TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Ideological topics: Wealth Redistribution, Equality, Universal Health Care are quite contentious. Is there common ground for common good?

How do you obtain common ground in an ideological argument? What methods have proved fruitful in the past? Is there even a solution?

I am still working through Rousseau’s Origins of Inequality but, this statement stood out.

“Thus, as the most powerful or the most miserable considered their might or misery as a kind of right to the possessions of others, equivalent, in their opinion, to that of property, the destruction of equality was attended by the most terrible disorders. Usurpations by the rich, robbery by the poor, and the unbridled passions of both, suppressed the cries of natural compassion and the still feeble voice of justice, and filled men with avarice, ambition and vice.”

What methods do you use to sway the idealist who in reality means no harm yet causes harm with each keystroke?

+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Feb 7 2014: Biology now suggests that co-operation [even altruism] exists in plants, animals, including primates/humans and promotes long term survival. Self-interest is present in the natural world as well and often operates anti-cooperatively.
    What do you want? Which leads to a better survival, a more pro-social society or a society where more unfettered individual freedom (including greed) is paramount and promoted?
    Human activity shapes the world we experience be it societal or environmental and fuses with the other organic or non-organic changes occurring in the world and universe.
    Evolution tinkers and allows some of us DNA-based creatures to survive this ever -changing world.
    Both co-operation and self-interest have been seen to be effective in their own ways in the natural world. Co-operative cell networks have led to long-term plant and animal species survival.
    Can we more universally choose one behavior over the other and make it more common.
    Evolution will then allow the common behavior that is chosen [co-operation or self-interest] to continue and be successful in its' own way with its' own consequences.
    What do you want? Which way leads to a better more long-lasting survival?
    Can we choose?
    • Feb 9 2014: Hello Allan, Thany you for your reply. I choose the cooperative path you speak of.

      I think economic tools have given some of us the ability to chose a path of self interest. Which is against the natural path of evolution.

      The problem is that money can be used for good also and has become so entrenched in society that I cannot see any path forward which does not include money in some form.

      How can we eliminate the greed and death associated with money. A question we will need to adress if we wish to progress.
      • Feb 10 2014: What evidence is there that such a pure "cooperative path" is biologically possible for humans?
        • Feb 10 2014: Pure self-interest dies with the individual so, clearly, true self-interest lies in cooperation.
          Governments serve to optimize cooperation. Rather than voting republican or democrat,(two sides of the same bad penny), perhaps we should be able to opt into franchise governments, the way we do insurance or fast food. If we want to worship capitalism, maybe we should allow a free market for government itself. Perhaps the 1% would like to try getting along without the 99%.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.