Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Discuss cultura here, ways to improve our relationships and interactions with others. How can we be better members of society?
Post Reply
sven
Site Admin
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:39 pm

Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by sven » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:08 am

This is what I want to know. Which one is Loricism most compatible with? Why is that? And is this the right place for this post.

User avatar
Daniel
Opifex
Opifex
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:37 pm
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

Re: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by Daniel » Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:25 am

It was only a matter of time before this topic came up, so I guess I'm glad it happened right away. In order to answer this question adequately, we must understand fully what each of those economic systems is all about (which I admit I am not qualified to speak on, to be honest), and then we must apply a few principles of Loricism to them to see how they hold up. So to start, we must ask a few questions and keep a few things in mind:
  • Is it reasonable?
  • Is it just?
  • Does it help an individual achieve a measure of autonomy?
  • Does it limit suffering?
  • We must not attach ourselves to an ideology or dogma.
Loricism strives for three things: improving the individual, improving ideas, and improving culture. There is a balance (temperance) between helping an individual achieve some measure of autonomy and teaching an individual to exist within society (civic duties, etc.). This is why we have the focus on an individual's relationship with the self as well as the individual's relationship with others (communication skills). Autonomy isn't about being selfish, it's about having the ability to operate independently of others, not just physical and logistically, but emotionally. Aside from that, most of the autonomy in Loricism is aimed at eliminating undue influence from others anyhow. The other side of this coin is about collaboration and working with others to find the best solution (improving ideas). One cannot do this if they take the autonomy thing to an unhealthy extreme (antisocial). That's not what Loricism is about, and any time spent within the system would reveal this.

Now. Onward.

Is Loricism compatible with any of these economic systems? In my experience, whenever this question comes up it's a subtle attempt at getting something/someone to announce their loyalty to one of them. There is a secret hope that the idea will be compatible with the asker's favorite political party, religion, sports team, etc. That's not going to happen today, though, because Loricism aims to eliminate dogma by being fluid. Dogma is too rigid. Once it is set in stone, a system's proponents are loathe to update it. Even the most reasonable people will sometimes interfere with attempts at updating, modernizing, or hybridizing anything. It happens with any system. People who like the old, original, pure, will always poo-poo anyone trying to alter it, no matter how much the system might need it. So no, Loricism doesn't give a damn about any system, because no system is equipped to perfectly answer every human need. It is impossible. The only "system" is a fluid one.

Onward.

How do these economic systems fare? Each has its advantages and each has its drawbacks. Each can be exploited, corrupted, co-opted, hijacked, pillaged, or bastardized. We can point to examples of each and say, "See! It doesn't work!" just as we can point to examples of each and say, "See! It works!" People will only point to the examples that confirm their bias anyway.

I must reiterate here that Loricism advocates both cultivation of individual autonomy and fulfilling one's responsibility to society (cultura). Temperance between the two. So with regards to the first - individual autonomy. What is the best possible outcome with respect to an individual's economic situation? The person has a job that allows them to handle all their responsibilities, including spiritual vitality (they are able to do things that bring them joy). Maybe they want to travel or see live music, whatever. If the individual is not in this situation, what is the optimal thing to do?

Clearly, it's to get that person to a place where they can do those things on their own. This serves their individual autonomy, but also removes any burden on society they would be posing, should society have need to intercede on the person's behalf (and society should, by the way). So that is the goal. In the book Built to Last, James C. Collins explains that businesses where the founder made the system to be self-sufficient ended up faring better than businesses that relied on the charismatic founder to make every decision. He calls this building the clock vs. telling them the time. So it's better to build the clock so they can get the time themselves. It's more efficient. We take this approach with our children. The parent who must do everything for their child ends up overwhelmed. Can the child clean their own room? Can the child get their own drink? Can the child pick up their own toys? As a child grows older, the burden grows. Can we teach the teenager to do their own laundry? Can the teenager get a job and buy their own car so we don't have to drive them everywhere? Anything an individual can do for themselves is always better than having others do for them.

This is often exemplified in the phrase "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime." See here for more info on that. Now, this phrase is also often used by people to get out of helping others who need it (lessening the suffering of others is part of Justice). The problem when people do this is that they are doing neither. What they are actually doing is a third option, which is worse:
  • Give a man a fish
  • Teach a man to fish
  • Tell a man to piss off to get out of doing either
So don't let anyone get away with pretending they're doing the second thing when really they're doing the third. Let's look at one more example of individual autonomy. Many systems teach people to look at only the things they can control, not to look to others for happiness or validation, etc. We must not rely on others for our own happiness. We must also not blame others for our unhappiness, as it is our decision on how we react to them.

What does this sound like?

This is teaching a man to fish.

So autonomy is always preferable to relying on others to do what individuals can do for themselves. Does this mean we cannot, or should not help others? Not at all. Part of Justice is aiming to lessen the suffering of others. If a man stands before you starving, it stands to reason that we can feed him a meal to ease his suffering. Teaching a man to fish takes time, so until he is able to do so independently, it is on us to help shore up the parts he is deficient in.

The goal is not to avoid helping, the goal is not to force people to rely on us to help them (either as a tool for control or because we need it to feel good about ourselves), the goal is to help someone while we teach them to fish. When it comes to economics, society needs to work on ensuring those who can work are able to do so, and the system needs to constantly be working to eliminate injustice that seeks to take advantage of people, control them, or only serves to help one particular class of people. With reason, we can constantly improve a system, fix deficiencies, and make progress. With justice, we can help those who need it. By being fluid, we can avoid dogmatic solutions. We can take a little from each where it's needed.

Again, it's teach a man to fish, not tell a man to piss off and learn to fish.
The hallmark of a fool is a mind that never changes.

User avatar
Death Knell
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:34 pm

Re: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by Death Knell » Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:56 am

I don't know that you actually answer the question. I think you avoided it. You never mention what socialism, communism, capitalism, libertarianism were so we could make a quick assessment to see where they fall. Something else I don't think you are considering is that feeding people isn't the government's job. Giving people employment isn't the government's job either.

User avatar
Daniel
Opifex
Opifex
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:37 pm
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

Re: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by Daniel » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:19 pm

Death Knell wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:56 am
Something else I don't think you are considering is that feeding people isn't the government's job. Giving people employment isn't the government's job either.
I'll get to describing them each when I know I'm not going to be wrong. You say these things aren't the government's job. A couple of things. A government that is supposedly for the people, by the people, and of the people is going to have whatever job the people say it has. If the people (who are the government, apparently) say they want the government to give everybody ten hamsters, then it's the government's job to do so. This is not to say that this is the optimal solution, the ethical one, or the best use of resources, all of which are subjects of discussion (notice how I did not say debate; discussion > debate). Secondly, if you are looking to a document as the arbiter of what the government's job is, you can't also forget that the people who say what goes on the document can simply change the document (if doing so is not impossible, of course). Sure, it's notoriously difficult to do so, but it is nonetheless designed to be updated as necessary. In other words, to amend it. In either case, it is up the people to decide.

Finally we have the issue of justice. Should the government feed its starving citizens? Should the government help them with medical costs and healthcare? Should the government provide them with education? Lets just consider for a moment the case of the starving individual.

Assume a man dies from starvation, and let's say he dies in America. There is no reason any person should starve to death in America. Is it my responsibility to help him? Is it? Why didn't he take it upon himself to get out of his situation to survive?

Now let's assume a man dies from an attacker. Is it my responsibility to help him? Why couldn't he have taken it upon himself to learn self-defense to survive the situation? What happens if we stand by and do nothing? Is it our responsibility? Did we play a role? Are we complicit?

These are things worth pondering. If a man is bleeding and you do nothing because "it is not your responsibility" then are you responsible? How about in a court of law? If a woman is choking and you do nothing, are you liable in a court of law? Why is this any different from someone dying of starvation, freezing to death, sickness? Think some.

Which is better for the government in the bigger picture? Is it to have healthy citizens who are all capable of working and producing? Would the cost to maintain the lesser advantaged of that population be less or more than the return would be from a healthy populace? I don't have the numbers here, but I can assume that maintaining a health populace would end up costing less than ignoring an unhealthy one. Is it more fiscally conservative or less? Ponder this.

Ponder it all.
The hallmark of a fool is a mind that never changes.

User avatar
Rachel Umstrad
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by Rachel Umstrad » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:54 pm

Surely you can agree, though, that making changes to that document should be difficult, right? It's built into the system so that it can't be easily taken advantage of. And that is why we have a representative form of government. To exercise the will of the people but to also curb the will of the people should it become dangerous. Lynch mobs are an example. Mob mentality isn't always reasoning. Getting 330 million people together to vote on every issue is a logistical nightmare, so we elect representatives to vote on our behalf.

User avatar
Daniel
Opifex
Opifex
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:37 pm
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

Re: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by Daniel » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:14 pm

Absolutely. It should be extremely difficult. But not impossible. A document should never become dogma, it should be fluid. Times changes, and reason dictates that laws and customs update to accommodate them. Second, every idea can be improved, updated, upgraded, overhauled. We should never be so audacious as to think our ideas are the best, and will be timeless. We need to constantly improve them.
The hallmark of a fool is a mind that never changes.

Miss Tranton
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:11 am

Re: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by Miss Tranton » Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:56 am

Daniel wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:25 am
So to start, we must ask a few questions and keep a few things in mind:
  • Is it reasonable?
  • Is it just?
  • Does it help an individual achieve a measure of autonomy?
  • Does it limit suffering?
  • We must not attach ourselves to an ideology or dogma.
Do you run everything through this checklist?

User avatar
Daniel
Opifex
Opifex
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:37 pm
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

Re: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by Daniel » Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:45 pm

If it pertains to Loricism (the original post asked if Loricism was compatible with any of those), then yes. It's a must, since the core tenets of Loricism happen to revolve around reason and justice. When it comes to my own behavior, yes, if I'm trying to actually live by the ideas I'm promoting. It stands to reason. I think it's a general guideline, it's just a quick way to look at something before diving into the nuance of it.
The hallmark of a fool is a mind that never changes.

User avatar
Death Knell
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:34 pm

Re: Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, etc.

Post by Death Knell » Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:46 pm

You must also consider what's acceptable and unacceptable in terms of consent and coercion. Some government regulations are coercive by nature, and we have to evaluate whether that coercion is just or not. What one person finds fair coercion (taking money in the form of taxes which goes to subsidize war, for example) another may find acceptable. And yet, there are probably issues where I would object. I don't mind my taxes funding things like roads and schools and the arts, etc. etc. but I would have a problem if I found out my taxes were paying for circumcisions (I hate that shit). The greater the government involvement, essentially, the more disagreeable the coercion is going to be. At what point is the coercion too far? Some say it's too far at any point. Obviously, it's probably a continuum.

Post Reply