Mysterianism

[untermensche]

Best economic system is not some utopian dream that anybody thinks can be achieved.

It is just the logical goal.

And human history is directed by intelligent "beings". It is somewhat random, due to the irrationalities like war and religion, but it has advances and declines.

Modern medicine is not just change over time. It is directed change. Planned change. Not perfect but not change that just happens somehow.

Whether we call it the 'best economic system' or 'utopianism' we're still assuming such a thing exists, and my points are still the same.

I'd argue that human history is over-archingly directed by necessity, humans are just a vehicle to fulfill that necessity.

I just explicitly said: We in no way assume such a thing is possible.

But it is the logical goal.

You are not talking to me.

 

[rousseau]

Whether we call it the 'best economic system' or 'utopianism' we're still assuming such a thing exists, and my points are still the same.

I'd argue that human history is over-archingly directed by necessity, humans are just a vehicle to fulfill that necessity.

I just explicitly said: We in no way assume such a thing is possible.

But it is the logical goal.

You are not talking to me.

You're moving the thread away from it's topic and toward your hobby horse, is what's happening.

Earlier you made the point that we 'don't know the best possible economic system' to refute my point that 'we know most of what's relevant'. I made a counter-point which you haven't addressed.

 

[untermensche]

I just explicitly said: We in no way assume such a thing is possible.

But it is the logical goal.

You are not talking to me.

You're moving the thread away from it's topic and toward your hobby horse, is what's happening.

Earlier you made the point that we 'don't know the best possible economic system' to refute my point that 'we know most of what's relevant'. I made a counter-point which you haven't addressed.

I am not pointing it anywhere.

The question is rhetorical to demonstrate the nature of human understandings.

The answer does not have to be anything I have ever said, just because I ask the question.

But I have to defend my views if people claim what we currently have cannot be improved.

If your counter-point was so great why do I have to search for it? Why not just state it?