It seemed Weber argued a similar thing about greed which made me think that restraining greed and dominance is probably an overlooked good part of capitalism, but mayyyybe the restraint conception from the 1970s and not the unleashed economic power of zero marginal cost platforms
Oh, how often the obvious is overlooked. One can only dissect theory so much. In all this analysis, what is the true objective being sought here? Economic perfectionism, that attempts to dismiss all of the human frailties that come with it.-
Didn't Voltaire believe in the efficacy of reason, however one wishes to start defining that. I think he believed that social progress could be obtained by reason, and that no authority, political or religious, should be immune to challenge by reason. Is reason another term for logic?-
Does economic freedom facilitate political freedom? If governments own the means of production and set prices, this leads to a potent state, but creates a large bureaucracy which can impact other areas of life. -
Interesting argument; that can be challenged for the next thousand years.
I agree, it's all too easy to fall into the sink-hole of theory, failing to accomplish anything other than intellectual masturbation. For my part, the *point* of all this theory and analysis is pretty targeted: we should focus on a particular category of economic policies. I tried connecting the theory + analysis to those policies here: https://musingmind.org/essays/time-inequality
I do think there's a connection between the way we theorize and the policies that make it to the surface of public consciousness. But by and large, I think you're right, that we tend to get lost in the clouds of theory (compared to other hobbies, like binging Netflix, pontificating about theory isn't all that bad though :)
I read time-inequality so as to familiarize myself better with your objective in mind. Interesting, and a beautifully written piece of a theoretical format that unfortunately fails to address a most important foundation. Firstly, when you mention "I do think there's a connection between the way we theorize and the policies that make it to the surface of public consciousness" in your response, there is a definitional challenge. "Consciousness", I assume you intend awareness, as neuroscientists have been trying to define "consciousness" for many years. We are still not sure how to crystallize its intent or purpose. That being said, all ideas are theorized conceptually before they can impact awareness or at least have some practical use. Didn't Goethe say (I paraphrase) "If you can think it, do it".-
Theory certainly has its place and in fact I often see as an art of thinking. (Einstein's theory of relativity). Veering more towards your true impact point of economics, capitalism and the sharing equally of time, I think what is being proposed will require an evolutionary change of the human organism. Surely, you know of the analogy; man builds cars or airplanes or anything, always looking to improve the quality (hopefully) and to improve the mechanism itself. What might happen if you IMPROVE man himself, and increase his ability closer to perfection (though never quite arriving), how will that improve what man himself creates? The time equality theory is artistic, and perhaps workable if we were born into such a time equal world. It takes time to change man, and his ways. Curiously, greed in many individuals and perhaps in most of the human race is a biological factor. The grizzly bear will chase away others trying to steal from his food cache. This is his security, and encourages his survival. No, we are not grizzly bears and possess a much higher ability to examine the theory of sharing. In a certain sense though, we are like predators always looking to increase our security and survivorship. -
Didn't Hannah Arendt also say, and I paraphrase; "After the most radical revolutionary wins the revolution, he will become a conservative ( or perhaps the person he has overthrown). Personally, after having lived in a mostly socialist country for 8 years, I saw some benefits but found myself more annoyed and frustrated at its disbenefits, and lack of sharing. Knowing people who worked in those governments, and listening to their stories of corruption and dishonesty, just like in capitalism, I came to certain realizations about its failures. Again, in theory, it is interesting and might be the perfect experiment (your proposal) Considering, what human beings have become, what we expect, instant gratification a necessity, we realize we are not here for a very long time. We want results now. Very well. As I said previously, this can be debated forever, and I do think the theories have their place. After all, one never knows what may result. Besides, I admit, that you may be on to something, though I doubt we will be around to see it. For the meantime, I confess, I have well benefitted from capitalist opportunities, and I feel no need to change the system. I also philosophically believe, in work -equal sharing. I believe those who work harder deserve to do better, and prosper. With the exception of physical handicaps, we must be our own authors as to how we live our lives. If you think truly that your theory will eliminate these factors altogether, again, it may catch on someday.
It seemed Weber argued a similar thing about greed which made me think that restraining greed and dominance is probably an overlooked good part of capitalism, but mayyyybe the restraint conception from the 1970s and not the unleashed economic power of zero marginal cost platforms
Oh, how often the obvious is overlooked. One can only dissect theory so much. In all this analysis, what is the true objective being sought here? Economic perfectionism, that attempts to dismiss all of the human frailties that come with it.-
Didn't Voltaire believe in the efficacy of reason, however one wishes to start defining that. I think he believed that social progress could be obtained by reason, and that no authority, political or religious, should be immune to challenge by reason. Is reason another term for logic?-
Does economic freedom facilitate political freedom? If governments own the means of production and set prices, this leads to a potent state, but creates a large bureaucracy which can impact other areas of life. -
Interesting argument; that can be challenged for the next thousand years.
I agree, it's all too easy to fall into the sink-hole of theory, failing to accomplish anything other than intellectual masturbation. For my part, the *point* of all this theory and analysis is pretty targeted: we should focus on a particular category of economic policies. I tried connecting the theory + analysis to those policies here: https://musingmind.org/essays/time-inequality
I do think there's a connection between the way we theorize and the policies that make it to the surface of public consciousness. But by and large, I think you're right, that we tend to get lost in the clouds of theory (compared to other hobbies, like binging Netflix, pontificating about theory isn't all that bad though :)
I read time-inequality so as to familiarize myself better with your objective in mind. Interesting, and a beautifully written piece of a theoretical format that unfortunately fails to address a most important foundation. Firstly, when you mention "I do think there's a connection between the way we theorize and the policies that make it to the surface of public consciousness" in your response, there is a definitional challenge. "Consciousness", I assume you intend awareness, as neuroscientists have been trying to define "consciousness" for many years. We are still not sure how to crystallize its intent or purpose. That being said, all ideas are theorized conceptually before they can impact awareness or at least have some practical use. Didn't Goethe say (I paraphrase) "If you can think it, do it".-
Theory certainly has its place and in fact I often see as an art of thinking. (Einstein's theory of relativity). Veering more towards your true impact point of economics, capitalism and the sharing equally of time, I think what is being proposed will require an evolutionary change of the human organism. Surely, you know of the analogy; man builds cars or airplanes or anything, always looking to improve the quality (hopefully) and to improve the mechanism itself. What might happen if you IMPROVE man himself, and increase his ability closer to perfection (though never quite arriving), how will that improve what man himself creates? The time equality theory is artistic, and perhaps workable if we were born into such a time equal world. It takes time to change man, and his ways. Curiously, greed in many individuals and perhaps in most of the human race is a biological factor. The grizzly bear will chase away others trying to steal from his food cache. This is his security, and encourages his survival. No, we are not grizzly bears and possess a much higher ability to examine the theory of sharing. In a certain sense though, we are like predators always looking to increase our security and survivorship. -
Didn't Hannah Arendt also say, and I paraphrase; "After the most radical revolutionary wins the revolution, he will become a conservative ( or perhaps the person he has overthrown). Personally, after having lived in a mostly socialist country for 8 years, I saw some benefits but found myself more annoyed and frustrated at its disbenefits, and lack of sharing. Knowing people who worked in those governments, and listening to their stories of corruption and dishonesty, just like in capitalism, I came to certain realizations about its failures. Again, in theory, it is interesting and might be the perfect experiment (your proposal) Considering, what human beings have become, what we expect, instant gratification a necessity, we realize we are not here for a very long time. We want results now. Very well. As I said previously, this can be debated forever, and I do think the theories have their place. After all, one never knows what may result. Besides, I admit, that you may be on to something, though I doubt we will be around to see it. For the meantime, I confess, I have well benefitted from capitalist opportunities, and I feel no need to change the system. I also philosophically believe, in work -equal sharing. I believe those who work harder deserve to do better, and prosper. With the exception of physical handicaps, we must be our own authors as to how we live our lives. If you think truly that your theory will eliminate these factors altogether, again, it may catch on someday.