An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Tiny Buddha @tinybuddha May 6Two principles for a happy life: 1. Use things, not people. 2. Love people, not things.
It's a good piece on the fundamental underlying philosophy and the core values.Liberals see the self as a piece of property, neo-liberals see the self as a business. Both of which end up being excessively individualistic in a species whose greatest achievements arise when we work together.
And I suppose that means that Anarchists see themselves as government
If you are ambitious, this system is made for you.
Nihilism does this, we been submerged in an era of "new nihilism" since the early XX century. Nietzsche more or less predicted this. Seeking of swallow religions and ideals because otherwise is nothingness you believe in, everything is marketed and perceived as a marketplace, and the only "true" God left is money, behind it all.A swallow ideology and way of life produces swallow people, a mediocre society were mediocrity is celebrated, and there is no creativity or interest in anything but the more superficial things (and any sort of spiritualism is turned immediately into a product, too), no real "thriving". If you see most of our economic/political elites they are like this. And there is nothing more mediocre than believing in nothing else but money or "markets" and an unspiring passive way of adjusting oneself to the system.Never looking forward to change anything just "fighting" and "competing" to keep things as they are, and hold one position over others.
Nihilism is another paradox of liberalism. In liberal communities education has to be geared to the lowest common denominator and the rest left either to the parents or to children to develop on their own outside of the formal educational process. Liberal culture therefore becomes shallow since the lowest common denominator is "freedom," which is an empty concept without elaboration.In its most basic sense, "freedom" implies freedom from constraint. But this is an empty concept since it is a negative definition.A more developed sense of "freedom" is freedom to choose. But this is also empty without paring freedom with responsibility, which requires defining responsibility. Doing so raises the concept of freedom above the lowest common denominator, so it is ignored other than in a very basic sense that conforms to the LCD of the culture.The most developed sense of "freedom" is freedom for. This adds the idea that freedom is not an end but rather a means. This requires inquiring into ends, which lands one in philosophy, and this runs up against the boundary of the LCD.This is a huge issue since the ancient Greeks realized that the fundamental issue of freedom is what it means to live a good life in a good society. Without serious debate of the issue, truly free individuals living in a good society is left to "nature" to work out, and the LCD here is "the market."So liberalism runs into one of its chief paradoxes, one that threatens to result in the implosion of liberalism. This is where we are now.
Post a Comment