Free market is not compatible with Atheism+, what is?

[Setar]

The obvious fact that it's simply dogma aside, I'm loathe to see how the free market could do anything to reduce privilege considering that privilege affects one's access to resources. Indeed, I haven't yet seen any argument to that end from free marketeers that isn't "well, we can do it too!".

So, if we dump all of the libertarians/conservatives/Randroids/Republicans/neoliberals/whatever other name you have for people who appeal to deregulation and markets and smaller government, what can we do in terms of reducing privilege by government policy?

More importantly, how do we shake off all the rampant free marketeer dogma in the first place, and make actual solutions look reasonable?

edit: Since this thread is drawing libertarian proselytizers, I've created a thread in the Educational forum to discuss libertarianism. Please take your discussions of why libertarianism fails there and do not take any libertarians in this thread seriously if they refuse to move.

Why is libertarianism not compatible with social justice?

[PatrickG]

Outcomes. We have to look at outcomes.

Very many things are well documented, and as this thread develops I'd be happy to point to various sources of data. We know, for instance, that:

- participation in a democratic society should not be determined by one's financial worth. The entire set of principles behind Atheism+ completely contradict that assertion.
- environmental deregulation leads to disparate impacts along lines of class and race. This should be indisputable, as it has decades of research behind it.
- reproductive health is absolutely not handled well by the "free market", as the "free market" cannot regulate political behavior by religiously motivated anti-choice individuals; in fact, it is often driven by those people, with heavy financial backing (see my first point).

So there's three areas in which the free market has failed Atheism+. Off the top of my head.

EDIT: It occurs to me I'm American-centric. If we expand the arena, I could certainly come up with more examples of how the free market has failed the people Atheism+ purports to support. Google "Reagan El Salvador" for just one great example of shining capitalism.

[JP-plus]

Quick post - I think the roots of social justice are economic justice. You can't fix the first without fixing the second.

Edit: here, have some tasty Marxism http://rdwolff.com/content/crisis-and-o ... on-marxism

[simpleflower]

Post removed by author

[Setar]

Quick post - I think the roots of social justice are economic justice. You can't fix the first without fixing the second.

Edit: here, have some tasty Marxism http://rdwolff.com/content/crisis-and-o ... on-marxism

I actually agree with this. This video is nice. :+)

I'm in strong agreement here as well. I've said it elsewhere (I think in some of the comment threads during the founding of A+): class trumps everything, because if you're rich you can buy a little island and kick out everyone who tries to use any potential marginalized status against you. You're a "job creator" above all else.

Furthermore, there are specific social justice issues where we need to repudiate the neoliberal free marketeers. Off the top of my head, immigration and disability come to mind as two issues that require the dismantling of neoliberalism in order to reverse course, because in both those cases neoliberals -- left or right -- will invariably be in favor of making things worse in order to benefit the corporate masters that already profit immensely from the exploitation of these issues. Immigration is also a classist issue with regards to nations' relative wealth -- immigration issues mostly concern citizens of poorer nations trying to escape to richer nations that have better conditions!

[simpleflower]

Post removed by author

[Setar]

Neo-liberalism is so insidious in all of it's manifestations, and yes I must undermine it. I watched 53 minutes of that video so far and I likey :+)

Ergh, not the best of times for me to watch hour-long videos because I need to sleep now. What I'd like to see is some more dissemination of stuff to unpack neoliberal tropes, namely the stuff about deficit reduction, balancing the budget, etc. It would be good if we could get something comprehensive together than unpacks all of these things that politicians and pundits of all colors (except, in the US, the wonderful independent Senator Bernie Sanders, and some Representatives such as Dennis Kucinich; the best Canadian equivalent is probably Quebec Solidaire) regurgitate as unquestionable dogma.

[simpleflower]

Post removed by author

[simpleflower]

Post removed by author

[JasonMacker]

Quick post - I think the roots of social justice are economic justice. You can't fix the first without fixing the second.

Edit: here, have some tasty Marxism http://rdwolff.com/content/crisis-and-o ... on-marxism

That was definitely a very informative video, thanks! I think that this is very much the problem when it comes to the libertarians and how weak support is for the left-wing in the United States is. It's not a coincidence that 40% of the country identifies as conservative but only 20% identifies as liberal. Left-wing politics in the United States has been demonized for the longest time. If you identify as a socialist, communist, or marxist, that's political suicide. You're done for.

To tie it in with atheism, it's exactly why it's so important to come OUT as an atheist and no longer make it a dirty word. It's because people have been content and have this taboo against criticizing religion. And in the very same way, the taboo against criticizing the capitalist system needs to go as well. Capitalism really is a religion as such. Austrian economics is by definition unscientific and rejects empirical analysis.

Libertarianism and this insistence on freedom of speech being an end-in-itself rather than a means to an end, namely happiness. As though freedom of speech is what we're missing in life. If only we could send Africans a whole bunch of megaphones and iPhones and give them Internet! Problem fucking solved! Oh, they want food, jobs, an economy, happiness, a decent life? That's not as important as being able to say what they want!!! FREEDOM OF SPEECH UBER ALLES!!!

The great irony is that the globalization of capitalism is also its demise. Now that the the jobs and wealth are leaving the United States, so is the power and influence. Could Al Jazeera English, Russian Today, Press TV, etc. have been possible even twenty years ago? It's precisely because of new media that the side of the story that's normally been suppressed and hidden can now be just as easily accessed as the "mainstream" (I hate this word) media. Korea's Kpop can instantly hit an international audience via YouTube. Egyptians with Internet could see what was going on in Tunisia, and Syrians could also see what was going on in Egypt.

Is there really a difference between "hard" science and "soft" science? No. The differences are arbitrary. The way you tell the difference is how disruptive it is to the status quo. The capitalists love STEM because what's the goal of a STEM major? Be as efficient as possible. Simplify. Find elegant solutions to problems. Build a computer that can do the job of thousands of people, so we can hire one person to do the job of thousands. Maximize productivity!

But if you study a "soft" science like sociology? That uses the scientific method to analyze human behavior and cultures? Partisan! Ideologue! It's just like a religion! No dissent allowed!!! Good luck getting a job rofl!!! It's not even a real science, it's all arbitrary nonsense! They're just looking to see what they want! There's no right answer that distinguishes itself from the rest!

And the same thing when the scientific method is applied to religion. Or politics. Or economics. Suddenly it becomes taboo. We're not allowed to talk about it! You're being offensive! You have to respect our customs and culture! We've been doing it this way all along, who are you to tell us to change things!? Un-American! Communist! Marxist! Socialist! Atheist! Boo! Evil!

People are upset with atheism plus because we dared to challenge all the other nonsensical and irrational beliefs they hold. The belief that the people at the top of the food chain deserve that position due to merit. Islamic nations are terrible because Islam sucks! Christian nations are great because Christianity is awesome! Africa sucks because they're black! The United States and Europe are awesome because they're white! Men get paid more money than women because they work harder! If only gay people would just act straight and people would accept them!

I'm sick of this shit, and I'm not afraid to call it out.

[simpleflower]

Post removed by author

[cjmackay]

Free market...you can't be serious? In a free market, of course, if there's a demand for slaves, a supplier should be free to supply. In a free market, if there's a demand for children, a supplier should be free to supply. We regulate markets to effect the social conscience. Markets exist because society allows them to exist. Let's face it, it is only by corralling resources and exploiting labor that the profit motive survives. The question should perhaps be; if the collectivist secular community decide to 'compete' with 'free' 'markets', how efficient can they be?

Ah, you don't want children being sold on street corners? Then we are talking about regulated markets. The nature and extent of that regulation is a 'societal' mandate. As it should be, and 'society' in the 'long run' will mandate the boundaries of markets correctly!

[TomT64]

If we are talking about a pure free market, no such thing exists. There are limits in place or else it would collapse on itself. Humans don't stand for "the bottom line" being paramount, in the end, unless it does very little harm to people or is undetectable as harm.

Just my opinion there, I do not have time or energy to break down my basis for these opinions at the moment.

[JP-plus]

http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/law- ... he-series/ this is where a lot of my views percolated. About 20 videos, 5 hours or so. I find it's a really good immersion after seeing the above video.

[ooopz]

But if you study a "soft" science like sociology? That uses the scientific method to analyze human behavior and cultures? Partisan! Ideologue! It's just like a religion! No dissent allowed!!! Good luck getting a job rofl!!! It's not even a real science, it's all arbitrary nonsense! They're just looking to see what they want! There's no right answer that distinguishes itself from the rest!

Have you ever heard of a Norwegian documentary called Hjernevask / Brainwash? It shows some of these supposedly "real" scientists at work, in the most "equal" country in the world (i.e. Norway). And then it shows how they dogmatically reject anything that disagrees with their preconceptions, without any scientific basis. This documentary aired in 2010 and caused many Norwegian social sciences to be defunded, on account of being so based on crap that even outsiders could see it for what it was.

When confronted with a counter argument and the experiments to back it up, they get visibly upset, question the interviewer's motives, dismiss serious research as marginal and uninteresting. That's not what serious scientists do. Episode after episode, the same thing happens, with different scientists. In the entire run, there was only one Norwegian researcher—a philosopher I believe—whose first response to criticism from another researcher was "well, maybe I was a bit too definitive in my statements".

That doesn't mean the premise of social science is bunk, indeed, the documentary uses non-Norwegian social science to make its point. But it shows how easy it is to twist it and turn it into dogmatism when you don't have objective, verifiable results like STEM does.

Here you go, I think you will find it quite educational:
http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x1x ... deo=xp0tg8

[JasonMacker]

But if you study a "soft" science like sociology? That uses the scientific method to analyze human behavior and cultures? Partisan! Ideologue! It's just like a religion! No dissent allowed!!! Good luck getting a job rofl!!! It's not even a real science, it's all arbitrary nonsense! They're just looking to see what they want! There's no right answer that distinguishes itself from the rest!

Have you ever heard of a Norwegian documentary called Hjernevask / Brainwash? It shows some of these supposedly "real" scientists at work, in the most "equal" country in the world (i.e. Norway). And then it shows how they dogmatically reject anything that disagrees with their preconceptions, without any scientific basis. This documentary aired in 2010 and caused many Norwegian social sciences to be defunded, on account of being so based on crap that even outsiders could see it for what it was.

When confronted with a counter argument and the experiments to back it up, they get visibly upset, question the interviewer's motives, dismiss serious research as marginal and uninteresting. That's not what serious scientists do. Episode after episode, the same thing happens, with different scientists. In the entire run, there was only one Norwegian researcher—a philosopher I believe—whose first response to criticism from another researcher was "well, maybe I was a bit too definitive in my statements".

That doesn't mean the premise of social science is bunk, indeed, the documentary uses non-Norwegian social science to make its point. But it shows how easy it is to twist it and turn it into dogmatism when you don't have objective, verifiable results like STEM does.

Here you go, I think you will find it quite educational:
http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x1x ... deo=xp0tg8

It does have objective verifiable results. That's why it's a science in the first place.

And yes, I've seen the video.

The problem is that there is just too much "pop" science involved in it. These sorts of things require years of research and dedication in order to draw conclusions. The nature vs nurture debate (which this is basically a rehash of) is not new. This is a legitimate interdisciplinary controversy in biology, psychology, neuroscience, and sociology. This is not a simple subject. Simon Baron-Cohen has done tremendous amounts of research on autism and he really is a great scientist. But, again, it's science. He does face criticism for some of his ideas.

It's entirely wrong for you to categorize a certain group as "real" science as others as not real science, just because you disagree with it.

As for STEM itself, you might want to talk a look at String Theory within physics. Isn't physics a STEM field? Then why does string theory face so many criticisms? I thought STEM has objective, verifiable results?

Is evolutionary biology STEM? Then why is there memetics, gradualism, punctuated equilibria, evo devo, etc.? Why isn't there objective, verifiable results here? Why so much diversity in opinion?

The truth is, again, there is no distinction between STEM and non-STEM. They all use the scientific method.

[A Hermit]

I think it's important to make the distinction between free markets and what Libertarians advocate, which is actually unregulated markets. The two things are not the same...

Free markets have rules and regulatory oversight which level the playing field and allow everybody a more or less equal opportunity to participate. The Libertopians envision a game with no rules where everybody everybody behaves fairly and honourably as "rational actors". The reality, of course, is that a priveleged few get to rig the game so that they the "rabble" can't compete.

[ooopz]

It's entirely wrong for you to categorize a certain group as "real" science as others as not real science, just because you disagree with it.

You're completely missing the point. I didn't dismiss it because I disagreed with it, but because the people involved demonstrated a clear lack of critical thinking skills. Getting indignant and flustered and throwing out personals attacks is not an appropriate response to evidence that disagrees with one's premise. And if the result of that documentary is that an entire branch of research gets defunded, that points to systematic problems, not a difference in opinion.

In the same breath, I said that parts of social science did seem serious and to approach their subject with honesty. Just that it's not guaranteed, and that bad social science can apparently masquerade as good social science for decades on end without anyone noticing.

As for STEM, you're being intellectually dishonest if you equate string theory with the entire field of physics. The big problem with String Theory is exactly that it is non-falsifiable, because so far no-one has performed an experiment that could disprove it or show how its predictions match reality while other theories fail. This is not a controversy, this is a well-known problem. This is a world apart from the physics of Hadron collider, or even the physics of steel and concrete. Bridges don't stay up by conviction alone.

[qmartindale]

Is the argument that people, both individually and collectively, should work to reduce the inequality inherent in the "free market system" or is it that people should work to abolish the "free market system?" I think most people would endorse the former in one form or another, but calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat have a rather poor track record.

[Muse]

In the same breath, I said that parts of social science did seem serious and to approach their subject with honesty. Just that it's not guaranteed, and that bad social science can apparently masquerade as good social science for decades on end without anyone noticing.

So please explain to me how social science is any different from any other science in these regards?

[Setar]

Is the argument that people, both individually and collectively, should work to reduce the inequality inherent in the "free market system" or is it that people should work to abolish the "free market system?" I think most people would endorse the former in one form or another, but calls for a dictatorship of the proletariat have a rather poor track record.

The former. More precisely, the argument is that people who constantly and dogmatically appeal to "the market" -- libertarians, supply-siders, austerians, Republicans (and indeed most conservatives these days), or what have you, the people I call "free marketeers" -- hold viewpoints that are incompatible with the goals of Atheism+, by virtue of the fact that they only help people who have privilege.

That being said, I would like to see how it's possible to get the latter out of the OP, considering that I was very specific in referring to libertarians and other right-wingers who crow about the "free market!" all the damn time. I would also like to know where you got "dictatorship of the proletariat" from.

[JasonMacker]

You're completely missing the point. I didn't dismiss it because I disagreed with it, but because the people involved demonstrated a clear lack of critical thinking skills. Getting indignant and flustered and throwing out personals attacks is not an appropriate response to evidence that disagrees with your premise. And if the result of that documentary is that an entire branch of research gets defunded, that points to systematic problems, not a difference in opinion.

Please. Just because someone makes a film about something and causes social change doesn't make the film's premise true.

The Birth of a Nation was responsible for a massive surge in KKK membership and attacks on African Americans. Does that mean that the film's arguments are true? No, it just means that public opinion has been manipulated.

In the same breath, I said that parts of social science did seem serious and to approach their subject with honesty. Just that it's not guaranteed, and that bad social science can apparently masquerade as good social science for decades on end without anyone noticing.

That's not unique to social science. That's true of every science. There used to be scientific racism, you know... something that's widely discredited. Scientific sexism is still endemic. We've only begun exploring gender and sexuality from new, non-theistic perspectives in the past 100 years or so... it's a relatively new field compared to, say, astronomy. We've only very recently even bothered to look for homosexual behavior in animals. Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder up until the 20th century. And how are we going to advance on these fronts when people are shutting down social science research by deriding it as unscientific? It's ridiculous slander. Especially when this nature vs nurture debate is really only one very small part of social science.

As for STEM, you're being intellectually dishonest if you equate string theory with the entire field of physics. The big problem with String Theory is exactly that it is non-falsifiable, because so far no-one has performed an experiment that could disprove it or show how its predictions match reality while other theories fail. This is a world apart from the physics of Hadron collider, or even the physics of steel and concrete. Bridges don't stay up by conviction alone.

Wait, hold on. Are you criticizing one particular aspect of social science, or the entire field? Because if it's the latter, I'm not going to waste my time, unless you start giving me your credentials and qualifications.

In any case, who are you to say that String Theory is unfalsifiable as though that's The Consensus™? This is a highly contentious subject. These sorts of emphatic statements: "String theory is unfalsifiable! It's not science!" are inherently unscientific because they don't recognize nuance. Please, tell me, are you a physicist when you say that string theory is unfalsifiable? No? Then I don't give a damn about your opinion. I want to hear what the experts say.

Also, no response to my example from evolutionary biology? Telling.

[ooopz]

So please explain to me how social science is any different from any other science in these regards?

Because bad social science has been masquerading as good for decades, and has been dictating policy for decades, while people involved have admitted themselves they have no experimental data to back their assertions, and reject the experimental data of others out of hand. These were not fringe scientists. Meanwhile, the STEM fields involve experiments where no-one dares say anything until they have 5 sigmas of confidence in the result. Find me a social study with the same level of objectivity.

In any case, who are you to say that String Theory is unfalsifiable as though that's The Consensus™? This is a highly contentious subject. These sorts of emphatic statements: "String theory is unfalsifiable! It's not science!" are inherently unscientific because they don't recognize nuance. Please, tell me, are you a physicist when you say that string theory is unfalsifiable? No? Then I don't give a damn about your opinion. I want to hear what the experts say.

And again, you twist my words beyond recognition. You should open a theatre, you're great at projecting.

I never said string theory was not science. I said so far no-one has performed an experiment to support or disprove it. If you don't see a difference between those two statements, then yes, this discussion is over, king of nuance.

[Setar]

Oh, and speaking of dictatorships, today is the anniversary of the September 11, 1973 coup in Chile, a US-supported coup that replaced the democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende with the neoliberal dictator Augusto Pinochet (who would get all his economic policy from Milton Friedman and his neoliberal Chicago School). Why? Allende was about to institute policies that would dismantle capitalism, such as collective ownership of workplaces by workers. And he was going to do this using the democratic institutions that the people of Chile gave him the mandate for.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat", my ass. It was the neoliberal free marketeers who had to bring in a dictatorship in order to make sure the capitalist class retained their power. The people of Chile did not vote for Pinochet -- the United States Government, and its backers in the capitalist class, did.

[Setar]

Because bad social science has been masquerading as good for decades, and has been dictating policy for decades,

So have global warming denialism, tobacco science, Christofascist anti-sex rhetoric, and even to some extent creation 'science'. All of those things are refuted by accepted STEM findings yet their proponents will bring up shoddy STEM studies to back them up, with large enough sections of the public and policymakers still treating these shoddy studies as equal to the robust ones that refute them that they become or even have a shot at becoming policy. Your point is moot. Have a nice day.