Is Might Right?

1. 60

   TessSchlesingerposted 5 years ago

   We've all grown up in a world where countries go to war, and the winner takes the spoils. It happens every day in real life as well.
   
   So I'm asking a moral question which isn't as simple as it sounds?
   
   Is might right?
   
   It's the best adapted, after all, that wins in the survival game. Then, again, species co-operate in order to survive as well.
   
   I just read an article, and it made me think about that. What do you think?
   
   QUOTE: The Colorado River serves over 35 million Americans before reaching Mexico – but it is dammed at the border, leaving locals on the other side with a dry delta.
   
   https://www.theguardian.com/environment … -by-the-us

   replyreport
   1. 88

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Might can be right, but does not "make" right.  If it is right it is because of other factors.
      
      But I'm at a loss to understand what the Colorado river has to do with anything...unless you're trying to say that the US does not have the right to use the water from rainfall 1,000 miles from Mexico for it's own use and must let it all flow into Mexico via the Colorado River?
      
      Are you aware that the dam you mention was built in 1944, that it is half in Mexico, that Mexico is responsible for it's maintenance, that it's purpose is to divert water from the Colorado streambed into Mexico and that the US and Mexico have an international agreement as how much water Mexico gets from the river?  Regardless of how much is in it, Mexico gets a minimum amount (more in good years)?
      
      Are you aware of the agreement between the countries wherein the US is to provide aid to Mexico to improve the efficiency of their water use ($31.5 million)?  Are you aware that Mexico "stores" its excess water in Lake Mead, hundreds of miles north of Mexico, a "gift" from the US?  That the river bed is "dry" only because Mexico irrigates its "dry delta" (and provides for its citizens needs) with that rain and snow that fell  halfway to the Canadian border, 1,000 miles from Mexico?
      
      Although might was right this time (the US could take every drop), that "might" was not what makes the actions of both countries "right".  That came about from a peaceful agreement to share resources of the US land mass.
      
      https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedi … iver-water

      replyreport
      1. 60

         TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I think it depends on whether you believe that resources that begin in America belong to America or not. If so, then, natural resources that begin in Canada and/or Mexico and go through to America do not belong to America.
         
         The immense difference between capitalism and other economic systems was and is personal ownership of property. Trade has always been with us, Capitalism has been with us a mere 200 to 250 years old.
         
         Before that, the Magna Carta (1215) was the norm. If property wasn't lived on, it didn't belong to anyboy. Kings, governments, etc. were not entitled to the land. It was called 'the commons,' and it was there for the use of all.
         
         Capitalism replaced mercantilism, and it came about as monarchies and the aristocracy lost their power and money due to democracy (a result of the Enlightenment) came into being. The 'common people' resented the wealth and power of the lords of the universe because they took all the power and the money while they starved.
         
         The aristocracy put out the idea that capital (the money they had) was more valuble than labour, and as such any trade that they initiated (feudalism was fading) was not entitled to a full partnership in their endeavours, because the business owner might lose money, and that risk was greater. The idea that labour might lose its life, its time, its energy, or anything else, was not mentioned. Or the fact that business could not be done without labour.
         
         In subtle ways, might-was-right influenced an ignorant population- because a population at the beginning of the industrial revolution (replacing feudalism), and so the population just accepted what it was told.
         
         So the reason I'm mentioning this is because capitalism then enabled people (the rich people) to grab the land, and to take advantage of the ignorance of we-the-people because they simply did not understand what was happening.
         
         I'm not sure whether you read the article, but the article does indicate that agreements were signed with corrupt American officials. I'm not sure that was exactly a fair statement. How would one know whether a Mexican official was corrupt or not?
         
         Regardless, the Mexico government did sign these agreements with the US, and other countries did sign agreements regarding natural resources in places far away from Mexico and the US.
         
         The point is that these are natural resources, and according to the Magna Carta (and not capitalism which is posited on might-is-right), no government or private person is entitled to the ownership of assets of Mother Earth.
         
         
         
         
         That said, Wilderness, I was asking a general question, and I think you're right. Might can be right, depending on the situation.
         
         The situation, however, depends on whether might is doing right, and doing right has really not been well defined in our world.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You can define capitalism as ownership of land, but you will basically be on your own there, for no one else does.  Capitalism is a matter of free trade and has nothing to do with land ownership; the snake oil salesmen of our old west were capitalists in the extreme and did not own a square inch of land themselves.  Even the caveman bartering his spear point for a haunch of deer meet was a capitalist in a very minor way.
            
            As far as ownership of property in general, whether land, tools, food or cars - without a well defined concept of ownership what is left is anarchy.  Might makes right in other words, and whatever you can grab you can have until someone stronger takes it away in turn.
            
            I intended to indicate that might is not the determining factor in right, and believe you agree with that.
            
            And of course, as you point out, every person on earth has a different idea of what "right" is, from whatever God says to whatever they can accomplish by whatever means they choose.  I have my idea, you have yours.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               That's not my definition of capitalism. That's the definition of capitalism given in various colleges.
               
               Trade has been around for 10,000 years. Capitalism has been around for 250 years (at the most). It replaced mercantilism, and before that feudalism.
               
               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism
               
               https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs … .tb00724.x
               
               https://www.britannica.com/topic/feudal-land-tenure
               
               If capitalism was only about trade, then we would have had capitalism for the past 10,000 years as there has always been trade.
               
               But as the wiki entry says, capitalism is only a few hundred years old.

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "Trade has been around for 10,000 years. Capitalism has been around for 250 years (at the most)."
                  
                  Only if you define capitalism as something other than trade.  Which is kind of the point; when "capitalism" is defined as people producing something, then trading it for what they want, it has been around for a long, long time.
                  
                  From your wiki link: "...but fully fledged capitalism is generally thought to have emerged in Northwestern Europe...".  In other words the idea of accumulating capital (general considered as "money") could not have happened before the advent of money.  Of course that was going in in ancient Rome, where buyers and sellers proliferated as did producers.  The very essence of modern capitalism.
                  
                  Again from your link: "This sees capitalism originating in trade. Since evidence for trade is found even in palaeolithic culture, it can be seen as natural to human societies."  This is what I said and goes back to the caveman trading a spear point he made/obtained for a piece of meat.  That modern capitalism requires production to be financed by capital does not change that.
                  
                  Are you confusing capitalism with the basis for a nation's economy?  Because capitalism was alive and well thousands of years ago even though nations had no real economy as we recognize the term now.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     It also says that capitalism originated in the 17 hundreds, i.e. not being going for 10,000 years.
                     
                     I am not mistaken. Capitalism is a LOT MORE THAN TRADE
                     
                     No, I am not confusing anything.
                     
                     You're the one that is confusing capitalis with trade.
                     
                     Every single link I've looked at says that capital is about 250 years oldl
                     
                     https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism
                     
                     It replaced mercantilism and feudalism.
                     
                     Capitalism is an economic system, i.e. a system of production and distribution, and it is specifically about ownership of land. That is what separates it from other economic systems - which also had trade.

                     replyreport
                     1. 88

                        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        "No, I am not confusing anything."
                        "Capitalism is an economic system, i.e. a system of production and distribution, and it is specifically about ownership of land."
                        
                        You aren't confusing anything, but are dedicated to the idea that capitalism is an economic system rather than a style of production and distribution - a question of whether govt. controls that production/distribution or people do.  Respectfully, I disagree with that, and so does your Wiki link: "Liberals tend to view capitalism as an expression of natural human [/b]behaviors that have [b]been in evidence for millennia and the most beneficial way of promoting human well being. They tend to see capitalism as originating in trade and commerce, and freeing people to exercise their entrepreneurial natures."
                        
                        Bottom line is that the term is not well defined even by the experts debating when it started.  You have chosen one ("Marxists tend to view capitalism as a historically unusual system of relationships between classes, which could be replaced by other economic systems that would serve human well being better.") while I have chosen the other (quote given above).  Yet another quote from your link: "The origins of capitalism have been much debated ([b]and depend partly on how capitalism is defined[b])."
                        
                        But I'm still a little confused about the land ownership thing, for nowhere in the link do I see anything about capitalism depending on land ownership and can't put the two together.  Do you not see the food truck owners, without any land ownership at all, as capitalists?  What about we writers on HubPages, earning our way without the benefit of land?  Are we not capitalists, selling our wares for a profit?  Lawn service companies that come to your home to care for your lawn and use land only for overnight storage of their "production" facilities?  The other thousands of service industries, selling both labor and parts at your location not capitalists?  I had a company come to the local shopping mall and replace my car's windshield in their parking lot while I shopped - are they not capitalists, selling products and labor without government determining the distribution of windshields?
                        
                        So to me, "capitalism" obviously is about a style of production/distribution that does not depend on a central government to produce or distribute, but rather both are done by individuals.  To you it seems to be about anyone, government of individual, that owns land, presumably land that is used for production.  Farmers are capitalists but not the truck driver that transports it to us all.  Ranchers might be, if they own their grazing land rather that using public land (common in the US), but not the company that fixed my furnace or installed a new roof on my house.  A factory owner is a capitalist but not the company hired to do the payroll calculations for him or the one hired to design the website for the factory/products.  Is that your concept?

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Oh, Wilderness. For what it is worth, I'm not a Marxist. I don't agree with communism - however it is defined. I'm also not a socialist in that I believe government should own everything.
                           
                           The best economic system we had was during the 60s when the west had mixed economies. Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Israel, still have mixed economies.
                           
                           I believe, firmly, because labour is going to be eliminated, that we need to design a new economic system. I also don't have this idea that work is holy. If machines do the work, I see no reason why human beings can't focus on other things - like innovation, cleaning up the earth, etc.
                           
                           Trade has never been a government thingie - not even controlled by monarchies.
                           
                           Socialism was a failed attempt to create equality, and the idea surfaced at the end of the 19th century.
                           
                           If you look at the Magna Carta and the Commons, you will understand how capitalism differed from previous economic systems.
                           
                           I'll have to find you the links. I'm a bit busy now, so I'll have to come back to you.

                           replyreport
                           1. 88

                              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              I didn't mean to imply you are a Marxist.  But I do get the strong impression that you whole heartedly agree with Marx's mantra "From each according to ability, to each according to need".  I see that as the modern day socialism, wherein government allows private business/production, but then takes the proceeds away from the owner to give it to those it deems "in need".
                              
                              If the human species continues long enough we will indeed do away with common labor, at least in "civilized" areas.  But that utopia is far, far in our future and not something anyone now alive will ever see.  We have, however, started down the road and that long ago when society decided to support some of its citizens in return for pure research.  I'm thinking of such things as NASA here - a huge organization dedicated to space with no intent to ever return anything of value to the society that is paying for their efforts.  Our world is full of such endeavors - your "innovation" at work - but those endeavors still require the hard work of others to pay the price.  Perhaps one day it will be different - we can hope.

                              replyreport
   2. 77

      DoubleScorpionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      MIGHT could be right...it also could be wrong...
      
      But, those with might typically make the rules through brute force, regardless of if they are right or wrong...
      
      And the winners are the ones who decide what is written about history...

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         To ensure your own healthy history and for your own loving circle. Write your own life script. Don't know how people can be a life success following everyone elses script or scriptures.

         replyreport