Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Use this forum to discuss the December 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah
Ecurb
Posts: 1228
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 14th, 2022, 12:56 pm
Ecurb wrote: January 14th, 2022, 11:20 am
Freedom does NOT MEAN "the freedom to live one's life as one chooses, subject to the constraint one does not inflict loss or injury on anyone else." Freedom is LIMITED by that constraint.
Political freedom means exactly that. You persist with your 4-term fallacy.
My dream continues: "Yes," said Lenin. " 'Political Freedom' means the freedom to be unconstrained by the supposed 'rights' of private property. That's how it's defined."

"If anyone, especially GE Morton, complains about that use of the word "freedom" in the definition he is guilty of the 4-term fallacy."

Everyone knows (by now) what "pro life" or "pro choice" means. We can still object to the use of common. emotionally resonant words for the purposes of propaganda.
GE Morton
Posts: 2822
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 14th, 2022, 2:22 pm
My dream continues: "Yes," said Lenin. " 'Political Freedom' means the freedom to be unconstrained by the supposed 'rights' of private property. That's how it's defined."
Except that is not how it is defined. Do you imagine inventing a new definition constitutes a critique of the actual definition --- the definition stipulated and understood throughout the literature?

How about presenting a substantive critique instead?
Ecurb
Posts: 1228
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 14th, 2022, 2:56 pm

Except that is not how it is defined. Do you imagine inventing a new definition constitutes a critique of the actual definition --- the definition stipulated and understood throughout the literature?

How about presenting a substantive critique instead?
You can't possibly be so dense, GE. If "political freedom" is defined in a way that misuses the word "political" or the word "freedom" (as they are defined) it's perfectly reasonable to complain, especially when the words are co-opted because they are useful as propaganda. I imagine Lenin WOULD define "Free Markets" as I suggested. And if his definition had become popular in Russia, it would have been reasonable to object.
GE Morton
Posts: 2822
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 14th, 2022, 3:57 pm
If "political freedom" is defined in a way that misuses the word "political" or the word "freedom" (as they are defined) it's perfectly reasonable to complain, especially when the words are co-opted because they are useful as propaganda. I imagine Lenin WOULD define "Free Markets" as I suggested. And if his definition had become popular in Russia, it would have been reasonable to object.
"Misuses" the term "freedom?" No term preceded by an adjective which modifies, focuses, or constrains its scope is "misused." That's what adjectives are for.

"Political freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency) is a central concept in history and political thought and one of the most important features of democratic societies. Political freedom was described as freedom from oppression or coercion, the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions, or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom

But feel free to write to all the thousands of writers, editors, publishers who have written or published on that topic over the last 3 centuries and advise them that they have been misusing that term.

More fatuous verbal quibbles, and still no substantive rebuttal of political freedom as defined.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: January 14th, 2022, 12:53 pm
Belindi wrote: January 14th, 2022, 7:32 am
But the playing field is never level, so some at the lower levels will be subject to force without laws to protect their interests.
What force? Exerted by whom?
What motivates all living things , one way or another, is the urge to power. The urge to power is usually channelled into the urge to stay alive and help one's children to stay alive.
Ecurb
Posts: 1228
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 14th, 2022, 7:54 pm
"Misuses" the term "freedom?" No term preceded by an adjective which modifies, focuses, or constrains its scope is "misused." That's what adjectives are for.

"Political freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency) is a central concept in history and political thought and one of the most important features of democratic societies. Political freedom was described as freedom from oppression or coercion, the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions, or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom

But feel free to write to all the thousands of writers, editors, publishers who have written or published on that topic over the last 3 centuries and advise them that they have been misusing that term.

More fatuous verbal quibbles, and still no substantive rebuttal of political freedom as defined.
Good grief! Your Wiki article supports my dream about Lenin and Trotsky. According to Wiki, "political freedom" can mean:

1) "freedom from poverty, starvation, treatable disease, and oppression."

2) " utilitarian trade-offs, such as sacrificing the right to the product of one's labor or freedom of association for less racial discrimination or more subsidies for housing. Social anarchists describe the negative liberty-centric view endorsed by capitalism as "selfish freedom".[10]

3) "Robin Hahnel takes issue with Friedman's concept of economic freedom, asserting that there will be infringements on the freedom of others whenever anyone exercises their own economic freedom. He argues that such infringements produce conflicts that are resolved through property rights systems, and therefore it is essential to decide what is a better or a worse property rights system, yet Friedman simply takes for granted the existing property rights and does not question them." Sound familiar?

4) "Gerald C. MacCallum Jr. spoke of a compromise between positive and negative freedoms."

5) "Anarcho-capitalists see negative rights as a consistent system. Ayn Rand described it as "a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context". To such libertarians, positive liberty is contradictory since so-called rights must be traded off against each other, debasing legitimate rights which by definition trump other moral considerations. Any alleged right which calls for an end result (e.g. housing, education, medical services and so on) produced by people is in effect a purported right to enslave others.[citation needed]" Perhaps GE can provide the citation, since he seems familiar with this principle.

So no agreement about either the definition or the principles of "political freedom" exists. Numbers one and five are contracdictory. Based on your notion that adjectives can change the meaning of words, I imagine that a Confederate supporter of States' Rights could claim "political freedom" entails the right to own slaves. I suppose it would be reasonable to argue that since the U.S. has BY FAR the highest rate of incarceration in the world, we have the least "political freedom".

Words mean things. Adjectives can limit the meanings, but they alter the meanings only for the disingenuous. It's amazing how some people use words to create a vague emotional resonance without actually thinking about what the words mean. My current pet peeve is the Mercedes Benz ad tag line: "Mercedes Benz.... The Best, or Nothing." Every Benz TV commercial ends with this solemn incantation. Do Benz executives really suggest that if people around the world can't afford steak or lobster they should starve to death? Are they really telling their customers that if they can't buy the $200K Mercedes, they shouldn't even bother buying the $70k version? Is Mercedes Benz run by a cabal of idiots? "Political Freedom" (like the tag line) sounds, well, liberating. But since nobody agrees on what it means, or how to achieve it, it becomes meaningless dogeral.
GE Morton
Posts: 2822
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 15th, 2022, 7:53 am
GE Morton wrote: January 14th, 2022, 12:53 pm
Belindi wrote: January 14th, 2022, 7:32 am
But the playing field is never level, so some at the lower levels will be subject to force without laws to protect their interests.
What force? Exerted by whom?
What motivates all living things , one way or another, is the urge to power. The urge to power is usually channelled into the urge to stay alive and help one's children to stay alive.
??? That doesn't answer the question, "Forced by whom?"
GE Morton
Posts: 2822
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 15th, 2022, 10:59 am
GE Morton wrote: January 14th, 2022, 7:54 pm
"Misuses" the term "freedom?" No term preceded by an adjective which modifies, focuses, or constrains its scope is "misused." That's what adjectives are for.

"Political freedom (also known as political autonomy or political agency) is a central concept in history and political thought and one of the most important features of democratic societies. Political freedom was described as freedom from oppression or coercion, the absence of disabling conditions for an individual and the fulfillment of enabling conditions, or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g. economic compulsion, in a society."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_freedom

But feel free to write to all the thousands of writers, editors, publishers who have written or published on that topic over the last 3 centuries and advise them that they have been misusing that term.

More fatuous verbal quibbles, and still no substantive rebuttal of political freedom as defined.
Good grief! Your Wiki article supports my dream about Lenin and Trotsky. According to Wiki, "political freedom" can mean:

1) "freedom from poverty, starvation, treatable disease, and oppression."

2) " utilitarian trade-offs, such as sacrificing the right to the product of one's labor or freedom of association for less racial discrimination or more subsidies for housing. Social anarchists describe the negative liberty-centric view endorsed by capitalism as "selfish freedom".[10]

3) "Robin Hahnel takes issue with Friedman's concept of economic freedom, asserting that there will be infringements on the freedom of others whenever anyone exercises their own economic freedom. He argues that such infringements produce conflicts that are resolved through property rights systems, and therefore it is essential to decide what is a better or a worse property rights system, yet Friedman simply takes for granted the existing property rights and does not question them." Sound familiar?

4) "Gerald C. MacCallum Jr. spoke of a compromise between positive and negative freedoms."

5) "Anarcho-capitalists see negative rights as a consistent system. Ayn Rand described it as "a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context". To such libertarians, positive liberty is contradictory since so-called rights must be traded off against each other, debasing legitimate rights which by definition trump other moral considerations. Any alleged right which calls for an end result (e.g. housing, education, medical services and so on) produced by people is in effect a purported right to enslave others.[citation needed]" Perhaps GE can provide the citation, since he seems familiar with this principle.

So no agreement about either the definition or the principles of "political freedom" exists. Numbers one and five are contracdictory. Based on your notion that adjectives can change the meaning of words, I imagine that a Confederate supporter of States' Rights could claim "political freedom" entails the right to own slaves. I suppose it would be reasonable to argue that since the U.S. has BY FAR the highest rate of incarceration in the world, we have the least "political freedom".
Ooh, now you're changing the subject. Your previous complaint was that because political freedom assumed constraints, that it was a misuse of the term to call it "freedom." Which is a 4-term fallacy. Now you're listing the various different constraints, and even duties, lefties claim "freedom" implies, and complain that there is no agreement on what political freedom entails. That is a different issue.

There is no sense of "freedom," however, that entails any duties; any asserted duty represents a constraint on freedom, by definition. "Positive freedom" is an oxymoron. That doesn't mean no constraints are justifiable, but each one requires some moral justification. The moral justification for the classical liberal constraint --- do not inflict losses or injuries on others --- is self-evident.

BTW, if you want to complain of a misuse of terms, you may want to ask in what sense are freedom from "poverty, starvation, treatable disease" "political." Political freedom embraces only infringements of freedom imposed by moral agents, especially the State. It doesn't embrace limitations on freedom imposed by Mother Nature, or circumstances. That you are not free to ignore the law of gravity is not a political infringement of your freedom, nor is the fact that you vulnerable to disease.
Ecurb
Posts: 1228
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: January 15th, 2022, 1:26 pm

There is no sense of "freedom," however, that entails any duties; any asserted duty represents a constraint on freedom, by definition. "Positive freedom" is an oxymoron. That doesn't mean no constraints are justifiable, but each one requires some moral justification. The moral justification for the classical liberal constraint --- do not inflict losses or injuries on others --- is self-evident.
I'm glad you've finally come to your senses and decided to agree with me, GE. As I wrote earlier in this thread:
Nobody in his right mind thinks freedom of speech ENTAILS laws prophibiting slander, incitement to riot or copyright infringements. Instead, it is LIMITED by those laws.
Then I wrote:
Freedom does NOT MEAN "the freedom to live one's life as one chooses, subject to the constraint one does not inflict loss or injury on anyone else." Freedom is LIMITED by that constraint. This is obvious. Why you want to argue otherwise is a mystery.
Now that you've admitted that I was right and you were wrong, we can finally end this silly discussion. Have a good day.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4327
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: January 15th, 2022, 12:46 pm
Belindi wrote: January 15th, 2022, 7:53 am
GE Morton wrote: January 14th, 2022, 12:53 pm
Belindi wrote: January 14th, 2022, 7:32 am
But the playing field is never level, so some at the lower levels will be subject to force without laws to protect their interests.
What force? Exerted by whom?
What motivates all living things , one way or another, is the urge to power. The urge to power is usually channelled into the urge to stay alive and help one's children to stay alive.
??? That doesn't answer the question, "Forced by whom?"
In the case of political regimes, forced by whoever, or whatever social class, is in power.
GE Morton
Posts: 2822
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: January 15th, 2022, 1:56 pm
GE Morton wrote: January 15th, 2022, 1:26 pm
There is no sense of "freedom," however, that entails any duties; any asserted duty represents a constraint on freedom, by definition. "Positive freedom" is an oxymoron. That doesn't mean no constraints are justifiable, but each one requires some moral justification. The moral justification for the classical liberal constraint --- do not inflict losses or injuries on others --- is self-evident.
I'm glad you've finally come to your senses and decided to agree with me, GE. As I wrote earlier in this thread:
Nobody in his right mind thinks freedom of speech ENTAILS laws prophibiting slander, incitement to riot or copyright infringements. Instead, it is LIMITED by those laws.
Freedom of speech, like all other freedoms as understood in the liberal tradition, includes the constraint that one not inflict loss or injury on others. That is part of the definition of "free speech" in the liberal tradition. As Mill put it in On Liberty, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." That constraint is a moral one; free speech entails that constraint whether or not there are any laws. You're right that free speech doesn't entail any laws, but it certainly does entail that moral constraint.
Freedom does NOT MEAN "the freedom to live one's life as one chooses, subject to the constraint one does not inflict loss or injury on anyone else." Freedom is LIMITED by that constraint. This is obvious. Why you want to argue otherwise is a mystery.
Huh? I have not "argued" otherwise. "Constraint" and "limit" mean the same thing. And, yes, "freedom" (political freedom) in the liberal tradition includes that constraint; it is part of its meaning.
GE Morton
Posts: 2822
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: January 15th, 2022, 2:17 pm
In the case of political regimes, forced by whoever, or whatever social class, is in power.
Ok, that is an answer --- a vague one --- to the "who" question. Now, just what "force" is this "social class" exerting against those at "lower levels"?
GE Morton
Posts: 2822
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

GE Morton wrote: January 15th, 2022, 2:29 pm
There is no sense of "freedom," however, that entails any duties; any asserted duty represents a constraint on freedom, by definition. "Positive freedom" is an oxymoron. That doesn't mean no constraints are justifiable, but each one requires some moral justification. The moral justification for the classical liberal constraint --- do not inflict losses or injuries on others --- is self-evident.
PS: Perhaps Isaiah Berlin's classic paper on this topic will help you grasp the meaning of "freedom" in the liberal tradition:

https://cactus.dixie.edu/green/B_Readin ... iberty.pdf
AmosMorrison
Posts: 26
Joined: October 28th, 2021, 8:43 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by AmosMorrison »

There is a big difference that we need to understand before we make a judgement. Hence, my judgement for your statement will come in the end but before that, I will make sure that my word reaches and impacts you. Since it is about predators and prey, the basic perception is somewhat we all know of. It is that the predators are the ones that attack and hunt the prey. Often, the predators take control of their prey and either kill them or make good use of them. And preys do not have any support singularly. If they are in a hound, only then can they avoid the attacks?
Consider the same meaning for the countries too. Countries when exist close to each other develop the bond that makes them act as hounds. Consider Asia, Europe, and South America for example. These are the regions or what we call continents. But if you break them into sub-categories, you will find them as countries. The continent that is good economically and has decent stability, the impact transfers to all the countries within it. However, if there is a lack of these things, you will find its effects on each country in the continent. Good continents definitely act as predators. Whereas weaker ones become their prey of them.
A big example of this is the relation of the world with Africa. Top countries like China, Russia, and America invest in Africa but not the African people. There is something you need to understand here. In Africa, there is gold, jewels, and much more. But in African people, there is poverty on display. Thus, you will never see these countries investing in the people. Rather, they will only invest in the land into which they will be running their multi-million dollar businesses.
Yes, rich countries are predators and poor countries are prey.
GE Morton
Posts: 2822
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rich countries are the Predators and Poor countries are the Prey, Do you agree?

Post by GE Morton »

AmosMorrison wrote: January 18th, 2022, 10:31 am
A big example of this is the relation of the world with Africa. Top countries like China, Russia, and America invest in Africa but not the African people. There is something you need to understand here. In Africa, there is gold, jewels, and much more. But in African people, there is poverty on display. Thus, you will never see these countries investing in the people. Rather, they will only invest in the land into which they will be running their multi-million dollar businesses.
Businesses are not charities. They make investments in order to earn a profit. What sort of "investment in people" would you suggest that would earn them a profit?

If Africans et al wish not to be "prey," they have to begin making investments in themselves, so that they can offer the world something of value other than natural resources. No one else has any obligation to do so.
Post Reply

Return to “A Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir by Dr.Ghoulem Berrah”

Upcoming Philosphy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

Previous Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021