[ThomG 312274]

A lot of ideologies which we learn about seem to be irrelevant in the current social climate. Looking at Marxism, Marxism was thought up and invented by Marx during the Industrial Revolution, when appalling conditions in factories and in urban areas for the average man were leading people away from libertarianism and towards socialism. Marxism today is in reality, dead. It exists in a heavily modified form in Cuba, China, Vietnam and a few other countries. Libertarianism was rendered irrelevant by the Industrial Revolution, and as a political philosophy died. This was because its policies and ideas couldn't work, and it subsequently floundered and died a limp death in the opening era of the twentieth century. The great sweep of history condemned it.

What I am arguing is that political philosphies are only relevant for the time in which they were invented and in which the social climate made it possible for the ideas of these ideologies to work. This means that all ideologies are doomed to fail at some point in the future, and that includes the 'Third Way' for example. Does anyone agree with me?

[Norwegian]

Neither marxism nor libertarianism are dead, because they still serve the interests of various special interest groups. The upper middle class of the private sector has libertarianism and the public employees have some offshots of marxism to toy around with. I think that utilitarianism is the most dynamic ideology, but it won`t get support, because it does not give special attention to powerful special interest groups.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

There has never been a libertarian society, just as there has never been a communist society.

This means that all ideologies are doomed to fail at some point in the future, and that includes the 'Third Way' for example. Does anyone agree with me?

The 'Third Way' is largely implemented in countries that have a soclal democratic/centre-left government. So in that sense I wouldn't call it universal. I doubt Chinese government's policies are based on the concept of the Third Way.

[futuristic]

Norwegian,
Utilitarianism is a great idea as well as democracy is but both suffer from the fact that the majority wants policies that will increase their happiness in the short run and decrease it and cause eventual collapse of the system in the long. This is because the majority is incompetent, can’t think, and doesn’t want to think.

As for the ideology, I think, socialism at the beginning can give education to the masses and industrialize the country but then the state should step aside, privatize schools and means of production, and let the market to take over. In other words, it should jump-start the process. But even afterwards the state should protect the disabled and help kids of poor parent to obtain good education. (Libertarians say, charities would handle that but to me it’s a very foreign idea, maybe because I wasn’t born in America.) That would probably be an eternal ideology, eternal prosperity and stability, and fairly high happiness but it may not be able to work under democracy, at least until everyone has a good private education. Maybe, China is going that way.

[ThomG 312274]

When I tried to defend libertarianism at college, I used the ideas of charities as well. The problem is the charity income going to help the disadvantaged of sociey would not cover the actual losses they would incur from the withdrawal of the state.

[Norwegian]

Utilitarianism is a great idea as well as democracy is but both suffer from the fact that the majority wants policies that will increase their happiness in the short run and decrease it and cause eventual collapse of the system in the long. This is because the majority is incompetent, can’t think, and doesn’t want to think.

I do not think that is true. Firstly, growth in absolute wealth loses importance when you have all the basics covered. Sacrificing anything in the short term would simply not be worthwhile, because the increase in utility from more material wealth would simply not be worth the costs, even in purely material terms. Secondly, they may be hurt by other factors such as loss of social status, relative wealth, unfairness, insecurity and worsened condition of labour, which may offset the positive utility effects of more material wealth even if it`s gain. Most people are more concerned with raising a family than lofty dreams of flying saucers when they reach a certain age. Thirdly, they may actually lose out on the increased wealth that is created in society. In a libertarian society, the purchasing power of the poor will only increase rather slowly, and if "wealth difference effects" between countries are absent, it may actually decrease, because american workers can`t get the purchasing power bonus they get from the chinese workers earning much less than them. If the wages are equalised between China and the US over time, the US poor would earn the same as those chinese workers, and I doubt that that would not affect their purchasing power in a negative way. Also, social mobility declines drastically for those over 30 years, so for those over 30 that are poor, it would not make any sense to vote for parties that wants to "increase possibilities", because they wouldn`t be able to grasp them anyway.

And when it comes to thinking, your cowardly attempts to dismiss anything that doesn`t conform to your view of the world, clearly shows that you are not a good or even a decent ideologist.

[futuristic]

Norwegian, your system will just collapse. It will work for at most 10 years and then crash. We will probably witness the collapse of European welfare states as per the CIA report, which you should be aware of. This is not working, period. On the contrary, my system will last for much longer. I don’t promise absolute happiness but a “fairly high” happiness is guaranteed. You failed to notice that I advocated the state helping the poor to get education. Education is a great power that lets any individual to prosper. Educated people have a good social status and have the power to accomplish what they want. They can do what they like or even “raise a family”.

P.S. You would probably be happy to shot me if given a chance, wouldn’t you?

[Norwegian]

Well, the welfare states have worked pretty well this far, and it is possible to reduce it without abolishing it, as shown by Great Britain and New Zealand. And, there is still a possibility for a globalization backlash. And it must be added that CIA is not really an unbiased source. They have previously used military coups to fight the welfare states in countries like Chile, Brazil and Argentina, so I don`t take them very serious on such questions.

Education will not help the poor, because if everyone gets education, a lot of people with education would still have to take underpaid shitty jobs, because there would be huge surpluses of qualified labour. And it is actually worse to work at McDonalds with an education than without an education.

And seriously, I do think that you should be shot, or at least forced sterilized, because you contribution to society does not balance out the harm that libertarian thoughts do. I wouldn`t shoot Noumenon though, because I respect those libertarians that actually believe their own arguments and appear honest.

[futuristic]

Norwegian,
You are a hater who doesn’t listen to anyone but oneself. I told you 10 times that I wasn’t a libertarian and many of my ideas are, in fact, quite non-libertarian. And yet, you again and again accuse me of libertarianism. BTW, I also believe in my own arguments no less than you do in yours.

Your stupid ideas don’t hold up. First, you absolutise the law of diminishing utility. Second, restitutions on welfare will certainly drastically reduce happiness. Any “shitty” job can be performed by a robot. And robots are not yet around because there are enough poor uneducated people who agree to do shitty jobs and not enough educated to make robots. Also, imagine if the majority is educated and don’t want shitty jobs your beloved the poor would be able to negotiate very high salaries with unimaginable benefits including medical insurance and retirement account, for doing shitty jobs. Isn’t it what you dream about? This will certainly make them more happy than an unemployment with a limited welfare combined with a hatred from those working.

[Noumenon]

And seriously, I do think that you should be shot, or at least forced sterilized, because you contribution to society does not balance out the harm that libertarian thoughts do. I wouldn`t shoot Noumenon though, because I respect those libertarians that actually believe their own arguments and appear honest.

How kind of you. This represents why I think utilitarianism is a vile doctrine. Justifying murder and mutilation through cold cost/benefit analysis is exactly what psycopaths do. And it is also reminiscent of stalinist communism, where the individual is sacrificed for the "good" of the collective. If utilitarianism regarded the good of the individual with as much weight as it regards the good of the whole, I would have more respect for it.

[Norwegian]

Noumenon:

That wasn`t about utilitarianism but corporatism. What really sucks about utilitarianism is that it doesn`t allow such things.