JJ: If I said that I think Micheal Jordan was 6ft6in we could go and verify it using a measuring tape. This is a hypothesis and not an opinion. Likewise, I made a guess as to your general view of things. It would help to try distinguising between the terms you use.Qx: Actually, JJ...I can see a huge gulf between the usages here but the "idea of the maximization of utility" is a bit rigid for creating a worldview of human history and all that's happened in ther past.
SDF: : If there's an appeal to emotion in your every post, its an appeal to the emotions felt by you yourself -- "I'm such a great guy who knows everything." You don't give references,:
JJ: This is bull. I give references all the time. Hume, Kant, Popper, Hayek, v. Mises, the dictionary, which absolutely no one else on this board does, Rhees-Mogg, Sellars, More (regardles of Sammy-boy's whining). What kind of references are you looking for? God?
Qx: Actually, God would be a sort of reference that you've been using but then again none of us have really looked and discussed this subject far enough.
SDF: : your philosophy of science has holes I could drive a truck through, and your criticisms are often childish.
JJ: Mmm, as I've never given my views on science I don't know what to make of this. However, if you're referring to my epistemological post "Classifications" it might have bolstered your case had you pointed out one or two of these holes.
Qx: I thought you gave at least one view of science that popped rather prominently here. Also, the idea of asking for "labels" is plain ludicrous when people simply make up labels for the sake of "utility maximization".
JJ: Read: "I don't like the shape of the argument and don't want to play anymore.: If you don't like the argument, go home to mommy.
Qx: There is not much of an argument that you're posing JJ. Capitalism is in crisis and trying to reform it or even propose a "pure capitalism" simply reeks of blindness to the real, material problems that this system of distribution has exacerbated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: : : : : Maybe socialism is evolving past Marxism. A good paradigm shift and an excitingly heady one to contemplate.
JJ: : : : : Which tens of thousands of years ago included everyone. Remember, no per-social individual means no pre-modern tribalism. Which means that at one time lines of property were drawn because people managed better when they could define a sphere that was their responsibility, although still a unified tribal collective.
: : : : SDF: Euro-Americans did NOT propertize the current territory of the United States of America "because people managed better when they could define a sphere that was their responsibility" -- they did it because they wanted to TAKE AWAY the land from First Nations stewardship and use it for their own purposes. People "managed better" in early imperialist societies (Greek, Roman etc.) when they could take what they wanted from other people -- there's no "responsibility" about it. Again, to quote the always-correct Joel Jacobson, who defends the Regime of Truth against the egregious errors of those stupider than he, "you are passing off your opinions as objective fact."
JJ: : : You're not even reading what I write are you. Later on, that very post, I specifically stated that conquest had taken much land through warfare and that this was definitely a viable issue worth discussing. However, the beginnings of discrete property and the price system within specific regions was the onus of your claim. Given the development within tribal units your claim simply does not hold up.
Qx: Then lets look at this issue. I think SDF was viewing the implications of such an idea encapulated in the your quote "because people managed better when they could define a sphere that was their responsibility".
: : SDF: Joel Jacobson claims his monopoly on the right to define what a conversation is about. My point is that the "maximization of utility" is a nonsense phrase saying nothing about social conditions.
JJ: Yeah, I do claim this right. It's a conversation begun by myself and possessing absolutely no pertinance to what you're referring to. This is not to say that what you're talking about has no relevance, but that what you're referring to does not have relevance to the current string. If you desire conversing regarding the Holocaust go ahead and start another string.
Qx: I think you're missing the real implications of what the thread subject you started has for human society. The subjects of the European invasion of the Americas and Gestapo tactics generally originate from the same underlying principles of property rights conferred by the ruling classes upon themselves and definitely not to the common people.
I don't know how you can claim "property rights" to an Internet debating thread by dint of the fact that you are the originator nor can I see how you state that what SDF has to say about your posting "has no pertinence" and then go on to state that "[t]his is not to say that what you're talking about has no relevance, but that what you're referring to does not have relevance to the current string."
The point is that indeed that I reserve grave doubts about the "maximization of utility". I find it to be a rather slippery term that can be used for all kinds of tricks.
None.
