#social do-gooders
5 messages in this thread
>>Marxists=Liberals, now I understand..
no, the equation is: Liberal = Socialist.
Socialist = Communist.
Marxist is just a subset of Communist.
The difference between socialism and communism is the latter requires a
centralized authority.
Question: why should contractors place safety before profits?
Question: why would the military require reactors and fuel for a
protracted nuclear conflict? <scratching head>
Jim,
actually the equation is Liberal == Marxist, Socialist is a subset of
Communist. Case in point, what is the central premise of Marxist (or as
they prefer to call it now, Power Conflict) Theory? It is that the
central dynamics of society can be reduced to a collection of
political-economic struggles between various classes within the society.
Now, go back and look at the rhetoric of any Democratic convention, most
Democratic Congress-critters, and the current occupants of the White
House. Does class conflict describe their central tenets? Does it
characterize their prescriptions for societal change? In a word, yes.
I spent two years studying under an avowed Marxist/Conflict-Theory
sociologist (Dr. David Baker, author of "Race, Racism and Capital
Punishment" <g>), so I can recognize that mode in about five sentences,
usually less. I can write in that dynamic mode as well. I hope I do,
since my International Development instructor is also of the same mode
<sigh>.
Now to your questions. Contractors, in a theoretically free market (as
if one exists today) should place reactor safety above profits for the
very same reason that any firm that constructs something places safety
above the current profit. If your reactor/dam/building fails, in a free
market, you will not be likely to see another contract in the future. A
rational contractor facing such a loss of future profits will decline some
current profit in order to ensure a future stream of contracts. That such
does not happen today indicates one of two things, perhaps both.
Either contractors need not forgo current profits in order to ensure a
future stream of profits, i.e. the fix is in for future contracts, or that
there is an insufficient flow of information to the contracting party on
past performance by the contracted firm. Hmmm, one more possibility,
there are so few firms that competition is effectively eliminated from the
market, which I think highly likely looking at the way contracts are
awarded around here (So. Cal.)
Re: Military. Ask yourself, "what is the mission of the military?"
Quite simply it is to apply sufficient force to bear upon an enemy so as
to ensure their capitulation to the political goals of a given country.
Even though a country may have been decimated, with respect to the
civilian population/industry, the mission of the military continues.
Until the enemy capitulates, you continue the conflict as long as
necessary, or until defeat. Therefore a military will prepare to engage
in a protracted conflict to please the political masters, if seperate from
the military, since their goals are preeminent.
re: military, yup, you're right there.
re: communist/socialist/marxist, we just disagree, I guess.
(btw, why'd you take that course? Need a study hall? 🙂
re: contractor's view on safety vs profit
my question was rhetorical BB; you're talkin' at a contractor. 🙂
(biggest hassle I've had in recent times is trying to keep people offa my
scaffold for their own darnfool good; now everyone thinks I'm a monster,
but they stay offa the darn thing 🙂
Eet,
actually, I spent the time trying to learn the particular method of
analysis. It really does have applications in the real world. If you do
not understand conflict theory, you are a babe in the woods when it comes
to things like rent-seeking behavior by political interest groups (i.e.
PACS trying to get tax breaks for their company). I actually took three
courses, not just one, since I saw quite a bit of the strange behaviors I
had observed over the years explained by one theory. Of course, you have
to keep in mind other theories, but this does explain one segment of
economic behavior in this society, and others.
Think about it, why do people engage in what are fundamentally
non-rational behaviors from a societal point of view? You would think
that they would hold the interests of society at a slightly lesser level
of interest, below those of individual and familial interests. While we
see that behavior in quite a few individuals, we also see many an
individual that places family, clan, state, and indeed national interests
above those of their own. We call them soldiers today. Fundamentally,
this isn't rational, is it? Volunteering to get shot at is never
rational, imho, although I did do it.
Other interests coelesce in similiar manners. Witness the guy that
murdered the abortion doctor and his security escort. He was willing to
put the interests of society and his 'cause' above those of his self and
family, and he'll pay, rightfully, for that. What price do _you_ place
upon your own collection of interests? How far does it extend?
To many individuals, there are many interests that extend well beyond
the family level. Conflict theory tends to explain the mechanism whereby
each is balanced, and indeed justified, within any society. Group and
societal preservation tend to rank higher with most individuals.
Anyway, societies tend to build structures that reinforce the current
societal structure. If you notice, the Founding Fathers hoped to do such
with the Constitution being the highest order of devotion in our society.
Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, the strict interpretation got
lost. Now we have a 'living document' subject to the winds of public
opinion. Similiarly, if you go back and analyze various episodes of our
history, you can trace out the various conflicts between the groups in our
society, and others. Ever wonder about the 'Jim Crow' laws? They were a
mechanism to disenfrachise as recently enfranchised segment of society.
Even earlier, there was the requirement that all voters be property
holders, even if the property was only their tools.
There are always limits. The trick is picking out why the selection
criteria exists. I'm waiting for the day when all welfare receiptiants
are denied the vote. I don't think it will be long in coming. And yes,
my vote will disappear on that day.
Actually, anything anyone does is for purely selfish motives.
Self-sacrifice doesn't exist. If I, for example, catch a bullet for a
buddy, it's because, _in_my_mind_, his being alive is more important to me
than my being alive. That's not to say that someone can't reason that the
_risk_ of sacrifice is necessary for their own longterm welfare.
Y'know, in an only semi-related vein, the defense of "uncontrollable
impulse" is bogus. One of the defining differences between men and animals
is that man is capable of controlling his emotions. When a dog mauls
someone, we realise that he couldn't control himself; it was instinct and
reflex… yet man is expected to use his ability to reason to prevent
himself from such behavior.
Get AutoPilot, or get lost!
Eet