[Oxymoron]

Does a Wolf Pack exist?

[QatzelOk]

Does a Wolf Pack exist?

The words obviously exist.

And wolves do like to hunt together.

But packs aren't "real," they're "conventional." Packs only exist because their existence is of function to those who will them to exist.

This is not the same kind of "exist" that physical reality enjoys. "Pack" must be jettisoned as soon as it loses its function as a survival tool, or else "wolf" won't exist.

[Oxymoron]

But packs aren't "real," they're "conventional." Packs only exist because their existence is of function to those who will them to exist.

Exactly.

This is not the same kind of "exist" that physical reality enjoys. "Pack" must be jettisoned as soon as it loses its function as a survival tool, or else "wolf" won't exist.

Time also exists because of its function. Back to the subject Society will always exist as long as humans need to survive.

[QatzelOk]

Society will always exist as long as humans need to survive.

Not true.

Societies will exist as long as the help human survival.

This is an important distinction at this point in history, when Modern Society seems poised to rob all of mankind (and other species) of their survival.

Meanwhile, mankind's elaborate socially-constructed texts have convinced him that magic and fairy tales are the secret to survival.

[canadiancapitalist]

He's an anarcho-capitalist. Everyone other than fellow ancaps is a socialist to him.

Certainly everyone who supports state ownership of the means of production is a socialist.

My point is that there are numerous different cultures which have different perspectives. They will not all view private ownership in the same way you do. Indeed some do not even believe/d you can own the land. As for communism, I do not believe it is possible to achieve. Nor do I think it is desirable as it would require large levels of ethnocide and assimilation, two things I strongly oppose

.

Right - communism doesn't work and even if it did it would be shitty. I mean if you actually think about what it would mean for everything to be owned communally, you can see there are several tremendous problems, not the least of which is that everyone would be dead in a matter of days. Of course state socialism - such as in the USSR - was nothing like the conceptualization of communism by communist thinkers but despite the savage brutalities of the soviet state the cold and harsh reality of state socialism is far preferable to the unknown ideal of true communism. If everyone owns everything equally, you need permission from every single person on the planet (since communism is truly without borders!) to use anything, which is why everyone would die. We are talking about an absurd hypothetical of course - a world of true communism - but it is worthwhile to examine what it is that these snake oil salesmen are selling.

But back to the topic of how everyone but me is a socialist. This is actually a tradition in the Austrian school and a position that can be maintained (like all of the positions deduced from praxeology) with surprising ease. Milton Friedman told a story once about how Ludwig von Mises - in my opinion the most important individual of the 20th century - at the initial Mont Pelerin meeting stormed out yelling "You're all a bunch of socialists". Of course Mont Pelerin was founded by F.A. Hayek of all people and it was your typical libertarians and individualists. But he was right you know and he was probably right to storm out. Ludwig von Mises was a man of genius and of courage. It's almost impossible to understand how difficult it must have been during the intellectual climate of the times for him to develop such a rigorous defense of capitalism. Austria in the early 1900's was not a hospitable place for liberal ideas.

[reddeath26]

Certainly everyone who supports state ownership of the means of production is a socialist.

At times your view of the world seems very simplified.

Right - communism doesn't work and even if it did it would be shitty.

Not only that but it is based way too much on evolutionist logic, something which I strongly oppose.

If everyone owns everything equally, you need permission from every single person on the planet (since communism is truly without borders!) to use anything, which is why everyone would die. We are talking about an absurd hypothetical of course - a world of true communism - but it is worthwhile to examine what it is that these snake oil salesmen are selling.

Again you are making the flaw of applying the logic of one culture to an unrelated culture. Under communism such concepts of ownership would NOT exist.

But back to the topic of how everyone but me is a socialist. This is actually a tradition in the Austrian school and a position that can be maintained (like all of the positions deduced from praxeology) with surprising ease. Milton Friedman told a story once about how Ludwig von Mises - in my opinion the most important individual of the 20th century - at the initial Mont Pelerin meeting stormed out yelling "You're all a bunch of socialists". Of course Mont Pelerin was founded by F.A. Hayek of all people and it was your typical libertarians and individualists. But he was right you know and he was probably right to storm out. Ludwig von Mises was a man of genius and of courage. It's almost impossible to understand how difficult it must have been during the intellectual climate of the times for him to develop such a rigorous defense of capitalism. Austria in the early 1900's was not a hospitable place for liberal ideas.

I severly question this school of thought as like I mentioned earlier in this post it over simplifies things too much. Socialism is an ideology in its own right which is hardly so basic as to only concern itself with who should own the means of production.

[HoniSoit]

"There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."

- Margaret Thatcher, 1987.

The first two-third of the comment is all well and good but then Maggie really destroyed her own argument with 'there are families'.

If there are not only individuals, but also unit or collective of individuals which do not operate on a purely self-interested basis - why not larger units? Why not society?

[canadiancapitalist]

Indeed that is a valid point HonSoit, but let us turn it around. If you claim, as I imagine you do, to be a defender of minority rights, should you not then recognize that the smallest minority is an individual? And that if we are to concern ourselves with minority rights, should we not concern ourselves even more so with individual rights? What more pathetic a conflict, man against state. Must we not always have at least in our hearts a sympathy for the weaker party?

[Ash Faulkner]

The first two-third of the comment is all well and good but then Maggie really destroyed her own argument with 'there are families'.

If there are not only individuals, but also unit or collective of individuals which do not operate on a purely self-interested basis - why not larger units? Why not society?

Absolutely. Though as I've already said in this thread, that is only true if you think (or, deliberately misinterpret) that what she is saying is that human beings are asocial ultraindividualists who only care about themselves. 'There is no such thing as society' is an unfortunate phrase that has been plucked out of context and twisted by her political opponents. She is attacking the idea that the political institutions of society (that is, the state) exist independent of individuals, not that individuals form, and to various extents subordinate themselves to, social groups.

[HoniSoit]

Though as I've already said in this thread, that is only true if you think (or, deliberately misinterpret) that what she is saying is that human beings are asocial ultraindividualists who only care about themselves. 'There is no such thing as society' is an unfortunate phrase that has been plucked out of context and twisted by her political opponents. She is attacking the idea that the political institutions of society (that is, the state) exist independent of individuals, not that individuals form, and to various extents subordinate themselves to, social groups.

Whether these two sentences are plucked out of context I have no idea. However, I do think it catches rather nicely the general philosophy of her social and economic policies - which makes it, despite probably being out of context, a valid criticism - although she doesn't necessarily care about all individuals.

If you claim, as I imagine you do, to be a defender of minority rights, should you not then recognize that the smallest minority is an individual? And that if we are to concern ourselves with minority rights, should we not concern ourselves even more so with individual rights? What more pathetic a conflict, man against state. Must we not always have at least in our hearts a sympathy for the weaker party?

I agree. I think the protection of individual rights is extremely important. Especially coming from a country that doesn't have a high regard for individual rights, I am very much in support of it. But the point implicit in my previous comment is that I recognise there are limits to individual rights - in the real world, sometimes we have to balance individual rights with collective rights and benefits.

[Ash Faulkner]

Whether these two sentences are plucked out of context I have no idea. However, I do think it catches rather nicely the general philosophy of her social and economic policies - which makes it, despite probably being out of context, a valid criticism - although she doesn't necessarily care about all individuals.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

[HoniSoit]

Ash Faulkner - I agree what Maggie says to some extent though I still strongly disagree with her actual practices in government.

And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.

I think the real issue is when a problem is personal and can be and probably should be fixed by the individual sometimes with the help of others; and when a problem is structural that demands organised action by society as a whole sometimes necessarily through government.

So if you spend all your money on drinking and become destitute, and very few people in society behave like you, it's probably your own problem. However, there are occasions where problems are widespread and the result of far larger social forces, then it probably cannot be fixed by an individual even if she or he wants to, and thus it demands collective solutions.

Would you agree?

[Ash Faulkner]

Yes I absolutely agree, I'm quite in favour of collective/state intervention in social issues and, where necessary (which in my view is less, I think culture is more important than economics) the economy. I think it is the 'rolling back of the state' (to use Thatcherite terminology) in social affairs since the Sixties that has caused many of our present problems - or rather, the proactive policy of the state to promote relativism. So yes I certainly agree, society does exist, and is often required to act (through its main tool, the state). My conception of society is not the egalitarian, subjectivist one of the modern left though; it is hierarchical. I'm a big fan of Confucius.