This is exactly why I am not interested in building utopias. Begin at trying to making things better, not perfect.

Only if you want to do some serious harm to society. Emotions are great, but one shouldn't think with them:

Here's how a rational mind works: 1) The mind is presented with an issue. 2) The mind uses reason to weigh all available logical factors and make a decision. 3) Opinion is formed and/or action is taken. 4) Emotions are felt as a result.

Here's how an irrational mind works: 1) The mind is presented with an issue. 2) The mind examines its feelings to make a decision. Facts are not weighed. 3) Opinion is formed and/or action is taken. 4) The mind twists reason and logic to try and justify the irrational decision it just made, and to create safeguards that will enable it to ignore or deny any future data that contradicts said decision... meanwhile, reality continues to be exactly what it is regardless of how one may feel about it, or even of if it is acknowledged.

Of the ideas you mentioned, libertarianism wins on moral grounds because it does the most to protect individual rights. But it also wins on pragmatic grounds because it provides the means for the greatest economic efficiency, and as a consequence, is the most effective way to promote social welfare. So there need not be a conflict or dilemma... unless you are trying to build the perfect society.

__________________
One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings. --Diogenes

I would only argue that using emotions as the basis to make an opinion can be rational. It depends on the importance one proscribes to emotions over other variables. Granted... with my definitons it is very difficult to truly find an irrational mind. I think people have reasons for everything. I cannot necessarily claim that a person is thinking irrationally simply because he/she places the importance of emotion over fact. Possibly detrimental... but not emotional.
I also argue that emotions are also present in the beginning. Rationale can produce no goal. The concept of optimizing life, liberty, or the survival of a society means nothing without some emotional stake in the issue. To a certain extent even self-preservation is not necessarily the only logical course unless you assume it has value. Some people have rational reasons for doing actions that violate self-preservation (fun, survival of family, etc.).
Where do these assumptions that we judge facts by come from? Family. Culture. Who knows? But I'd suggest they are emotional in nature since they are not factual.

That's why I've always been the "Be an idealist... but be realistic about it" kinda guy.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

java, although im not a fan of your political ideas I do respect how well you can debate.

__________________
The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.-Adolf Hitler

Hello Merlin! By all means read the book and let me know what you think, then. Perhaps, you take the terms too literally. Both "abundance" and "scarcity" are subjective terms. "Gift" societies may be relatively poor but still intent on sharing what abundance they posess. On the other hand, market societies may be very wealthy, overall, yet still have difficulty with the concept of sharing. Haven't you noticed this: Americans (generally) can never have enough. Getting and spending becomes a hunger- a void that cannot be filled.

On the other hand you can go to the Peruvian Andes and find Quechua indians who personally own nothing yet will reject the notion of marketing their many varieties of blue and gold potatoes to a niche market in Lima because they do not want to inject competition, strife and private property into a cooperative sytem that has served them for centuries. They are content.

It is true that "gift" societies are not known for innovation and production. Did I say that everything about communal societies is positive? No, not really. I think that Americans are particularly unbalanced on the side of individuality, self-absorption and alienation. I am personally conflicted about these two sides of myself as are many in America.

I think that clinging absolutely to individual property rights as separate from the decisions of a democracy is actually irrational unless the philosophy guiding involuntary taxation is one that will realistically undermine the generally recognized right to private property (i.e. any Utopian model). After all, even in a minarchist society, there would still be some government waste, and to allow for that waste is, in a dogmatic theory, allowing theft.
One has to recognize that sometimes doing the will of the majority ultimately benefits everyone even if some people don't initially see it that way. I think that losing the basic ethic that we have some obligation, as legally defined by majority opinion, to the poor would desensitize our society to suffering to a morally unhealthy degree. That is not to state that the government should attempt to eliminate poverty, but private property rights have to be balanced with a reminder of our own humanity. I've created the rational basis for a new political philosophy. As it applies to economics, I'll now simply support making existing government aid programs more efficient.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

I'll try and find the time. Can't promise you though.

Unfortunately, there is dramatically less available to share when you place little importance on production, innovation, or competition.

Again, I would have to disagree. Not to start a separate debate, but the U.S. can be categorized as a market society, and it has just about the highest rate of charitable giving per capita in the world.

Yes. But I don't believe that the cause is anything the government or a change in economic system will fix. If you're interested, I have touched on what I believe the cause is, in this thread...
http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...ht=baby+boomer

I'm not sure that the Quechua can accurately be described as a gift economy:
Reciprocity is the key here, I think. If you provide a good or service for someone with the expectation of getting something in return, it isn't really a "gift". Instead, it sounds to me more like the Quechua are practicing the good ol' barter system - in other words, primitive capitalism. I have no problem with it - I simply find money a far more effective, accurate, and convenient medium of trading goods and services (as opposed to "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours").

I agree to a point (I also addressed this somewhat in the link I posted above). But I believe our government has no business trying to get its citizens to "love their neighbor". Governments should only protect individual rights. Other than that, what we make of our society is up to us. Invariably, as a whole, we always live in the society we deserve.

__________________
One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings. --Diogenes

I have always wondered about that statistic. How charitable are Americans relative to their income and does that stat include church giving? I view church donations as dues paid to a private club rather than true charity.
I am not sure that I believe the study about generational change in depression levels. My old Yankee forebears would never admit to feeling depressed, they might have become alcoholics or have been otherwise self-destructive but admit depression. NEVER! Stiff upper lip, you know. I agree with much of your thoughtful analysis. Clearly, having too many choices can be its own kind of tyranny. It is a contibuting factor to the loss of community. We are a rootless transient people in search of perfection. I think that people are most content when they feel in control of their lives and make peace with those things that cannot be controlled.
If you read the book you will see that the goal in a gift society is to keep the gift moving. Hoarding is unacceptable. "The Indian giver" called white men, "the white men keepers".

"There is only one deprivation, I decided this morning and that is to be unable to give one's gift...the gift turned inward, unable to be given becomes a heavy burden, even sometimes a kind of poison." May Sarton

I would suggest that America is somewhat of a gift-giving culture. The problem is that we are mostly disconnected. We give based on what we want to give, not based on what people need. Frankly I don't know if so-called gift cultures are much different in that regard. But in a simpler economy it's a lot easier to know what to give and who to give it to.
In our culture people give regularly to a host of different charities. We can be rest assured that poor children will have toys... but it's hard to tell if everyone would eat, have shelter, or get help finding a job without government programs.
What we lack is organization and an ability to prioritize. The disease that runs in my family and infects .2% of the population takes precedent over the disease that's killing millions of poor people without expendable income to devote to the cure or to general medical science. It's the same as why methamphetamines are so much a bigger problem than crack cocaine...
If you've got money and lobbying power, the causes you believe in become more important.
And government certainly hasn't figured out how to keep that out of its own programs...
Too many choices. Too much noise. Blessing and a curse.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside