Remember when China used to be full of poor farmers?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by col0016, Aug 3, 2015.

  1. smk762

    smk762 Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Westralia
    It's a planet. We are a species.

    Fragmentation only occurs due to focusing on our perceived differences and conforming to our identified cultural stereotype. When we focus instead on a our similarities and common goals we are capable of being both diverse and unified. This doesn't have to mean giving up your culture, it just means accepting that despite other people having theirs, we can still cooperate.

    Without cultural exchange, we'd be centuries behind in science, art, philosophy, and pretty much any human endeavor. Passive segregation limits our collective potential.

    Nationalism more often leads to more conflict than collaboration, and attempts to homogenise a culture. Even within a nation's population, there is a diverse range of subcultures, and many individuals who break the stereotype of the group they identify with.

    Apparently some women are actually engineers. Some Chinese people aren't even that good at maths. Some old white guys care about poor people and the environment. Some Aussies don't give a shit about AFL or sport in general. Some black people are terrible dancers.

    Perceived racism is a problem. It may be passive or unintentional, but it has an effect and it is not positive. It reinforces the fragmentation you fear.

    Multiculturalism allows us to enjoy a choice of kebabs, sushi, curry, pizza or a burger. Australia is built on the back of migrants, and not all are western European. IMO, it's a major part of our culture.
     
  2. SpacePete

    SpacePete Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    12,970
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It looks like the British arrived just in time! Its amazing they even managed to survive at all for 60,000 years without our system of government, taxation, wage slavery, debt, unsustainable resource and land exploitation and endemic psychological suffering.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Golden ChipMunk

    Golden ChipMunk Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    6,692
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Perth, Jupiter, Venus, Mars
    White Australia had Black History
     
  4. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,795
    Likes Received:
    2,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    One positive is that at least aboriginal people can now own property privately. Previously, the fundamental rights of self-ownership were never acknowledged.
     
  5. col0016

    col0016 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,546
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia, Melbourne
    Do you really think that land ownership was a goal for them? I assume if they wanted to own land then they would have decided to over the land few tens of thousands of years...
     
  6. trew

    trew Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,811
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Melbern
    The arrogance is outstanding. They lived on the land for thousands of years. It was their land, they owned it.

    What they didn't have was guns to stop the British taking their land.
     
  7. billybob888

    billybob888 Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,696
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Australia
    Obvious case of pot calling kettle black.
     
  8. smk762

    smk762 Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Westralia
    Tribes had their nomadic circuit with what we would call property as seasonal destinations. Not too different to those with a summer house and a place to winter in the Hamptons. Land ownership wasn't a goal as it was innate, and the relationship was symbiotic. The only thing that apparently validated colonial land ownership was royal decree and the use of force. We turned a free and natural habitat into a prison, and then introduced all the little "official" pieces of paper that continue to enslave a majority of it's inhabitants.
     
  9. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,795
    Likes Received:
    2,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    No I don't think it was.


    Well they did have tens of thousands of years to decide.....and they didn't.

    A society that upholds collective ownership over and above private ownership holds the rights of the group above those of the individual. Tens of thousands of years of of pursuing a philosophy that subjugates the individual to the collective does not make it right.
     
  10. col0016

    col0016 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,546
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia, Melbourne
    I meant ownership as in one Aboriginal owning a parcel of land. They lived off the land and moved around. I'm saying that if they saw the land as a commodity that belonged to individuals in their tribes then they would have set up a similar system to us, but because they thought they belonged to the land they didn't. I'm not excusing what Britain did.
     
  11. col0016

    col0016 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,546
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia, Melbourne
    You're not seriously suggesting that because they didn't write a note saying they had first claim to the land that the English were justified in taking it?

    Just because you do not agree with somebody else's philosophy, it does not mean it is wrong, especially if it is harming nobody and arguably benefiting them all.

    Usually, I'm on board with what you say, however it seems you've abandoned your "as long as it harms nobody" mantra here.
     
  12. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,795
    Likes Received:
    2,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Indeed I'm not arguing necessarily that the English were justified in taking the land. Although, there are some who would argue in favour of it, John Stuart Mill was one, as was Ayn Rand. Basically they believed that societies that had not evolved into recognising the primacy of individual rights over collectivism could be forced into evolving by a society that had evolved.

    It's something I'm working through at the moment in my head, I'll quote bordsilver in a PM he sent me on this very topic as it explains it well:

    In this case I do believe their societal structure was flawed, any system based upon collectivism as being the supreme value system overrides the fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property. It's a view I can morally justify by arguing that a human can only achieve his or her potential when private property rights are recognised as supreme.
     
  13. SpacePete

    SpacePete Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    12,970
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You do realize that violence and aggression was used against aboriginals, apparently, as you argue, to introduce a far "better" value system that would protect a fundamental right to freedom from aggression?

    The critical flaw in your argument is an assumption of the supremacy of property rights above all else as the means for a person to achieve their full potential (and what do you mean by "potential").
     
  14. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,795
    Likes Received:
    2,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    When I refer to property rights I refer to the negative rights ie the freedom from aggression upon both a person's body, the space they occupy and their belongings. These negative rights are paramount.

    By full potential I mean to be truly human.
     
  15. SpacePete

    SpacePete Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    12,970
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    But what does being "truly human" mean? Are you saying aboriginals living in traditional cultural systems were not truly human and hence that provides a justification for forcibly acquiring the land they occupied?
     
  16. Jislizard

    Jislizard Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    'Nobody' owning the land is a lot different from "everybody' owning the land (collectivism).

    We are so indoctrinated into land ownership that we struggle to imagine a situation any different, either I own the land or the government owns the land or the church does or the Queen does, but someone has to own it, otherwise someone will come along and claim ownership for themselves. Hence the rush to stick a flag in any 'vacant' piece of dirt.

    I am not really knowledgeable about the aboriginal culture over here but from what I understand they didn't value the land itself, they valued the resources that they found on the land, they value the access to fresh water and the seasonal foods that grew wild on the land. As I said I have only heard snippets about their culture but from what I understand tribes from all over would congregate in one area during the Bunya nut season and they would all share the harvest. No one felt they owned the bunya nuts or the land the trees grew on.

    If they had moved on from hunter gathering and started farming then they might have started to care about land ownership because they would have put time and effort into cultivating a particular area of land.

    Regardless of how they saw the land, we saw it differently and claimed it as our own. Now someone is doing the same to 'us' (I emigrated over here in 2005).

    Given the corruption in China, the vast population that isn't rich, and how this new found wealth is against their supposed principals it might not be long until the country is full of poor farmers again, poor farmers and murdered academics and businessmen.
     
  17. Jislizard

    Jislizard Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Surely you are not introducing the informal fallacy along the lines of the "No true Scotsman argument" ?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
     
  18. SpacePete

    SpacePete Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    12,970
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So here is what I see being argued above:

    1) The primacy of private property rights is morally justified because it is the only way for a person to have a chance at becoming "fully human".

    2) Traditional Aboriginal societal structure was flawed because it overrode a fundamental right to freedom from aggression upon both person and property.

    3) Therefore, 60,000 years of Aboriginal culture and occupation of the land can be classed as immoral because it prevented them from achieving their "full potential" in becoming "fully human".

    4) Since traditional ownership of the land is now classed as immoral, or at least less moral than one specific alternative system, there is justification in the imposition of private property rights through the means of aggression against them which ultimately resulted in Aboriginals having no private property rights over the land they previously occupied, and arguably now have far less potential to become "fully human" than they did living a traditional lifestyle for the past several millennia... a lifestyle, in fact, that was far closer to that for which humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands of years.

    So I'd say that, unless you subscribe to a Biblical / Abrahamic view of the world and of humans, that the Aboriginals had a far better opportunity to live truly as humans in their traditional environment than they, or even us, do today.
     
  19. smk762

    smk762 Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Westralia
    Wouldn't nationalism or cultural segregation be more in line with collectivist philosophy than individualism?
     
  20. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,795
    Likes Received:
    2,110
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    I'm not justifying the forcible acquisition of the land, I merely stated that if one good thing came out of European colonisation of Australia, it is that the indigenous inhabitants now live under a legal system that better recognises private property rights.

    No I'm not. I would've thought the concept of being truly human to be self-evident. :/

    To me it means an existence where an individual has exclusive control over their own life, they are not indentured to any other nor to any group.

    Yes.


    Yes.


    No. 60 000 years of ownership rights can be classified as immoral.

    I'll refer you back to the quote from bordsilver above regarding aggression. As far as the rest of your paragraph goes, I repeat agin that Aboriginal people now have the capacity to own property privately, something which they could not have done under their old cultural system. This is a step forward, it's not a regressive step therefore they have far greater capacity now to reach their true human potential.
     

Share This Page