lemur

The irony of capitalism is that when an economy grows in terms of real productivity, efficiency, etc. goods and services become more abundant. The consequence of abundance and efficiency of production is that supply-side competition drives the price very low. This means there is enough for everyone to go around and everyone can afford the good(s) because the price has dropped low enough for them to afford it, yet businesses profit less which means lower wages, smaller dividends/profits, etc. Clearly people should be happy that they can get more for less money and welcome income losses in exchange for broader economic access but they don't because they desire social status more than abundance without status. And this would cause capitalism to be an amazing economic system if people didn't figure out that they can get by with producing less by investing in someone else's meat and vegetables so that they can consume them without having to put in the labor of producing them. However, most people do not perform direct productive labor but rather do something to make money that allows them to consume what others produce while keeping them from reaching a level of independence where they no longer have to perform such work if they choose not to. In such an economy, it becomes a zero-sum game because people are trying to extract maximum value out of minimum amount of productivity. Ok, so who is going to provide them with everything they consume while they are enjoying their lives and getting educated? If everyone gets to do that, does that mean educated people are going to perform the most basic forms of labor like toilet cleaning, farm labor, food service, etc.? Yet the CEO still would get to sit in an office and have meetings while the toilet cleaner would have to clean the toilets without any extra pay. The point is/was that when people complain about recession and wanting more money, they are actually pushing to raise their incomes at the expense of other people's incomes. Either that or GDP has to go up, which it can only do if people spend more money, which means they will want more income, etc. So the impetus for inequality is greed (dare I call it that when referring to the middle- and working-classes?). Presumably if everyone would be satisfied with making less money at current GDP-levels, there would be money to pay to those who aren't getting paid or are getting paid very little. By complaining about the rich, the middle-class and working-class are really just asking for more money for themselves when if they were really concerned about inequality, they would be looking for ways to improve the standard of living of the poorest people first, even if that meant lowering their own standard of living some. Instead they scapegoat the rich and keep telling themselves that everyone could have everything they want if the rich gave up all their wealth. That's possible, but if everyone received the same wage and spent it, GDP would have to be paid out equally to everyone, which would also mean that everyone would have access to more or less the same goods. In that case, it really wouldn't be a problem to have Walmart as the only business that supplies everything to everyone at the same status level. To choose some business with a higher status than Walmart would make no sense because status only works as status if there is vertical stratification.

You're right, it would be less practical to come up with the destination of every spacetime-traversal at the point of embarking, but I'm not really arguing for methodology. My point is to theoretically address the idea of spacetime as being an "energetic separation" between points instead of viewing the points as passively inhabiting some kind of imaginary grid. So by viewing spacetime as a certain amount of potential-work between objects/particles, all motion would be is working to bring matter or energy waves into contact with each other. So spacetime would really just be an amount of work from A to B and of course the time experienced by the traveller (or an external observer) that the traveller is in transit. Is work/time energy or power or something like that?

It is very difficult to have a discussion when one post argues on a totally theoretical level comparing sex with eating and ridicules all normative values regarding pornography and prostitution, while another post radically normativizes the theoretical differentiation between commerce and non-commercial speech in terms of legal traditions. Generally, I find it interesting to explore all sides/views on a topic, but it seems like with things like sex and politics, these threads are often heavily weighted toward undermining conservatism. The only reason I complain is because I only started exploring the conservative side of things because I got tired of one-sided leftism, which I used to do myself a lot. I guess this is my karma getting repaid.

Globalist = viewing things in a global context, imo, which means as part of a universal human discourse that includes all cultures, languages, and histories as part of a single "global" history and (multi)culture. "Resisting defining culture in terms of national differences" means that instead of always identifying culture in terms of nations, you treat culture as a human phenomenon, of which ethnicity/nationalism is just one part. "Anationalist" is just "nationalist" with the prefix "a," meaning "without." I.e. if you are a globalist who doesn't like national ethnocentrism, you could choose to forego it in favor of viewing culture as a global-mix. Most people who echo nationalist epistemology don't see it as an ideology but as objectively factual, which is what makes it so successful globally imo. Still, people don't HAVE to define everything in terms of nations - though when they don't they still get stopped at passport control stations and get stuck with one government's taxation while getting 100% exemption from the rest of the national governments that don't claim them as citizens.

You seem to be assuming that all deviations from "the status quo" are equally unpopular. I'm not sure about Qaddafi, but Hitler simply tapped into a national-socialist culture that was already popular (populist to be specific) but just not the institutional-political status quo of the time. Actually, come to think of it I did read that Qaddafi was very popular as a "hero of the people" to begin with. So-called 'powerful' leaders are rarely dissidents against anything that hasn't already become unpopular. If an individual pursued an agenda that was totally unpopular, their attempt would get thwarted. But then why would you consider President Bush a failure for failing to stop a culture of military disobedience, torture, wire-tapping, etc.? If anything, by making these issues public instead of secret, Bush administration policies opened them up for discussion instead of leaving them as skeletons in the closet. If this new policy on sexual openness goes through, homophobia and sexual expression are just likely to go deeper underground, at least for many people I'm sure that will be the case. Of course, I would support any policy that supports freedom of expression but in practice, I think people may respond to it with covert discrimination, as you say. Hopefully most people will do the right thing and recognize that same-sex love is no different than love between men and women, but I'm afraid provocations and reactions to provocations will occur.

I don't think it is. I think that, generally, you can promote tolerance for otherwise problematic commerce by convincing people that by legalizing and taxing it, you'll be able to defer taxation for other things. Basically the public is saying, "turn alcoholics/prostitutes/johns/drug-users/drug-dealers/etc. into slaves to the government so we can pay less taxes." It is very similar, imo, to the selling of indulgences that led the early protestants to rebel against the Catholic church. Yet, on the other hand you can also argue that taxation is a handy way to punish users by increasing the cost they pay while funding government-generated interventions in the behavior and industries. There are arguments for both sides.

Great, I agree with everything you say for the most part. Now my question remains how one can pursue the cultural project of viewing and treating humans globally as a single dynamic multicultural population without getting accused of universalism and therefore Americanism, and therefore associated with the US (nation). In other words, nationalism universalizes itself by strawmanning universalism to a single nation (the US). That way, it can always maintain the hegemonic idea that cultural diversity is and should be defined according to national identities. If you want to resist that, you have to discuss culture without reference to national identity, but then people will call you American for ignoring national differences. Do you see the ideological catch-22 here? A: I am a citizen of the world - I am of no nation B: only Americans can claim to be world citizens because they ignore other nations A: but I do not recognize nations at all B: then you are an American and the nations exist regardless of whether you recognize them A: but I choose my own culture, that of anational globalism B: you are not allowed to choose your own culture - you are subject to the culture of nationalism and the sub-cultures identified with the nation assigned to you. You must accept your national identity and acknowledge other nations as having different cultures. Resistance is futile. A: are you the borg from Star Trek TNG?

I've heard these arguments for legalizing prostitution or drugs many times. My question becomes why it is better for the state to become the pimp or dealer, instead of anyone else? Isn't the basic exploitation involved with selling and profiting off of addictive-pleasure the same, however it is regulated or taxed?

Ok, but then what if you extended this idea to the practical level and said, for example, that the amount of work required to move something from mercury to venus is the same as the same amount of work required to move the same mass from, say, uranus to neptune (assuming the amount of work would be the same). Then, could you say that the amount of spacetime between both sets of planets is the same because the same amount of work is required to reach each destination from the other?

I understand everything you're saying. What I'm asking is if there's some way to acknowledge cultural differences without attributing these to 'nations.' I.e. if you want to take a globalist standpoint that all humans are global creatures with multiple cultures, and thus you don't want to continually reference national categories because you believe that doing so undermines the spirit of globalism, how would you express respect for cultural differentiation and not get labeled as an American (US), which is in itself a national category? See the problem? Nationalism attacks globalism by attributing it a national category and thereby re-asserting nationality as a cultural universal.

But if he considered failing to implement the new policy to enable discrimination on the basis of sexuality, wouldn't he become complicit in such discrimination by failing to use the power of executive decree to force the law through? If he allows the reasoning that allowing open homosexuality hinders the military's ability to operate, wouldn't he essentially be allowing terrorism abroad to dictate domestic freedom? Are the democrats going to do what they so adamantly blamed Bush for doing? And yet the question is whether heads of state can even become heads of state without the inertia of state-mechanisms that install them in those positions in the first place. The question is whether such positions are ever afforded the power attributed to them or whether they are always limited to saying and doing what they are allowed by others to say and do. Try a thought experiment: imagine any possible non-conformist action that could be committed by an individual in a position of institutional leadership. Then imagine all the possible responses from those interested in controlling the institution against "mutiny" by a single individual. How much leeway, then, does any "leading individual" have to "go against the flow" of what is expected from them at any given moment in their career as leader? I don't think Obama, Qaddafi, Hilter, or whoever could even escape their assigned post considering their high-profile, let alone get away with actions that would make them unpopular to those in their immediate surroundings with direct power to use against them.

Is pretending to be in love for money without engaging in sexual acts prostitution? If a married couple records themselves having sex and sells the footage, is that prostituting themselves? btw, the word "pornography" actually means "prostitute writing," I believe. So "porno" does technically refer to prostitution.

Maybe I should have said, "work to destination" instead of "force to destination." I forgot that force was an intensity instead of a quantity of action.

Sorry if you didn't like the word, "decree." My only point was that Obama doesn't have the ability to make military personnel change their policy as much as people would think, it seems. And that makes it especially interesting why part of the state-discourse is to hold leaders accountable for state-actions as if they indeed controlled the state beyond its own "juggernaut" inertia. ("juggernaut" was a great metaphor, btw)

Shouldn't free speech only protect non-commercial trading of media-products then? I.e. you should be able to make pornography and give it away, but once you start selling it, wouldn't it become prostitution?

I know that. The redshift is occurring toward the center, because the system is expanding. So heat is radiating outward and less so inward (centripetally). This would cause the interior to cool relative to the exterior, which would be heating more due to blueshift in the outward direction.

re-posted from thread on pornography and prostitution What do you do if you want to be a globalist by resisting defining culture in terms of national differences? Won't people just always accuse you of being US-centric for failing to acknowledge "other nations?" How do you assert anationalist globalism if that's the perspective you want to take? (btw, I am going to repost this to a new thread).

The main reason pornagraphy pornography is illegal is because its consumption can cause chronic spelling problems Seriously, though, there could be reasons for both to be legal or illegal. Both are methods of exploiting human sexuality for profit, which has ethical problems. Other issues have been raised regarding each, though, which are not always the same. Some have also said that pornography provides a sexual outlet so that people don't engage in prostitution and other risky sexual activities. Andrea Dworkin said, I believe, that pornography is created and designed to promote and train men for rape, which she considered dominant sexual culture. Others have criticized Dworkin and claimed that some/many women may voluntarily participate in these sexual forms and that "rape" should only be used to refer to directly forced sexual contact and not to social-cultural coercion that causes women to feel responsible for pleasing men, for seeking sexual gratification within more economically-prosperous situations like marriages to successful providers and/or sex with men for direct monetary payment. The big question is what happens to women when they choose to avoid all forms of cultural-compliance where sexuality is concerned? Is it possible for women to completely reject externally-imposed conditions for their sexuality and survive, and if so at what economic level? What do you do if you want to be a globalist by resisting defining culture in terms of national differences? Won't people just always accuse you of being US-centric for failing to acknowledge "other nations?" How do you assert anti-nationalist globalism if that's the perspective you want to take? (btw, I am going to repost this to a new thread).

Can it be said that any particle or object in the universe has a certain amount of force required to reach any given destination? So instead of talking about "escape velocity," couldn't one speak of "destination force?" "Escape velocity" implies that once a particle or object reaches a certain speed, it will no longer return to the gravity-well it's being launched out of, but what about its destination? If you took account of its destination, wouldn't any particle/object have a certain velocity (speed and direction) needed to escape ALL possible destinations and remain in its own gravitational frame forever? Likewise, wouldn't any other object be on a trajectory to some other gravity-well destination, and thus have a certain amount of force required for it to reach that destination? As such, couldn't spacetime be referred to in terms of the amount of force required for one object/particle to reach some other destination object/particle?

But what about the expansion? In terms of radiation, there would be redshift centripetally and blue-shift outward. Plus, I think the outward motion of the particles would also create more pressure and therefore heat in the outward direction than centripetally. I'm not sure how these outward-oriented energy-effects would combine with the entropy-effect that causes the hot areas to want to transfer their heat to the cooler areas. Good point, which I'm not sure about. However, "condensation" referred to the effect of the cooler interior losing pressure as it cools while "compression" referred to the hotter exterior exerting centripetal pressure. I guess I'm just not sure what would hold the cooler parts together besides gravity. On the other hand, I don't see how a core of particles that are radiating away energy and thereby cooling can expand as forcefully as their surroundings, if those are absorbing the radiation from the cooling core. Could a large expanding cloud of gas simply continue expanding indefinitely if it had a limited amount of energy? If its internal friction exceeded its capacity to expand, wouldn't it have to maintain a certain amount of cohesion in various areas even while its overall volume was growing?

There are currently several leadership discourses that prompt questioning of the ability for official leaders to control their ranks. One is the revocation of "don't ask don't tell" allowing open homosexuality in the military. While Obama seems to be fully in favor of allowing open homosexuality, his "decree" hasn't resulted in immediate deference to his authority. People are resisting. It is interesting to consider military resistance in other contexts as well. For example, we may ask if Gaddafi actually could convince his military to stop fighting the rebels. It has been assumed that he has the power to surrender and abdicate, but why do people assume that the military would accept his orders if they thought it was not in their interest to do so? We might even ask if Hitler had the power to stop WWII and the holocaust occurring at that time. What if he had lost his nerve and asked others to help him stop what was going on but he was told that it was too late and "the job had to be finished." What do you do as a leader when you want to exercise your power to go against "the flow" of popular opinion? Is it actually ever possible for individuals, regardless of rank, to control multitudes of people against their will? Or is rank and official leadership a symbolic position that assigns responsibility to a single prestigious individual?

True, but what about in a rapidly expanding system? Doesn't inertia of expansion have some effect on centripetal heat transfer? I.e. couldn't the expanding outer part of a cloud have such high pressure that it could be driving both the expansion of the outer edge as well as compressing the inner core?

Right, and you can lower the price and reduce costs to eliminate profits, but the point is that if the shareholders are also employees, then profits/dividends are just another means of distributing revenues besides wages and price discounts. Price discounts work a like universal wage-increase for everyone who buys the discounted product. Profit/dividend increase works like a wage-increase according to the amount of stock people own. Wage-increases just increase the amount of money distributed to the people who get the raises. The issue I was trying to get at is that income-increases for some people reduce the amount of revenue/GDP available to divide up among everyone else. Likewise, raising GDP/revenue without raising the amount of goods produced requires inflation, which amounts to a wage-decrease across the board. And even if the amount of goods is increased without raising prices, people require more income to buy the new goods if they don't want to have to give up buying some other goods. So, what I'm trying to say is that people don't want to make more money, spend more money, and still they claim that doing so doesn't put pressure on the economy to reduce the means of consumption for others.

I find the insights in your post interesting, but I was not so much talking about relativizing the units as you seem to be saying. When I used the "expanding a vacuum with the atmosphere," I was just referring to the atmosphere as a source of vacuum-force for the expanding empty volume. In other words, expanding a vacuum-volume in outer space doesn't create more vacuum force because there's no external pressure acting on the walls of the vacuum. So what I'm really saying is that a ball of matter could have internal cohesion among the particles in such a way that they could be "stretched away from each other." So, if you look at the large distances between galaxies, for example, you would think that these distances are just stretched surfaces of contact between the galaxies, which used to be contiguous. It would be sort of like looking at the continents as drifting away from each other except the space between them would be viewed as contracting-force that is slowing losing its cohesion as it gets stretched. Yes, I find it interesting to imagine that the big bang is actually the experience of a black-hole singularity from the inside, but that doesn't really relate to the issue of this thread. I'm more focussed on the issue of space between galaxies as streched-out cohesion between previously contiguous matter. E.g. like if you had a ball of matter alone and pulled it apart despite its internal cohesion, it could grow more voluminous though the gaps between the surfaces of the fragments would just be expanded versions of the microscopic gaps that were there when the fragments were still connected.

While I like most of what you posted, I'm a little hesitant about honor because, in my experience, people use honor as a basis for repressing critical/questioning of authority. I have also seen respect (ab)used this way, but I don't find it difficult to respectfully question authority, whereas I can imagine being labeled dishonorable for doing so, even if my intentions would be respectful and constructive. I do think that honor has been unduly under attack in recent media-portrayals and commentary on things like "honor killings" for daughters/sisters who do not remain chaste before marriage or criticism of the idea that adultery is an assault on a spouse's honor, and not just an expression of a person's freedom to love who they please when they please. I think culture has developed a nasty ability to attack everything by means of portraying it negatively, and by doing so prevents its own values from being subject to critical attention. So while it may be excessive to kill for honor, that doesn't mean that honor is nothing more than an impetus for murder. As usual, I think the problem lies with authoritarian expressions of honor in which there is no room for discussion of the causes and consequences of honor, just demands for its respect. I suppose you could just say that it is dishonorable to abuse honor for reasons such as selfishness, greed, or spite.