DocWatts

@LfcCharlie4 I try my best to be relatively non-ideological about what to leave in the public vs private sphere, and am all for means testing government programs to make sure they're fulfilling thier intended purpose. That said, there are some human necessities where introducing a Profit motive creates a Moral Hazard. I'm assuming you probably wouldn't be okay with someone selling thier Organs to pay thier bills, or someone agreeing to become an Indentured Servant with no Legal Rights for ten years to pay off thier Student Loan Debts. Likewise, introducing a profit motive in to things like Prisons or Healthcare creates perverse incentives where organizations directly benefit from Harming people. Hence, they become Predatory. In addition, when people mention that government programs can become bloated and inefficient (sometimes true), they fail to see how the same can be true of Private Industry. Hell, Comcast is still around, and they're one of the worst companies in existence, providing truly terrible service for a premium cost. In addition, public programs have a huge advantage over privatized ones; Public programs can be run at Cost, and not have to skim a Profit from people using thier services. A government program would have to be very inefficient indeed to not be able to compete with a Privatized Service which must provide Investors with a quarterly return, and CEOs with millions of dollars in compensation. Also, you'll notice that at no point did I mention that any public services were free: they're tax payer supported. What I will argue is that something supported by taxes will often be both more inexpensive and better than its privatized alternative.

While the above videos offer a valid critique of Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber, if you're interested in this topic, I would highly recommend the book The Listening Society by Hanzi Freinacht. The book is a Metamodern text on Developmental Psychology and Sociology, and deals quite explicitly with both Spiral Dynamics and Ken Wilber. The book points out some of the strengths and weaknesses of both models, and presents a more refined version of Spiral Dynamics that accounts for some of its weaknesses, a refinement that the author calls an Effective Value Meme. Some of the problems about the Spiral Dynamics model which the author points out is that it attempts to merge several different areas of human development on to a single axis, and doesn't account for how people may have a level of cognitive complexity (or Wisdom) that's either below or above what Spiral Dynamics stage they've been imprinted with. It also points out that Turquoise is something that really doesn't exist at this point of time, and is more indicative of the limitations of Spiral Dynamics as a model to integrate people who have reached a level of wisdom and sophistication beyond their current SD-Stage. A nice illustration of the limitations of SD as a model is that it doesn't provide a clear and unambiguous answer to the following question : Which of the following people is at a 'Higher' level of psychological and personal development - Aristotle (roughly SD-Blue), or a 15 year old contemporary hippy girl (roughly SD-Green)?

@amorri1010 Just about all Left leaning people agree that at least some necessities should be divorced from Market dynamics, it's just a matter of degree for what Industries should be de-commodified and made Public. Things like Health Care, Education, Utilities (including Internet) seem like no brainers, in that these are clearly things humans need for a happy and productive life, where the Market has either failed or presents an obvious Moral Hazard. Things like Housing and Transportation present more ambiguous cases, where a blend of public ownership and regulated Markets might make more sense. That said, I fail to see the Wisdom in introducing alternative methods of distribution to areas where Markets are working reasonably well, such as Food or Consumer Goods (the latter of which Planned Economies were notoriously bad at providing).

If you mean it in the sense that most people aren't creative geniuses who can make thier way in our socio-economic system on thier own terms, you'll find no argument from me. I do think that the comic speaks to a more generalizable yearning to live one's life authentically, and to not have one's sense of self worth contingent upon how high they can climb in the Social Hierarchy. I also think we should be doing more to normalize stay at home dads, but that's a different discussion.

@TheSomeBody From your vantage point, what sort of long term solutions to the Conflict are Israel Left of Center political parties advocating for (beyond the short term goal of defending against Hamas rocket strikes)? Is a Two State solution something that is still actively sought after by any of the major political parties?

@TheSomeBody Since you happen to be from Israeli, how would you characterize the Left/Right divide in Israeli? Is it more of a demographic or ethnic divide? Is the split between right and left a generational one? Something else? Hard to even pin down?

@cookiemonster That's fair. Obviously I'm well aware that religiously motivated Jews thought of Palestine as thier ancient home, and that Zionist Christians who had religious motives for seeing the Jews return to Palestine (as a prerequisite for Biblical Prophesies of the Rapture). My point wasn't that religion played no role as a motivating factor (obviously it did), but that the hatred between Jews and Arabs is relatively recent, and due to a political conflict of interests, rather than irresolvable religious differences that go back thousands of years. I would argue however that the only reason that religiously motivated Zionism got any traction at all was for pragmatic political reasons, stemming from the situation in Europe in the 19th and 20th Century. Sure a small and fragmented religious community may have had a desire to set up a homeland in a region where people were already living, but without a powerful State (ie the British Empire) with vested political interests in the region, it would have remained the dream of a stateless people who lacked political power. It was also my understanding that many of the early Zionists were cultural (rather than religious) Jews, including Theodor Herzl; in a similar way to how Einstein was a non-religious Jew. No World War 1 (and World War 2), no Israel state. No persecution of Jewish minorities by European/Russian political powers (often done for opportunistic political reasons), likely no Israeli state. You do make some good points though, and I may have overlooked how Religious motivations (for both Jews and Christians) were intertwined to some degree with the political situation, so I'll revise my statement to the Conflict being primarily Political.

Despite the rhetoric of religious hatred that gets thrown around on both sides, what's happening in Palestine is %100 a political conflict, whose root cause is British colonialism in the wake of World War 1, and the desperation caused by European Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. Anyone who believes that the dispute is due to religious hatred that stretches back thousands of years (with the implication that there's nothing to be done about it) is either ignorant of History, or is being flagrantly dishonest.

I problem I see with attempting to apply Marxist economics to contemporary Societies, is that people are quick to lose sight of the Historical context that the work was created in. At the time when Marx and Engels were developing thier Theory, the average worker in the most advanced Industrial Societies of the time were working 80 - 100 hour work weeks in truly horrific conditions; labor laws weren't a thing that existed, and workers were treated as little better than serfs. While these conditions still exist in developing countries that the advanced economies 'export' thier exploitation of labor to, for people living within developed countries Social Democracy has solved many (though not all) of the problems of Capitalism. For someone lucky enough to be living in a country with strong labor laws, who may be protected by a Union and has access to free college and vocational education, Marxist economic Theory doesn't really have a lot to offer that person. Sure you could argue that they're not getting the full value of their Labor, but for someone making a living wage with a social safety net to protect them, it's not really a matter of Survival like it was for the 19th century workers Marx and Engels were writing about. Obviously this doesn't invalidate Marx's basic critique of Capitalism, so much as make it less relevant for the advanced economies some century and a half later. I wouldn't say that Marxist economic theory is wrong (it's not), so much as outdated. That's not to say that Social Democracy is perfect or an 'endpoint' of Social Development, but I would argue it's more attuned to contemporary challenges than 19th Century economic Theory. Not as if Marxist economies have proven any better for sustainable development than Capitalism, nor does it offer any solutions for how to address the most serious issue that humanity currently faces, which is Climate Change. Planned Economies might have arguably worse for protecting the environment than Market economies, which is really saying something.

Bill Watterson (creator of the Calvin and Hobbes) sums up a Green ethos quite beautifully. Full comic here: https://www.mommysbusy.com/calvin-hobbes-daddy-bill-watterson-proves-why-stay-at-home-moms-and-dads-rule/

@amorri1010 Of course what you say is true, and just to lay my biases on the table, when I refer to contemporary Socialism, I'm implicitly referencing to what I'll broadly refer to as Libertarian-Socialism. While that's far from the only ideological block under the 'Socialist' umbrella, but I do see it as the most relevant to contemporary conditions in the United States and Europe. That's not to deny the Historical and Sociological significance of other types of Socialism, but as a contemporary political force in the West, I would argue that they are negligible. Regardless of whether thier arguments have Merit, something like Anarcho-Syndicalism or Leninism are anachronistic by this point.

I would posit that wanting to separate Essentials (health care, education, utilities, housing, etc) from Markets is a far cry from positing public ownership of the entire economy... It's my understanding that most contemporary Socialists want to retain Markets, but believe that they should be subordinate to what's necessary for the Public Good (rather than the exact opposite being true).

@amorri1010 Great and thoughtful post, and welcome to the Forum. From my own vantage point, the most common mistake I see about Socialism (disregarding its demonization from intellectually dishonest actors) is to be Reductionist about it, and treat Socialism an All or Nothing affair. Either workers in a Society own the means of production, or they're being exploited. When from my point of view, thinking of Socialism as a gradation or a matter of degree makes much more sense. Powerful Unions which give workers a voice as to how their workplace is run is one point on that spectrum, with worker owned businesses being further along on that spectrum. While %100 socialist country is unrealistic, I see no reason in principle why various degrees and gradations of Socialism can't co-exist within a system driven by Market forces (at least within the more Democratic countries of the world, this system obviously wouldn't work where Democratic Institutions are weak). If one looks at the moral imperatives behind Socialism, namely that workers: (1) deserve the full value of thier labor (2) should have control over thier work environment (3) should be able contribute in a meaningful way to the products of thier labor. The mistake I see is that people become ideologically fixated on their chosen method for achieving these Principles, rather than on the Principles themselves; missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. I would argue that thinking that there's only one way to achieve these overall goals is Limiting, and there's a Spectrum for how fully these Principles are realized.

The illusion of separation between humans and the natural world is a systemic problem, one of whose root causes stems from the worldwide economic system not factoring ecological costs in to the costs of Production. Instead matters that are of existential importance to mankind as a living organism on this planet (Climate Change, the acidification of the Oceans, etc) are treated as 'externalities', and a perverse incentive arises for individuals and groups to gain short term profits at the expense of long term human survival. Obviously this sort of system can't last forever, the question is will humans make changes to this system on our terms, or will changes be forced upon us by an ecological crash that threatens human existence. Let's hope and work for the former, as the latter entails widespread suffering. Whatever economic system ends up eclipsing Capitalism will as a matter of necessity need to have Ecological as a central pillar, in order to have any sort of longevity.

While I don't disagree with this overall assessment, that doesn't change the fact that the impetus is on Israel - the more powerful actor - to renounce its Manifest Destiny ambitions, and commit to working towards a two state solution. The impetus can not be placed on the people who have been put in an impossible situation, either resist and suffer massive and disproportionate retaliation, or submit and resign themselves to slowly having what's left of thier home taken from then.

Even calling this a Conflict seems somewhat misleading, when you considering the Power Imbalance between the two sides. As if there's any ambiguity over what the outcome will be when a stateless people happens to be in the way of an Imperialist State. If International Pressure was justified in pressuring South Africa to end Apartheid, it's equally justified in pushing back against the Apartheid that's the Israeli State is enabling.

Here's a few recommendations: Dan Carlin's Hardcore History: If you're not already familiar, he takes the approach of a master storyteller, and covers a number of topics from both the 20th Century and the Ancient world. Often covers well trod subject matter from a unique angle (Why isn't Alexander the Great legacy treated with the same disdain as Hitler? Or World War 2, but from a Japanese point of view). https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ The Martyrmade Podcast: http://www.martyrmade.com/fear-loathing-in-the-new-jerusalem/ Best podcast you'll find about the origins of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also has another excellent series on cult leader Jim Jones, which goes in to a ton of depth about the fragmentation of the US Civil Rights movement after MLK's assassination. The Dollop: This one's a comedy podcast, but also quite informative as it covers a wide range of bizarre and interesting topics from US History. Did you know that Andrew Jackson was sent a 1000 lb wheel of cheese which began going moldy and stunk up the White House ? Or that the City of Chicago created an ecological disaster when it released tens of thousands of balloons during a parade? https://www.dolloppodcast.com/podcast

Could you perhaps be referring to Meditations by Marcus Aurelius?

Because our Education System was created to serve the needs of the economy, rather than to help people develop self actualization skills.

Not sure if Vaush has been mentioned yet, but I could see that discussion being potentially very productive and interesting...

You'll be much better off if you think of him as just a guy whose job it is to contemplate philosophical ideas, and then to communicate those ideas via his online platform (and happens to be pretty good at it). If you find yourself putting him on a pedestal, put in some work to find the faults in the ideas and concepts that he puts forth. I've often been better served by seeking out outside sources for many of the topics that Leo discusses, and contrasting how the book I'm reading frames a topic vs Leo's take. For instance I've found the philosopher Thomas Nagel's arguments against materialist reductionism more convincing than Leo's 'Deconstructing the Myth of Science' series, but still found it useful for how someone with a Perspective would make said argument.

The more I learn about Don Beck, the less positively inclined I am towards him. Guess there's no requirement that important innovations or discoveries have to originate from people with a high degree of virtue or integrity (insert pithy anecdote about Thomas Edison here).

The point of my previous post wasn't to necessarily to justify everything that the neighboring Arab countries did in response to Israel's actions, but rather to demonstrate that the military invasions didn't come out of nowhere. I would further argue that many (perhaps even most) other nations would have responded in a similar way in that scenario.

@Raptorsin7 Some additional context may be helpful as to why the Arab nations tried to wipe Israel of the map, as you put it. When Israel was established, it created large numbers of displaced refugees who were pushed out of where they had been living, causing instability as they began streaming into neighboring countries, who either didn't want them or didn't have a place for them. To illustrate the difficulties this caused, imagine that a foreign power began colonizing the closest neighboring country to where you live and started pushing out the people who were already living there, causing tens of thousands of displaced people to begin streaming into the country you reside, with all of the instability which that entails. Even if you don't agree with the decisions they made in response to this, the surrounding Arab countries reacted in the way that they did for understandable reasons; not because of imagined unresolvable religious tensions, or because of an inability for Jews and Arabs to coexist.

I would be interested in hearing this as well.