tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post4886165186692145932..comments2023-11-05T03:12:10.925-06:00Comments on Renegade Eye: Venezuela Expropriates Cargill PlantFrank Partisanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-7536904914921702002009-04-13T10:22:00.000-05:002009-04-13T10:22:00.000-05:00Finding harmonics between the "one" and the "all" ...Finding harmonics between the "one" and the "all" gets harder and harder w/o allowing for ANY intermediate "classes". You end up with a much more "polarized" dialectic, don't you, when compromise that would establish "classes" are ruled out a priori.<BR/><BR/>You end up w/choices like "heaven or hell?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-34571426699897037672009-04-12T20:24:00.000-05:002009-04-12T20:24:00.000-05:00...unless it's truly objective (in which case ALL ......unless it's truly objective (in which case ALL would agree).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-66917369883670318662009-04-12T01:19:00.000-05:002009-04-12T01:19:00.000-05:00There is a dialectic between objective and subject...There is a dialectic between objective and subjective.<BR/><BR/>I admit you need a subjective factor.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-66640138193415506192009-04-11T14:00:00.000-05:002009-04-11T14:00:00.000-05:00Cargill should be expropriated everywhere, not jus...Cargill should be expropriated everywhere, not just Venezuela.Larry Gambonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04965037776214596919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-6713323573224634762009-04-11T08:32:00.000-05:002009-04-11T08:32:00.000-05:00FJ: If it was idealist, revolutions wouldn't have ...<I>FJ: If it was idealist, revolutions wouldn't have occured. </I><BR/><BR/>So you admit, it's ideological backing for a purely moralist cause.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-53465880630803759712009-04-10T20:22:00.000-05:002009-04-10T20:22:00.000-05:00FJ: If it was idealist, revolutions wouldn't have ...FJ: If it was idealist, revolutions wouldn't have occured. Even the Marxist concept of the state took place in Marx's lifetime (Paris Commune 1871).<BR/><BR/>Pagan: Even coops develop bureaucracy at times. All forms are just that, forms. There is possibility for abuse with any form.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-89141301917585875832009-04-10T14:06:00.000-05:002009-04-10T14:06:00.000-05:00It is not about idealism as morality.It's not? Th...<I>It is not about idealism as morality.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not? Then why should anyone give a flying 'F about the dumb, stinking proletariat or who should derive the benefits from the surplus values generated from the division of labor?<BR/><BR/>THAT is purely a "moral" issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-84658866449564677542009-04-10T06:29:00.000-05:002009-04-10T06:29:00.000-05:00"From what the CFR says, the Cargill nationalizati..."From what the CFR says, the Cargill nationalization was limited. Chavez isn't going to nationalize every holding in Venezuela."<BR/><BR/>That might well be true, but how is any given company supposed to know they won't be the next one to be expropriated? Is he going to give his word that if company x invests there, he won't do that? Is his word worth anything at this point?<BR/><BR/>Besides, as time goes on, it might be less and less safe to be there. Soaring crime rates in the capitol city isn't much of an inducement either. That might not be all his fault, but its still an important factor, one he seems unable to bring under control.<BR/><BR/>By the way, business expropriation is a recipe for the spread of corruption. You have businesses run basically by bureaucrats whose major skill would seem to be graft, just like the tax system in the US, and prior to that, the tariff system, all of them reservoirs of bribery and extortion. Where taxes or tariffs are necessary evils to a degree, business expropriations don't have even that quality. Just an added government expense that by its nature has to be bureaucratic, and thus by its nature inefficient.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-51980472253876712582009-04-09T23:59:00.000-05:002009-04-09T23:59:00.000-05:00Craig: The price controls in Venezuela, are inspir...Craig: The price controls in Venezuela, are inspired by an intellectual who Hugo Chavez follows named Heinz Dieterich. Marx believed price under capitalism is determined by labor and machinary costs, and supply and demand. Marx believed that was equal exchange, while Dieterich has wild theories about price. Still there should be some price help for the poor.<BR/><BR/>Obama is showboating, with the salary control business. A diversion from real issues.<BR/><BR/>Ducky: Hegel brought the dialectic forward, except for his personal idealism, related to mechanical stages of development.<BR/><BR/>Farmer: Marx and Engels were hardly moralist. What do you think dialectical and historical materialism is about? It is not about idealism as morality. I think we're using the term the same way.<BR/><BR/>Pagan: <I>Engels did make one good point though. Communism might well work fine, so long as it is not hindered by certain other factors-such as civilization, for example.</I> Makes no sense.<BR/><BR/><I>By the way, as far as Engels goes, he must think ancient people were pretty stupid to not understand the role of men in procreation. Ancient people might not have been capable of grasping a lot of things we take for granted today, but they weren't that dumb. It's just that there was no way of proving paternity beyond any doubt, and so descent was determined matrilineally, which proves absolutely nothing so far as the actual status of women in ancient times.</I><BR/><BR/>You're reading things into the quotes.<BR/><BR/>From what the CFR says, the Cargill nationalization was limited. Chavez isn't going to nationalize every holding in Venezuela.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-81893289902753438402009-04-09T18:51:00.001-05:002009-04-09T18:51:00.001-05:00Ducky,I'm proud of you! Tell Chavez and Obama tha...Ducky,<BR/><BR/>I'm proud of you! Tell Chavez and Obama that price controls don't work. Why Obama? Salary control is a form of price control.<BR/><BR/>What's a 5 letter word for expropriation? LOLCraig Bardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02247430738711822531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-62733226370745158262009-04-09T18:51:00.000-05:002009-04-09T18:51:00.000-05:00Ducky,I'm proud of you! Tell Chavez and Obama tha...Ducky,<BR/><BR/>I'm proud of you! Tell Chavez and Obama that price controls don't work. Why Obama? Salary control is a form of price control.<BR/><BR/>What's a 5 letter word for expropriation? LOLCraig Bardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02247430738711822531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-13812394086665884252009-04-09T11:54:00.000-05:002009-04-09T11:54:00.000-05:00"Feel good, self help". BWAH-HA-HA-HA!That's funn..."Feel good, self help". BWAH-HA-HA-HA!<BR/><BR/>That's funny ducky. You should do stand up. "<A HREF="http://www.antichrist.net/nietzsche.html" REL="nofollow">The Anti-Christ</A>" is a polemic which no one could EVER label a piece of "feel good, self help" philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Are you sure you're not the one exhibitting symptoms of tertairy syphilis?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-25048710208754941192009-04-09T11:07:00.000-05:002009-04-09T11:07:00.000-05:00Sorry Farmer, he was the first feel good, self hel...Sorry Farmer, he was the first feel good, self help, philosopher. A fascist Dr. Wayne Dyer.<BR/><BR/> Tertiary syphilis is pretty debilitating.Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-18793648104624635332009-04-09T10:44:00.000-05:002009-04-09T10:44:00.000-05:00Are you kidding mr. ducky? It offers the essentia...Are you kidding mr. ducky? It offers the essential truth of what the "baseline" human condition is, a "will to power." And anything that attempts to reach "beyond" that baseline into the "art-ificial" realm of "the moral" requires not "knowledge" or "truth", but something more akin to a "leap of faith"<BR/><BR/>Genealogy of Morals<BR/><BR/><I>To look at nature as if it were a proof of the goodness and care of a god, to interpret history in such a way as to honour divine reason, as a constant testament to a moral world order and moral intentions, to interpret one’s own experiences, as devout men have interpreted them for long enough, as if everything was divine providence, everything was a sign, everything was thought out and sent for the salvation of the soul out of love—now that’s over and done with. That has conscience against it. Among more sensitive consciences that counts as something indecent, dishonest, as lying, feminism, weakness, cowardice. With this rigour, if with anything, we are good Europeans and heirs to Europe’s longest and bravest overcoming of the self. All great things destroy themselves by an act of self-cancellation. That’s what the law of life wills, that law of the necessary “self-overcoming” in the essence of life—eventually the call always goes out to the lawmaker himself, “patere legem, quam ipse tulisti” [submit to the law which you yourself have established]. That’s the way Christianity was destroyed as dogma by its own morality; that’s the way Christendom as morality must now also be destroyed. We stand on the threshold of this event. After Christian truthfulness has come to a series of conclusions, it will draw its strongest conclusion, its conclusion against itself. However, this will occur when it poses the question: “What is the meaning of all will to truth?” Here I move back again to my problem, to our problem, my unknown friends (—for I still don’t know anything about friends): what sense would our whole being have if not for the fact that in us that will to truth became aware of itself as a problem? . . . Because this will to truth from now on is growing conscious of itself, morality from now on is dying—there’s no doubt about that. That great spectacle in one hundred acts, which remains reserved for the next two centuries in Europe, that most fearful, most questionable, and perhaps also most hopeful of all spectacles . . .</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-55413344104282636072009-04-09T09:44:00.000-05:002009-04-09T09:44:00.000-05:00Well Farmer, if you end up tracking some of Hegel'...Well Farmer, if you end up tracking some of Hegel's thought processes, it’s a guaranteed thrill ride and you’ll soon realize that Hegel is looking at history as very volatile and proves that there is no terra firma in Man’s epic journey.<BR/><BR/> Long live the dialectic.<BR/><BR/> Nietzsche, philosophy's first Dr. Phil, has little to offer.Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-80707414146747319462009-04-09T09:15:00.000-05:002009-04-09T09:15:00.000-05:00Marx and Engels problem is that they seek to estab...Marx and Engels problem is that they seek to establish "moral" rights. "Moral" rights are by definition "un-natural" human errors.<BR/><BR/>And since many artificial "divisions of labor" are possible, they should acknowledge that they are attempting to make "moral" choices.<BR/><BR/>For as Nietzsche says in "Gay Science":<BR/><BR/><I>115<BR/>The Four Errors. Man has been reared by his errors: firstly, he saw himself always imperfect; secondly, he attributed to himself imaginary qualities; thirdly, he felt himself in a false position in relation to the animals and nature; fourthly, he always devised new tables of values, and accepted them for a time as eternal and unconditioned, so that at one time this, and at another time that human impulse or state stood first, and was ennobled in consequence. When one has deducted the effect of these four errors, one has also deducted humanity, humaneness, and "human dignity." </I><BR/>----<BR/><I>The thinker is now the being in whom the impulse to truth and those life-preserving errors wage their first conflict, now that the impulse to truth has also proved itself to be a life-preserving power. In comparison with the importance of this conflict everything else is indifferent; the final question concerning the conditions of life is here raised, and the first attempt is here made to answer it by experiment. How far is truth susceptible of embodiment - that is the question, that is the experiment.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-41285024720737047482009-04-09T08:09:00.000-05:002009-04-09T08:09:00.000-05:00Ducky: FJ is talking about the Ford like division ...<I>Ducky: FJ is talking about the Ford like division of labor.</I><BR/><BR/>No. I'm talking about BOTH the original division and the consequences that result when one either formally chooses to optimize either the stability of those divisions OR the surpluses that those divisions will generate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-51135437750689592882009-04-09T07:55:00.000-05:002009-04-09T07:55:00.000-05:00What distinguishes Engels's account is that he tac...<I> What distinguishes Engels's account is that he tackled it to prove that women's oppression was not 'natural'.</I><BR/><BR/>In other words, he wasn't interested in learning the truth. He went into the investigation to prove a pre-determined position.<BR/><BR/>Except that woman's "oppression" is PERFECTLY natural. Have you never heard the expression, "Might makes Right?"<BR/><BR/>Is it fair? No. It isn't Justice, it's Just-is.<BR/><BR/>There is no justice in "the natural" animal kingdom. The warrior, the "fighter", the man who can DEFEND his possessions ergo the physically stongest, makes the rules. In humans, as with other primates (horde, not herd animals), the primordial father is the boss. Why? Because no one else can lick him (Freud, "Totem and Taboo" and "Civilization and its' Discontents").<BR/><BR/>The only natural (and therefore inalienable) "rights" a man (or woman) really has is those that others CANNOT physically take from them. All other so-called "rights" are an illusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-72023434341501875922009-04-09T07:28:00.000-05:002009-04-09T07:28:00.000-05:00By the way, as far as Engels goes, he must think a...By the way, as far as Engels goes, he must think ancient people were pretty stupid to not understand the role of men in procreation. Ancient people might not have been capable of grasping a lot of things we take for granted today, but they weren't that dumb. It's just that there was no way of proving paternity beyond any doubt, and so descent was determined matrilineally, which proves absolutely nothing so far as the actual status of women in ancient times.<BR/><BR/>Engels did make one good point though. Communism might well work fine, so long as it is not hindered by certain other factors-such as civilization, for example.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-87782593827221544982009-04-09T07:24:00.000-05:002009-04-09T07:24:00.000-05:00Ren-I just don't see how that's possible without t...Ren-<BR/><BR/>I just don't see how that's possible without the state doing no more than merely becoming a majority shareholder in the company, assuming its a publicly traded company. If its not, then this might well be overblown, but at the same time I've known of other cases where he's pulled this same stunt involving publicly traded companies.<BR/><BR/>They could and should make certain concessions, but to hand the company over to him for the current market price is not going to sit well with what investors the company might have, unless of course he allows them to retain their holdings in the company and pay them the same dividends or better. Of course if he runs the company into the ground what good is that?<BR/><BR/>I don't think you grasp the implications of this. This is going to make Venezuela off limits to any company, public or private, that might otherwise be willing to invest there, for the simple fact no companies shareholders will be willing to go along with it. The majority stockholders will balk and vote down any such suggestion. Otherwise, they would just get out while the gettin's good, as they say, resulting in the companies stock value taking a plunge.<BR/><BR/>The next thing you know you have a revolt of the companies boards and the potential for a hostile takeover as the companies balance sheets reveal its utter worthlessness. Of course no company ran by any sane people would go down that route, and so what you have as a result is an entire country that is bypassed by companies that could otherwise help speed its developments.<BR/><BR/>I understand the problems faced here, but there are better ways of dealing with these problems than expropriation, is what I'm saying.SecondComingOfBasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336586430250490679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-55452775347369766702009-04-09T02:16:00.000-05:002009-04-09T02:16:00.000-05:00FJ: This is from AWL, a socialist group 05/06: Eng...FJ: This is from AWL, a socialist group 05/06: <I>Engels wanted to trace the prehistoric roots of women's oppression, so he could prove wrong those who claimed women's inferior status was 'natural'. Drawing on the work of anthropologist Lewis Morgan, Engels argued that a 'predominancy of women generally obtained in primitive times'. Its 'material foundation' was the 'communistic household' headed by women.<BR/>In these times, descent could only be traced with certainty through the mother, since women were not tied to any one man, and indeed, men's role in procreation was for a long time unknown.<BR/>This household became threatened, according to Engels, when domestication of animals developed. The breeding of herds meant that human groups no longer had to live hand to mouth. They could now possess fixed wealth, in the form of animal herds.<BR/>'But to whom did this wealth belong? Originally, undoubtedly, to the gens (kin group). But private property in herds must have developed at a very early stage... On the threshhold of authenticated history, we find that everywhere the herds are already the property of the (male) family chiefs.'<BR/>Wealth came into these men's hands because of a sexual division of labour that had existed previously. A division of labour by sex alone does not mean oppression will follow. Probably the earliest divisions of labour occurred for reasons of convenience —men and women did different jobs because of different physical capacities.<BR/>But, 'according to the division of labour then prevailing in the family, the procuring of food and the implements necessary thereto, and therefore, also, the ownership of the latter, fell to the man... Thus according to the custom of society at that time, the man was also the owner of<BR/>the new sources of foodstuffs—the cattle. ..'<BR/>The fact that human labour could produce a surplus above what was necessary for bare survival also gave an impetus to making slaves of prisoners taken in war. These slaves belonged to the men who had captured them, thus further raising their status and power.<BR/>This power gave men more status than women in society. The desire by men to pass on their wealth and power to their descendants led to men's overthrow of the female order of inheritance in favour of father to son inheritance.<BR/>Engels saw this overthrow of 'mother right'—inheritance through the female line — as 'the world historic defeat of the female sex. The man seized the reins in the house also, then woman was degraded, enthralled, the slave of man's lust, a mere instrument for bearing children'.<BR/>Women thus became the world's first oppressed class.<BR/>'However, within this structure of (primitive) society based on ties of sex, the productivity of labour develops more and more, with it private property and exchange, differences in wealth, the possibility of utilising the labour power of others and thereby the basis of class antagonisms... until, finally... the old society, based on ties of sex, bursts asunder in the collision of the newly developed social classes; in its place a new society emerges, constituted as a state... a society in which the family system is entirely dominated by the property system...'<BR/>'Recorded history—the history of class struggles—shows the continuing effects of the "world historic defeat of the female sex" interweaved with and subordinated to class relations of exploitation.'<BR/>Engels was aware that there were gaps in his account. He could not explain how 'mother right' had been replaced by domination by the father. His work can also be corrected on at least three other points.<BR/>Later researches by Marxist and other anthropologists alike have established that a system of tracing descent through the mother does not necessarily mean female dominance over men. Most researchers now think that no period of female dominance over men ever existed.<BR/>The development of society from primeval horde to kin group to family is also unsatisfactorily explained by Engels. Following Johann Bachofen, Engels saw this as primarily brought about by women, who found sex with many different men 'degrading and oppressive', and who thus wanted marriage with one man only. This seems to be a case of applying contemporary morality retrospectively. After all, biologically, women's capacity for sexual enjoyment is greater than men's.<BR/>Engels also cannot explain why the sexual division of labour developed the way it did, or even at all. All known societies have some division of labour, though what it is, and how rigid it is, varies. But the point is— why have one at all? Engels cannot explain it.<BR/>Later writers and theorists have tried to fill in the gaps and have come up with different theories. What distinguishes Engels's account is that he tackled it to prove that women's oppression was not 'natural'.<BR/>He wasn't just trying to increase the store of human knowledge for the hell of it. He was trying to arm people with knowledge they could use to fight back against oppression.<BR/>Later writers have built upon that work and gone further. But if they have seen further, it was because they stood on the shoulders of a giant— Engels's pioneering work pointed the way.<BR/>The emergence of men's domination may never be clearly understood since the evidence available for study is so fragmentary, and is often clouded by the prejudices and beliefs of those interpreting the data. But Engels's work did establish that women's oppression is not dictated by nature.<BR/>He also showed that it was not the result of of a male conspiracy or of a cataclysmic sex war, as some people would like to believe even today. He showed that women's oppression arose out of the development of early societies in the same way that classes states, and private property emerged from those developments.<BR/>ince then, class and sex oppression have been so closely intertwined that teasing out the strands has become impossible. For sure, the underpinning of women's oppression in most societies has been the family plot of land, handed down from father to son. The woman is an indispensable part of the family, for childrer1 are an economic necessity, but her role is a secondary one.<BR/>Jewish Hindu, Chinese and Christian ideologies all defined women as subordinate. Traditional Chinese usage bound women's feet. Ancient Greece was particularly ruthless at imprisoning women in the home.<BR/>Ancient codes of law punished female adultery severely, while not touching male adultery.<BR/>Probably feudal Western Europe was, of all major pre-capitalist civilisations, the least harsh in its oppression of women. The sexual division of labour was not rigid. Women workers were frequently paid the same as men for the same work. Women, though their economic activity was more centred on the home, played a large role in social life.<BR/>Women dominated important trades, such as ale brewing. A widow could engage in trade as the equal of men. Women at the head of convents were important people.<BR/>Still, women were clearly subordinate. They could not hold any public office. Generally, they could not appear as independent persons in court. Rape, for example, was not treated as a crime against a woman's body, but as a crime against a man’s property. Lords could rape peasant women with impunity.<BR/>Women's property was likely to be seen as dowry to attract a husband. The household was headed by the father. Women were advised to try to get a 'good' husband as the best available course for them. ~ ..<BR/>Oppression does not always mean rebellion and women's oppression in feudal times produced no womens' rebellion. There was no arena where women could gather collectively. Instead of rebellion, oppression of women meant women sought consolations for their lot, such as the mediaeval cult of the Mother of God.<BR/>The growth of industrial capitalism did not abolish women's household drudgery. But it changed the nature: of it. The home became a sphere sharply cut off from social labour. In earlier times, the household was the: basic economic unit, with most production done in or around the home. In the new capitalist order, the factory became the centre of production, and it brought together people from thousands of different households.<BR/>Capitalism continued women's oppression, but it changed it. Women were brought into the work force as independent individuals. However underpaid or overworked the woman factory or office worker may be in the workplace, she is not part of any man's household, but an individual, independent worker. In this way capitalist laws have given a slight measure of forrnal equality with men.<BR/>Capitalism did not create women's oppression, but it did create the conditions for the rise of the women's liberation movement Women now had an arena for organising collectively, so the possibility of winning equality through change in society became realistic.<BR/>Women will never be liberated while class oppression exists, since so many women suffer from class oppression as well as sex oppression. Middle class women do suffer from general sexism too, but their compensating class privileges — greater wealth, better access to education and health care, freedom through wealth from sole responsibility for child care or housework — forces them to side with their class rather than with working class women struggling for liberation.<BR/>The knowledge that women's oppression has not always existed, and thus that it can be overthrown, may seem old hat today; we may take it for granted. But many women today draw the wrong conclusions from that knowledge, so it is important to reiterate the ideas first expounded by Engels, so that we can use those ideas positively, to fight for change<BR/>Many women today still blame men solely for women's oppression. They see the answer in men voluntariIy giving up their power over women. Others see the only solution as living in complete separation from men. Even more drastically, some women conclude that women's oppression can only be ended by the 'final solution' of eliminating men altogether.<BR/>Simone de Beauvoir thought that was a bit drastic, and she was right. All the above 'solutions' provide no way for women to fight back against their oppression. Waiting for men to give up their power is passive (and utopian). Lots of women don't want to live separately from men. And mass extermination of men is not an option.<BR/>The ideas of Engels state that women's oppression comes from societal structures. These can be fought. Women are oppressed in this society, and have been oppressed in earlier societies, because it suits society economically that it should be so.<BR/>To change that, we have to change society.</I><BR/><BR/>The US is more subtle, with its tracking system for high school students, one track to college, the other vocational. In China it's a Bonapartist government policy, not related to capitalism or socialism.<BR/><BR/>Ducky: FJ is talking about the Ford like division of labor.<BR/><BR/>Graeme: Sandwich artists are part of TEAM SUBWAY, with all of the obligations, and none of the rights. The team system makes workers exploit themselves.<BR/><BR/>Pagan: Chavez's nationalizations aren't Castro 1959. I read he will come to a mutually agreeable conclusion with Cargill. That report came from the Council on Foreign Relations.Frank Partisanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536211653082893030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-33776415357582703632009-04-08T16:46:00.000-05:002009-04-08T16:46:00.000-05:00The "advantage" that laissev faire has is that it ...The "advantage" that laissev faire has is that it does not involve the "forcible" imposition of any individual will upon others. It creates "opportunities" that others may voluntarily choose to conform to OR not. One of the disadvantages I see in the Chinese system, for example, is that if you score high on an intelligence test, you are assigned your vocation (doctor/ engineer), which if you refuse will bring social retribution in the form of denial of higher education (or worse). The "state" has a veritable monopoly on the "means of education".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-46009742394643000352009-04-08T16:38:00.000-05:002009-04-08T16:38:00.000-05:00A "natural" division of labor does not involve "mo...A "natural" division of labor does not involve "morality" (as in forcibly imposing one's will upon another) at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-65554910456002547512009-04-08T16:33:00.000-05:002009-04-08T16:33:00.000-05:00Both.For in making a division of labor, you immedi...<A HREF="http://durkheim.itgo.com/divisionoflabor.html" REL="nofollow">Both</A>.<BR/><BR/>For in making a division of labor, you immediately trespass into areas of Kantian "<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative" REL="nofollow">categorical imperatives</A>" and "universal morality" through the imposition of positive liberties and duties upon societies other members.<BR/><BR/>People become, "means to ends" rather than "ends unto themselves".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11704331.post-40984637388108337642009-04-08T15:23:00.000-05:002009-04-08T15:23:00.000-05:00Are we talking about "division of labor" in the si...Are we talking about "division of labor" in the simple sense of Henry Ford's assembly line or Durkheim's arguments against laissez-faire and non mobile class societies (contemporary America) which do not allow people to specialize and lack much choice of employment?Ducky's herehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14608115001116619877noreply@blogger.com