up until then had been inhabited only by the common men and women. All attention is suddenly on our intoxicated idealist, and he does nothing to redirect it. Actually he revels in it. The man being married, it turns out, is one of Ivans employees, and another employee respectfully confronts Ivan with a letter he had received earlier that forced him and his family into unemployment, due to cutbacks. The letter was from Ivan himself. As the play progresses and culminates, Ivan manages to take over the celebrations completely, and turn it into an awful night for everyone involved, as well as making a complete fool out of himself. Now to the parallel!
I think that the beautiful girl who approached me with the flyer is Ivan. She honestly thinks she is doing a good deed, a morally just action. And she wants others to join her cause. But she won´t be confronted with the employees she so fundamentally wishes to protect. She has merely decided to speak for them, without any of them asking her to, just like our Ivan. If she had, maybe she would have realized that child labor, although never desirable, is at times a necessary evil, and to boycott companies that deal with such would only destroy the lives of the exact same people she wishes to protect.
Child labor occurs today in developing countries, such as Thailand, Pakistan, China and so forth. But it is very easy for us in the affluent world to forget that less than a century ago, OUR factories were full of children, working in appalling conditions, missing the chance to have a childhood, an education or a "normal" life. In France, there was actually a law that forced parents to send their children to work. What happened? Why don´t we see any child labor in Britain, America, France or Germany anymore? Is it because of a law? Is it because people boycotted factories that employed children? Is it because the people put pressure on governments, who in turn put pressure on other governments?
No, it is because we grew out of it. We built an economy, where children were no longer required, or needed, in factories. We built economies where parents suddenly could afford to pay for their children to have an education instead. We built an economy where people no longer needed to steal for living, where we could provide work and education for our citizens, so they no longer felt they needed to fear where the next meal was going to come from. And when I say "We", I am including those children who worked in the primitive factories of the time.
When a nation is entering the phase of Industrialization from having been a Developing country, it is experiencing a metamorphosis unlike any in its entire history. This is the greatest change any country can possibly go through. It is extremely important that we remember, when assessing this issue, that we cannot judge the Third World according to our own way of living.
Children in a poor country do not become workers because their parents are cruel, or because factories force them to, they become workers because they need to survive, because the earnings of their parents isn´t sufficient enough.
We have to realize that families in poor countries do not have the options we have, and if the people who promoted boycotts of these factories had their way, the result would always be worse for the exact same people they claim that they try to protect. A terrifying example of this was in 1992, when it was revealed that Wal-Mart sold garments that were produced by children in Bangladesh. When Congress found out about this, they threatened to prohibit by law any trade with countries where child labor was occurring. As a result of this threat, thousands of children were fired from the factories in Bangladesh, and international studies reveal that most of those children had to move on to more dangerous, less paid jobs, and in many cases prostitution. The same outcome happened in Nepal, when a boycott against the Nepalese carpet industry resulted, according to UNICEF, in more than 5 000 young girls being forced in to prostitution.
Half of the child workers around the world work half time, and they do so to afford their education. If we boycott those factories that provide these opportunities for children in poor countries, we only make a bad problem worse.
An argument often used is that it is oppressive regimes that force children to work, so that they can keep the youth "in check". This might or might not be true, but supposing it is. What almost always happens, across the board, when sanctions and boycotts are implemented against oppressive regimes? Who suffers the most? The dictators? Or the oppressed people? In many cases, sanctions actually weakens the people opposing the oppressive regimes, and it strengthens the dictators, as was the case with Saddam Hussein.
It is important to remember that we all want the same thing: Children not to have to work, to be able to enjoy their childhood, to receive an education. But we have to realize that when we become fanatical about an issue, like the beautiful girl I met at the play, we are often blinded to the complexities of that issue. To be against child labor, should not mean that it can come at any cost. Sometime the solution is the problem itself. If a country can develop an economy where child labor is prohibited, it needs to be able to trade and be allowed to grow. Boycotts would only bring to a halt such a development.
I´ll finish with a quote from Save The Children (Sweden):
"In most cases the Swedish Save the Children says no to boycotts, sanctions, and other trade-related measures against the employment of children. Experience has shown that the children who have to leave their jobs as a consequence of such measures risk finding themselves in more difficult situations and more harmful occupations...
... General assertions that child labor is a good or bad thing serve little purpose... To regard all occupations as equally unacceptable is to simplify a complicated issue and makes it more difficult to concentrate forces against the worst forms of exploitations."
(Faktablad om barnarbete, http://www.rb.se, assessed May 1, 2001)
"BOYCOTT CHILD LABOR!"
Now, unfortunately I can´t remember the exact content of the flyer, so any attempt to quote it will be incorrect, so I will paraphrase the rest. It encouraged people not to buy product, especially items of clothing and shoes from companies that deal with child labor. It went on to explain the awful conditions of these factories and also asked the reader to take action and put pressure on the British government to stop trading with certain countries where child labor is taking place.
As we went in to watch the brilliantly performed play about a young, naive, upper class man who wishes to connect with those whom he sees lesser than himself (i.e the poor), by preaching the philosophy of kindness, not realizing how condescending he is being in his feeble attempts, I could not help but feel a hint of irony.
Obviously, one can always draw parallels in these situations. My hero, Christopher Hitchens, tells a story about doing a rapport in Czechoslovakia during the fall of the country. He says that before writing his article, he had promised himself that he would not mention Kafka, because it would be the obvious temptation to do so. But he suddenly found himself being arrested one night. When asked the soldier or officer who held a gun against him, what he was being arrested for, what he was being charged with, he was met with the answer:
"We don´t have to tell you!"
So, allow me to draw the parallels. In the beginning of play, Ivan, the self proclaimed protagonist, is having drinks with two fellow civil servants. After a few too many drinks, Ivan starts going on about how the rich should at times lower themselves to help the poor, to treat them more like pets than cattle, if you wish. As he leaves the two gentlemen, he stumbles upon a wedding celebration of one of his subordinates, and sees a golden opportunity to put in to practice what he had preached. He crashes the party, that up until then had been inhabited only by the common men and women. All attention is suddenly on our intoxicated idealist, and he does nothing to redirect it. Actually he revels in it. The man being married, it turns out, is one of Ivans employees, and another employee respectfully confronts Ivan with a letter he had received earlier that forced him and his family into unemployment, due to cutbacks. The letter was from Ivan himself. As the play progresses and culminates, Ivan manages to take over the celebrations completely, and turn it into an awful night for everyone involved, as well as making a complete fool out of himself. Now to the parallel!
I think that the beautiful girl who approached me with the flyer is Ivan. She honestly thinks she is doing a good deed, a morally just action. And she wants others to join her cause. But she won´t be confronted with the employees she so fundamentally wishes to protect. She has merely decided to speak for them, without any of them asking her to, just like our Ivan. If she had, maybe she would have realized that child labor, although never desirable, is at times a necessary evil, and to boycott companies that deal with such would only destroy the lives of the exact same people she wishes to protect.
Child labor occurs today in developing countries, such as Thailand, Pakistan, China and so forth. But it is very easy for us in the affluent world to forget that less than a century ago, OUR factories were full of children, working in appalling conditions, missing the chance to have a childhood, an education or a "normal" life. In France, there was actually a law that forced parents to send their children to work. What happened? Why don´t we see any child labor in Britain, America, France or Germany anymore? Is it because of a law? Is it because people boycotted factories that employed children? Is it because the people put pressure on governments, who in turn put pressure on other governments?
No, it is because we grew out of it. We built an economy, where children were no longer required, or needed, in factories. We built economies where parents suddenly could afford to pay for their children to have an education instead. We built an economy where people no longer needed to steal for living, where we could provide work and education for our citizens, so they no longer felt they needed to fear where the next meal was going to come from. And when I say "We", I am including those children who worked in the primitive factories of the time.
When a nation is entering the phase of Industrialization from having been a Developing country, it is experiencing a metamorphosis unlike any in its entire history. This is the greatest change any country can possibly go through. It is extremely important that we remember, when assessing this issue, that we cannot judge the Third World according to our own way of living.
Children in a poor country do not become workers because their parents are cruel, or because factories force them to, they become workers because they need to survive, because the earnings of their parents isn´t sufficient enough.
We have to realize that families in poor countries do not have the options we have, and if the people who promoted boycotts of these factories had their way, the result would always be worse for the exact same people they claim that they try to protect. A terrifying example of this was in 1992, when it was revealed that Wal-Mart sold garments that were produced by children in Bangladesh. When Congress found out about this, they threatened to prohibit by law any trade with countries where child labor was occurring. As a result of this threat, thousands of children were fired from the factories in Bangladesh, and international studies reveal that most of those children had to move on to more dangerous, less paid jobs, and in many cases prostitution. The same outcome happened in Nepal, when a boycott against the Nepalese carpet industry resulted, according to UNICEF, in more than 5 000 young girls being forced in to prostitution.
Half of the child workers around the world work half time, and they do so to afford their education. If we boycott those factories that provide these opportunities for children in poor countries, we only make a bad problem worse.
An argument often used is that it is oppressive regimes that force children to work, so that they can keep the youth "in check". This might or might not be true, but supposing it is. What almost always happens, across the board, when sanctions and boycotts are implemented against oppressive regimes? Who suffers the most? The dictators? Or the oppressed people? In many cases, sanctions actually weakens the people opposing the oppressive regimes, and it strengthens the dictators, as was the case with Saddam Hussein.
It is important to remember that we all want the same thing: Children not to have to work, to be able to enjoy their childhood, to receive an education. But we have to realize that when we become fanatical about an issue, like the beautiful girl I met at the play, we are often blinded to the complexities of that issue. To be against child labor, should not mean that it can come at any cost. Sometime the solution is the problem itself. If a country can develop an economy where child labor is prohibited, it needs to be able to trade and be allowed to grow. Boycotts would only bring to a halt such a development.
I´ll finish with a quote from Save The Children (Sweden):
"In most cases the Swedish Save the Children says no to boycotts, sanctions, and other trade-related measures against the employment of children. Experience has shown that the children who have to leave their jobs as a consequence of such measures risk finding themselves in more difficult situations and more harmful occupations...
... General assertions that child labor is a good or bad thing serve little purpose... To regard all occupations as equally unacceptable is to simplify a complicated issue and makes it more difficult to concentrate forces against the worst forms of exploitations."
(Faktablad om barnarbete, http://www.rb.se, assessed May 1, 2001)
Tuesday 8 September 2009
It's been a long time....
I'm tremendously bad at keeping this blog updated, but I do have a good excuse: I'm lazy! ;)
Truth be told, I haven´t had access to the world wide web recently and that will be the case for the next few weeks ahead. But here's a promise:
When I do come back, I will do so with a bang!
So many things are bothering me at the moment:
* Michael Moore
* Astrology
* Michael Moore
* Organic Food
* Michael Moore
* The perception of capitalism as oppose to real capitalism
* Michael Moore
and so forth. Oh, yeah... AND MICHAEL FUCKING MOORE.
So, trust me. I have enough venom to unleash for a few more blog entries. ;)
Truth be told, I haven´t had access to the world wide web recently and that will be the case for the next few weeks ahead. But here's a promise:
When I do come back, I will do so with a bang!
So many things are bothering me at the moment:
* Michael Moore
* Astrology
* Michael Moore
* Organic Food
* Michael Moore
* The perception of capitalism as oppose to real capitalism
* Michael Moore
and so forth. Oh, yeah... AND MICHAEL FUCKING MOORE.
So, trust me. I have enough venom to unleash for a few more blog entries. ;)
Sunday 16 August 2009
HomeoPATHETIC!
I know, I know, I was supposed to tackle Alternative Medicine in one go, and leave it at that, but I just can´t help myself from attacking the practice of Homeopathy, because it is probably the largest and, if you ask me, the most pathetic of them all. So I thought it deserved, on those credentials, to have a blog dedicated to itself.
So, what is Homeopathy?
Well, it is a system of dosing up on a dilute solution of.... WATER! Yup, you read it correctly, WATER. H2O. Its central tenet, founded in the late 18th century (before science discovered that germs and bacterias cause diseases!) by Samuel Hahneman, is the notion of "Like cures like". What this basically means is that what causes a certain symptom can cure those symptoms. For example, dilute poison ivy can cure skin rash, because undiluted it causes that rash. You might now start to think that I´m caricaturing, oversimplifying or ridiculing, but I assure you that these all are the actual principles of homeopathy! But wait, it gets more bizarre!
According to homeopathy, the more you dilute an active ingredient in water, the stronger it becomes. If you pick up a homeopathic remedy, you´re likely to see "30C" on the bottle. This means one part medicine to a hundred to the power of thirty parts water. Let me write it again, so there are no misunderstandings:
ONE PART MEDICINE TO A HUNDRED TO THE POWER OF THIRTY PARTS WATER.
To give you, my dear reader, an imaginable idea of how much this is, I will put it like this:
In order to get one molecule of the active substance, you need to imbibe ALL THE ATOMS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM!!! Imagine one grain of sand in the Sahara desert, divide it by a billion, and you´re starting to get an idea of what we´re talking about.
Maybe this is why homeopaths themselves acknowledge that there isn´t a single molecule of the active substance in the bottle they sell. So, when you think you´re buying a remedy that contains diluted molecules of, say, onion (for streaming eyes), ask the homeopath if the substance actually has a single molecule of onion in it. If they are honest, they will say that it does not.
But homeopaths aren´t too concerned about this. Because they claim that the remedies work because (and this is absolutely true!) water is supposed to have a memory! So, when you initially start diluting the water with the substance, you´re supposedly changing the structure of the water, and when you´re taking remedies, this "new form of water" (should I pause for you to stop laughing?) provokes your immune system to battle against whatever it is you´re struggling with...
Interestingly enough, there has never, EVER, been a scientific test that shows that water has any such abilities. But let us say it has. Wouldn´t then the water we drink in our daily life be subject to the same procedure? The water we drink every day has been in contact with urine, excrement, poison, blood, billions of different viruses and bacteria. Why aren´t we dropping down dead or, better still, why haven´t we evolved an uncrackable immune system??? Homeopaths claim that the reason why their water works this way is because it is distilled, and almost pure. Well, first of all, you can never get 100% pure water, even if you kept distilling it for twenty years. But that doesn´t make any difference, because the water we drink today has, at one point or another, been very pure.
Homeopathy is not regulated by the government. What this means is that ANYONE can call themselves a homeopath, without any form of education, degree or even insurance, and start prescribing these remedies. One might ask: "Well, what´s the harm? They´re only dashing out water anyway!". Well, the harm of this is that people who might need REAL, SCIENTIFIC medicine will turn to uneducated, self-proclaimed "doctors" and think they are being helped, while their condition worsens, and in the worst possible scenario lead to death. There have been many instances where people who were in need of proper medicine and a proper doctor, turned to a homeopathic charlatan, which resulted in their demise. Simon Singh, the great scientific writer, conducted an experiment where his subjects visited thirty homeopathic shops and asked for a protection for malaria, because they were going to be in a heavily infested area on holiday. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those shops offered a remedy for the protection of malaria.... This is not harmless, this is dangerous, wicked and cruel.
My movement teacher and I had a debate about homeopathy once. She, being a fierce supporter, said something that I never picked up on at the time, but that has stuck with me ever since. She said that when she or any member of her family feels ill, she doesn´t need to visit a doctor anymore, she just goes to her homeopathic book, looks up the symptoms, and finds the cure for it... Think about this for a while... How extremely disrespectful (although unintentionally) this is to our doctors. Doctors, who study day and night for a minimum of 5 years, in what is one of the hardest academical branches there is, and then carry on studying in the hospitals where they work, people who have dedicated their lives to help others, who have sacrificed blood, sweat and tears to deserve one of the most prestigious titles in society today... My movement teacher claims to be on par with these people, because she has a book... One book... She doesn´t need these people anymore... Yet, I was the one being called arrogant after the debate...
This is the other problem with homeopathy. It makes people who are uneducated in the field of medicine believe they can be hobby doctors. People with no understanding of the vertebrate immune system, of the causation of different conditions, of the biology of our organs, the evolution of our specie and how that relates to medicine, think that they can study homeopathy and provide answers...
Homeopathy does not work. You, my dear reader, have surely met at least one, probably many, who swear by homeopathy and its effects, or you might be one yourself. Let me ask you one question: If I was the person who decided on whether or not homeopathy is to be introduced in every single NHS clinic in Britain, would you want me to rely on your and everyone else´s anecdotes, or would you want me to test the claims of homeopathy by using the scientific method? I hope your answer is the second option. Well, it has been tested.
In 2005, the medical journal THE LANCET surveyed all the meta-analysis (basically the analysis of the analysis) and failed to find "reliable effect of homeopathy". I will end this post with a summary of their findings, but before I do so, I have to recommend some videos for you to watch! So here they are my friends:
"The homeopathic test":
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozfio_e1Xj0 (part 1)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bMDV-4KGWi8&feature=related (part 2)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMegB9-QUk&feature=related (part 3)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bxnaSNkKOvo&feature=related (part 4)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QPOK3f1OoBg&feature=related (part 5)
Also interesting:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&ei=QZiISvrjHovM-Abwsq2uCg&q=enemies+of+reason
This one is quite horrendous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEDYsI7lBd8
This is very funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
And here´s the summary from the LANCET test:
The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726 - 732, 27 August 2005
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Aijing Shang MD a, Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD a, Linda Nartey MD a, Peter Jüni MD a b, Stephan Dörig a c, Jonathan AC Sterne PhD b, Daniel Pewsner MD a d, Prof Matthias Egger MD a b
Summary
Background
Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias.
Methods
Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models.
Findings
110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0·88 (95% CI 0·65—1·19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0·58 (0·39—0·85) for conventional medicine (six trials).
Interpretation
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
All the best!
So, what is Homeopathy?
Well, it is a system of dosing up on a dilute solution of.... WATER! Yup, you read it correctly, WATER. H2O. Its central tenet, founded in the late 18th century (before science discovered that germs and bacterias cause diseases!) by Samuel Hahneman, is the notion of "Like cures like". What this basically means is that what causes a certain symptom can cure those symptoms. For example, dilute poison ivy can cure skin rash, because undiluted it causes that rash. You might now start to think that I´m caricaturing, oversimplifying or ridiculing, but I assure you that these all are the actual principles of homeopathy! But wait, it gets more bizarre!
According to homeopathy, the more you dilute an active ingredient in water, the stronger it becomes. If you pick up a homeopathic remedy, you´re likely to see "30C" on the bottle. This means one part medicine to a hundred to the power of thirty parts water. Let me write it again, so there are no misunderstandings:
ONE PART MEDICINE TO A HUNDRED TO THE POWER OF THIRTY PARTS WATER.
To give you, my dear reader, an imaginable idea of how much this is, I will put it like this:
In order to get one molecule of the active substance, you need to imbibe ALL THE ATOMS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM!!! Imagine one grain of sand in the Sahara desert, divide it by a billion, and you´re starting to get an idea of what we´re talking about.
Maybe this is why homeopaths themselves acknowledge that there isn´t a single molecule of the active substance in the bottle they sell. So, when you think you´re buying a remedy that contains diluted molecules of, say, onion (for streaming eyes), ask the homeopath if the substance actually has a single molecule of onion in it. If they are honest, they will say that it does not.
But homeopaths aren´t too concerned about this. Because they claim that the remedies work because (and this is absolutely true!) water is supposed to have a memory! So, when you initially start diluting the water with the substance, you´re supposedly changing the structure of the water, and when you´re taking remedies, this "new form of water" (should I pause for you to stop laughing?) provokes your immune system to battle against whatever it is you´re struggling with...
Interestingly enough, there has never, EVER, been a scientific test that shows that water has any such abilities. But let us say it has. Wouldn´t then the water we drink in our daily life be subject to the same procedure? The water we drink every day has been in contact with urine, excrement, poison, blood, billions of different viruses and bacteria. Why aren´t we dropping down dead or, better still, why haven´t we evolved an uncrackable immune system??? Homeopaths claim that the reason why their water works this way is because it is distilled, and almost pure. Well, first of all, you can never get 100% pure water, even if you kept distilling it for twenty years. But that doesn´t make any difference, because the water we drink today has, at one point or another, been very pure.
Homeopathy is not regulated by the government. What this means is that ANYONE can call themselves a homeopath, without any form of education, degree or even insurance, and start prescribing these remedies. One might ask: "Well, what´s the harm? They´re only dashing out water anyway!". Well, the harm of this is that people who might need REAL, SCIENTIFIC medicine will turn to uneducated, self-proclaimed "doctors" and think they are being helped, while their condition worsens, and in the worst possible scenario lead to death. There have been many instances where people who were in need of proper medicine and a proper doctor, turned to a homeopathic charlatan, which resulted in their demise. Simon Singh, the great scientific writer, conducted an experiment where his subjects visited thirty homeopathic shops and asked for a protection for malaria, because they were going to be in a heavily infested area on holiday. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those shops offered a remedy for the protection of malaria.... This is not harmless, this is dangerous, wicked and cruel.
My movement teacher and I had a debate about homeopathy once. She, being a fierce supporter, said something that I never picked up on at the time, but that has stuck with me ever since. She said that when she or any member of her family feels ill, she doesn´t need to visit a doctor anymore, she just goes to her homeopathic book, looks up the symptoms, and finds the cure for it... Think about this for a while... How extremely disrespectful (although unintentionally) this is to our doctors. Doctors, who study day and night for a minimum of 5 years, in what is one of the hardest academical branches there is, and then carry on studying in the hospitals where they work, people who have dedicated their lives to help others, who have sacrificed blood, sweat and tears to deserve one of the most prestigious titles in society today... My movement teacher claims to be on par with these people, because she has a book... One book... She doesn´t need these people anymore... Yet, I was the one being called arrogant after the debate...
This is the other problem with homeopathy. It makes people who are uneducated in the field of medicine believe they can be hobby doctors. People with no understanding of the vertebrate immune system, of the causation of different conditions, of the biology of our organs, the evolution of our specie and how that relates to medicine, think that they can study homeopathy and provide answers...
Homeopathy does not work. You, my dear reader, have surely met at least one, probably many, who swear by homeopathy and its effects, or you might be one yourself. Let me ask you one question: If I was the person who decided on whether or not homeopathy is to be introduced in every single NHS clinic in Britain, would you want me to rely on your and everyone else´s anecdotes, or would you want me to test the claims of homeopathy by using the scientific method? I hope your answer is the second option. Well, it has been tested.
In 2005, the medical journal THE LANCET surveyed all the meta-analysis (basically the analysis of the analysis) and failed to find "reliable effect of homeopathy". I will end this post with a summary of their findings, but before I do so, I have to recommend some videos for you to watch! So here they are my friends:
"The homeopathic test":
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozfio_e1Xj0 (part 1)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bMDV-4KGWi8&feature=related (part 2)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMegB9-QUk&feature=related (part 3)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bxnaSNkKOvo&feature=related (part 4)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QPOK3f1OoBg&feature=related (part 5)
Also interesting:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&ei=QZiISvrjHovM-Abwsq2uCg&q=enemies+of+reason
This one is quite horrendous:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEDYsI7lBd8
This is very funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
And here´s the summary from the LANCET test:
The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9487, Pages 726 - 732, 27 August 2005
Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
Aijing Shang MD a, Karin Huwiler-Müntener MD a, Linda Nartey MD a, Peter Jüni MD a b, Stephan Dörig a c, Jonathan AC Sterne PhD b, Daniel Pewsner MD a d, Prof Matthias Egger MD a b
Summary
Background
Homoeopathy is widely used, but specific effects of homoeopathic remedies seem implausible. Bias in the conduct and reporting of trials is a possible explanation for positive findings of trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. We analysed trials of homoeopathy and conventional medicine and estimated treatment effects in trials least likely to be affected by bias.
Methods
Placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy were identified by a comprehensive literature search, which covered 19 electronic databases, reference lists of relevant papers, and contacts with experts. Trials in conventional medicine matched to homoeopathy trials for disorder and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Data were extracted in duplicate and outcomes coded so that odds ratios below 1 indicated benefit. Trials described as double-blind, with adequate randomisation, were assumed to be of higher methodological quality. Bias effects were examined in funnel plots and meta-regression models.
Findings
110 homoeopathy trials and 110 matched conventional-medicine trials were analysed. The median study size was 65 participants (range ten to 1573). 21 homoeopathy trials (19%) and nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of higher quality. In both groups, smaller trials and those of lower quality showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger and higher-quality trials. When the analysis was restricted to large trials of higher quality, the odds ratio was 0·88 (95% CI 0·65—1·19) for homoeopathy (eight trials) and 0·58 (0·39—0·85) for conventional medicine (six trials).
Interpretation
Biases are present in placebo-controlled trials of both homoeopathy and conventional medicine. When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.
All the best!
Friday 14 August 2009
Alternative Medicine
Today I will try to explore the multi-million dollar industry that is Alternative Medicine.
What is Alternative Medicine? Well, there are so many different kinds of Alternative Medicine, that to try to box all of them in one category is quite impossible. There are:
* Herbal Treatments
* Homeopathy
* Acupuncture
* Eastern Medicine
* Massage Therapy
* Chiropractic
and so forth.
First question to ask is: Why are these called ALTERNATIVE medicine? Well, they are alternative as oppose to SCIENTIFIC TESTED MEDICINE. That is the main difference. In the traditional, scientific world of medicine, the simplest medicine can take over ten years from the day it is produced to the day it hits the markets. Rigorous testing, publishing in scientific journals, fierce examination and testing by unbiased experts are all requirements for a substance to be approved as medicine. Alternative Medicine has no such process. Whenever the proponents of Alternative Medicine have been approached to publish their claims in peer-reviewed journals, they have either refused or been debunked by scientific tests.
The supporters of Alternative Medicine always have anecdotal stories about how a relative or themselves were helped by choosing the nontraditional cure. Well, this is just not good enough, and it actually has a very simple explanation.
Say for example that you have a cold. You don´t want to go to a doctor, because you expect the cold to last for couple of days, and then pass. But after a few days, your cold is worse, and you visit your doctor who assures you that it will be better soon, and that you don´t need any medication. On your way home from this disappointing experience you pass a Alternative Health Shop that advertises remedies for anything from cold to cancer. You, in your desperation, walk in and the store clerk recommends a substance that the Chinese have been using for centuries. You feel hopeful, take out your cash and start using the medicine. Couple of days later, you start feeling perfectly well. The alternative medicine worked! Well, not really... Your bodies immune system worked, just as the doctor you had visited told you it will. But since you started taking the alternative medication on the PEAK of your illness, just as it was about to start declining, you credit your well-being to the cure you bought.
Most of the deceases we encounter in our daily life are self cured. Our bodies immune system is something extraordinary, and it will fight most germs and bacterias by itself. And we rarely seek a doctor the instant we start feeling ill, we usually wait until we can´t stand it anymore, which is when whatever it is we are struggling with is at its peak, right before it starts loosing the battle against our white blood cells. Taking Alternative Medication and claiming it was what defended our bodies is just not good enough.
Don´t you want the medicine you put in to your body to be a product that has undergone years of meticulous, punctilious examination? Is this not a requirement we should DEMAND of those claiming to sell us products that will help us improve our health? Is this not the logical path to take? I don´t mind people shunning traditional western medicine, but I truly hope that on this point we agree!
One of the favorite claims of the Alternative Medicine Industry is a version of the following:
"The Chinese have been using this substance for centuries!"
Aaah, the Chinese! Yes, include "Oriental" or "Chinese" in your sales pitch and you can´t go wrong! Because we rarely think about the average age of the Chinese just a few decades ago was approximately 40, and their health standards are, according to the WHO much lower than us in the affluent world. But there is something mysterious and fascinating about the worlds fourth largest country, an idea that has been fed to us through media over decades. Truth of the matter is that the Chinese are crying out for westernized medicine. Just compare Hong Kong, with their modernized health care system, and China, with its primitive dito. Where do you think you find the healthiest people? On average?
I could go on and on attacking the Alternative Medicine movement, especially Homeopathy (which I claim is run by charlatans), and dissect one after the other, but I feel that it would be better to recommend these wonderful sources that confronts it much more eloquently than I ever could:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9178913674543933493&ei=6naFSuafAsaA-Aamg8nGCQ&q=the+skeptoid&hl=en
For further reading, look up Simon Singhs fantastic book on the subject "Trick or Treatment".
All the best!
What is Alternative Medicine? Well, there are so many different kinds of Alternative Medicine, that to try to box all of them in one category is quite impossible. There are:
* Herbal Treatments
* Homeopathy
* Acupuncture
* Eastern Medicine
* Massage Therapy
* Chiropractic
and so forth.
First question to ask is: Why are these called ALTERNATIVE medicine? Well, they are alternative as oppose to SCIENTIFIC TESTED MEDICINE. That is the main difference. In the traditional, scientific world of medicine, the simplest medicine can take over ten years from the day it is produced to the day it hits the markets. Rigorous testing, publishing in scientific journals, fierce examination and testing by unbiased experts are all requirements for a substance to be approved as medicine. Alternative Medicine has no such process. Whenever the proponents of Alternative Medicine have been approached to publish their claims in peer-reviewed journals, they have either refused or been debunked by scientific tests.
The supporters of Alternative Medicine always have anecdotal stories about how a relative or themselves were helped by choosing the nontraditional cure. Well, this is just not good enough, and it actually has a very simple explanation.
Say for example that you have a cold. You don´t want to go to a doctor, because you expect the cold to last for couple of days, and then pass. But after a few days, your cold is worse, and you visit your doctor who assures you that it will be better soon, and that you don´t need any medication. On your way home from this disappointing experience you pass a Alternative Health Shop that advertises remedies for anything from cold to cancer. You, in your desperation, walk in and the store clerk recommends a substance that the Chinese have been using for centuries. You feel hopeful, take out your cash and start using the medicine. Couple of days later, you start feeling perfectly well. The alternative medicine worked! Well, not really... Your bodies immune system worked, just as the doctor you had visited told you it will. But since you started taking the alternative medication on the PEAK of your illness, just as it was about to start declining, you credit your well-being to the cure you bought.
Most of the deceases we encounter in our daily life are self cured. Our bodies immune system is something extraordinary, and it will fight most germs and bacterias by itself. And we rarely seek a doctor the instant we start feeling ill, we usually wait until we can´t stand it anymore, which is when whatever it is we are struggling with is at its peak, right before it starts loosing the battle against our white blood cells. Taking Alternative Medication and claiming it was what defended our bodies is just not good enough.
Don´t you want the medicine you put in to your body to be a product that has undergone years of meticulous, punctilious examination? Is this not a requirement we should DEMAND of those claiming to sell us products that will help us improve our health? Is this not the logical path to take? I don´t mind people shunning traditional western medicine, but I truly hope that on this point we agree!
One of the favorite claims of the Alternative Medicine Industry is a version of the following:
"The Chinese have been using this substance for centuries!"
Aaah, the Chinese! Yes, include "Oriental" or "Chinese" in your sales pitch and you can´t go wrong! Because we rarely think about the average age of the Chinese just a few decades ago was approximately 40, and their health standards are, according to the WHO much lower than us in the affluent world. But there is something mysterious and fascinating about the worlds fourth largest country, an idea that has been fed to us through media over decades. Truth of the matter is that the Chinese are crying out for westernized medicine. Just compare Hong Kong, with their modernized health care system, and China, with its primitive dito. Where do you think you find the healthiest people? On average?
I could go on and on attacking the Alternative Medicine movement, especially Homeopathy (which I claim is run by charlatans), and dissect one after the other, but I feel that it would be better to recommend these wonderful sources that confronts it much more eloquently than I ever could:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9178913674543933493&ei=6naFSuafAsaA-Aamg8nGCQ&q=the+skeptoid&hl=en
For further reading, look up Simon Singhs fantastic book on the subject "Trick or Treatment".
All the best!
Wednesday 5 August 2009
Are markets moral?
Well, of course they are! Why? Because WE are moral beings. It´s actually as simple as that. Anti-capitalists and socialists always talk about the greed of capitalism. Well, this "greed" is actually better described as self-interest. Capitalism is the best available platform where an individual can most efficiently pursue his or her happiness.
You might now be thinking that this leads to a society build on selfishness and not caring for our fellow human being, but this is not the case! Because through evolution, our best self interest is almost always dependent on the best possible outcome for others, mainly those in our closest circle.
Many of us have imagined, at one point or another, what it would be like to win the lottery. We start fantasizing what we would do with the money. Now, ask yourself, has your imaginary actions with that money been strictly self-centered, so much that it excludes anyone else? Of course not. You might imagine that you will buy a home for your mother, or that you´ll take your girlfriend on a cruise, or that you will build a amusement center for kids. Few of us, if any, would ever imagine to do things by ourselves, like an old Scrooge. Me being happy is dependent on those around me being happy.
This principle works in capitalism as well. For Bill Gates to gain the most possible wealth, Microsoft has to deliver the best possible software at the least possible cost for the consumers. Thanks to a competitive market, he is forced to do so, since the people who would provide him with the wealth could otherwise turn to his competitors. It is by keeping the consumers, you and me, happy by providing the best product at the least possible cost, that Bill Gates can be as wealthy as he is. His self-interest is therefore dependent on our happiness.
It is when this principle of FREE market is abolished that we don´t see this outcome. When bureaucratic interference with the market allows companies to work around this fundamental principle of capitalism, things start to go wrong. When businesses receive subsidies from the government, they are protected from competition, and those who suffer are the consumers, i.e you and me. An example of this was when Reagan, that supposed hero of free market capitalism, saw that Harley Davidson, a domestic company, could not provide the average American worker with the best motorcycles to the lowest price when confronted with competition from Japanese manufacturers, and therefore raised the tariffs on import of motorcycles from 4.4% to a staggering 49.4%. Who suffered? The American consumers who were no longer able to buy foreign motorcycles cheaper. This is one of millions of examples that can be given where governmental interference in the market hurts the people when trying to protect the companies.
Maybe the most recent example of this is the current recession. When politicians start promising the voters that they will all be able to afford new houses, as if this was somehow the right of everyone, we should not be cheering, we should be suspicious. Because the housing market, like any other market, should be of no business of bureaucrats who know nothing of its system. So when the government started forcing banks to lower their cred-criteria, and lending money to people who couldn´t afford to pay it back, the market could not function and the bubble exploded, leaving us in this current mess.
What will happen if the market is allowed to function without the government trying to control it, then? Well, look at Hong Kong. The market has flourished and the people can take advantage of massive improvements in technology, health care, education and so forth. But why would we ever want politicians trying to control the market??? Ask yourself this:
You´re going to fly with an Airline. Who would you want to control whether or not it is safe to fly with that specific airline, a government bureaucrat who, if he makes mistakes might loose his job, or the people working for that Airline, who if they make a mistake will loose their lives, their loved ones and the reputations of that Airline? Who has most to gain or loose? This is how the market works, it is self-regulatory. Because companies are driven by self-interest, they are very sensitive to the interest of their customers, you and me. And that is how the market is moral!
All the best
You might now be thinking that this leads to a society build on selfishness and not caring for our fellow human being, but this is not the case! Because through evolution, our best self interest is almost always dependent on the best possible outcome for others, mainly those in our closest circle.
Many of us have imagined, at one point or another, what it would be like to win the lottery. We start fantasizing what we would do with the money. Now, ask yourself, has your imaginary actions with that money been strictly self-centered, so much that it excludes anyone else? Of course not. You might imagine that you will buy a home for your mother, or that you´ll take your girlfriend on a cruise, or that you will build a amusement center for kids. Few of us, if any, would ever imagine to do things by ourselves, like an old Scrooge. Me being happy is dependent on those around me being happy.
This principle works in capitalism as well. For Bill Gates to gain the most possible wealth, Microsoft has to deliver the best possible software at the least possible cost for the consumers. Thanks to a competitive market, he is forced to do so, since the people who would provide him with the wealth could otherwise turn to his competitors. It is by keeping the consumers, you and me, happy by providing the best product at the least possible cost, that Bill Gates can be as wealthy as he is. His self-interest is therefore dependent on our happiness.
It is when this principle of FREE market is abolished that we don´t see this outcome. When bureaucratic interference with the market allows companies to work around this fundamental principle of capitalism, things start to go wrong. When businesses receive subsidies from the government, they are protected from competition, and those who suffer are the consumers, i.e you and me. An example of this was when Reagan, that supposed hero of free market capitalism, saw that Harley Davidson, a domestic company, could not provide the average American worker with the best motorcycles to the lowest price when confronted with competition from Japanese manufacturers, and therefore raised the tariffs on import of motorcycles from 4.4% to a staggering 49.4%. Who suffered? The American consumers who were no longer able to buy foreign motorcycles cheaper. This is one of millions of examples that can be given where governmental interference in the market hurts the people when trying to protect the companies.
Maybe the most recent example of this is the current recession. When politicians start promising the voters that they will all be able to afford new houses, as if this was somehow the right of everyone, we should not be cheering, we should be suspicious. Because the housing market, like any other market, should be of no business of bureaucrats who know nothing of its system. So when the government started forcing banks to lower their cred-criteria, and lending money to people who couldn´t afford to pay it back, the market could not function and the bubble exploded, leaving us in this current mess.
What will happen if the market is allowed to function without the government trying to control it, then? Well, look at Hong Kong. The market has flourished and the people can take advantage of massive improvements in technology, health care, education and so forth. But why would we ever want politicians trying to control the market??? Ask yourself this:
You´re going to fly with an Airline. Who would you want to control whether or not it is safe to fly with that specific airline, a government bureaucrat who, if he makes mistakes might loose his job, or the people working for that Airline, who if they make a mistake will loose their lives, their loved ones and the reputations of that Airline? Who has most to gain or loose? This is how the market works, it is self-regulatory. Because companies are driven by self-interest, they are very sensitive to the interest of their customers, you and me. And that is how the market is moral!
All the best
Monday 3 August 2009
Legalize all drugs!
Well, the title should have some people scratching their head whilst they curse me behind their computer screens. But since you are here, please listen to what I have to say, and then make your judgment.
I do believe all drugs should be legalized. The reason for this is quite simple, really: It is not a crime to hurt your own body. But that is not the best part of it! You might be a religious person who thinks that the body belongs to God and should be sacred, or you might just not want drugs flowing in the streets for kids to buy, and you´re afraid that legalization means enhanced availability to drugs.
If you belong to the first category, I am afraid that it is not good enough. Your religion should not dictate what others should be allowed to do. And if you truly believe that the body is Gods sacred temple, you should be against tobacco, alcohol, McDonald's, Caffeine, sweets etc. And by against, I mean you should be fighting for the prohibition of it. But the second category is much more authoritative, if somewhat deranged. Because today, children have much easier access to drugs then they have to alcohol (drug dealers rarely ask for ID). The availability of illegal drugs is, whether we like to admit it or not, massive.
By legalizing it, we can control it. We remove the profit from the black market, and we regulate it. We have strict license-laws on those who sell it, and we tax it.
Prohibition has never worked. It didn´t work for alcohol in the 1920´s, and it hasn´t worked for drugs. Illegal substances have become cheaper, more available, usage has gone up, new and more dangerous forms of drugs have entered the market, and the drugs today are much purer than they were couple of decades ago. The "War against drugs" has burdened the tax payers in America with more than $200 BILLION since it was first announced by Richard Nixon. Yet, there has never been a step forward. Maybe time for another strategy?
We can help our citizens instead of locking them in to prisons. Rehabilitation for an addict costs on average 1/7 of the cost of putting them in to prisons. We can eliminate the number one reason for death amongst heroin junkies: HIV and AIDS. The Netherlands, with their system of having the heroine junkie receiving their fix by a nurse, with a clean needle, under controlled circumstances, has less than 50% of HIV and AIDS cases than SWEDEN, even though they have almost 50% more population.
The people who don´t want drugs legalized are the criminals who make millions from the black market profits. Why let them control this market? Surely we can do a better job? By controlling and regulating the use of drugs, we can hurt the criminal underworld by landing a massive blow to their arguably greatest source of income. We remove the drugs from the streets and the hands of irresponsible, money-hungry snakes, and take control of the distribution of it.
The medical benefits of marijuana are too many to mention. This is one of the main reasons it is not legal in the US. Because the most profitable of all the lobbies in America is the pharmaceutical companies. They would loose billions if a plant you can grow yourself, that would help relieve so much pain and distress amongst suffering people, were legalized. Make no mistake about it, this is the main reason. There has never, in 10 000 years of documented usage, been a death due to usage of marijuana.
The GATEWAY theory.
To say that marijuana is a gateway drug is like saying that milk leads to alcohol. This is absolute nonsense. It is not the substance that causes people to start using heavier drugs, it is the fact that is illegal!! Because people who smoke marijuana have to get it from dealers who almost always deal with heavier drugs. So, they will one day offer something like Cocaine or XTC to their client, and having had someone take the first step in doing something illegal, the next step isn´t too far away.
We have alcohol and tobacco legalized in almost every country in the world. In America, 440 000 people die annually from tobacco, and over 100 000 from alcohol. Again, no one has ever died from smoking marijuana! Ever...
But this is not the point! The point is that it should be legalized, because it is not a crime to inject poison in to your own body. We do it constantly, by smoking, drinking, eating fast food, drinking coffee... By legalizing drugs, we can have a much stronger overview on our citizens who take these substances and help them quit. Today, all we have done, with prohibition, is to wipe the problem under the carpet.
There is an agency in America called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). It consists of over 10 000 narcotic officers, lawyers and judges who want an end to this war. United States has 5% of the worlds population, but 25% of the worlds inmates. Over 700 000 people are arrested each year for smoking marijuana! For smoking a plant... 700 000 NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE!!! And the punishment is often worse than murder or rape!!! When did things go so wrong???
There is not a SINGLE scientific research, and by scientific I mean unbiased, that is not performed by governmental agencies, but by impartial institutions, that show that marijuana is any more dangerous than a cup of coffee. There has been HUNDREDS of studies that show that marijuana has extreme medical benefits, though.
Those who use drugs (and I have personally never used an illegal drug) are not bad people. They are maybe weak, but that is not a crime. Why not create a system that will help them, and at the same time make money out of it, that we can put in to health care, education, research for alternative fuel, fight global warming etc.? Why not use those $100 billion that is used annually to fight against our own citizens in a war we can never win, to try to find a cure for HIV and Cancer?
Why send non-violent people to prison, charged with an artificial crime, where they learn to be real criminals or often end up dead whilst locked in?
I could go on for days arguing the benefits of legalization, but I would ask you, if you are skeptical, to have a look at your own society, where drugs are illegal. Is it working? Are there no children in your city that have used or are using drugs? Has the police never caught anyone in your town for possession or distribution of drugs? Is drug usage decreasing anywhere in the world? Is the criminal underground diminishing? Are your tax dollars or yens or crowns or pesetas put in to good use?
I hope I have at least given you food for thought, my goal is not to convince you that I´m right, I just hope you have an open mind and you´re willing to find out more about it.
Why not start with this brilliant documentary;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
All the best!
I do believe all drugs should be legalized. The reason for this is quite simple, really: It is not a crime to hurt your own body. But that is not the best part of it! You might be a religious person who thinks that the body belongs to God and should be sacred, or you might just not want drugs flowing in the streets for kids to buy, and you´re afraid that legalization means enhanced availability to drugs.
If you belong to the first category, I am afraid that it is not good enough. Your religion should not dictate what others should be allowed to do. And if you truly believe that the body is Gods sacred temple, you should be against tobacco, alcohol, McDonald's, Caffeine, sweets etc. And by against, I mean you should be fighting for the prohibition of it. But the second category is much more authoritative, if somewhat deranged. Because today, children have much easier access to drugs then they have to alcohol (drug dealers rarely ask for ID). The availability of illegal drugs is, whether we like to admit it or not, massive.
By legalizing it, we can control it. We remove the profit from the black market, and we regulate it. We have strict license-laws on those who sell it, and we tax it.
Prohibition has never worked. It didn´t work for alcohol in the 1920´s, and it hasn´t worked for drugs. Illegal substances have become cheaper, more available, usage has gone up, new and more dangerous forms of drugs have entered the market, and the drugs today are much purer than they were couple of decades ago. The "War against drugs" has burdened the tax payers in America with more than $200 BILLION since it was first announced by Richard Nixon. Yet, there has never been a step forward. Maybe time for another strategy?
We can help our citizens instead of locking them in to prisons. Rehabilitation for an addict costs on average 1/7 of the cost of putting them in to prisons. We can eliminate the number one reason for death amongst heroin junkies: HIV and AIDS. The Netherlands, with their system of having the heroine junkie receiving their fix by a nurse, with a clean needle, under controlled circumstances, has less than 50% of HIV and AIDS cases than SWEDEN, even though they have almost 50% more population.
The people who don´t want drugs legalized are the criminals who make millions from the black market profits. Why let them control this market? Surely we can do a better job? By controlling and regulating the use of drugs, we can hurt the criminal underworld by landing a massive blow to their arguably greatest source of income. We remove the drugs from the streets and the hands of irresponsible, money-hungry snakes, and take control of the distribution of it.
The medical benefits of marijuana are too many to mention. This is one of the main reasons it is not legal in the US. Because the most profitable of all the lobbies in America is the pharmaceutical companies. They would loose billions if a plant you can grow yourself, that would help relieve so much pain and distress amongst suffering people, were legalized. Make no mistake about it, this is the main reason. There has never, in 10 000 years of documented usage, been a death due to usage of marijuana.
The GATEWAY theory.
To say that marijuana is a gateway drug is like saying that milk leads to alcohol. This is absolute nonsense. It is not the substance that causes people to start using heavier drugs, it is the fact that is illegal!! Because people who smoke marijuana have to get it from dealers who almost always deal with heavier drugs. So, they will one day offer something like Cocaine or XTC to their client, and having had someone take the first step in doing something illegal, the next step isn´t too far away.
We have alcohol and tobacco legalized in almost every country in the world. In America, 440 000 people die annually from tobacco, and over 100 000 from alcohol. Again, no one has ever died from smoking marijuana! Ever...
But this is not the point! The point is that it should be legalized, because it is not a crime to inject poison in to your own body. We do it constantly, by smoking, drinking, eating fast food, drinking coffee... By legalizing drugs, we can have a much stronger overview on our citizens who take these substances and help them quit. Today, all we have done, with prohibition, is to wipe the problem under the carpet.
There is an agency in America called LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). It consists of over 10 000 narcotic officers, lawyers and judges who want an end to this war. United States has 5% of the worlds population, but 25% of the worlds inmates. Over 700 000 people are arrested each year for smoking marijuana! For smoking a plant... 700 000 NON-VIOLENT PEOPLE!!! And the punishment is often worse than murder or rape!!! When did things go so wrong???
There is not a SINGLE scientific research, and by scientific I mean unbiased, that is not performed by governmental agencies, but by impartial institutions, that show that marijuana is any more dangerous than a cup of coffee. There has been HUNDREDS of studies that show that marijuana has extreme medical benefits, though.
Those who use drugs (and I have personally never used an illegal drug) are not bad people. They are maybe weak, but that is not a crime. Why not create a system that will help them, and at the same time make money out of it, that we can put in to health care, education, research for alternative fuel, fight global warming etc.? Why not use those $100 billion that is used annually to fight against our own citizens in a war we can never win, to try to find a cure for HIV and Cancer?
Why send non-violent people to prison, charged with an artificial crime, where they learn to be real criminals or often end up dead whilst locked in?
I could go on for days arguing the benefits of legalization, but I would ask you, if you are skeptical, to have a look at your own society, where drugs are illegal. Is it working? Are there no children in your city that have used or are using drugs? Has the police never caught anyone in your town for possession or distribution of drugs? Is drug usage decreasing anywhere in the world? Is the criminal underground diminishing? Are your tax dollars or yens or crowns or pesetas put in to good use?
I hope I have at least given you food for thought, my goal is not to convince you that I´m right, I just hope you have an open mind and you´re willing to find out more about it.
Why not start with this brilliant documentary;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007
All the best!
Tuesday 28 July 2009
Tree of wealth
Let´s plant the seeds of the tree of wealth everywhere we go, and dismiss those who say that some soils can´t give it growth or some farmers do not wan´t it in their fields!
Monday 27 July 2009
Not going as I´ve planned...
Right, this blogging business isn´t going as I´ve planned, so from now on I will make no more promises of what will come in the future! I´ll just take it day by day!
Today I had the following statement posted on my Facebook profile:
"As we evolve we rid ourselves of foolish ideas: Science supersedes superstition, evolution supersedes religion, and capitalism supersedes socialism. Get on board, fellow primates! Let´s evolve!!!!!!"
Shortly, my new friend Mark van Dyk, a very eloquent fellow, replied to it and the following conversation took place:
Mark van Dyk
Of course, without socialist ideas, we would have no roads, bridges, military, public education, police, or firemen! ;) Damn that socialism and all its services to humanity!
Aarya Amir Shayan (me)
Well, actually ALL of the above mentioned came long before the idea of socialism! For some reason you seem to think socialism is just a vague concept of people working together for no profit, just for the best of society. Well, I would challenge you to read your Engels and Marx before making such comments. Socialism is a very clearly defined concept. And even if you were right, that just goes to show that something better has come to replace socialism now.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=michael+shermer&emb=0&aq=f#q=michael+shermer+beyond+belief&emb=0
Mark van Dyk
What I am getting at is anytime the government takes money from the people and redistributes it in the form of goods or services, this is a socialistic idea, regardless of when the idea came about. Surely you can see that our economy and society operates with capitalistic and socialist ideas. It would be utterly impossible to live in a purely capitalistic society.
Let's get something else straight, just so you know where I stand! :) I am not anti-capitalist. I do believe that capitalism without balance or checks creates vast inequality between the people holding capital and the people without capital. Capitalism unchecked will grow and grow until the resources of the earth are devoured. I believe, ultimately, in balance. Capitalism unchecked created poverty and horrible working conditions in America. Unions came about and changed that for the workers. Now, this does not mean that the unions may operate unchecked too! Unions create their own problems. What I am trying to say is that you cannot advocate one economic system above all others, because without balance, the system will fail. There must be balance and equality, equal opportunity to succeed and get services and goods for all people. This is humane. It is not important what we call the system of how we get there. Let's just get there! ;)
Ultimately, if I may digress slightly, we would all be doing much better if we reduced our desire for wealth. Wealth is meaningless and useless. If we all just worked enough to provide essentials, we would all be a lot happier! But, to the detriment of the world, it seems to be human nature to want more than they need. Herein lies the real problem of human economic systems.
Aarya Amir Shayan
*sigh* Mark, with all due respect, there weren´t many right points there... Would take me hours to answer all of the points I BELIEVE (but I might be wrong) you are mistaken on. I will try to so later on my blog, and then send u the link. All the best!
-----------------------------------
So, here is my reply to my friend Mark:
I sort of feel like a mosquito on a nudist camp; Don´t know where to start! You say:
"Ultimately, if I may digress slightly, we would all be doing much better if we reduced our desire for wealth. Wealth is meaningless and useless."
Well, with all due respect, who are you to say to anyone what makes them happy and what´s meaningless and useless for them? If YOU find wealth meaningless, that´s fine, but don´t tell me that I should feel that way too, because that is on the borderline of arrogance. And certainly don´t tell people in the developing world that they shouldn´t strive for wealth, because Zeus forbid they might actually acquire the same living standard as us! I hope you at least agree with me on THAT point, that our living standard in the affluent world comes from us striving for wealth, and the reason it has been so successful has been because of a free market.
You say:
"What I am getting at is anytime the government takes money from the people and redistributes it in the form of goods or services, this is a socialistic idea..."
Well, socialism certainly takes credit for the idea, but it isn´t socialism. It´s like saying that Nazism brought Volkswagen to Germany, and therefore building companies in countries is Nazism. The problem with your argument lies within the following: The same government you defend to redistribute wealth, puts billions into fighting a pathetic Drug War (over $100 BILLION per year now), puts $2, 000 toilets in Air Force One (money coming from the taxpayers pockets), fights wars that has absolutely no positive outcome for the actual taxpayers and so forth. When you talk about firemen, roads and such, you seem to be forgetting that ALL these could´ve been performed more efficiently by private contractors, without all the rest of the money going in to where the current government decides to put it, for example the Iraq-war. Now, don´t get me wrong, I am not for a complete eradication of the government, I do believe we need a government that works as a regulatory body, keeping companies from mistreating their workers or breaking laws and such. But not much else! Assuming that politicians can do the jobs better than companies specializing in these areas is somewhat confusing. Why not cut out the middle hand?
You say:
"I do believe that capitalism without balance or checks creates vast inequality between the people holding capital and the people without capital. Capitalism unchecked will grow and grow until the resources of the earth are devoured."
Probably the most incorrect statement of all the things you wrote. What is "Capitalism unchecked"??? What does it even mean??? That people aren´t restricted by geographical boundaries to trade and communicate with each other? That companies aren´t held back through tariffs and taxes to grow? That entrepreneurs don´t have to be limited to the resources and opportunities provided to them by the state they happened to be born in? That the right to and the protection of private property is 100% respected? Because these are the tenets of Capitalism, and wherever they have been allowed to flow, the result has been overwhelming positive. Inequality? Interesting that the countries with a predominantly Capitalistic system are also the countries with least inequality, whereas countries that don´t allow a free market have the largest inequality ratings. Taiwan and South Korea went from having a GPD as low as Ethiopia 30 years ago to today having the same level as Spain and Portugal. Capitalism brings wealth to everyone, not just the selected few that already have it, as you seem to be insinuating. Mauritius, the first African country that opened up its borders for free trade, was also the first African country to have a peaceful shift in power, following a democratic election. India has gone from being a developing country, with hundreds of millions of people living in absolute poverty, to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
But here´s the kicker: Inequality in wealth isn´t that important, really. It´s not important that the other guy has billions of dollars, when I don´t have anything. It´s like saying someone looks much better than me, and therefore it´s not fair that he gets more girls than me! What matters is that the people who are living under bad conditions improve their situations, and no system has ever proved to be as effective to fight poverty as Capitalism. Since 1981 Poverty has decreased monumentally, and looking at where this has happened, we find a direct, clear correlation between Capitalism and Growth.
You are right when you point out that there isn´t a pure Capitalist system out there, but this is not the point. The point is that when Capitalism is pure, it is effective, and the purer it is, the more effective it is.
You say:
"What I am trying to say is that you cannot advocate one economic system above all others, because without balance, the system will fail. There must be balance and equality, equal opportunity to succeed and get services and goods for all people. This is humane."
But that balance you so wish for is already built in within Capitalism! The Invisible Hand of the market clearly demonstrates this. The point about equal opportunity for everyone has been so misconceived over the years, especially in media, because it advocates an impossible, and most certainly an immoral value; Namely that all people, no matter their own ability should be given the same opportunity as someone else. If I am great at fishing, and you are a fantastic cobbler, but a terrible fisher, as bad as I am at cobbling, what´s the point that I should have the same opportunity as you to be a cobbler? And where would that leave our society? Each person should be given a platform to pursue their own individual happiness, and there should be no discrimination, but that´s where I believe the line should be drawn.
Michael Shermer shows in his book, "The Mind of the Market", that the market is clearly moral, because it is run by us, the consumers. You´re more than welcome to challenge me on this point, but for now, I will not delve in to it deeper. I just wish to say that your doomsday view on Capitalism is not backed up by neither the empirical data or the scientific research.
That´s all I can muster right now, after couple of beers. I hope that it is sufficient, and I apologize if at any point you feel I have been condescending, it has never been my intention!
All the best!
Today I had the following statement posted on my Facebook profile:
"As we evolve we rid ourselves of foolish ideas: Science supersedes superstition, evolution supersedes religion, and capitalism supersedes socialism. Get on board, fellow primates! Let´s evolve!!!!!!"
Shortly, my new friend Mark van Dyk, a very eloquent fellow, replied to it and the following conversation took place:
Mark van Dyk
Of course, without socialist ideas, we would have no roads, bridges, military, public education, police, or firemen! ;) Damn that socialism and all its services to humanity!
Aarya Amir Shayan (me)
Well, actually ALL of the above mentioned came long before the idea of socialism! For some reason you seem to think socialism is just a vague concept of people working together for no profit, just for the best of society. Well, I would challenge you to read your Engels and Marx before making such comments. Socialism is a very clearly defined concept. And even if you were right, that just goes to show that something better has come to replace socialism now.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=michael+shermer&emb=0&aq=f#q=michael+shermer+beyond+belief&emb=0
Mark van Dyk
What I am getting at is anytime the government takes money from the people and redistributes it in the form of goods or services, this is a socialistic idea, regardless of when the idea came about. Surely you can see that our economy and society operates with capitalistic and socialist ideas. It would be utterly impossible to live in a purely capitalistic society.
Let's get something else straight, just so you know where I stand! :) I am not anti-capitalist. I do believe that capitalism without balance or checks creates vast inequality between the people holding capital and the people without capital. Capitalism unchecked will grow and grow until the resources of the earth are devoured. I believe, ultimately, in balance. Capitalism unchecked created poverty and horrible working conditions in America. Unions came about and changed that for the workers. Now, this does not mean that the unions may operate unchecked too! Unions create their own problems. What I am trying to say is that you cannot advocate one economic system above all others, because without balance, the system will fail. There must be balance and equality, equal opportunity to succeed and get services and goods for all people. This is humane. It is not important what we call the system of how we get there. Let's just get there! ;)
Ultimately, if I may digress slightly, we would all be doing much better if we reduced our desire for wealth. Wealth is meaningless and useless. If we all just worked enough to provide essentials, we would all be a lot happier! But, to the detriment of the world, it seems to be human nature to want more than they need. Herein lies the real problem of human economic systems.
Aarya Amir Shayan
*sigh* Mark, with all due respect, there weren´t many right points there... Would take me hours to answer all of the points I BELIEVE (but I might be wrong) you are mistaken on. I will try to so later on my blog, and then send u the link. All the best!
-----------------------------------
So, here is my reply to my friend Mark:
I sort of feel like a mosquito on a nudist camp; Don´t know where to start! You say:
"Ultimately, if I may digress slightly, we would all be doing much better if we reduced our desire for wealth. Wealth is meaningless and useless."
Well, with all due respect, who are you to say to anyone what makes them happy and what´s meaningless and useless for them? If YOU find wealth meaningless, that´s fine, but don´t tell me that I should feel that way too, because that is on the borderline of arrogance. And certainly don´t tell people in the developing world that they shouldn´t strive for wealth, because Zeus forbid they might actually acquire the same living standard as us! I hope you at least agree with me on THAT point, that our living standard in the affluent world comes from us striving for wealth, and the reason it has been so successful has been because of a free market.
You say:
"What I am getting at is anytime the government takes money from the people and redistributes it in the form of goods or services, this is a socialistic idea..."
Well, socialism certainly takes credit for the idea, but it isn´t socialism. It´s like saying that Nazism brought Volkswagen to Germany, and therefore building companies in countries is Nazism. The problem with your argument lies within the following: The same government you defend to redistribute wealth, puts billions into fighting a pathetic Drug War (over $100 BILLION per year now), puts $2, 000 toilets in Air Force One (money coming from the taxpayers pockets), fights wars that has absolutely no positive outcome for the actual taxpayers and so forth. When you talk about firemen, roads and such, you seem to be forgetting that ALL these could´ve been performed more efficiently by private contractors, without all the rest of the money going in to where the current government decides to put it, for example the Iraq-war. Now, don´t get me wrong, I am not for a complete eradication of the government, I do believe we need a government that works as a regulatory body, keeping companies from mistreating their workers or breaking laws and such. But not much else! Assuming that politicians can do the jobs better than companies specializing in these areas is somewhat confusing. Why not cut out the middle hand?
You say:
"I do believe that capitalism without balance or checks creates vast inequality between the people holding capital and the people without capital. Capitalism unchecked will grow and grow until the resources of the earth are devoured."
Probably the most incorrect statement of all the things you wrote. What is "Capitalism unchecked"??? What does it even mean??? That people aren´t restricted by geographical boundaries to trade and communicate with each other? That companies aren´t held back through tariffs and taxes to grow? That entrepreneurs don´t have to be limited to the resources and opportunities provided to them by the state they happened to be born in? That the right to and the protection of private property is 100% respected? Because these are the tenets of Capitalism, and wherever they have been allowed to flow, the result has been overwhelming positive. Inequality? Interesting that the countries with a predominantly Capitalistic system are also the countries with least inequality, whereas countries that don´t allow a free market have the largest inequality ratings. Taiwan and South Korea went from having a GPD as low as Ethiopia 30 years ago to today having the same level as Spain and Portugal. Capitalism brings wealth to everyone, not just the selected few that already have it, as you seem to be insinuating. Mauritius, the first African country that opened up its borders for free trade, was also the first African country to have a peaceful shift in power, following a democratic election. India has gone from being a developing country, with hundreds of millions of people living in absolute poverty, to become one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
But here´s the kicker: Inequality in wealth isn´t that important, really. It´s not important that the other guy has billions of dollars, when I don´t have anything. It´s like saying someone looks much better than me, and therefore it´s not fair that he gets more girls than me! What matters is that the people who are living under bad conditions improve their situations, and no system has ever proved to be as effective to fight poverty as Capitalism. Since 1981 Poverty has decreased monumentally, and looking at where this has happened, we find a direct, clear correlation between Capitalism and Growth.
You are right when you point out that there isn´t a pure Capitalist system out there, but this is not the point. The point is that when Capitalism is pure, it is effective, and the purer it is, the more effective it is.
You say:
"What I am trying to say is that you cannot advocate one economic system above all others, because without balance, the system will fail. There must be balance and equality, equal opportunity to succeed and get services and goods for all people. This is humane."
But that balance you so wish for is already built in within Capitalism! The Invisible Hand of the market clearly demonstrates this. The point about equal opportunity for everyone has been so misconceived over the years, especially in media, because it advocates an impossible, and most certainly an immoral value; Namely that all people, no matter their own ability should be given the same opportunity as someone else. If I am great at fishing, and you are a fantastic cobbler, but a terrible fisher, as bad as I am at cobbling, what´s the point that I should have the same opportunity as you to be a cobbler? And where would that leave our society? Each person should be given a platform to pursue their own individual happiness, and there should be no discrimination, but that´s where I believe the line should be drawn.
Michael Shermer shows in his book, "The Mind of the Market", that the market is clearly moral, because it is run by us, the consumers. You´re more than welcome to challenge me on this point, but for now, I will not delve in to it deeper. I just wish to say that your doomsday view on Capitalism is not backed up by neither the empirical data or the scientific research.
That´s all I can muster right now, after couple of beers. I hope that it is sufficient, and I apologize if at any point you feel I have been condescending, it has never been my intention!
All the best!
Saturday 25 July 2009
A converastion on >Facebook 2:30 in the morning. Everyday life for me!
Tim Roop
What some snidely call socialism, I prefer to call humanitarianism...
Mark van Dyk
Indeed, Tim. Einstein was of the same opinion. He said, basically, that the only true humanitarian form of government was socialism.
Unfortunately, I fear that the way things have gone in this country is the way things have gone throughout history. I fear that no meaningful change will occur until the oligarchs are essentially thrown from power... Read More. And this will require revolution. Power of this sort tends to protect itself.
As for advertising in general, you know things have gone too far when people have begun tattooing corporate slogans and logos on their own skin. Somehow, I fear that America has already sold its soul, and we won't be getting it back any time soon...
Yesterday at 12:41pm
Aarya Amir Shayan
When socialism is called humanitarianism, something is wrong. Was it humanitarianism for the people of Stalins Russia? For North Koreans? For Cubans? For Romanians? And so forth... Ironic that someone should quote Einstein, here... Read More´s another quote: "Stupidity is defined by trying something over and over again, and hoping that it will deliver different results next time!"
Is Capitalism so evil? Has it been for people of Taiwan and South Korea, where they have, in 30 years, gone from atrocious circumstances, massive percentage of absolute poverty to today, where their GPD is as high as Spain and Portugal? But hey, since when did ideologues care about facts and data?
Yesterday at 12:55pm
Tim Roop
Socialism, in theory, is a far cry from socialism, in practice, throughout history. What is the primary reason for that? In the Soviet Union, as in N. Korea, as in Nazi Germany, socialism was the term applied to the practices used to keep the populace impoverished rather than empowered. A mis-nomer doled-out by their authoritarian, elitist, and ... Read Moregreedy leadership. In the United States, we call the same sort of practices "capitalism". And rather than having to bow to political leaders, we bow to corporations and lobbyists. And, again, to quote Einstein, "The problems we now face cannot be solved with the same sort of thinking used when we created them." Indeed, capitalism, in theory, is not a bad thing, but in the end, humanity tends to corrupt even the noblest of ideals.
Andrew Marotta
Aarya, your intelligent responses are always welcome. I take your point about US being wary of making the kinds of desperate mistakes that too often result in something that seems the opposite of humanitarianism, as seen in N. Korea. But consider the fact that Orwell predicted the very kind of government that would emerge from authoritarian ... Read Moresocialism. Despite that foreknowledge based on his own experiences with Stalinist thugs who had murdered a few of his friends in Spain, he still felt that socialism was not only viable but superior. Conservatives and libertarians love to quote Orwell just as they do John Stuart Mill, but both of these men had seen the depravity of unregulated capitalism during their own times and knew that socialism could erase much of the misery that was ignored by the Tory MPs.
Aarya Amir Shayan
Andrew, thank you for your kind words, always a pleasure reading your responses. I tried to reply to both you and Mr. Roop here, but since the response has to be limited, I will reply to both of you shortly through my blog, http://dariusaarya.blogspot.com
As for now, I ask you, Mr. Roop, to not just shun the practices of North Korea, Soviet Union... Read More, and other places that have tried Socialism so viciously. All these states practiced many of the fundamental tenants of Socialism, the most important being governmental ownership of land and corporations. China has done the same, precisely as advocated for by Marx and Engels. The results have been atrocious. I will explain further in my blog. Thank you both for your responses, appreciate it very much.
9 hours ago ·
Mark van Dyk
Well, in an effort to throw in my two cents, there is no ideal form of government or economy. We can only hope that our leaders will act humanely. Socialism is not an evil in and of itself anymore than a gun is. It is a system and a tool. No organized society truly exists in a sphere of absolutes. There is no such thing as pure capitalism ... Read Morebeing practiced anywhere. Socialism and Capitalism really can, and do, go hand in hand. They are balancing influences. Our roads, military, mail, and emergency services are socialistic in nature, and we do just fine with them in our capitalistic society.
I think when we speak of socialism in this country, what we really mean is equality of services and care for all. The health care issue is a good one to argue in this sense. I deem the issue to be a civil rights matter. Why this has not really been argued is confusing to me. Perhaps because it has class division at its heart instead of race or gender or sex.
8 hours ago
Andrew Marotta
I hear you saying that capitalism is not an ideology, but there is the element of a belief system that supports it. I won't call capitalism a religion, but it shares in common with most religions the element of faith guiding reason. We see this for example with Adam Smith described the "invisible hand" that corrects imbalances in the economic ... Read Moresystem, thus ensuring that neither consumer, worker, nor entrepreneur suffers for too long. This suggests that there is some benevolent deity watching over things and intervening whenever necessary. It is clear that no data ever have supported this belief. It is true that there is no permanent condition under any economic system, and that ensures that no one individual or group suffers (beyond death, bankruptcy, or insolvency, at least ) nor BENEFITS indefinitely. This is not the same thing as a hand correcting any imbalance.
Mark van Dyk
Am I right to assume you are not responding to me? :) LOL
On another note, I do fully agree with you that capitalism does share religious and ideological overtones. I would also be willing to bet that this is the same reason that questioning the merits of capitalism, especially by attempting to introduce alternative "beliefs" is seen as ... Read Moredangerous and, one might even argue, earth-shattering to those whose beliefs are being challenged. When we accept dogma and ideology as factual explanation for the way the world should work, we set ourselves up for a great fall. As a result, our barriers against alternative viewpoints become numerous and strong. No one particularly likes taking the fall!
about an hour ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
From Michael Shermers book "The mind of the market":
"If Adam Smith... Read More´s theory is so profound and proven, why do some people reject it, as others reject theory of evolution? Natural selection and the invisible hand - evolution and economics - are not religious tenets one swears allegiance to or believes in as a matter of faith; they are factual realities of the empirical world, and just as one would not say ´I believe in gravity´ one should not proclaim ´I believe in economics´." (p18)
Where I believe you are making a mistake is that you seem to take the term "Invisible hand" literally. Of course no one believes there´s an actual hand guiding the market, "The Invisible hand" is just a metaphor, a linguistic term for that process which is WELL PROVEN, beyond any reasonable doubt.
about an hour ago ·
Mark van Dyk
To expand this notion, one might begin to question the American Dream itself. Indeed, it seems to me that this dream is at the very heart of it all. It is a myth of course, but one we have believed in for a very long time.
about an hour ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Mr. van Dyk, the exact same thing could be applied to Evolution, a circular world, or any other scientific theory. What you said, I suggest with all due respect, is incorrect. People question things all the time. It... Read More´s through empirical data and hard research that something becomes more and more immune to criticism. I don´t support Capitalism on the same basis as those on FOX network, for example. They do it due to a ideological belief, which is pointless. I do it because of all the facts supporting it as the best available system for modern economics. Churchill once said that democracy isn´t perfect, but it´s the best we´ve got. The exact same principle can be applied to Capitalism. If you disagree, SHOW me another system that has worked better. No need to speculate about a utopian fantasy-land, let´s look at the evidence.
52 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
But, Aarya, belief does fuel the machine. We do guide the outcomes of events and systemic processes with our beliefs regarding expected outcomes. And sometimes we do this without thinking a great deal about it. It is part of our belief system, a system which demands, in so many ways, that we do not think about it.
Capitalism, just like any ... Read Moreother economic system, is something we all have to agree on and believe in in order for it to actually work. Capitalism is simply an abstract construct. Without our mutual agreement on outcomes and meaning, it retreats back into the obscurity of the "idea". And, as an abstract construct, it is subject to the the same fatal flaws as any abstract sytem. It cannot hope to encompass reality. :)
Mark van Dyk
Well, as I said, capitalism cannot work without other economic theories and principles alongside it. Pure capitalism cannot work just as pure socialism cannot work. The point I am really trying to make is not which system is better. The point I am trying to make is that an harmonious arrangement between capitalism and socialism can, and does, ... Read Moreexist. To believe that one is better is somewhat like saying musical notation is better than tablature for the guitar. They are both abstract languages that we must understand, believe in, and agree upon their inherent meanings in order for them to work. Without these elements, they are mere scribbles on a page.
43 minutes ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Again, I wish to respectfully disagree, Mark. Capitalism is not an ideology that was founded and then pursued, it is a bottom-up system that evolved over the course of couple of hundred years, maybe more. Compare it to our immune system. Sure, if we mistreat our bodies, our immune system will collapse, just the same way that if we prohibit ... Read MoreCapitalism from evolving, or developing, it will collapse (just as it has done in this recession). But that doesn´t make it an ideology, just as our immune system is not a product of Intelligent Design. It just makes it an evolved system, the best we´ve got.
43 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
I am not saying that capitalism is an ideology. I am saying that capitalism requires belief to work. This may seem almost unworthy of mention, but frankly every single abstract system ever invented demands a certain amount of belief. If we did not infuse them with belief, they would never come to be.
We give shape and meaning to abstractions. When we begin to allow abstractions to shape us and give us meaning, herein lies a rather larger problem.
38 minutes ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Do we need to believe in the immune system for it to work? No, we just shouldn... Read More´t mistreat it. The same thing applies to Capitalism. I´m from Sweden, and trust me (but don´t, look it up for yourself!), socialized Health Care isn´t all that dandy, as Michael Moore wants you to believe. That´s why he made such a fool of himself when Sanjay Gupta confronted him with facts about countries that have Socialized Health Care. In Sweden, people suffer, and sometimes even die, whilst waiting in line for 6 months to get an X-Ray. Nurses strike, Doctors find better wages abroad, the waiting is massive for the simplest procedures, and the country is drowning in taxes. I guess you´re somewhat right when you say that it needs belief to work, if by belief you mean conviction of its effects. But socialists today prosper and benefit from Capitalism and Free Market, by recruiting people through websites and distributing information via the Internet. And they certainly don´t "believe" in it!
29 minutes ago
Mark van Dyk
The immune system is not an abstract construct, Aarya. It has physical reality. Economics is not a real thing. It is a construct of the mind.
Aarya Amir Shayan
I beg to disagree, it is an evolved system with mechanisms far beyond our comprehension, "living on its own". I recommend Michael Shermers "The Mind of the market", he´s much more eloquent than me in the subject.
Mark van Dyk
I would be willing to bet that the "Mind of the Market" as he describes it is our collective will and desire. Mathematics seems to have its own life too, but it is only an abstract construct with no meaning outside what we give it. Still, I could be wrong! Thanks for the thoughtful and engaging dialogue. :)
Aarya Amir Shayan
It is me who should thank you, it... Read More´s been a delightful pleasure! These terms are linguistic place-fillers, of course the market doesn´t have an actual mind or life, but there are mechanisms in motion far beyond our conscious mind. Naturally, if all human beings died, there would be no market. But it is how the market operates, as a result of our evolution, that is the interesting notion if the book! It is brilliantly written, I truly recommend it! Also, if you have a chance, read Johan Norbergs remarkable book "In defense of Global Capitalism". Or watch his documentary "Globalization is good" on Google Video. All the best, you are a fantastic intellectual, and I´m very honored to have made your acquaintance!
12 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
Thank you too. You know, just as we were sitting here reading and writing I began to have the idea that perhaps economics and economic behavior is akin to other elaborate social constructs governing actions and behavior within a given society. I have read a bit on totemism, and while sometimes the ideas seem very random and are hard to follow, ... Read Morepeople infuse the idea with power and then act accordingly. A powerful symbiosis arises when we place belief and power in our own ideas. We become the idea, in a sense, and the idea becomes us, and sometimes it is very difficult to establish the borders! Anyway, just a thought.
What some snidely call socialism, I prefer to call humanitarianism...
Mark van Dyk
Indeed, Tim. Einstein was of the same opinion. He said, basically, that the only true humanitarian form of government was socialism.
Unfortunately, I fear that the way things have gone in this country is the way things have gone throughout history. I fear that no meaningful change will occur until the oligarchs are essentially thrown from power... Read More. And this will require revolution. Power of this sort tends to protect itself.
As for advertising in general, you know things have gone too far when people have begun tattooing corporate slogans and logos on their own skin. Somehow, I fear that America has already sold its soul, and we won't be getting it back any time soon...
Yesterday at 12:41pm
Aarya Amir Shayan
When socialism is called humanitarianism, something is wrong. Was it humanitarianism for the people of Stalins Russia? For North Koreans? For Cubans? For Romanians? And so forth... Ironic that someone should quote Einstein, here... Read More´s another quote: "Stupidity is defined by trying something over and over again, and hoping that it will deliver different results next time!"
Is Capitalism so evil? Has it been for people of Taiwan and South Korea, where they have, in 30 years, gone from atrocious circumstances, massive percentage of absolute poverty to today, where their GPD is as high as Spain and Portugal? But hey, since when did ideologues care about facts and data?
Yesterday at 12:55pm
Tim Roop
Socialism, in theory, is a far cry from socialism, in practice, throughout history. What is the primary reason for that? In the Soviet Union, as in N. Korea, as in Nazi Germany, socialism was the term applied to the practices used to keep the populace impoverished rather than empowered. A mis-nomer doled-out by their authoritarian, elitist, and ... Read Moregreedy leadership. In the United States, we call the same sort of practices "capitalism". And rather than having to bow to political leaders, we bow to corporations and lobbyists. And, again, to quote Einstein, "The problems we now face cannot be solved with the same sort of thinking used when we created them." Indeed, capitalism, in theory, is not a bad thing, but in the end, humanity tends to corrupt even the noblest of ideals.
Andrew Marotta
Aarya, your intelligent responses are always welcome. I take your point about US being wary of making the kinds of desperate mistakes that too often result in something that seems the opposite of humanitarianism, as seen in N. Korea. But consider the fact that Orwell predicted the very kind of government that would emerge from authoritarian ... Read Moresocialism. Despite that foreknowledge based on his own experiences with Stalinist thugs who had murdered a few of his friends in Spain, he still felt that socialism was not only viable but superior. Conservatives and libertarians love to quote Orwell just as they do John Stuart Mill, but both of these men had seen the depravity of unregulated capitalism during their own times and knew that socialism could erase much of the misery that was ignored by the Tory MPs.
Aarya Amir Shayan
Andrew, thank you for your kind words, always a pleasure reading your responses. I tried to reply to both you and Mr. Roop here, but since the response has to be limited, I will reply to both of you shortly through my blog, http://dariusaarya.blogspot.com
As for now, I ask you, Mr. Roop, to not just shun the practices of North Korea, Soviet Union... Read More, and other places that have tried Socialism so viciously. All these states practiced many of the fundamental tenants of Socialism, the most important being governmental ownership of land and corporations. China has done the same, precisely as advocated for by Marx and Engels. The results have been atrocious. I will explain further in my blog. Thank you both for your responses, appreciate it very much.
9 hours ago ·
Mark van Dyk
Well, in an effort to throw in my two cents, there is no ideal form of government or economy. We can only hope that our leaders will act humanely. Socialism is not an evil in and of itself anymore than a gun is. It is a system and a tool. No organized society truly exists in a sphere of absolutes. There is no such thing as pure capitalism ... Read Morebeing practiced anywhere. Socialism and Capitalism really can, and do, go hand in hand. They are balancing influences. Our roads, military, mail, and emergency services are socialistic in nature, and we do just fine with them in our capitalistic society.
I think when we speak of socialism in this country, what we really mean is equality of services and care for all. The health care issue is a good one to argue in this sense. I deem the issue to be a civil rights matter. Why this has not really been argued is confusing to me. Perhaps because it has class division at its heart instead of race or gender or sex.
8 hours ago
Andrew Marotta
I hear you saying that capitalism is not an ideology, but there is the element of a belief system that supports it. I won't call capitalism a religion, but it shares in common with most religions the element of faith guiding reason. We see this for example with Adam Smith described the "invisible hand" that corrects imbalances in the economic ... Read Moresystem, thus ensuring that neither consumer, worker, nor entrepreneur suffers for too long. This suggests that there is some benevolent deity watching over things and intervening whenever necessary. It is clear that no data ever have supported this belief. It is true that there is no permanent condition under any economic system, and that ensures that no one individual or group suffers (beyond death, bankruptcy, or insolvency, at least ) nor BENEFITS indefinitely. This is not the same thing as a hand correcting any imbalance.
Mark van Dyk
Am I right to assume you are not responding to me? :) LOL
On another note, I do fully agree with you that capitalism does share religious and ideological overtones. I would also be willing to bet that this is the same reason that questioning the merits of capitalism, especially by attempting to introduce alternative "beliefs" is seen as ... Read Moredangerous and, one might even argue, earth-shattering to those whose beliefs are being challenged. When we accept dogma and ideology as factual explanation for the way the world should work, we set ourselves up for a great fall. As a result, our barriers against alternative viewpoints become numerous and strong. No one particularly likes taking the fall!
about an hour ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
From Michael Shermers book "The mind of the market":
"If Adam Smith... Read More´s theory is so profound and proven, why do some people reject it, as others reject theory of evolution? Natural selection and the invisible hand - evolution and economics - are not religious tenets one swears allegiance to or believes in as a matter of faith; they are factual realities of the empirical world, and just as one would not say ´I believe in gravity´ one should not proclaim ´I believe in economics´." (p18)
Where I believe you are making a mistake is that you seem to take the term "Invisible hand" literally. Of course no one believes there´s an actual hand guiding the market, "The Invisible hand" is just a metaphor, a linguistic term for that process which is WELL PROVEN, beyond any reasonable doubt.
about an hour ago ·
Mark van Dyk
To expand this notion, one might begin to question the American Dream itself. Indeed, it seems to me that this dream is at the very heart of it all. It is a myth of course, but one we have believed in for a very long time.
about an hour ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Mr. van Dyk, the exact same thing could be applied to Evolution, a circular world, or any other scientific theory. What you said, I suggest with all due respect, is incorrect. People question things all the time. It... Read More´s through empirical data and hard research that something becomes more and more immune to criticism. I don´t support Capitalism on the same basis as those on FOX network, for example. They do it due to a ideological belief, which is pointless. I do it because of all the facts supporting it as the best available system for modern economics. Churchill once said that democracy isn´t perfect, but it´s the best we´ve got. The exact same principle can be applied to Capitalism. If you disagree, SHOW me another system that has worked better. No need to speculate about a utopian fantasy-land, let´s look at the evidence.
52 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
But, Aarya, belief does fuel the machine. We do guide the outcomes of events and systemic processes with our beliefs regarding expected outcomes. And sometimes we do this without thinking a great deal about it. It is part of our belief system, a system which demands, in so many ways, that we do not think about it.
Capitalism, just like any ... Read Moreother economic system, is something we all have to agree on and believe in in order for it to actually work. Capitalism is simply an abstract construct. Without our mutual agreement on outcomes and meaning, it retreats back into the obscurity of the "idea". And, as an abstract construct, it is subject to the the same fatal flaws as any abstract sytem. It cannot hope to encompass reality. :)
Mark van Dyk
Well, as I said, capitalism cannot work without other economic theories and principles alongside it. Pure capitalism cannot work just as pure socialism cannot work. The point I am really trying to make is not which system is better. The point I am trying to make is that an harmonious arrangement between capitalism and socialism can, and does, ... Read Moreexist. To believe that one is better is somewhat like saying musical notation is better than tablature for the guitar. They are both abstract languages that we must understand, believe in, and agree upon their inherent meanings in order for them to work. Without these elements, they are mere scribbles on a page.
43 minutes ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Again, I wish to respectfully disagree, Mark. Capitalism is not an ideology that was founded and then pursued, it is a bottom-up system that evolved over the course of couple of hundred years, maybe more. Compare it to our immune system. Sure, if we mistreat our bodies, our immune system will collapse, just the same way that if we prohibit ... Read MoreCapitalism from evolving, or developing, it will collapse (just as it has done in this recession). But that doesn´t make it an ideology, just as our immune system is not a product of Intelligent Design. It just makes it an evolved system, the best we´ve got.
43 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
I am not saying that capitalism is an ideology. I am saying that capitalism requires belief to work. This may seem almost unworthy of mention, but frankly every single abstract system ever invented demands a certain amount of belief. If we did not infuse them with belief, they would never come to be.
We give shape and meaning to abstractions. When we begin to allow abstractions to shape us and give us meaning, herein lies a rather larger problem.
38 minutes ago
Aarya Amir Shayan
Do we need to believe in the immune system for it to work? No, we just shouldn... Read More´t mistreat it. The same thing applies to Capitalism. I´m from Sweden, and trust me (but don´t, look it up for yourself!), socialized Health Care isn´t all that dandy, as Michael Moore wants you to believe. That´s why he made such a fool of himself when Sanjay Gupta confronted him with facts about countries that have Socialized Health Care. In Sweden, people suffer, and sometimes even die, whilst waiting in line for 6 months to get an X-Ray. Nurses strike, Doctors find better wages abroad, the waiting is massive for the simplest procedures, and the country is drowning in taxes. I guess you´re somewhat right when you say that it needs belief to work, if by belief you mean conviction of its effects. But socialists today prosper and benefit from Capitalism and Free Market, by recruiting people through websites and distributing information via the Internet. And they certainly don´t "believe" in it!
29 minutes ago
Mark van Dyk
The immune system is not an abstract construct, Aarya. It has physical reality. Economics is not a real thing. It is a construct of the mind.
Aarya Amir Shayan
I beg to disagree, it is an evolved system with mechanisms far beyond our comprehension, "living on its own". I recommend Michael Shermers "The Mind of the market", he´s much more eloquent than me in the subject.
Mark van Dyk
I would be willing to bet that the "Mind of the Market" as he describes it is our collective will and desire. Mathematics seems to have its own life too, but it is only an abstract construct with no meaning outside what we give it. Still, I could be wrong! Thanks for the thoughtful and engaging dialogue. :)
Aarya Amir Shayan
It is me who should thank you, it... Read More´s been a delightful pleasure! These terms are linguistic place-fillers, of course the market doesn´t have an actual mind or life, but there are mechanisms in motion far beyond our conscious mind. Naturally, if all human beings died, there would be no market. But it is how the market operates, as a result of our evolution, that is the interesting notion if the book! It is brilliantly written, I truly recommend it! Also, if you have a chance, read Johan Norbergs remarkable book "In defense of Global Capitalism". Or watch his documentary "Globalization is good" on Google Video. All the best, you are a fantastic intellectual, and I´m very honored to have made your acquaintance!
12 minutes ago ·
Mark van Dyk
Thank you too. You know, just as we were sitting here reading and writing I began to have the idea that perhaps economics and economic behavior is akin to other elaborate social constructs governing actions and behavior within a given society. I have read a bit on totemism, and while sometimes the ideas seem very random and are hard to follow, ... Read Morepeople infuse the idea with power and then act accordingly. A powerful symbiosis arises when we place belief and power in our own ideas. We become the idea, in a sense, and the idea becomes us, and sometimes it is very difficult to establish the borders! Anyway, just a thought.
Friday 24 July 2009
First entry: Friday 24th of July 2009
Good morning, afternoon or night!
This is my first time blogging, so please pardon my amateur style of writing. I will not use these blogs to write down my daily activities, or trivial thoughts. Instead I will attempt to use this as a platform to defend Capitalism and Free Market. To start with, if you have read Johan Norbergs fantastic book "In defense of Global Capitalism", you don´t need to read this blog at all, as most of it comes from there. Eventually, I will also use Michael Shermers book "Mind of the market", but in a latter stage, as I believe the case for Capitalism should first be made by showing what it has done around the world, and then why it is not only the moral approach to economics, but also the logical.
So, what IS Capitalism? Well, that´s a key issue if this is to be debated. Capitalism is often misconstrued to mean many things it actually doesn´t, especially by Karl Marx and his followers today. Capitalism is not a political ideology, really, but an economical system that is based on individuals being able to pursue their own happiness through private ownership of land, or company and such. It is, in this way, a complete contrast to socialism where the government owns everything.
For Capitalism to truly work, there needs to be a free liberalized market, i.e Free Economy. This means that any person or business has the right to sell, import or export from whoever they want, no matter the geographical boundaries. This is where governments usually feel they can make a profit from entrepeneurs, by taxation and tariffs. What this actually does is that it haltens the flow of exchange between the company and the consumer, the seller and the buyer. In doing so, the inflow of money is thus prevented to run smoothly, and the pursuing of happiness for a company or an individual is restricted or sometimes even prevented by bureucratic agencies.
But why defend this system? I will quote from a review of Norbergs book;
"The particular charm of this passionate essay is that Capitalism would not interest Norberg if it were not such a mighty engine of human liberty." - Rosemary Righter, The Times of London
Because it IS such a driving force for human liberty, for democratization, for growth, for wellfare, for happiness. It is proven that Capitalism and Free Market is the system that best benefit the poor, that leads to most growth for people, that most effectively combats starvation, diseaces, illiteracy and hunger. Yet, thanks to popular media and youth being inspired by leftist entertainers (Michael Moore, for example) instead of being educated by impartial experts, Capitalism is constantly under critisicm.
I care not much for arguments. The problem with arguments are that the person best equipped lingually tends to win, even if the other side is correct. I care about facts and statistics. About objective analysis. About scientific investigation. Using only such data, Socialists don´t stand a chance. Not only because Socialism has never worked and will never work, but also becuase Capitalism has so often worked. One can, as Naomi Klein constanstly does, cherry pick examples, but when looking at the broader picture, Capitalism is by far the best system for people.
I will leave this blog for now, as I am feeling that I am getting carried away in all different directions, but hopefully I will write a new one soon, and start to go in depth by focusing on different categories one at the time.
All the best!
This is my first time blogging, so please pardon my amateur style of writing. I will not use these blogs to write down my daily activities, or trivial thoughts. Instead I will attempt to use this as a platform to defend Capitalism and Free Market. To start with, if you have read Johan Norbergs fantastic book "In defense of Global Capitalism", you don´t need to read this blog at all, as most of it comes from there. Eventually, I will also use Michael Shermers book "Mind of the market", but in a latter stage, as I believe the case for Capitalism should first be made by showing what it has done around the world, and then why it is not only the moral approach to economics, but also the logical.
So, what IS Capitalism? Well, that´s a key issue if this is to be debated. Capitalism is often misconstrued to mean many things it actually doesn´t, especially by Karl Marx and his followers today. Capitalism is not a political ideology, really, but an economical system that is based on individuals being able to pursue their own happiness through private ownership of land, or company and such. It is, in this way, a complete contrast to socialism where the government owns everything.
For Capitalism to truly work, there needs to be a free liberalized market, i.e Free Economy. This means that any person or business has the right to sell, import or export from whoever they want, no matter the geographical boundaries. This is where governments usually feel they can make a profit from entrepeneurs, by taxation and tariffs. What this actually does is that it haltens the flow of exchange between the company and the consumer, the seller and the buyer. In doing so, the inflow of money is thus prevented to run smoothly, and the pursuing of happiness for a company or an individual is restricted or sometimes even prevented by bureucratic agencies.
But why defend this system? I will quote from a review of Norbergs book;
"The particular charm of this passionate essay is that Capitalism would not interest Norberg if it were not such a mighty engine of human liberty." - Rosemary Righter, The Times of London
Because it IS such a driving force for human liberty, for democratization, for growth, for wellfare, for happiness. It is proven that Capitalism and Free Market is the system that best benefit the poor, that leads to most growth for people, that most effectively combats starvation, diseaces, illiteracy and hunger. Yet, thanks to popular media and youth being inspired by leftist entertainers (Michael Moore, for example) instead of being educated by impartial experts, Capitalism is constantly under critisicm.
I care not much for arguments. The problem with arguments are that the person best equipped lingually tends to win, even if the other side is correct. I care about facts and statistics. About objective analysis. About scientific investigation. Using only such data, Socialists don´t stand a chance. Not only because Socialism has never worked and will never work, but also becuase Capitalism has so often worked. One can, as Naomi Klein constanstly does, cherry pick examples, but when looking at the broader picture, Capitalism is by far the best system for people.
I will leave this blog for now, as I am feeling that I am getting carried away in all different directions, but hopefully I will write a new one soon, and start to go in depth by focusing on different categories one at the time.
All the best!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
