Conservativism vs. Liberalism in a fish story

A small island has a community of fishermen who provide food for their families and product with which to make a living by sale or trade with other islanders. One day, a fisherman comes up with the idea for using a net instead of using a fishing pole. The fisherman is able to catch more fish than before in the same time and thus provides more bounty for himself and his family than when he used only a pole. This leads to some manner of "wealth" for himself and his family compared to the other fishermen. The fisherman with a net uses his new pool of resources to commission a boat to be made for him, as well as additional nets. Now the fisherman is a businessman. He becomes proficient at his endeavor, harvesting the bounty of the ocean in numbers the other fishemen simply can not match. His prices per fish are lower, his fish are readily available and fresher and in quantitites large enough to supply the demand of the entire community. He's a success.

The problem is that now the other fishermen are out of work.

So, what is their solution to their problem? Is it to find a way to evolve in the world of fishing to be competitive with the fisherman or rather simply take 40% of everything the fisherman catches and keep it for themselves and complain about how "unfair" and "greedy" the fisherman is.


Discuss at your leisure.

lol

seems this explanation of conservativism vs. liberalism speaks for itself

Actually, it doesn't ... I just haven't had the time to get around to addressing it yet. To extend the fish analogy, you're not off the hook!

You didn't really expect me to leave this alone, did you, Oz? Tsk tsk, you should know me better than that!

There is obviously quite a lot to be added to the above divertissement if the intention is to provide a parallel with a healthy Society which cares for the less able at the expense of those who would find it the least onerous to pay taxes.

A comunist was explaining to a chap why his philosophy was the best.
"If I had two cars,I would give you one"."If I had two houses,I would give
you one"The chap said "does that mean if you had two shirts,you would give me one"."Oh no said the comunist,I do have two shirts".

"There is obviously quite a lot to be added to the above divertissement if the intention is to provide a parallel with a healthy Society which cares for the less able at the expense of those who would find it the least onerous to pay taxes." ~ oftenwrong

A truly healthy society wouldn't contradict the evolutionary path and enable those "less able" to flourish at the expense of the able...a unquestionably sure path to the weakening of not only the survivability but the ability to flourish of the society (and species) as a whole.

Millions of years of evolution has taught us one undeniable absolute truth...the strong were meant to survive, not the weak and that any population is best served when the weak are weeded out. It's only recently that humanity has adopted this insanity that the weak need to be coddled and enabled and that somehow the species as a whole will actually benefit from this and not be unnecessarily burdened.

Ah, yes. Devil take the hindmost.

Don't stop running.

OZ? are you disserning between those who will NEVER work (God will provide) those who thruough illness/disability have unique difficulties in communication/ getting around, or those who keep busy but will never be rich?

It seems that only the successful live in your eutopia, everyone else can go the way of Mr. A. Eichman's victims

astra wrote:OZ? are you disserning between those who will NEVER work (God will provide) those who thruough illness/disability have unique difficulties in communication/ getting around, or those who keep busy but will never be rich?

It seems that only the successful live in your eutopia, everyone else can go the way of Mr. A. Eichman's victims

That is a separate issue from the thread premise. You are confusing "conservativism vs. liberalism" with "the merits of social darwinism". I, for one, absolutely believe that when the lesser specimens of the human species are enabled to flourish rather than die out, the human species as a whole suffers in terms of survivability and resource management. That has nothing to do with whether I think the other fisherman have a "right" to forcibly redistrubute the wealth of the 1 innovative one.

I'm also disappointed in the lack of promised discussion by Shirina...

I, for one, absolutely believe that when the lesser specimens of the human species are enabled to flourish rather than die out,

I - BELIEVE - that it is IMPOSSIBLE to posess HUMANITY, without EMPATHY! but that is another thread as well

The Bitch will destroy unsuitable puppies at birth! See my feelings on Dogs elsewhere!

the strong were meant to survive

Where's the thread premise in that?

"Where's the thread premise in that?" ~ astra

I was responding to a post...I'm not sure why you seem to think I am worried about staying on point with the thread's premise. I've never, ever seen a thread which hasn't been de-railed at one point or another....it's human nature.

Of course this metaphorical story is written from a perspective that distorts for propagandist purposes the meaning of conservatism and liberalism. Actually neither of them has much application to the question.

Let's try and move beyond the literal sense of the story.

In the first place it shows two fundamental fallacies.

One, it suggests that somehow increasing technology inevitably leads to a disempowered proletariat.

That's arguable but for the moment I'll pass on that assumption.

More importantly, it assumes that being unemployed is NECESSARILY a bad thing.

One of the biggest problems with both left and right is the obsessional Sisyphism they display. The whole idea of the 'right to work is a total nonsense. Socialism, every bit as much as capitalism, looks on people as units to be consumed, ergs in the work force and so on.

Lenin, for instance, said that if a person didn't work they had no right to eat.

The reality is that - unless you want to be a new Luddite and go back to the caves then you have to learn to make technology serve people.

We want MORE unemployment; we want LESS productivity.

Instead of obsessing about growth we should be looking at conserving resources, re-using and making do and mend rather than guzzling away like there was no tomorrow.

I'm a gypsy and my people have lived like that for the last two thousand years.

Maybe you gadjes should take a leaf out of our book!

More importantly, it assumes that being unemployed is NECESSARILY a bad thing.

Well, for many, it is a bad thing - at least psychologically. People, as a general rule, want to feel useful. Take my grandmother of 87 years. She still flits around trying to do things for others even though she wheezes just walking across a room. It's in our nature, I think, to want to keep busy. At least for most of us. We have always defined ourselves by what we do which is not necessarily a good thing. It is one of the first questions we ask a person we've just met: What do you do for a living? It is so prevalent that a large number of people in the West have surnames that denote a profession. Clark, Smith, Hunter, Mason, Wright, Baker, Carpenter, just to name a few.

The reality is that - unless you want to be a new Luddite and go back to the caves then you have to learn to make technology serve people.

It does, but mostly just the 1% and the interests of business. Technology, especially the immense databases created by computers, has made our world a harsh, unforgiving place where even long ago mistakes are made relevant again with just a few keystrokes. While these databases are useful in making sure that a new teacher isn't a past pedophile, like with most things, it couldn't just end there. Now every email, every phone conversation, every monetary transaction, every doctor's appointment, visit with a therapist, speeding ticket, missed bill payment, airline ticket, library book checked out, magazine subscription, food choices at the supermarket - everything is collected and stored for future reference so that those we depend on for our livelihoods can use it to sit in judgment of us.

We want MORE unemployment; we want LESS productivity.

Quite a number of years ago, I remember reading in a scientific journal (peer reviewed) that with our current technology, 5% of the population could support the other 95%. Most of the jobs that currently exist could be sufficiently automated as to require only a handful of maintenance engineers, manufacturers, and software programmers. No doubt that there would be a far larger percentage than 5% that would happily volunteer to be one of those workers - for the reasons stated above: Usefulness. Some folks are only happy when they're working. But the idea of someone getting something for nothing is such an anathema to our worldviews that this world will never exist.

In truth , we would need something in the middle, a world where all of us could find contentment in gainful employment if we so wished it, and for that employment to make use of our individual talents. In our current society, we are forced to accept jobs that we may not be particularly good at or jobs that offer little satisfaction merely to keep the bills paid. How many potential Shakespeares, Beethovens, and Picassos could there now be stocking our store shelves, working in an office cubicle, or serving people burgers simply because the need for money is more important than cultivating talent? And it's not just in the arts where this is true. How many potential physicists, surgeons, engineers, teachers and scholars, etc. - people who could be historically great in their professions - who instead perform menial labor because they do not have the resources for school or because they must provide for an impoverished family.

A truly great and productive society would allow us all to pursue the activities that allow us to make the best use of the talents we were born with, for that not only adds the best productions to our society, it makes the work satisfying and meaningful to the worker.

Instead of obsessing about growth we should be looking at conserving resources, re-using and making do and mend rather than guzzling away like there was no tomorrow.

Most people are never satisfied with what they have. Instead, they focus more upon what they don't have and concocting ways obtaining it. For the poor and disadvantaged, this spirit is a blessing, for it allows them to rise above their station when possible. However, it is a curse for the wealthy, for their insatiable desire for more, more, more leads to greedy, deceitful, cruel, and unethical (even illegal) behavior. Corporations always want growth, the quest for ever-rising profits. The result of such a quest is a society filled with disposable goods and disposable people. The idea of durability is no longer a factor in manufacturing. The things we buy are designed to have short lifespans. There is an actual term for it: Planned Obsolescence. It was a practice put into place immediately following WWII, for one of the theories behind the cause of the Great Depression was that too many goods were lasting too long. If I can buy a car, a refrigerator, a television, a computer - virtually any product - and have it last for 25 or 30 years, it means I don't have to buy another one for almost half a century. Where's the money in that? Instead, "durable" goods are designed to wear out anywhere from 3 to 10 years (depending on the item) to keep you returning to the store for replacements and separating you from your hard-earned cash. The result of this is an enormous hunger for natural resources that we must mine, drill, cut, and consume at an accelerated rate - a far greater rate than is truly necessary.

The Advertising Industry carries the blame for making people dis-satisfied.

As long as everything we see makes us wish for a bigger car, a better holiday and a larger home, the transfer of wealth from poor to already wealthy will continue.