My Girlfriend Has A Peculiar Memory When It Comes To Dreams. Everyday She Just Tells Them In Great Detail.

Well, bravo. I'm a huge fan of capitalism myself. It's great to see well thought out arguments like yours.

There's only one major issue that I've identified: This isn't about capitalism--it's about libertarianism. I'm not sure if you've read Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia but that's the thing for you.

Robert Nozick talked a lot about the minimal state, a concept that celebrates economic and moral freedom of the individuals and gives only limited role to the state: creating a legal system that protects people's property and guarantees the validity of contracts. This is very similar to your reasoning but it's libertarian philosophy and not directly the theory of capitalism.

Capitalism and libertarianism seem infinitely intertwined. Even so, if you look up the definition of capitalism and study the main ideas of libertarianism, you will find yourself wondering if the two are separate at all. They actually are. The U.S. didn't cease to have a capitalist system under Obama's presidency, though he's definitely not a libertarian.

In today's world, after Keynes and his successors, we have a mixed economic system, that's not laissez faire but it's also clearly not communist economy. The state does this and the state says that, courts rule this and that way and many complain why we don't have the original capitalist freedom. So why is this? Is this something good?

I could bring economic arguments but I'm sure I'd be making mistakes but more importantly the reason for having the current system can be found in political considerations:

#1: The market might always find balance eventually but, in the meantime, individual lives, which' survival are dependent on economic safety, can be hurt. So the economy of the country may find balance after a year or two of necessary fluctuation but in those years a family may go bankrupt, people can become desperate and not all of them are good-enough economists to be able to avoid undergoing serious losses. You said that these are inevitable casualties but politicians found it otherwise. More on this later.

#2: In a competition the strong/smart prevails and the weak/feeble-minded stays behind. You understood this as the order of nature. But nature isn't fair. We can say it's random and random doesn't equal fair but receiving in proper proportion in accordance with one's desert is. Being born strong or weak clearly has no relation to our desert.

According to Weber, capitalism was an unavoidable consequence of the emergence of Protestantism: People experienced a new freedom and the sensation of equality and autonomy spread very fast. And of course capitalism was a much better system than feudalism that preceded it in Europe. But it seems today that capitalism is and has been evolving.

You found morality in rewarding the productive and by the promise of these rewards motivating new members of society to become productive. It is, in fact, very moral, however, this can mean in a way rewarding the capable and ignoring the incapable and that is immoral. Why? Because no one made themselves capable. You might think hard work is your own merit, though if you can work hard it means that you have sufficient concentration and the sufficient abilities. These depend on genes and other external variables, so they do not originate from your own doing, ergo it isn't moral to reward you for something that you just happened to have.

I have introduced some political and moral arguments against laissez faire libertarianism but what are ideas for corrections--you may ask--nobody asks this, of course, but it's good to think that I'm not writing to myself...

One of the most famous political philosophers of the 20th century, John Rawls, recognized how libertarianism is unfair and so he said that a system should be formulated from behind the veil of ignorance: We decide without knowing what will be the most profitable environment for us, only considering what will surely be beneficial for everyone, since we can be successful salespersons or Hispanic cleaning ladies. Of course the veil of ignorance is an abstract thing, not something real, but it is a fair concept. Or is it? 

Even Rawls came to realize that even though capabilities are contingent, the able should not be withheld their reward because they used well what was given to them. So he created the difference principle: Inequalities may exist as long as they are profitable to the whole community.

Politicians seem to have adopted Rawls' ideas, though in a very weakened way (for which I am grateful by the way). What we see today is capitalism but fixed with the tools of fairness. Politicians understood and admitted that capitalism is a clever system, working very well most of the time, but they also said that people should be protected and aided because not everyone can stand their ground in an economic competition. They decided to help the weak because politicians can't settle with inevitable casualties of any standing economic system but they ought to bring welfare to the whole community. In the other hand, politicians can never ignore what is owed to the productive and able.

At the end of the day, though, I still root for capitalism because so far it's been working nicely. What must be observed in this question is that this system has been based on morals and values, not on figures and balances. We should be critical and be critical with the eyes of the idealist and not the pragmatist.

Is capitalism working?

I believe that people should be left alone and allowed to succeed or fail. People need liberty and a system that guards their liberty.

I love capitalism. Capitalism is good but it has a bad name. It’s not primarily about capital and investing. It is about property. As the legal thinker William Blackstone wrote:

There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. [Note: By “despotic,” Blackstone means “absolute.”]

Read More

that’s about humanity’s dignity

The right answer is always figured out early on, when it isn't, it means, that you are not ready to know it.

One thing I've learnt: art, in its any form, is essential to life. Sometimes we find our piece of art in a person, then we judge them to be amazing, astonishing, outstanding, peculiar or curious, which they are.

I wanna thrive, not just survive

"Feels like I travel but I never arrive" - sings Jon Foreman. I suppose it gets us all every now and then. We feel like we're doing so much, when at the same time our lives seem to be stuck at an unreasonable point.

Currently I've had the impression, that I'm working very hard, building a great relationship, doing everything possible. I sent out numerous query letters, to literary agents, in hopes of living one of my dreams: becoming a writer. Not neccesarily a full-time one, just any writer, who can change college and go from mechanical engineer to anything-else-with-which-I-can-be-a-writer-and/or-director... But it just doesn't happen! I'm not getting any response.

Do I suck, is that why they ignore me? This is what I've asked myself a thousand times. Insecurity and doubt, however, are just terrible lies. I say lies because they are totally unreasonable and useless. Oh and most of all pointless. This no-reply has nothing to do with my writing or with my letters, it's just the process, you dumbass, and when I say you dumbass I mean ME DUMBASS...

I've heard it so many times, that it's way too much, that: It isn't the finish line, which matters, but the road, that leads there. And: Enjoy life's wonderful journey, cos' that's what matters. But these are nonsense common-places. If I were given a dollar for every time I thought to myself: Oh, could you be any more wrong? - then  I wouldn't have to study at all after all...

I know this has been nothing but confusing so far but believe me, my conclusion is at the corner now :)

We (and personally I, but let's stay with we) do struggle a lot and we make serious efforts. Most likely day by day. And it seems, like our lives are going nowhere. Because we're not getting anywhere... But is this true? We all are full of potential and we all are called for so much more. The big, romantic turn waits after this moment. Whenever we're ready. If we want to thrive, and not just survive, there is a chance. We can always trust our lives into the hands of the Heavenly Father, who is already taking us there. And it's THAT there. The next moment may just be a moment for a miracle. Let's thrive :)

Don’t let people pronounce your name wrong - don’t let them see you walking home. Don’t let them see your mother in the playground, smelling of spices. Bite your lip when you see a white woman in the street wearing a shalwar kameez. ‘I’m on the way to a wedding,’ she drawls. ‘A friend got me this s-…this thing. Isn’t it pretty?’ I don’t know, lady. Tell me, how much do you care about the merchants who jumped to their feet and dove through reams of fabric to find the right one? Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn’t be angry that you’re wearing a garment I can’t wear without eye rolls and insults and, ‘fucking Paki. Go back to India, go back to where you came from.’ I was born here, and I’ve earned my place here. More so than you. I’ve had to work for it. I’ve had to know my shit countless times, be able to list off members of the government on both hands, talk this way, eat this way - my parents stopped sending me to school with rice so early because the other kids couldn’t fathom lunches that weren’t sandwiches. Can you even pronounce ‘shalwar kameez’? Let me hear it, I’m not convinced. I don’t know, my teacher had to ask me how to say my name three times this morning - and each time I said it she would repeat it slowly, squinting, as though it were made from a different alphabet. So I guess you could say I’m a sceptic. Wait. Is that a bindi on your forehead? Where’s your temple? More importantly, where were you yesterday when my Religious Education teacher was telling me how the whites helped educate the poor little Indians and that 1947 was a bad year for ‘us’? My country’s independence was the Empire’s downfall, and the Empire gave us nothing but pain. My grandparents were driven off the border of Pakistan and forced into poverty, and here was a person trying to tell me that the colonies that terrorised my family away, away from their homes and their cities and their loves, did a good thing. Where were you then? I see the henna on your hands, and I am here to say that my culture is not a trend for you to love this season and throw away - my heritage is not your excuse to be ‘exotic’. You are not welcome to pick and choose the attractive parts of being me. Take my mother’s bindi spot, take the unwanted advances of old white men that come along with it - they think we should be honoured to be hit upon by a white man. Take the henna off my hands, and take the sweat and blood of Indian workers trying to make an honest day’s work charging fifty rupees in the street to ice patterns on flesh. Take my sari, take my shalwar, take my lengha and take the low self esteem that growing up in a white society has given me. Take it, take it all.

it might be in this month’s ‘vogue’, but that doesn’t make it yours | ishani jasmin (via ishanijasmin)

I think it's very important to talk about this.

In today's world even the weak, the poor and the disenfranchised are empowered to speak and that's undoubtedly a huge step forward on the arc of history. Inequalities, in relation to representing ourselves, are being diminished. I mean it in the sense that the internet and the social media have given us platforms, where you can upload your content, even if you have far-from-professional equipment and an amazing number of people have access to it. On the internet people choose for themselves what kind of content they view or read or listen to, ergo people's inclination and taste are the major factors contributing to getting heard and not the wealth of content-creators.

After this rather lengthy introduction, let's get to the point.

As the poet's mastery cannot be argued, her point may be the more so. 

Even the first issues mentioned are quite strange. How can an English speaker be expected to pronounce Indian words right? And this is a returning motif. I don't want to waste many words on this question but just say, the poet goes to Denmark and she can pronounce all the names properly? Is the source of this complaint that she can pronounce the English names perfectly and it's different the other way around? Is the part:"as though it were made from a different alphabet" suggesting that the Indian people speak identical to Americans? This whole issue may lead to something more profound and more light may be shed on the source of her frustration as I progress with my arguments.

I would also like to note that the poet is offended by white people wearing Indian traditional garments, without understanding that culture or caring much for it. I find this a very complicated issue and this might be discussed later, too.

The whole poem is filled with anti-imperialist, anti-white feelings and the words are very suggestive. They suggest intolerance, racism, cultural disrespect and such things, which surely originate from experience and a certain kind of environment.

If the poet's environment majorly consists of people, who behave uneccaptably, maybe it's really about time for her to move. I know it sounds bad to ask a victim to change, rather than changing the villains or moving them but in this case it's simply the better solution--of course I only mean this in a theoretical sense, not literally. I said what's above because America does not majorly consist of people acting and speaking filled with racism and/or intolerance. It may be said that certain studies--very reliable ones--show that most Americans have racist attitudes but--just as reliable--studies also show that despite those suggested attitudes, most Americans act and/or speak tolerantly and in antiracist ways. So if it is true that the poet mostly meets racism, intolerance, then she just so happens to live in an improbable place, but she could move almost anywhere and would be treated differently. But if she doesn't live in this very unfortunate coincidence, then it may be that she's the victim of a hurtful minority. However, if that's the case, and she's writing a poem about this smaller group of people, I have to say that it's not a tendency, much rather the ugly side of human nature, very similar to that part of it, which is called criminality; and it's not all right to commit a crime, as it is not all right to be racist or intolerant but it cannot be eradicated completely--quite sadly--but it will remain with humanity forever.

The poet suggests that white people don't have adequate knowledge of her culture, yet they exploit it. If a person is not a part of a given culture, he/she cannot choose to cherry-pick some of the attractive parts of given culture--argues she. It might be based on:

#1: the idea that people, who belong to her culture, have a certain narrative identity, which will also manifest in their culture. This identity brings a lot of pain and a lot of joy but for someone to ignore the pain and embrace the joy only, would leave the rest of the people with a very bad taste: that they have to live with the pain as well and it is an unfair thing for someone to experience their joy without having to experience their sorrow. This suggestion, however, is ignorant toward the fact that people from other cultures have their own pains, ones that may be entirely dissimilar but nonetheless serious.

#2: the idea that selecting attractive parts of their culture will spread an idealized, romanticized version of given culture, thus making the people ignorant toward the things they've suffered. For this to be true, it would also have to be true that these certain manifestations spread in a way that will affect how people look at Indian culture. It is possible that it forms people's views and they will, in fact, have certain stereotypes, romantic ideas about this culture but what must also be observed is that fashion does not take something else's place. Newspapers aren't afflicted by fashion clichés--they might be afflicted by other clichés but that's not the question. So if someone has an image, solely based on fashion's impact, then that person would have no idea at all without the Indian garments. The real question is: is it more detrimental to think about India as the place where there are beautiful clothes, than not thinking anything about India at all. As far as I can tell, they aren't very different in effect, since none of them will make anyone have hostile attitudes toward India and none of them will make anyone more friendly toward her.

#3: the idea that selecting the attractive parts of their culture will make the people subject to stereotypes. It is, of course, terrible to be looked at as already completely known, just because belonging to this or that culture. We demand to be seen in our full complexity and uniqueness and that seems to be our right to do so. What is not observed here is that people can't view others in their complexity, only a few of them, at maximum. So if a certain culture's stereotype will contribute to another stereotype that others are forming about you, it's not unwise to keep in mind that no one really is perceived as they are by the vast majoriy of people they meet. I know it's an important issue today to fight prejudice in the world but prejudice cannot be undone, and it is basically a mistake to oppose it; it originates from identifying prejudice with racism, which might be defined as a certain kind of prejudice but then, prejudice is just a certain kind of attitude, which we all have toward all sorts of things and there's nothing we have against that.

I'd like to mention how the poet discusses India's relation to the West. There's a nod to the general notion of America exploiting their cheap labor and the evil Empire that once ruled half the world.

#1: The US could have a better way of dealing with cheap labor, that's true, of course, however, she can't be blamed for the poverty in India. There's been economic struggle for a long time and its roots go back to social strife, which did not ease with the hardships of pathfinding in he second half of the 20th century, though it's been there even before that. And the way world economy has moved forward was rather hard for India to figure out and a lot of poor decisions have been made, which of course, don't mean that India would be responsible for all of the bad things happening there but it's still mandatory to consider that before looking at richer countries with contempt. And what's also important to see is that India's improving rapidly now and she's been on the curve going up for a little while now, so there's no need to look at her as a mud-hole of poverty, since her fate is not written in stone. And last but not least, not all Indians are browsing among fabrics. Truth be told, the poet isn't doing much for those merchants, either, just by thinking about them or being their comrade. Economic growth, unbuyest bureaucracy and clean politics could be of tremendous help to them and I hope we're going that way--at least as far as I can choose to do my work in favor of that.

#2: The British Empire was, before everything else, seeking her own interests in the world. It's understandable on one side and it means having India on the second place, at most, on the list of priorities, on the other side, which isn't ideal for India. Well, this is how it's easy to think about it but it isn't how it is. India's relationship with the Empire was very complicated with a large amount of both ups and downs on their way together, so it's always very hard to say it was good or bad for India. It was complicated. The poet referred to 1947, which was the year, when India became independent and also when she broke up into India and Pakistan. I don't know whether the poet's family was on India's or on Pakistan's side at the time of this affair but to blame the British for the bad things that happened then is completely nonsensical. When the Indo-Pakistani War, mainly over Kashmir, happened, and when immense crowds of people had to leave their homes because of things out of their power and interest, it was Lord Mountbatten, who had to go back with his forces, to a country, that had already gained its independence, only to try to moderate this humanitarian catastrophe. Even Nehru, the current leader of India at the time, saw it better to have the British forces there, which doesn't mean that their presence was absolutely good or absolutely bad, just that they aren't the disruptors of India.

The poet supposes, but never explicitly mentions, that there's white supremacy in he world, causing pain and turmoil all over the globe. It can be seen in her personal experience, in her narrative identity and from these we can have a general idea about the phenomena. But let me ask: is the poet right in her arguments? If we look at the people who liked her post, can't we see quite a few white people there? When people hurt her, oppress her, say racist things, does it happen because they're white? Are all white people like that?

It is plain to see that not all white people are disrespectful. I value the poet's poetry but I also value her culture, even so, I've chosen to learn about it, so that I could understand it more fully and not live in the world of dumb stereotypes. I respect the poet and I'm white and I know I'm not alone.

Just a sidenote: It would be out of this world to talk about the collectivity of white people, as we could discuss Hungary's* complicated relationship with the US. Hungary's not a rich country, the major difference between her and India would be that western people think India's more exotic but they'd probably consider them both quite alien.

This piece of poetry is full of thoughts and I know I've eventually failed to grasp them all and respond to them all. I don't mean to hurt the poet or say this verse is bad, as it is not. What I'm trying to do is to bring us closer to each other--I want us to see that we're not really that far away anyway.

*Hungarian people are also mainly white people.

The Great Gatsby and Iron Man

We've all heard the voices, which are wildly against adaptations and reboots but why can't we just appreciate cinema and enjoy it? And yes, it's often rubbish...

Every breath is a second chance.

John Foreman