Does Matt understand Thermodynamics?

[jdeboer01]

Originally Posted by CarrieB:
But no one alone can do enough to make change, it takes joint concern and willingness.

Sure, and that "joint concern" comes in the form of government law and regulation. What starts out as a good intent becomes a power grab by government. Can you not see that? Every case of supposed environmentally motivated legislation, where the intended purpose is "to do the right thing", has unintended consequences. "This is what's best for you" legislation limits freedom, and creates a faceless bureaucracy of enforcement. A "one size fits all" across the board law creates red tape that kills economic growth.

And there are always unforeseen consequences of restrictive legislation. Prohibition in America is a good example. Making the manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages illegal created a vicious and bloody black market around booze that gave rise to organized crime and led to the overall lack of respect for the law!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for zero regulations or anarchy. However, I do think that much legislation creates opportunities for those who disregard the law.

Morality cannot be legislated, unless you're in a country that embraces something like Sharia Law, which is my entire point.

[CarrieB]

Originally Posted by Sippe

And that's usually the excuse from people who would rather things stayed the same

That depends. I was thinking of an article called something like "if you're an egalitarian, how come you're so rich" by G A Cohen. One of the points he made was that by giving his money away, he would make himself poorer and a few people richer, but the system that produced those inequalities would remain the same, so it wasn't really doing much. However he was spending his life making arguments for a fairer system so that doesn't mean he wanted things to stay the same or else he would probably have done nothing or argued that the system, as it was, was the right one.

In any case, I think that was in response to a point made by jdeboer about Matt. Now we can't get into specifics because that would be in danger of breaking the rule of discussing aspects of band members personal lives which haven't been spoken about by band members themselves but it has to be remembered that, when unattached, it seems that Matt, according to what he said himself, didn't rush out to buy a ridiculously huge house or twenty flash cars, as far as we know, but did spend some of his money on buying a piece of land and some goats. That, I think. says something about the man and his priorities.

Originally Posted by Kati

Yes, that's the one. You can get it nearly free from the link provided earlier (sorry I've forgotten the name of the sharing service, I just paid for a day to get this book). I'm now reading the fourth chapter, and it seems it's not about money being thought as energy (that wouldn't hold any thermodynamical laws) but more complicated idea. If you know physics, go straight to fourth chapter!

Looking forward to your comments on the fourth chapter.

Originally Posted by jdeboer01

By whom? Who "gave" you that example? Because whoever did obviously has an agenda against America, because the "example" is beyond ridiculous. If you were applying the same American spending point on toilet paper, would you still find it "sobering"?

It was a lecturer in sociology. As far as I know he had no particular vendetta against America but he does believe in justice. The point is that no one would be arguing that Americans shouldn't be spending money on toilet paper, as that's a necessity. They might argue that we could get away with cheap toilet paper, remember the scratchy kind!

The fact is that it's an example of money being spent on a luxury by some people, something that isn't needed at all, while others barely have the most basic of necessities and often they don't. It's a moral argument against the worst aspects of our capitalist system and suggests we should do something to improve it.

WTF are you talking about? ^^^ I'm thinking you took my "LOL" face just a tad personally. Chill out, kay?

I'm perfectly calm, thank you.

Tell me this. Purely hypothetically, if you were to discover that Matt, and Muse were "right leaning", how would feel about their music? Be honest.

Matt is entitled to believe whatever he wants to, though I would argue with his views if they were right wing. That has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the music though, which I love. I'm not sure why it matters to you so much. Would you feel differently about the music if you found out he was a communist? What's the point in that comment?

Originally Posted by jdeboer01

Sure, and that "joint concern" comes in the form of government law and regulation. What starts out as a good intent becomes a power grab by government. Can you not see that? Every case of supposed environmentally motivated legislation, where the intended purpose is "to do the right thing", has unintended consequences. "This is what's best for you" legislation limits freedom, and creates a faceless bureaucracy of enforcement. A "one size fits all" across the board law creates red tape that kills economic growth.

And there are always unforeseen consequences of restrictive legislation. Prohibition in America is a good example. Making the manufacturing and sale of alcoholic beverages illegal created a vicious and bloody black market around booze that gave rise to organized crime and led to the overall lack of respect for the law!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for zero regulations or anarchy. However, I do think that much legislation creates opportunities for those who disregard the law.

Morality cannot be legislated, unless you're in a country that embraces something like Sharia Law, which is my entire point.

That's just using a slippery slope argument. Yes, of course there are arguments where governments have become too powerful, but in general there is not much that can be accomplished without government being involved. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't argue against bad choices but the idea that big government gets in the way of our wellbeing is not supported when you look at the social outcomes of social democratic countries, which are generally a lot better than those of their neoliberal counterparts.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/

It really depends on what governments do, not the fact that they are simply involved. In a society with a healthy civil society there should be ways to counteract and argue with poor government interventions. Though civil society itself doesn't necessarily bring about a better society, it depends on the values of the various groups involved.

The main problem now is that many governments are signed up to a neoliberal agenda and the idea that the market knows best, which generally appears to make things worse. It's a kind of paradox because the very idea of reducing government and distributing power to lower levels actually leads to more bureaucracy and more power grabs by rich multinationals and by government. Well that's what appears to be happening in England right now.

It involves making cuts in public services on the back of an argument that it crowds out other forms of provision, which it doesn't. And then when people rebel against that, there is a bigger crack down through more coercive measures, for example, greater police powers, demonisation of the poor and vulnerable, rather than policies that assist the more vulnerable. You also get governments trying to crack down in other ways, on rebellion, such as by trying to pass legislation which snoops on personal correspondence and before you know it, there is a danger of totalitarianism.

I'm sorry to keep using America as an argument, but the fact is that America is commonly used as an illustration of an extreme of neoliberalism, and was where a global neoliberal consensus was born in The Washington Consensus. In America, I have read somewhere, can't remember where unfortunately, there are apparently more prisons than hospitals. However, the way we're going in the UK right now we are likely to overtake. The danger, as I see it, is that, if an electorate simply sees all big government as bad, that feeds into the prevention of any change that might improve matters.

Anyway, can we just agree to disagree?

[Sippe]

Originally Posted by CarrieB

Actually I just have to comment on this. I don't think it's a stupid line at all, when you consider that the spending on perfume in America is enough to solve third world poverty.

And the cry of hypocrisy is an easy accusation to make by those who would rather things stayed the same. Most of us could do without some of our luxuries and yes Matt could easily live in a three bedroom semi and give his money away if he wanted to. But no one alone can do enough to make change, it takes joint concern and willingness.

It's better to care, even a bit, than not to care at all, because then there is no hope.

Originally Posted by CarrieB

That depends. I was thinking of an article called something like "if you're an egalitarian, how come you're so rich" by G A Cohen. One of the points he made was that by giving his money away, he would make himself poorer and a few people richer, but the system that produced those inequalities would remain the same, so it wasn't really doing much. However he was spending his life making arguments for a fairer system so that doesn't mean he wanted things to stay the same or else he would probably have done nothing or argued that the system, as it was, was the right one.

But then how isn't "They'll laugh as they watch us crawl
the lucky don't share at all" a stupid line?

You've basically just said that you think it's a useless way of thinking.

[Kati]

Originally Posted by jdeboer01

I'm strapped for time. Can someone read it and give a synopsis?

Originally Posted by CarrieB

Looking forward to your comments on the fourth chapter.

I'm strapped for time too, but I'll try to read the book by the weekend and summarise the ideas. Btw jdeboer, it seems he says basically that economical growth cannot be sustained after a certain limit. In one of your posts you seemed to assume governments should keep their fingers out of anything that hinders economical growth, so the ideas in the book might change your thinking drastically too. But you wouldn't be alone there, about all western governments plus most of the populations would be with you.

And jdeboer, you seem to be the one who is not calm here. When Carrie gave the example of parfumes, which I think could easily be given also over the EU region, you thought it's aimed specifically againts US. Do the Americans in general feel guilty over their way of life (which btw does consume more energy than that of most European countries)? There are reasons for high energy consumption, like large distancies, also structure of industry (steel production for example is energy intensive, and some European countries simply import their steel).

[CarrieB]

Originally Posted by Sippe

But then how isn't "They'll laugh as they watch us crawl
the lucky don't share at all" a stupid line?

You've basically just said that you think it's a useless way of thinking.

Erm, I don't think so. Too much black and white thinking.

To me it's not a comment on individuals but on society. It's not literally saying people laugh, but some don't care enough to advocate change, that is true. It's probably more that people are too concerned with their own situations to see a bigger picture, though

The line: "Just make sure that you are looking out for number one" also appears to be a comment on our individualistic society and our wish to preserve capitalism as it is because it suits us in the Western World.

I'm sure you must realise this Sippe. It's very basic. Are you just trolling?

[Dee3Dee]

Originally Posted by CarrieB

Are you just trolling?

I've often wondered about you.

[Kueller917]

Originally Posted by Kati

Do the Americans in general feel guilty over their way of life (which btw does consume more energy than that of most European countries)? There are reasons for high energy consumption, like large distancies, also structure of industry (steel production for example is energy intensive, and some European countries simply import their steel).

Not very fair to compare consumption to European countries seeing as we have states bigger than most European countries. But I do get your point of high consumption.

[CarrieB]

Originally Posted by Dee3Dee

I've often wondered about you.

How ridiculous.

Watch out, watch out, the trolls are about!

[Sippe]

Originally Posted by CarrieB

Erm, I don't think so. Too much black and white thinking.

To me it's not a comment on individuals but on society. It's not literally saying people laugh, but some don't care enough to advocate change, that is true. It's probably more that people are too concerned with their own situations to see a bigger picture, though

And I'd say that's bullshit. Most people are very aware of the situation and the problems, but they just don't care. Or they care but are too concerned with their own situations to want to change anything.

I really don't understand how you can't see the problem in this statement "And the cry of hypocrisy is an easy accusation to make by those who would rather things stayed the same. Most of us could do without some of our luxuries and yes Matt could easily live in a three bedroom semi and give his money away if he wanted to. But no one alone can do enough to make change, it takes joint concern and willingness. "

Originally Posted by CarrieB

The line: "Just make sure that you are looking out for number one" also appears to be a comment on our individualistic society and our wish to preserve capitalism as it is because it suits us in the Western World.

I'm sure you must realise this Sippe. It's very basic. Are you just trolling?

I'm not sure how you think that it being aimed at society instead of individuals changes the point.

In short: you accuse people of just giving excuses not to change(calling "hypocrisy" when someone says we need change) but then defend Matt's hypocritical behaviour by saying that individual choices won't make a change.

Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking that these don't-want-things-to-change people usually have? "It's pointless for me to try to change the world because one man doesn't make a difference".

[CarrieB]

Originally Posted by Sippe

Isn't that exactly the kind of thinking that these don't-want-things-to-change people usually have? "It's pointless for me to try to change the world because one man doesn't make a difference".

Okay this bit is true (and I'm getting a bit lost) but Matt doesn't seem to be saying that.

The difference is that when people who don't want change, accuse people who believe change would be a good thing, of being hypocritical if they don't individually change everything about their lifestyles, that means that unless people who believe in change give away all their money and become poor themselves, or in the context of Green issues, don't own cars or travel on aeroplanes, etc, their arguments are dismissed and things are left to go on as before. Barring people like Gandhi or Mother Teresa, most of us are hypocritical in some way because generally most of us don't do that.

Now saying that, I'm not trying to make the argument that Matt is some kind of angel who doesn't deserve any criticism. He doesn't appear to see himself in that way either - remember when he recognised the fact that despite wanting better farming practices, he still used damaging cleaning materials? He sees the hypocrisy in that - he appears self aware. There are reasons why we can't discuss the point in full that jbeolar made and Matt hasn't given an account of his own experience and reasoning - which makes being judgemental a bit unfair - or I might make my thoughts clearer! I was incidentally critical of Matt when he joked about gambling ten grand with George Clooney. However, I don't think that his personal choices or comments made by other band members, take away from the argument that the lyrics appear to be making, imo, or from my argument that those lyrics appear to indicate views that lean more to the left than the right. I may be wrong, but that's my impression.

And I still think that's a good thing. I don't agree with everything Matt says, but leaving Matt out of this, if everyone with more leftist views, who had a platform, which usually results from being in a position that comes hand in hand with greater wealth, thought the only way I can make any comment is to change my own lifestyle, there would probably be much less opportunity for argument against existing systems.

As I said earlier in the thread, most change involves argument from elites, because basically the system, as it is, does it's best to avoid those without any power making their arguments heard.

And I'm going to have to leave it at that for now because I do actually have other things to do.

[fuesch]

Originally Posted by Hyper

is this the book you are discussing????




http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Law.../dp/1441993649

Origin of Wealth sounds like it would have been a good album name.

[jdeboer01]

Originally Posted by CarrieB

when unattached, it seems that Matt, according to what he said himself, didn't rush out to buy a ridiculously huge house or twenty flash cars, as far as we know, but did spend some of his money on buying a piece of land and some goats. That, I think. says something about the man and his priorities.

Yea, it says that Matt's priority is in his pants!

Originally Posted by CarrieB

It was a lecturer in sociology. As far as I know he had no particular vendetta against America but he does believe in justice.

He was making a negative statement about Americans. Period. He could just as easily said "The western world spends more money on perfume.......yadda yadda".

Originally Posted by CarrieB

Matt is entitled to believe whatever he wants to, though I would argue with his views if they were right wing. That has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the music though, which I love. I'm not sure why it matters to you so much. Would you feel differently about the music if you found out he was a communist? What's the point in that comment?

Id laugh my ass off if I found out he was a communist.

Originally Posted by CarrieB

That's just using a slippery slope argument. Yes, of course there are arguments where governments have become too powerful, but in general there is not much that can be accomplished without government being involved. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't argue against bad choices but the idea that big government gets in the way of our wellbeing is not supported when you look at the social outcomes of social democratic countries, which are generally a lot better than those of their neoliberal counterparts.

It seems to me that the outcome of social democratic countries is to eventually go bankrupt. The money for cradle to grave entitlements has to come from somewhere, and eventually governments run out of other people's money or "the producers" stop producing and/or leave.

Originally Posted by CarrieB

Anyway, can we just agree to disagree?

Sure. That was a lot of writing to conclude with "Oh well, whatever" though.

[Luxemburger Queen]

Aw boohoo, someone made a negative statement about America.

Except it was just an observation rather than a judgement.

[jdeboer01]

Originally Posted by Luxemburger Queen

Aw boohoo, someone made a negative statement about America.

Except it was just an observation rather than a judgement.

Oh. Another hater, I see.

[Sippe]

Originally Posted by jdeboer01

He was making a negative statement about Americans. Period.

And that's wrong becaaaaause?

Comparing perfume to toilet paper and thinking that it's a valid point is also kinda ridiculous.

"Why did you spend all that money on things we don't need?"
"Would you have said the same thing if we spent in on things we DO need? No, didn't think so."

wut