The anti-utilitarian nature of economic equality.

[The One and Only...]

I thought about this earlier, so I thought I might share my view.

The logic is simple: what matters is not material wealth, but pleasure derived through life.

Different people have different opinions on what is pleasureable. Some enjoy having time off work to spend spend time with family, etc. Others have a work-a-holic attitude and would rather maximize utility out of material objects.

What this means is obvious. Economic equality would necessarily lead to inequal pleasure, since some humans derive more pleasure from material wealth than others. Hence, equality of pleasure is nonexistant.

The true way to achieve equality would be to distribute material wealth according to each individual's material pleasure rate, modified for the pleasure rate derived from nonmaterial experiences. As this would be horribly impractical, if not impossible, there is only one thing to have: capitalism, which modifies pleasure ratios according to merit within the market system.

[Protoclown]

i hate you

[The One and Only...]

The sentiment is mutual.

[AChimp]

A Jedi craves not pleasure.

[The One and Only...]

A jedi is not a hedonist, either.

[Drew Katsikas]

The threads you are making are just masturbation. NO ONE WANTS TO READ THESE BUT YOU.

[theapportioner]

A person's idea of what is pleasurable is shaped by the very forces of capitalism. Capitalism, for many, fits because it reshapes cultures and societies, not because of something inherently 'utilitarian' about the concept. It's like saying that the church should be kept around because it gives people 'spiritual pleasure'. This is true, but only because it's been around for a bit and people have gotten used to it, dependent on it.

[mburbank]

You are way prouder of your logical abilities than you ought to be. You'er like a young violin player who wants to wow people by playing really difficult pieces though he flubs multiple sections instead of playing something simpler and learning to do it well.

Your initial statement about pleasure and money is reasonably solid, though pedestrian. After that it all falls apart. Your 'obvious' conclusion is full of holes. Economic equality wouldn't 'lead' to ineqal pleasure a state that already exists. Not solving a problem isn't the same thing as creating it.

You then state that we can't make people equally happy and bizarely conclude that this means capitalism is the best system. That's like saying you can't make an apple pie with oranges so thebest thing to do is play golf.
your final statement 'capitalism, which modifies pleasure ratios according to merit within the market system.' is supported in no way by any part of your argument. In addition, as far as I know there is no reliable system by which 'pleasure ratios' can be measured .

Stop the chin music. Your hubristic pride is going to thwart any potential you might have. You come across as an overly loquacious trained monkey. Try applying the critical skills you demonstrate to you own statements. Show a little rigour. You are a swirly begging to happen.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Your initial statement about pleasure and money is reasonably solid, though pedestrian. After that it all falls apart. Your 'obvious' conclusion is full of holes. Economic equality wouldn't 'lead' to ineqal pleasure a state that already exists. Not solving a problem isn't the same thing as creating it.

Ok, but that is a technicality that remains irrelevant to the point.

You then state that we can't make people equally happy and bizarely conclude that this means capitalism is the best system. That's like saying you can't make an apple pie with oranges so thebest thing to do is play golf.

Capitalism is the system which comes closest to making people as happy as possible by giving them free choice.

your final statement 'capitalism, which modifies pleasure ratios according to merit within the market system.' is supported in no way by any part of your argument. In addition, as far as I know there is no reliable system by which 'pleasure ratios' can be measured.

You don't need to measure the ratios, you just need to use logic. Capitalism rewards those who function better in the market with higher salaries, which helps both the person who enjoys lots of cash and the one who wants more family time. One gets richer, one can work less. Thus, capitalism modifies the amount of pleasure received correspondant to level of function in the market. Utimately, this leads to greater pleasure for all, but we are escaping the point, which was that economic equality does not lead to equality of pleasure. That said, surely you can recognize that capitalism lowers the inequality of pleasure among persons when compared to systems like socialism?

[Royal Tenenbaum]

Your argument is so simplistic that I have to ask you, why are you wasting our time? People derive pleasure, so they go out into the market and work to maximize that pleasure; you're point though? Please keep the Ecomonics 101 to yourself.

[mburbank]

"Ok, but that is a technicality that remains irrelevant to the point. "

A technicality raised by you. Your thought process is muddy and needs work. You arrogance is unfounded and a hinderance to your developement.

"Capitalism is the system which comes closest to making people as happy as possible by giving them free choice."

I might even agree with that statement. But you don't support it in any way, you simply state it as a fact. The relationship between Capitalism, free choice and happiness is subjective and in now way examined by you. I assume you inteded to do more than bluster, but underneath all the showing off that's all you're doing. You can dress a turd in a gown and take it to th prom, but it won't dance.

"Capitalism rewards those who function better in the market with higher salaries"

Huh. That's why George Bush got bailed out by friends of his father whenever his businesses failed, right? His really great functioning in the market. That's why Michael Powell is head of the FCC sitting pretty for huge thinly veiled industry bribes and why W's brother can go to Asia and get a salary and whores, becuase of they function so well in the market. Your faith in the Market and it's functional incorruptability are quasi religous and pro forma. In addition they are entirely theoretical. I would be a lot less sure of yoruslef until you work for a living and pay your own bills. Also, kids who use 'thus' in their writting are asking for a wedgie.

"economic equality does not lead to equality of pleasure."
experimentally this can't be proven since it's never been attempted. In addition, as a statement does not automatically justify it's converse. I would also suggest that they may be other worthy goals in the world than merely the accumulation of unmeasurable, unquantifiable pleasure units. Jutsice gives me pleasure.

"That said, surely you can recognize that capitalism lowers the inequality of pleasure among persons when compared to systems like socialism?"
Surely I can't. You don't make comparisons with any system. You use a meaningless statment implying the measurability of imeasurables and pair it with the word logic. Income is measurable. Time spent working is measurable. Access to health care and other neccesities are measurable.

Here's my point. You are thrilled with yourself. Your narcicism encourages you to overvalue your arguments, such as they are. It is a very unbecoming characteristic. I think you should concider the very strong possability that you might actually learn something by listening instead of expounding.

[AChimp]

YOU HAVE TO WORK FOR MONEY.

Saved.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

A technicality raised by you. Your thought process is muddy and needs work. You arrogance is unfounded and a hinderance to your developement.

Argumentum ad hominem.

I might even agree with that statement. But you don't support it in any way, you simply state it as a fact. The relationship between Capitalism, free choice and happiness is subjective and in now way examined by you. I assume you inteded to do more than bluster, but underneath all the showing off that's all you're doing. You can dress a turd in a gown and take it to th prom, but it won't dance.

You assume that I need to examine something in order to know it. All I need to have are a few self-evident (or, more appropriately, commonly induced) axioms. Happiness is subjective. That is precisely my point.

I am a product of the marginalist revolution (aka when economists realized that value is subjective). Now, clearly every person seeks to maximize the utility of their life. The amount of happiness derived from something is dependant upon the individual. What that means is that a system which allows people to choose what to purchase, how much to work, and how much to invest in education in return for future profits will allow those people to maximize the utility of their life.

With economic equality, however, this becomes distorted. Some people become happier; and some less happy. However, there is a net loss of happiness as wealth is transferred from those who would derive the most pleasure from it to those would derive less from it.

Now I realize that is a equilibrium thesis, in which every person is immortal and no wealth is handed down. But it is still very appropriate for numerous reasons, not the least of which is that many will receive gratification by knowing that their money will go down to the family. In any case, such hand downs are usually minor; the big cases of them are so few that they can be nearly discounted.

Huh. That's why George Bush got bailed out by friends of his father whenever his businesses failed, right? His really great functioning in the market. That's why Michael Powell is head of the FCC sitting pretty for huge thinly veiled industry bribes and why W's brother can go to Asia and get a salary and whores, becuase of they function so well in the market. Your faith in the Market and it's functional incorruptability are quasi religous and pro forma. In addition they are entirely theoretical. I would be a lot less sure of yoruslef until you work for a living and pay your own bills. Also, kids who use 'thus' in their writting are asking for a wedgie.

I just addressed this. Despite that, haven't you noticed that you are pointing out those who have strong ties to government? Michael Powell is outside of the market.

experimentally this can't be proven since it's never been attempted. In addition, as a statement does not automatically justify it's converse. I would also suggest that they may be other worthy goals in the world than merely the accumulation of unmeasurable, unquantifiable pleasure units. Jutsice gives me pleasure.

Pleasure can be measured by brain reactions. Justice does not exist any more than natural rights do. Even if it did, I would ascribe to Nozick's version of justice rather than Rawls.

Surely I can't. You don't make comparisons with any system. You use a meaningless statment implying the measurability of imeasurables and pair it with the word logic. Income is measurable. Time spent working is measurable. Access to health care and other neccesities are measurable.

Here's my point. You are thrilled with yourself. Your narcicism encourages you to overvalue your arguments, such as they are. It is a very unbecoming characteristic. I think you should concider the very strong possability that you might actually learn something by listening instead of expounding.

I've already made a strong case for my argument.

[theapportioner]

A system that gives people the freedom to choose their happiness gives people the freedom to abuse others'. It is only in spite of the system that we have protections against that sort of thing, that we have freedoms protecting the happiness of those who choose not to enter the "enterprise". Therefore capitalism by itself cannot achieve "optimal social happiness".

And there is no reason whatsoever why people who currently take happiness in the form of material wealth could not find happiness by other means. What makes us happy is not set in stone. I repeat: our ideas of what gives us pleasure derive from the societies in which we live, and the circumstances currently surrounding us.

Capitalism is never about optimizing social happiness. It is about making money. It will be able to accomplish the former only when our society has been fully shaped to accept the acquisition of material wealth as religion. Even slaves can learn to be happy.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

A system that gives people the freedom to choose their happiness gives people the freedom to abuse others'.

This is an unfortunate side effect of liberty. But, like you said, we have a legal system set up to keep others from encroaching upon our freedoms.

And there is no reason whatsoever why people who currently take happiness in the form of material wealth could not find happiness by other means. What makes us happy is not set in stone. I repeat: our ideas of what gives us pleasure derive from the societies in which we live, and the circumstances currently surrounding us.

I think you've grossly underestimated the role of fulfillment of instinct in pleasure. You may have taken the dialectical materialism a little too far.

Capitalism is never about optimizing social happiness. It is about making money. It will be able to accomplish the former only when our society has been fully shaped to accept the acquisition of material wealth as religion.

Thing is? That's a simplistic view. Few people choose to make money as an end in itself. The money either is used to represent status, buy pleasurable things, or (of course) attract a mate.

Even slaves can learn to be happy.

I couldn't disagree more. Captivity will never be satisfying to any animal, and we're no exception.

[Anonymous]

My girlfriend's kitten never tries to run away :/

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

A system that gives people the freedom to choose their happiness gives people the freedom to abuse others'. It is only in spite of the system that we have protections against that sort of thing, that we have freedoms protecting the happiness of those who choose not to enter the "enterprise". Therefore capitalism by itself cannot achieve "optimal social happiness".

I did not mean to suggest that capitalism could attain optimal social happiness. I meant to say that it is the system which will come closest.

In addition, you have a very different view of capitalism from me. Tell me, what abuse do you speak of?

And there is no reason whatsoever why people who currently take happiness in the form of material wealth could not find happiness by other means. What makes us happy is not set in stone. I repeat: our ideas of what gives us pleasure derive from the societies in which we live, and the circumstances currently surrounding us.

I have a very different view of human nature. I don't believe that it can be changed by culture. Suppressed? Certainly. But suppression rarely increases pleasure.

Capitalism is never about optimizing social happiness. It is about making money. It will be able to accomplish the former only when our society has been fully shaped to accept the acquisition of material wealth as religion. Even slaves can learn to be happy.

Invisable hand.

[theapportioner]

I think you've grossly underestimated the role of fulfillment of instinct in pleasure.

Of course it's a part of it. But "fulfillment of instinct" can be achieved via means other than the pursuit of material wealth. Intellectual achievement, spiritual satisfaction, freedom of expression, sexual satisfaction, social stability etc. are all things that are considered pleasurable. As far as I can tell, there is nothing special about capitalism that makes it easier for those who pursue these things.

Few people choose to make money as an end in itself. The money either is used to represent status, buy pleasurable things, or (of course) attract a mate.

No, but that wasn't really my point. Capitalism is an engine to generate wealth. Often, what people do with that wealth (to seek a mate etc.) is outside of capitalism.

Captivity will never be satisfying to any animal, and we're no exception.

Don't underestimate the abilities of the human mind.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Of course it's a part of it. But "fulfillment of instinct" can be achieved via means other than the pursuit of material wealth. Intellectual achievement, spiritual satisfaction, freedom of expression, sexual satisfaction, social stability etc. are all things that are considered pleasurable. As far as I can tell, there is nothing special about capitalism that makes it easier for those who pursue these things.

I was more opposed to your idea that what it pleasurable to humans is shaped by culture. Instinct exists outside of it.

Don't underestimate the abilities of the human mind.

Yes, the human mind has a remarkable ability to shine shit, but it would always amount to self-delusion in the case of captivity. Our desire for freedom is a very strong impulse.

Don't get me wrong, capitalism isn't without its faults. I just objected to a few of your premises.

[The One and Only...]

How does capitalism make it harder for those who have nonmaterial pursuits, exactly?

[MLE]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Even slaves can learn to be happy.

Case in Point: Submissives.

[mburbank]

Resolved: OAO is repulsive.

[sspadowsky]

Is it boring in here, or is it just OAO?

[Emu]

Honestly, I haven't understood a word he's said since he joined.

[Dole]

OAO you're a fucking cock, and if you dont get beaten up on an almost daily basis there is no justice in the world.