It’s common to hear comments about the Good Old Days ™. The specifics vary, but, ultimately, they say this: things were better in the old days.
Why does this happen? In part, due to nostalgia, and, in part ,due to fear (and resentment) of change. Another reason is lousy memory: we tend to remember the good parts, and forget the bad ones.
Well, for those who say that “things were better back then”, I give you two pages of an American magazine from 1955. Click on the picture below to see it in its original size.
Even though it looks like a joke now, it wasn’t comedy, at the time. It was real. The world was like that. People were like that.
Now, tell me that “nothing’s improved”, that “things were better before”. Tell em that the human race, with all its faults, hasn’t evolved. Tell me that “things are the same, or worse”. Tell me that “we’re growing more and more immoral“. That the solution to mankind’s problems would be to “return to the values of old”.
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Pedro,
You seem to be making the case that if one thing is worse at time T then everything is worse at time T, and that if one thing is better at time Z then everything is better at time Z. (Though you could be saying that things are in general better at Z if there is one thing worse at T)
I’d point out that there were thousands, if not millions of fewer laws, regulations, restrictions, taxes, etc even as little as 50 years ago. This means that today we are FAR less free than we were 50 years ago, thus at least in this manner we are much poorer for it. But that would just be providing a single counter-example when we can address the argument itself.
So let’s take a time just a few years back, say 2000. Now in 2000 there was no USAPATRIOT ACT, so many actions by the state which invade our privacy and reduce our freedoms were still illegal. There was no aggression against the people of Iraq or Afghanistan, with hundreds of thousands not yet slaughtered. So by your very same argument, you cannot say that it was not better in the past than it is now. So, clearly we have a contradiction here (as this can be done with any time, including 50 years ago) because of the argument itself.
Some things were better, some were worse. We cannot conclude that from one example of a social trend, that everything was either better or worse.
That said, given that social trends can and do change (usually without the use of force, coercion, etc) then a given situation with a socially less appealing charateristic, combined with the freedom for that to change, we have a better overall situation than one with a coercive, violent characteristic which does not allow for the freedom to change for the better.
I am not taking the position that there was ever a utopia, but neither am I taking the position that we are headed towards one. Where social and economic changes occur, usually for the better, laws, regulations, restrictions, etc do not disappear very often at all…Freedom does not naturally grow, rather it shrinks. Power, corruption, and regulations naturally grow, and we are far worse off for it.
I don’t know Pedro. If I were male in 1955 it seems like things were better back then!
Argh! There was supposed to be a wink at the end of that last comment, lest everyone think I am being completely serious.
TXStorm: we’ve argued this one before. You’re right: I could provide examples to “prove” one point, and you could provide ones that “proved” the opposite. Either could be called “cherry picking”.
Still, even though I’ll grant that there are many more rules, laws, bureaucracy, government intervention and so on - which are all “bad” -, as a whole, the things that did get better are much more important.
Something like the PATRIOT Act may disturb me. So does something like the DMCA, which was a consumer-harming law paid by the entertainment industry, which has spread to most of the world. The increasing religiousness of the USA is also scary, though at least most of Europe seems to be going in the other direction.
But, IMO, none of that may compare to women not voting, blacks sitting at the back of the bus, being burned at the stake for “heresy”, “divine” rights of kings - in short, all kinds of racism, sexism, xenophobia and religious persecution. We still have them, but not a tenth of what there once was. The fact that, unless I live in a Muslim country, I can’t be killed for worshipping the wrong god - or no god at all - means a lot to me.
And we sometimes take things like that for granted.
Sure, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I don’t think we’re headed towards an utopia, as you say. Some things are slowly getting worse, and will get much worse if people remain silent. Still, I think that the chances of, say, slavery coming back in the West are pretty slim. If that isn’t an improvement - and a huge one, too -, then I don’t know what would qualify as one.
Slavery still exists in the western world…. What do you call working for over half of the year to have all of your wages taken from you? That is what the subjects of the US government suffer under, and other states are just about as bad. What about the fact that property rights, even to your own body, do not exist in the US (and I suspect other western nations as well)? Is this not the same situation in which the african slaves found themselves?
As for the things you see as gone or significantly reduced, I would point out that while they are reduced for one group, the number of groups to which these treatments apply has increased. Homosexuals are still beated and killed for being homosexuals. Individualists are threatended and jailed for their beliefs, strangely even peaceful Xn groups who do not perfectly fit the normal expectations are targeted for official slaughter.This is an example of the sort of religious persecution which you say does not exist…
Prejudice is still a major player, at least in the states and though one flavor of prejudice has been removed, it has been replaced with another. So called “affirmative action” in the US, as well as other laws governing hiring practices simply turn the discrimination against a different group than before. This is not better, in fact it is arguably worse since instead of eliminating the pracitce or behavior, the practices are codified into law, never to be removed.
The US imprisons more of its population for victimless crimes alone, than any nation in history has imprisoned its population for anything (With the understanding that the internment camps were not the result of any sort of “justice” system), and we must add to that number all of the people who simply fall victim to the corrupt “justice” system and are charged with other crimes.
Just to put it back into perspective, you rely upon slavery to show an improvement since the 1950’s, but the type of slavery to which you refer was abolished as a legal structure (private slavery) in the previous century, not in the time since 1950… So too with women’s suffrage, though I would not count that as a positive in any fashion given the inherently evil nature of voting for government. Neither of these are improvements since the 1950s. I do not mean to imply that the 1950’s were utopian either, but simply pointing out that the two largest pillars of your argument have not occured in the time frame in question.
The power of the individual to choose the life that he/she wants to lead has been decreasing, and the speed at which that power is decreasing is increasing. This does not make any of us better.
As the opportunities for improvement close, as they indeed are today at a breakneck pace, it is simply not possible for everything to get better…
[quote comment="4139"]Slavery still exists in the western world…. What do you call working for over half of the year to have all of your wages taken from you? That is what the subjects of the US government suffer under, and other states are just about as bad. What about the fact that property rights, even to your own body, do not exist in the US (and I suspect other western nations as well)? Is this not the same situation in which the african slaves found themselves?[/quote]
I don’t really want to get into another “government is bad vs. government is evil” argument, but I think the above quote is definitely overstating the case. First of all - half the year? I don’t know what taxes others are paying, but I can fairly safely say I am not paying that. And even before someone tell me that with all the taxes I have to pay of which I am not aware, I think that some of it is necessary as a member of this country.
I am not an “America - love it or leave it” type of person, but I do think some government is better than none. I, unfortunately, do not have faith that we not would revert to a “Lord of the Flies” type of atmosphere if all government was gone - or if only those that could afford the protections that government can provide had them.
The average US subject pays 52% of their income in some form of DIRECT tax. This does not take into account the hidden taxes, and hidden costs which increase the cost of living for all of us for nothing more than supporting those who dictate the form our lives will take. If you have ever had your own business or looked into what your employer must also pay in taxes in your name, you know that in fact your income is reduced by approximately 40% from the get go. Now add to that sales taxes, luxury taxes, gas taxes, fines, fees, “property” taxes (though private property is NOT protected in the US)etc. and quite frankly I am surprised that the percentage is as low as it is.
As to whether or not you feel that others should pay for what you personally want, this is necessarily and inherently unjustified. Regardless, if you have no say about the matter, which is of course the case with regard to taxation, then it is theft without any possibility of doubt (within the realm of reason of course).
As for your appeal to faith, (or the absurd implication that any position other than your own relies upon faith), ask yourself this: is refraining from theft more justified than institutionalized theft? Would you be consistent in your position and institutionalize all acts of evil in favor of refraining from them? What is it about institutionalizing an evil act that makes it justified in your opinion?
As for the protections, I receive NONE at all, therefore of course there is nothing to lose, and this is true for the overwhelming majority of subjects of the US government. In fact as we ahve seen quite clearly recently quite the opposite is true in that those of us who are recognized as subject of the US government are in far greater danger now because of the actions of the US government, both from that government (patriot act, wire tapping, direct seizure of property, massacres, assassination, etc.) and from those that this government has provoked abroad (which even many in this government now acknowledge has been the result of this war of terror).
So it appears that your objections lack a leg upon which to stand… If you can think of a definition of slavery which covers what is traditionally considered slavery but non-arbitrarily excludes the situation where one’s wages, property, and body are not their own I would be interested in seeing it.. short of that reason dictates that we must acknowledge that in fact slavery still exists in the US today as an institutional practice.
Back to the original intent of the post, and my first comment. I was trying to make the point, Pedro, that “better” is a subjective term. The male (usually white) certainly had it “better” in some sense if their wives catered to them as stated in the article you linked to. The previous post notwithstanding, African-Americans have it “better” now then when they could be bought and sold at market.
However, is there an objective set of characteristics with which to measure the “betterness” of society as a whole? Most likely this will vary with individuals. I understand and agree with your post in the sense that you see now as “better” then the 1950s. The previous poster has a point as well. In fact, set down a room full of people and I’m certain you would get many yardsticks against which we could measure how much “better” or “worse” 2006 is.
The problem comes from trying to define objective reality. We each bring our own perspective to each situation. Which perspective is correct? Logic is a form of reasoning… there are still assumptions and conditions that are present in order to make a logical argument… logic itself is not necessarily a window on objective reality.
For me, I think some things are better now… and probably some things were better then. Taken as a whole… I don’t know.
It’s funny, but I rarely hear women talk about the “good ol days”, it’s usually sexist old men that want to go back to the way it used to be.
[quote post="164"]The male (usually white) certainly had it “better” in some sense if their wives catered to them as stated in the article you linked to.[/quote]
This one is intriguing. Did he?
In a way, that’s like saying that whites had it better when they could, legally, have slaves. It was certainly good in terms of profit. But…
I don’t know. Maybe I’m too weird, but I don’t think that “being allowed to abuse others” (because of race, gender, etc.) qualifies as “better” (I’m not implying that YOU do, either).
I wouldn’t want a “1955 wife”, ever. While a lot of men (and I know a few) would disagree with me, I think that men, as well as women, have it better now, in that respect. I certainly wouldn’t want to be married to a submissive servant.
Pedro, I don’t disagree with you at all. But I think that there are enough men out there who would prefer a wife that did all those things in the article. To that person, it would have been “better.” Granted, it’s a very small “better” when compared to the “worse” (in my opinion) that such a situation caused in society.
And I agree with your last paragraph as well. In fact, if there is a woman who embodies the antithesis of that article… then I married her. Certainly makes like a hell of a lot more interesting!
Jim,
“logic itself is not necessarily a window on objective reality”
The context in which this statement was offered makes this statement false. The sense in which it might be considered true is ONLY that in which no possibility of knowing reality in any fashion whatsoever holds. I personally do not believe that this can possibly be the case therefore unless you have a sound argument that in fact it is the case, your claim remains false.
Ironically I was thinking that your lead in was making a good point, though obviously the end result of the lead in approaches the absurd. The fact is that we do need objective standards, such as the degree of freedom, or more accurately the decrease in freedom. This gets around the problem you seem to see that everyone values different aspects, as freedom encompasses all such aspects.
As for the notion that all is subjective.. then nothing uttered has meaning, including the arguments that all is subjective..
SGH,
There are many women who long for a simpler life, as is perceived to have existed in the past. We could also look to voting trends, where women often vote for “old fashioned” values (aka “family” values, etc.) and as one of the largest voting segments, women have been voting largely conservative, which gets its label from the notion of conserving a past time and its set of values.
Now admitted all group generalizations or groupspeak crumbles since individuals are individuals, but that is a separate topic entirely.
Pedro,
We agree about the desirability of an individual (as opposed to a servant) in a partner..
“I don’t know. Maybe I’m too weird, but I don’t think that “being allowed to abuse others” (because of race, gender, etc.) qualifies as “better””
I agree.. which is in part why I point out the extreme decrease in freedom for all since the era in question. Bureaucrats, police, prosecutors, and other officials have a dramatically increased power to abuse (torture, rape, and kill, not to forget theft and other forms of abuse) than the era in question (and arguably any time in the modern times).
Spaced Girl Hero,
I would agree with you that this is my perception as well. Although the person commenting on what you said has a point as well. Just reinforces my opinion that perception of “better” is often in the eye of the beholder.
So? One thing about the good ol’ days was bad. So what? Is today perfect. back then people weren’t so promiscous, they were less violent, less greedy, less apathetic… need I go on?
Leon, where is your evidence of the things you mention? Men were expected to have mistresses, there were more lynchings, and businessmen thought nothing of exploiting their workers for their own profit. How was all of this better?
Jim, I’d ask the same question of your claims: where is your evidence? It is also worth noting that you seem to be (at best) universalizing from the possibility of a small sample. Let’s say that you were able to find instances of what you say, all that would show is that there existed those few instances of what you say. Certainly we cannot univeralize from such examples, if they can be found.
As you noted we need objective standards rather than unsupportable assumptions. This is why I proposed that we look at the level of freedom of all based upon the number and type of laws. Freedom to follow your own path, regardless of the nature of that path, is perhaps the only possible universalizable characteristic which reflects on any comparison of two times.
In the US the feds pass over 900 new laws a year, which does not take into account the regulations and other restrictions on freedom. Add to this the thousands of state laws, local ordinances, and other regulations and you have a conitnuous downward spiral. It was recently reported that Great Britian will very soon be a total surveillance state, and the US is not far behind them. There is no aspect of life in the US, or more other developed nations, which is not regulated and controlled by the state. What this means is that the only ones who are getting a better life are those in control of these powers. That is naturally a very small minority.
So we are comparing a state of existence where the overwhelming majority have a larger degree of freedom to pursue whatever it is that they believe will make their life better, or a state of existence where only a small minority has increased power to force others to provide for them. No complicated hedonistic calculus is necessary to figure out that the former is infinitely better than the latter. We live in the latter state of existence…
So Leon, what do you think?
TX - I realize you may have valid points, but until my questions are answered I look at your turning the question on me as not wanting to give Leon a chance to answer them. What do you call not answering the question by turning the question? I’m sure there is some technical term in logic for it…
I call your response intellectually dishonest and nothing more than the blatant attempt to avoid reasonable discussion. Your questions suffer the very same flaws which you pretend to want to exploit, which shows them to be without merit and without any valued positive purpose. They show that you hold yourself above all else, above even your own questions, or to put it another way, that you hold double standards which forbid any question of your axioms, while simultaneously forbidding any possibility of falsification of your assumptions.
That these characteristics are pointed out in no way prevents the answering of your questions, it simply shines the necessary light upon the questions such that their true absurd nature is not hidden.
As for the logical terms for pointing out such dishonest tactics, there is no specific term since as a rule the labels are reserved for the fallacies and intellectually dishonest tactis, such as the red herrings you are employing.
So, assuming that you are not going to continue to avoid the issue, what of the suggestion that we indeed employ objective standards? Such standards are readily available to us, are clearly objectively verifiable, and without any hint of a doubt address the quality of life issues. With this available and made perfectly clear, why on earth would we want to dally with trivialities, red herrings and other dishonest tactics? Surely we are in agreement that there is no point to such childishness, so we can focus upon the issues…
TX -
Come on. Someone makes a statement, and I ask for the evidence of it. Plain and simple. If I had (as you have claimed of me in the past) made such a statement, and then you asked me for my evidence, and I followed up by responding in turn by asking you for your evidence of the contrary you would have been all over me for evading the original question.
Leon wrote:
[quote comment="4212"]back then people weren’t so promiscous, they were less violent, less greedy, less apathetic…[/quote]
I asked for more evidence, and merely mentioned things that I have previously read that seemed to contradict his comments. I think, at that point, I am more than justified in asking for his evidence. I certainly do not have firsthand knowledge of the things I said, so I am open to hear his reasons - I am intellectually honest enough to want to hear why he made such a statement.
Or is it that since his question falls in line with your own reasoning that since more government is bad and at this point in history we have more government therefore the present is worse than before, that you automatically accept his statement as true? If so (and before you tell me I am telling you what I am thinking… I am not, merely suggesting a possibility), then that would be intellectually dishonest. If his statement had been something along the lines of “Today is wonderful, people are more friendly, open, caring, and free.” I can’t help but think you would have been all over him asking for his reasons for thinking this, and then citing all your reasons why it can’t be true. Before you criticize this as an ad hominem attack, I am only making this observation based on the past comments you have made to me.
Finally, [quote post="164"]Surely we are in agreement that there is no point to such childishness[/quote]. Childishness? I take that as an ad hominem attack myself.
So… moving back to my original question. Leon, what is your evidence that [quote post="164"]back then people weren’t so promiscous, they were less violent, less greedy, less apathetic… [/quote]?
jim,
You seem to miss the point. You asserted contrary claims, without any evidence though you demanded evidence from Leon. Of course I am in no way opposed to evidence, in fact I rely upon it as you well know. What I drew attention to is the double standard you are employing in your posts.
The secondary point, the one which I used to try to bring this back on topic, is that we have objective standards we can use to determine whether a given time was better or not. Since you suggested that we need such standards, I asked whether you would stand behind that and accept the objective verifiable standards and what they entail. I cannot help but point out that you have not merely avoided this point, but yet again attacked (via implication and insincere “questions”) me as a person so as to try to draw attention away from what really ought to be a simple straight-forward easily verified set of facts.
BTW to correct your claims, I believe that more freedom is good, that valuing the individual is good, that showing respect for the inherent worth of individuals is good.
As for ad hominems, I recommend looking to the meaning of the word before you make such baseless accusations.
You missed the point as well.
Pedro,
I have thoroughly enjoyed your posts, but I find that I can no longer read and comment as it seems at this point that TXStorm is determined to attack, criticize, or demean what I have to say (comments like “childishness” and “intellectually dishonest” come to mind) while avoiding what I feel are reasonable questions. He will, guaranteed, have something to say about this post as well, asserting that he is doing nothing of the sort. Just watch. (Go ahead, TX - prove me wrong.) I can only respond that from where I sit that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.
You have some great things to say, Pedro. I hope someday to return, read them, and maybe offer my own small perspective on them. As for now. I’m done.
Jim,
The problem is not that I “attack, criticize, or demean” what you have to say, in fact this false personal attack could not be further off the mark. It is that I am willing to take you at your word, and simply address the personal attacks, double standards, and other less than civil tactics which have come to make up the whole of your posts. I am not only not “determined to attack” but I have refrained from adopting your tactics, even while being subjected to your personal attacks. Had you not initiated personal attacks, and then continued to make them despite repeated requests for you to stop making personal attacks, then I would have no need to refute those attacks. You seem to be claiming that I am at fault for you choosing to insult me. I do hope that no one is fooled by such claims nor by the effort to shift responsibility for your own personal emotional reactions to me.
As for avoiding answering questions, this claim too is patently false. I have not avoided answering any questions, as you very well know. Your questions were not directed at me, nor did I adopt the position which you were questioning. You cannot seriously blame me for not answering questions directed at another about positions that I have not taken….
As for your “prediction” of course you were right. Just as you would refute false claims and personal attacks made against you, I too will stand up for what is true and refute such attacks when you make them against me. Can you even imagine doing otherwise? Were I to follow your lead and call you names (satanist or the like) would you honestly just agree, despite the fact that such behavior is uncivil and dishonest?
It seems to me that all of this boils down to a misplaced emotional reaction to honest, civil, intellectual discussion. You take any and all questioning, refuting, or otherwise addressing of THE ARGUMENTS as some sort of attack on your person, and so respond with intentional insults, personal attacks, false claims, distraction tactics, and the like. You can hate me all day long but nothing will change outside of you. You can hate the facts all day long and nothing will change outside of you. The only purpose this hatred serves is to harm yourself.
Notice that you attacked me for positions I did not take (such as pretending that I somehow forbade Leon from answering, or asserted that no one should ever answer you, or that the questions were baseless etc.)
Though you are not likely to take any honest helpful advice from anyone, especially someone who has in the past pointed out objectively verifiable errors in arguments, I will offer a fine and very accessible book which has helped many to get past such misplaced emotional reactions: The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy.
Ideas are not our children….
I feel sad about this. I enjoyed Jim’s comments, and hope that one day he changes his mind.
TX, while I have also enjoyed arguing with you, I have to say that you, sometimes, use personal attacks, possibly without even noticing them.
When you say “you are cowardly doing this” or “you are dishonestly doing that”, I call those personal attacks. You are basically accusing the other person of being cowardly or disonest. I’m not those, and neither was Jim. I may be wrong, but, when I am, it’s an honest mistake, nothing more. To assume dishonesty on the other part is too much.
You also seem to turn every discussion, no matter the subject, into an “anarchy vs. dictatorship” thing. Which, in itself, is a false dichotomy. I don’t want a dictatorship, but I think a mostly libertarian government / system would work best. I know, you guys in the US don’t have one, and things are getting worse over there, but I still say Bush is an aberration.
To be able to compare the present, where laws and bureaucracy are on the rise, to the past, where real slavery (not just high taxes) existed, where women were seen as inferior beings, and so on, reveals, IMO, lack of perspective. If you were a black slave in 1850, and some time traveller told you about 2006, you would want to be here, not there - laws and taxes or not.
Anyway, I hope you keep commenting - I value your input. But you are, sometimes, too aggressive - and when someone complains, you seem to believe that people are feeling slighted because you are simply pointing out errors in their arguments, and are protecting their ideas like children. Sometimes, it happens; other times, it’s not the case.
Pedro,
Where have I ever called anyone cowardly? As for personal attacks, I will leave those tactics to others, and I have left those tactics for others.
I have pointed out INTELLECTUAL dishonesty, specifically citing the USE OF personal attacks as intellectually dishonest, but as anyone who has participated in honest, civil, intellectual discussions knows this is a specific comment about a specific TYPE of claims/argument as opposed to any comment about the individual. Certainly pointing out the use of personal attacks is NOT itself a personal attack.
Since your premises are false, that is that I have employed these attacks myself (feel free to review the posts to verify this fact) the conclusions of course do not follow.
“You also seem to turn every discussion, no matter the subject, into an “anarchy vs. dictatorship” thing. Which, in itself, is a false dichotomy. ”
Indeed that is a false dichotomy, and your attributing that position to me is a strawman. I do not believe I have even mentioned dictatorships, which removes any possibility of having taken the position you are claiming I not only took once, but take with every post… Surely we can agree that this claim is baseless.
As for the comparisons, there are several problems some of which have already been pointed out. First off, the time period in question is *19*50 not 1850. NONE of your claims about blacks or women hold true for 1950… Secondly, you are putting the cart before the horse. We do not start with the conclusion, as you seem to believe is the case, but rather start with the meaning of the words and then see what follows. What does slavery mean? Now apply it consistently… Thirdly, notice that you are still adopting the argument form which asserts that if X would be better, then all individuals would be better and everything is better. This is a rather extreme form of universalizing from a small sample. Would you likewise assert that all birds are green if you were to see a single green bird? (Or more analogously would you assert that everything in existence is green because you saw a single green bird?)
Do not mistake stating objective fact for aggressiveness. Would you have me (or anyone since in the world of ideas the individual is trivial) blatantly lie, pretend that false claims are true, or simply pretend that DIRECT INSULTS are not merely true but somehow complimentary? Recall that there is a clear record of these insults (lovely little things such as “satanist” etc) from Jim, without anything remotely similar corresponding from me. Let’s not bastardize language, truth, and meaning because of emotional bullying.
Returning to the topic, hopefully with this personality nonsense left far behind, one of the core differences which stands as evidence of the disintegration of freedom and opportunity (aside from the objective standards which have been cited and left unaddressed) is that there remained the possibility for change for the better in the past. Yes PRIVATE slavery existed, but so did the possibility of escape. Can you escape the governmental slavery? Can you flee to another nation and regain ownership over your body, your time, and your property? If you know of any such possibility please do tell us. In the modern days people are infinitely easier to track, to follow, to see on camera, etc. The possibility of escape has dwindled to near zero. Do not underestimate the value of hope and possibility.
As I noted, the comparison is not a lack of perspective, but rather a willingness to seriously consider all of the facts without getting caught up in the rhetoric. A slave does not own his time, his body, or property. I used the US as an example, though it holds true for all modern nations to show that in fact the subjects of the government do not own their time, nor their body, nor can they own property. The Kelo decision in the US Supreme Court made explicit that there are no property rights for individuals in the US, and in this regard the US had stood as the supposed shining example of property rights… Yes private slavery is gone in the industrialized societies and I too celebrate that fact. But we should not lose perspective and pretend that slavery itself cannot therefore exist simply because we have not been calling it by that name. Look to the substance, look to the meaning, and see where that leads. A rose by any other name…
I think that for the most part, things have been getting better over the past few hundred years. Slavery does still exist, but is only opperating at a fraction of volume that it used to. I’d also rather be taxed, than whipped or even killed. Life expectancy has risen a great deal, due to penasilin, and other medical breakthroughs. The internet serves as a personal library in the living room. Womens rights have been getting better, save for some countries.
Polution, though still a problem, is not as bad of one as it used to be. The Hudson river for example is fine for swimming in again. We still polute, but not at rates we used to, and we’re finding less poluting ways to do things in the future.
Of course there are still many many problems us humans have to work to rid ourselves of. IMO the majority of problems we see are born of greed.
Perhaps Pedro would have done better to note a time frame in which he was talking about, because it is hard to point out what’s gotten better in the last six years (especially if you live in America?) when it comes to the regular working man.
[quote post="164"] I’d also rather be taxed, than whipped or even killed.[/quote]
The two are not mutually exclusive. Also let’s not trivialize the denial of self-ownership by glossing over the amount of taxation. Remember that we are talking about at least 52% of your time being owned by the state. You have a minority interest at best in your own life…
[quote post="164"]Womens rights have been getting better, save for some countries.[/quote]
In some ways this is true, as you say especially if we focus on a few specific problems from centuries long past. However, women in as much as they too are individuals suffer under the same near complete regulation and taxation that men do, so it is not clear that in fact there is any upward movement beyond the initial recognition that women ought to be treated as self-owners. Here again we have a shift from private ownership to government ownership, and so it is not clear that this is necessarily an improvement, certainly it is no improvement in type.
I would contend that you would have to go back more than a half a century to find any significant improvement even for specific groups in the US. While Bush is certainly evil, he is no different in type from any politician. The problem is not greed, but lust for power…
[quote post="164"]The problem is not greed, but lust for power…[/quote]
TX-
I figured that lust for power was a form of Greed.
Indeed, we would have to go back some years to find improvements when it comes to humanity. We are, for the most part, a stubborn species. In technology however, many improvements in the last ten years, and one could say it’s getting better. The womens rights thing spans farther than being “owned” by their husbands. The workforce is much more open to women that it used to be. Minorities as well.
Ah, I read it as the more conventional “lust for money”
But the technological improvements are at best double edged swords. As as been noted, Great Britian has become essentially a total surveillence state, and the population centers in the US have followed suit. The creation of several computer databases in the US government (nicknamed appropriately “Big Brother”) decreases or eliminates the possibility of personal privacy. The use of biometrics in “official” id’s and the mandates forcing everyone to have such id’s removes the possibilities of privacy or self-determination. Of course these are but the tip of the iceberg.
As for the workforce, we should also recall that in the US and some other places, discrimination which used to occur privately and sporadically is now institutionalized and mandatory. Where such discrimination would have been defeated by the market, government forces stepped in to legislate discrimination into law. The former I speak of such insults as “affirmative action” which is used to prevent individuals from select groups from being considered. The latter I speak of the use of government force and law to prevent businesses from doing business with black and others during the era of segregation. Segregation was only possible through the use of governmental force, a force that is only increasing. BTW while the workforce “opened” for some, doors were closed for others. I witnessed a common practice of excluded applications based upon sex or race all with the full support of governmental agencies which pretend to protect against discrimination. The difference is merely the groups targeted.
Just to be clear however, I am not saying that everything is worse, only refuting the notion that everything is better, or that as a whole all is better, or even that there is a general trend towards improvement.
This notion that “things are getting better all the time” is a very dangerous one. This not only accepts the evils already noted as not merely acceptable but desirable and positive, but it also opens the door further for further evils while at the same time obscuring the meaning of the language such that “evi” becomes a synonym for “good” If we buy into the idea that everything is great and getting better, we have lost all perspective and ability to differentiate between harmful and helpful, between good and evil, and between better and worse. In specific we lose the ability or willingness to see those real harms that we are being told are really good… Reminds be of the old saw “If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything” As a whole we are buying into the notion that all is well, that things are getting better, and that evil is really not evil because “we” don’t call it evil any more. Those of us willing and able to see theft, murder, etc. as being evil, regardless of who is doing the theft or committing the murder, have got to step up and point out these simple facts before there are none left who are willing or able to do so.
TX-
[quote post="164"]I witnessed a common practice of excluded applications based upon sex or race all with the full support of governmental agencies which pretend to protect against discrimination.[/quote]
I witnessed the same.
I also witnessed people getting jobs because and ONLY because of thier minority status. Either way is wrong if you ask me. Skills, not sex or skin.
If you please, I’d like to restate and alter a sentence fo yours, only for the sake of conversation.
[quote post="164"]This notion that “things are getting better all the time” is a very dangerous one.[/quote]
I’d say, the notion that ALL things are getting better all the time is a very dangerous one.
ALL things, no, some things yes. Like, womens rights… at least in the US.
[quote post="164"]Those of us willing and able to see theft, murder, etc. as being evil, regardless of who is doing the theft or committing the murder, have got to step up and point out these simple facts before there are none left who are willing or able to do so.[/quote]
THIS is intriguing. I, and most humans, IMO, feel the same.
It was in a movie, National Treasure…
“If you have the ability to stop tyranny, than you also have the responsibility.” … or something like that.
However, stepping up and pointing at the tyranny, never worked. Some form of action must be taken.
That’s one thing that hasn’t gotten better. People have been sedated from the strength of thier own innate believes.
Another quote, from another movie:
“We must all fear evil men. But there is another evil that we must fear most. The INDIFFERENCE of GOOD men.”
I’m not saying that quote is completely correct. I’ve watched fear drive me and others to comply with evil.
The point, however: (IMO)
If you see that something is wrong, and you have the power to make it right, you also have the responsibility to make it right. If you don’t, you yourself are guilty of letting it happen.
Damn, forgot to mention:
Yeah, the technological enhancements can definately be a double edged sword. The greedy, or insane can definately use them to hurt others.
Kren,
I cannot say that I agree with the change to what I said. While it is true, it fails to capture a great deal. For instance, it is patently false that *generally* things are getting better. Yes there are a few, fewer every day, things that are getting better, but while these decrease in number, they also decrease in type and degree at exponential rates.
You say that you and most of humanity agree that those willing to see theft as theft, etc. should step up to the plate, yet did you not say earlier that you would (and do) accept taxation seemingly with glee?
Did Pedro not poo-poo the fact that under any notion of slavery which accurately describes what is commonly considered slavery the citizens of at least the industrialized nations shine as clear examples of slaves, calling it a “lack of perspective?”
These are in no way meant as personal criticizisms only as counter-examples.
Perhaps surprisingly I actually disagree about the notion of moral responsibility to stop such evil. We are morally obligated to not act on evil, and it is morally good to stop such evil, but we cannot be required to stop such evil. The short explanation is that it is impossible for any individual to stop all evil, and morality never requires the impossible. (Short because clearly this is off topic)
My own comment which was admittedly unclear, was meant as a pragmatic necessity rather than any sort of moral obligation.
As for stepping up and pointing out tyranny, or in this case, theft, murder, etc. this is indeed an important step. If others, especially others who are otherwise rational and observant, have not or do not see these for what they are, then those individuals will not be doing anything. The first step is awareness. Without this, no action can or will be taken.
As for women’s rights, I stick by the fact that women are individuals and as individuals are subject to the same effects of the laws and regulations, the denials of self-ownership, and the direct personal harms caused by these acts which deny freedom that men are. So in fact beyond recognizing that women are not (private) property, which is now quite old news, things are getting worse for women in the same way that things are getting worse for men.
Yeah, looking at recent years, as far as America goes, things are getting worse when it comes to humanity.
Which is why I propose Pedro for President.
Seriousely though, I can’t think of any way to reverse the greed that’s imbedded into government system.
The nature of those who seek power is to seek power. Government is the nothing more than the (completely illegitimate) consolidation of power over the lives of all in the hands of a few. So those who seek power, what you are calling “greed,” are naturally going to wrest the reins of government (as well as the whip) however they can. So it should be no surprise that there is no way to remove that which is the very nature, the very meaning of government from itself, nor that only the very worst of humanity can be found in government.
It is far more than recent years, unless you are calling the last century “recent” (or some time period even longer), nor sadly is it just the US. It is the nature of the beast to consume the individual and to move towrds further consolidation of power at the expense of the lives, property, and freedom of the individual.
In total admittance of the “slavery” we endure today, I think Pedro’s point is the way we as normal humans treet eachother. Looking at that list, so much was expected of a woman here in the states. Even a beating from a husband would have been justified if dinner wasn’t on the table. Sure domestic disputes still exist, racism, gay bashing, all of those are still problems, but to a lesser degree, and now have legal laws against actions such as wife beating, lynching and hate crimes in general.
Gone are the days of the tar and feathers, and the rule of thumb.
Uh… I have to assume that you do not live in the states given the assumptions made. The conservbative statistics on rapes is just shy of 50% of women will be raped in their lifetime (this is almost certainly far higher than in the past). Spousal abuse, including husband abuse, is a near certainty for all married couples (including gay marriages, which of course are illegal).
Racism is now no longer a private matter, but is a formal governmental policy which prevents one class/race/sex from getting jobs. I have witnessed several government institutions simply remove white males from the stacks of applications so as to focus on the remainder for the possibility of a job. That the negative focus is now on white males does not change the fact that this is racism.
Private lynching is less today. But then we have replaced it with Waco, Ruby Ridge, Brother 52, and a near infinite number of formal and official lynchings, which is not to mention the use of the death penalty to kill innocents more than 50% of the time.
“Hate crime” legislation is a profound negative, not the positive you seem to want to say that it is. Recall Orwell warning against thought crimes? That is exactly what hate crime legislation IS. Murder is wrong because of the taking of the life of an innocent. It is no worse if the person is hated. Hate is a thought, an emotion.. in theory our thoughts no matter how unpopular are our own, and necessarily they are without any harm to any other individual. The very notion that the state has the authority to regulate our thoughts is an example of the severe and perfectly clear downward spiral of the quality of our lives, not a shining example of improvement…
I’d rather be tar and feathered, than shot in the head for weilding an infant, or for being a person of faith (ironic isn’t it? Here *I* am, the one defending the rights of those who choose faith!) Or are you taking the position that death is secondary to humiliation?
You comment on the stereotype (usually false) of what was expected of a women, but seem to overlook what was and is expected of men. Surely the whole picture includes men right? So men are still expected to be the primary bread winners, and contribute the entirity of their salaries to the family, while the woman’s income (if there is one) is *hers*.. The man is expected to be a girlie man (pardon the slang) but also the strong protective man, while aomnisciently knowing which he is supposed to be at any given time. He is supposed to be thoughtless in the sense of “proper” emotional response to issues, but then also be perfectly able to resolve all problems..
All of that aside, you are speaking in gross generalities which simply do not hold. (and yes my counter-examples have the same problem, but in context still serve as counter-examples as they accept all of the stated and unstated premises of your argument).
All of which quite simply ignores the objective standards offered. Let’s say for a moment that there are no counter-examples to your claims. Are these women free from the extreme regulation? Is their property protected despite Kelo? Are they free from the opporessive taxation that forces them to work for more than half of the year for the goverment (making them real slaves, despite your use of quotes, and the obvious implied sarcasm)?
Are women exempt from the unjust incarceration? Are the many millions of innocents imprisoned by teh US (and other industrialized nations) only men? What of the current rhetoric against women in the muslim nations (by the west as well)?
Sorry but the counter-examples are greater in number, scope, and type in each case… As I noted this pollyanna-ish notion that “things are getting better all the time” (Thanks and credit to David Brin) Is not merely unimformed, it is dangerous in that it redefines known and obvious evils as good, and positive progress…
HAve the regulations decreased? HAs freedom for anyone, much less everyone increased? Can an individual live free and peaceful in any nation without the worry of coercion, theft, imprisonment and murder (all by the state)? There was indeed a time when most folks could live this way, despite what is written about those times… Yet we hear that we are better today for have fewer choices, less freedom, and less ability to pursue that which makes each of our lives meaningful… How do you (general “you”) account for that?
[quote post="164"](and yes my counter-examples have the same problem, but in context still serve as counter-examples as they accept all of the stated and unstated premises of your argument).[/quote]
The counter examples were fine. I am wondering what “unstated premises” were in my arguement though.
Actually, most people who were tarred and feathered DID die. And horrible deaths at that. (From what I’ve heard) I was trying to show how I’d rather be a “slave” than die. I’m sure that at times I may say that I’d rather die than be in prison, but put a gun to my face and I’ll crawl into the smallest cage. (I think a lot of people would) That was just a missunderstanding though.
I wouldn’t say spousal abuse is gone, but at least there are laws against it now.
Aarrghh… I couldn’t stay away… too compelling.
One question TX, you stated:
[quote post="164"]Spousal abuse, including husband abuse, is a near certainty for all married couples[/quote]
Would you mind defining “spousal abuse” and where you get this statistic?