david f,

"I agree with the above. However, the state has the power to limit monopolies in the media and other areas. It is up to the citizenry to push the state to do so."

Which could or should be the case.

However, we've reached a point in late capitalism where the opposite appears to be the case.

Mainstream media has a lot to answer for where this is concerned.

A good example is Brexit where the media faithfully reported the utterances of the "leave" pollies. Politicians say stuff, reporters report it...the fact that it's wall-to-wall lies is not important.

The populace can only act on the information it's presented with.

The populace may be downtrodden and under educated so that demagogues like Hanson, with a very poor intellect, but who pushes the right buttons, is elected.

Same with Trump.

True democracy relies on truth and on a reasonably educated and enlightened population...if these are found wanting, then we are all the poorer.

Hi Poirot,

Yes, the Romans had a saying, "Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis", that what is asserted without evidence can be set aside without the need for evidence, i.e. one does not have to disprove somebody else's assertion, it can be ignored. He who asserts must prove, is another version.

As for the link between capitalism and incarceration, via inequality, lack of opportunity, etc., I note that, between my late wife's family and my own, all up sixteen kids, all of us growing up in what might be euphemistically called straitened circumstances, none of us were ever incarcerated. Fined yes, but not jailed. Nine of us graduated from universities, one Ph.D, six of us with Masters'. So far, eight of our kids have graduated from university.

Life can be very hard for some people, but there are usually alternatives to crime. In my limited experience of it, criminals have usually either buggered up their earlier education, or have been just too lazy to try hard, believing, as one of them commented, that only mugs worked or studied. They had 'street smarts'. And usually were dead before fifty, doing what they could to destroy their kids' life-chances in the process. Real smart.

Joe

Poirot wrote: However, we've reached a point in late capitalism ...

Dear Poirot,

The phrase, late capitalism, implies that capitalism has a certain life span, and we’re near the end of it. It is a standard bit of Marxist doctrine to predict the imminent end of capitalism. It is somewhat like Christian predictions of the Second Coming of Jesus. That of course means he couldn’t get it right the first time he was here. There are many Marxist writings predicting the imminent demise of capitalism. Actually we’ve reached a point in late Marxism. China appears to have a Marxist party with the accompanying repression presiding over a capitalist economy. How long the Marxist overlords will last is moot. The first communist state, the Soviet Union, no longer exists and its predecessor and successor state, Russia, now has much of the former Soviet economy in the hands of a capitalist oligarchy consisting to some degree of former Soviet bureaucrats. Marxism, not capitalism, is disappearing.

Capitalism has a protean ability to survive by adapting to circumstances. One of the manifestations of capitalism is in the Scandinavian countries. The Scandinavian countries have a low rate of corruption, a fairer distribution of resources than in most countries, great political freedom along with a terrific health and education system. The Finns possibly have the best education system in the world. The thrust of Bernie Sanders’ political campaign in the US was to adopt some of the Scandinavian practices.

I wish Sanders had succeeded in his efforts. I see much more hope in the Scandinavian model of capitalism than I see in a possible resurgence of Marxism.

My father’s brother was an old Bolshevik arrested by the czarist police before the revolution. After four years of Lenin my father got him out of the Soviet Union in 1921. He died at 98 in California long cured of Bolshevism. He was in his bedroom in full dress since he was going to a wedding. He fell back on the bed dead all dressed to go, but he had a great life in the USA.

ttbn,

I do hope you take my belief, that the Pink Unicorn created everything last Thursday, seriously; and that all your memories were implanted to make you think that the planet is millions of years old.

<<There is no evidence that there is not an afterlife, either. Just because something is hard to believe, it is not necessarily untrue.>>

After all, just because my claim is hard to believe, that doesn't mean that it's untrue.

By the way, have you ever heard of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy?

Just wondering.

Poirot,

Given satellite cameras and modern technology, not around in Russell's time, I think we can put aside the tea pot as a myth.

I don't have to prove anything, as I do not claim the existence of a god; I'm an agnostic, not arrogant enough to sneer at people who do believe in their God. I know for a fact, that a human being, Jesus Christ, spread Christianity, and Christianity is the basis for Western culture and way of life, and nobody can deny that.

I can't say how a committed believer would regard your reference to the need for him or her to provide scientific proof of of his or her God, when spirituality and belief is so remote from, and far above science; you would have to put the musings of a dead, eccentric philosopher to such a person. I think that Russell, like many people then and today, was saying that only people who disagree with him have to provide empirical proof of their position; his opinion was a given, no further discussion, or proof, needed.

AJ Philips,

I am not a creationist. How could I be, as an agnostic? But you go with the unicorn theory by all means.

I think I accept the standard monkey to man thing, but wonder who decided which monkeys would be promoted to humans and, more importantly, why did some beings get to enjoy the privileges of being humans, while others were stuck with being monkeys. It doesn't seem fair.