UKIP Idiocy

[Moonfish]

Looks like you and I are the only "cosmopolitan liberals" here Florestan. Sigh.

We know prehistory was vastly more violent and murderous than the 20 th century. We know that " common property" stopped at the tribe's edge, and we know humans stayed short-lived, disease ridden, and poor for most of history. Yet even someone as educated as Peter writes of it as a golden age. 

Sorry Moonfish, but twaddle is twaddle.  Slavery was around a long time too.

And no CDs!

Some ants actually have slavery!!!     (not to say that is a good thing - nature has some pretty nasty parasitic tendencies)

I presume you are being sarcastic about prehistory? I would not be surprised if more people died in warfare over the last 200 years compared to the previous millenia. Besides, I never stated that the hunter gatherer society was a golden age, but it appears as if it was one in which one shared the burdens of the group in a more equalitarian fashion compared to today's world. The modern US is a society with extreme inequality (as I am sure you know).
By the way, have you ever read this interesting article about agriculture by Jared Diamond?

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Readings/Diamond_WorstMistake.pdf

[Ken B]

Some ants actually have slavery!!!     (not to say that is a good thing - nature has some pretty nasty parasitic tendencies)

I presume you are being sarcastic about prehistory? I would not be surprised if more people died in warfare over the last 200 years compared to the previous millenia. Besides, I never stated that the hunter gatherer society was a golden age, but it appears as if it was one in which one shared the burdens of the group in a more equalitarian fashion compared to today's world. The modern US is a society with extreme inequality (as I am sure you know).
By the way, have you ever read this interesting article about agriculture by Jared Diamond?

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Readings/Diamond_WorstMistake.pdf

I am not remotely being sarcastic about pre history. By any sensible measure, that is relative to population,  the last 200 years have been more peaceful than average, especially compared to pre history. The violence of the ancient world and prehistory are well established results. Freeman or Pinker have good summaries.

Yes, I have had the dubious pleasure of reading Diamond.

[Moonfish]

I am not remotely being sarcastic about pre history. By any sensible measure, that is relative to population,  the last 200 years have been more peaceful than average, especially compared to pre history. The violence of the ancient world and prehistory are well established results. Freeman or Pinker have good summaries.

Yes, I have had the dubious pleasure of reading Diamond.

But the theme of human history is aggression between groups...
So do you view the last 100 years as a peaceful era/period?

[Ken B]

But the theme of human history is aggression between groups...
So do you view the last 100 years as a peaceful era/period?

Not just groups, individuals.
Was the last 100 years peaceful? Only compared to the rest of history and prehistory.

[Moonfish]

Not just groups, individuals.
Was the last 100 years peaceful? Only compared to the rest of history and prehistory.

Can you direct me to a data source that shows that relationship? I am all ears...
I think it is gibberish!   

[Todd]

Can you direct me to a data source that shows that relationship?

Here's an interview with the author of a book that makes the contention that society is less violent now than in the past.  Basically, this is the view that most lethal violence is now organized by the state, and non-systemized murder is far less likely statistically than in eons gone by.  Not for nothing did Hobbes characterize the state of nature as, um, unpleasant.

[Ken B]

Can you direct me to a data source that shows that relationship? I am all ears...
I think it is gibberish!   

Already did!  Pinker, Better Angels. Not a great book but he summarizes the evidence on this well.
For Jochanaan's north americans ther's a book by LeBlanc.

[Ken B]

Here's an interview with the author of a book that makes the contention that society is less violent now than in the past.  Basically, this is the view that most lethal violence is now organized by the state, and non-systemized murder is far less likely statistically than in eons gone by.  Not for nothing did Hobbes characterize the state of nature as, um, unpleasant.

Stalin and Hitler and Mao stand out of course, but it is easy to underestimate just how frequent small wars have been, or how common murder. Much less slave trades plural.

[Florestan]

I'm not sure I agree with that.  It would depend on how it came about.  If it were imposed by some humans on others, then yes, it's very likely that independent thought would be squashed;

There is no other way to establish it on a large scale.

but if by some miracle the human race or a significant fraction thereof agreed to give up individual ownership of land or houses or things, that would still allow for individualism and the exercise of differing gifts and talents and desires...

This "miracle" would work, as it actually did or does, only in very small communities and in conjunction with very peculiar conditions.

The early Christians you mentiioned were a very small community and they were motivated by a very strong religious sentiment, something akin to contemporary Amish communities --- but the society at large today, be it US or Romanian or whatever is far, very far, way too far from having such a strong religious feeling. And besides, even they had a limit to common ownership: wives, homes and chlldren were not commonly owned.

The property of the Native American tribes was of such nature that it lent itself naturally to (more or less) common ownership: forests, pastures, stud farms --- but the property in the society at large today, be it US or Romanian or whatever is far, very far, way too far from having such a nature.  And besides, even they had a limit to common ownership: wives, homes and chlldren were not commonly owned --- not to mention that they respected the common ownership of their own tribe but had no problem whatsoever plundering the property of other tribes.

[North Star]

There is no other way to establish it on a large scale.

Isn't this is true of any system in the real world.

This "miracle" would work, as it actually did or does, only in very small communities and in conjunction with very peculiar conditions.

The early Christians you mentiioned were a very small community and they were motivated by a very strong religious sentiment, something akin to contemporary Amish communities --- but the society at large today, be it US or Romanian or whatever is far, very far, way too far from having such a strong religious feeling.

Dunbar's number comes to mind.

And besides, even they had a limit to common ownership: wives, homes and chlldren were not commonly owned.

No-one here is preaching free love or anything remotely to do common 'ownership' of wives or children..

The property of the Native American tribes was of such nature that it lent itself naturally to (more or less) common ownership: forests, pastures, stud farms --- but the property in the society at large today, be it US or Romanian or whatever is far, very far, way too far from having such a nature.  And besides, even they had a limit to common ownership: wives, homes and chlldren were not commonly owned --- not to mention that they respected the common ownership of their own tribe but had no problem whatsoever plundering the property of other tribes.

Again, this is why it is utopia. Dunbar's number again..

[Florestan]

Looks like you and I are the only "cosmopolitan liberals" here Florestan. Sigh.

Might be, but are you sure that by "cosmopolitan liberal" we really mean the same thing? 

[Ken B]

Might be, but are you sure that by "cosmopolitan liberal" we really mean the same thing? 

Not entirely! I assume you mean classical liberal, which does not correspond to US liberal. Adam Smith not Karl Marx.
I'm confident about me; you I am less sure of 

[Florestan]

Isn't this is true of any system in the real world.

It is, absolutely. That's why I am a (classical) liberal: what all people do require is to have their life, liberty and property protected. To give the state, any state, be it the most democratic one on Earth, the power to do anything else than that is to open a huuuuuge can of worms. 

Dunbar's number comes to mind.

Of course.

No-one here is preaching free love or anything remotely to do common 'ownership' of wives or children..

No one here, but some outspoken Socialists did it all right. 

[Florestan]

Not entirely! I assume you mean classical liberal, which does not correspond to US liberal.

You assume correctly --- the US perversion of the term "liberal" pisses me off big time. 

Adam Smith not Karl Marx.

Oh yes, absolutely! Adam Smith, Benjamin Constant and Wilhelm Roepke is my liberal trinity. 

I'm confident about me; you I am less sure of 

I hope I assuaged your fears... 

[North Star]

It is, absolutely. That's why I am a (classical) liberal: what all people do require is to have their life, liberty and property protected. To give the state, any state, be it the most democratic one on Earth, the power to do anything else than that is to open a huuuuuge can of worms. 

I'd add at least infrastructure and education to the list.

You assume correctly --- the US perversion of the term "liberal" pisses me off big time. 

Oh yes, absolutely! Adam Smith, Benjamin Constant and Wilhelm Roepke is my liberal trinity. 

I hope I assuaged your fears... 

Heard of Anders Chydenius?

[Florestan]

I'd add at least infrastructure and education to the list.

Infrastructure, yes. State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.

Heard of Anders Chydenius?

No, never. Many thanks for pointing him out to me.

[North Star]

Infrastructure, yes. State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.

No, never. Many thanks for pointing him out to me.

Finns sure hear of him in school, but I do believe Smith eclipses him pretty much completely in other parts of the world.
If only Internet had existed then..

In the book Chydenius published theories closely corresponding to Adam Smith's invisible hand, eleven years before Smith published his book, The Wealth of Na

[Ken B]

State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.

There's a difference between paid for by and done by. Vouchers etc. Publicly paying for schools does not require a public monopoly on running schools.

[North Star]

Infrastructure, yes. State-run education I'm not so sure --- it very easily and oftenly degenerates into propaganda and brainwashing.

Private organizations of course never do propaganda...

[Florestan]

There's a difference between paid for by and done by. Vouchers etc. Publicly paying for schools does not require a public monopoly on running schools.

Oh, I agree completely. Education should be publicly funded but not publicly (ie stately) owned. I'm all for vouchers and for the most complete freedom of education. Pray tell, just what state-approved curriculum, and what state-certified university, did Dante, Shakespeare, Balzac, Galileo, Newton and Pasteur studied and graduated from?