RoR: Forum

Well said, Dustin. Very stirring last paragraph. Could've written it myself :-)

The middle class have been bullied and berated for years, yet they are the great strength of every free western society. And, because this class is usually too busy paying their own way, raising their families, running their businesses and minding their own business, intellectual spokesmen must enunciate for them and defend their rightful interests. But, the middle class has been left swinging in the wind, in recent times suffering the burdens of high taxation and destructive subsidies. The collectivists know damn well their job won't be done until the middle class are as dependent on them as the so called "disadvantaged".

Ross

Post 1

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 6:18am

Good work, Dustin. This article reminds me of a George Carlin bit: "The rich keep all of the money, pay none of the taxes. The middle class does all of the work and pays all of the taxes. The poor are just there to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep 'em working at those jobs."

I wonder: do you have trouble remaining benevolent towards strangers when you know that your life, liberty, and property can be voted away by others? I do. I have a hard time trying not to despise the poor and the elderly, because they leech off of me. How about you? Do you find yourself hating those who receive handouts?

Post 2

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 6:44am

The only freedom that the collectivists espouse is freedom from individual responsibility.

Post 3

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 1:02pm

What the hell kind of "freedom" is that, Sam Erica? It's a lot easier to blame myself when I screw up than it is to decide who else to blame.

Post 4

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 8:27pm

Sam Erica, Matthew Graybosch,

You are both aware that you are on the same side on this, aren't you?

It was the old "socialist" Bernard Shaw who observed, " Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." The collectivists win by promising to relieve individuals of that responsibility. What most men want is not freedom, but security, which is why there will never be the revolution Matthew looks forward to. (While I would love to see such a revolution, and would eagerly participate, I know it will not happen, because there just are not enough of us, and there never will be.)

But there is another way.

Regi

Post 5

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 10:34am

Yes, Reginald, I know that I'm on Sam Erica's side regarding personal responsibility. I'd be a sad excuse for an egoist if I wasn't, don't you think?

What other way are you talking about?

What I don't understand is why so many people are afraid of freedom and responsibility. Is it that hard to face the world on your own?

Post 6

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 8:25pm

Matthew,

Thanks for the comments. I confess, I was intentionally cryptic in my post, which led you to ask:

What other way are you talking about?

It is the way you have already chosen. I have seen most of your articles and posts, and want to encourage you, especially with regard to your views on your relationship with employers. I was very surprised by those who attempted to discourage you; your view is the correct one. You do not become the slave or property of an employer when you agree to work for a company, you are, exactly as you understand it, a producer of a product you sell to the company. There is no other obligation beyond that.

That is the other way I was talking about, your own attitude and understanding of what it means to be a self-sufficient independent individual, even in the midst of gross collectivism, which dominates are society. Anyone who waits for society, or the government, or a movement to make them free never will be. You have chosen otherwise. Good for you!

You also asked:

What I don't understand is why so many people are afraid of freedom and responsibility. Is it that hard to face the world on your own?

Yes, it is hard. Human beings, both good and bad, have an interesting common trait, we all tend to think others our just like we are. The thief thinks everyone is a little dishonest, the liar thinks everyone fudges the truth, the independent egoist thinks everyone really wants to be independent and self-sufficient. But, we are wrong, and you have attributed virtues you possess to others who do not have them.

The average person is neither particular intelligent or courageous. If this were not true, heroes would be more common. Reality is ruthless and truth absolutely unforgiving. That terrifies most people who do not understand that same ruthlessness means reality can be understood, (and must be) to achieve a life worth living.

Regi

Post 7

Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:27pm

Thank you for your encouragement, Reginald Firehammer.

Yes, it is hard. Human beings, both good and bad, have an interesting common trait, we all tend to think others our just like we are. The thief thinks everyone is a little dishonest, the liar thinks everyone fudges the truth, the independent egoist thinks everyone really wants to be independent and self-sufficient. But, we are wrong, and you have attributed virtues you possess to others who do not have them.

I understand your meaning. I wonder, however, what exactly is the root of this error? Is it simply a matter of judging others based on one's own experience? Is it, in my case, an inappropriate expression of unconscious benevolence? Or am I simply misapplying a variation on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle?

The average person is neither particular intelligent or courageous. If this were not true, heroes would be more common. Reality is ruthless and truth absolutely unforgiving. That terrifies most people who do not understand that same ruthlessness means reality can be understood, (and must be) to achieve a life worth living.

You're right, even though I don't like to think so little of people in general; I've spent too many years as a misanthrope and a cynic.
(Edited by Matthew Graybosch on 3/11, 9:28pm)

Post 8

Friday, March 12, 2004 - 7:49am

Matthew,

I have reversed your responses:

You're right, even though I don't like to think so little of people in general; I've spent too many years as a misanthrope and a cynic.

It is not necessarily thinking "less" of people, but making an objective judgement about the nature of reality. To realize that most people are not geniuses is not a moral judgement. In fact, it sort of let's them off the hook, because no one is morally responsible for not doing what they cannot do, or not knowing what is beyond them. The judgement just helps us to be realistic and not to expect too much of people.

You are neither misanthropic or cynical, or you couldn't have written the following:

I understand your meaning. I wonder, however, what exactly is the root of this error? Is it simply a matter of judging others based on one's own experience? Is it, in my case, an inappropriate expression of unconscious benevolence? Or am I simply misapplying a variation on the "innocent until proven guilty" principle?

It is proper and conscious benevolence to give people the benefit of the doubt. We cannot desire anything but the best for others, we do not want others to be stupid and self-destructive and are always going to be astonished and disappointed when we discover they are. We assume other human beings are like us, which they are in their essential nature; but, since our essential nature is volitional, our mistake is in assuming others will make the same choices we do. It is very difficult to remember most others do not think the way we think or want what we want, and most people never discover this.

Regi

Post 9

Monday, January 9, 2012 - 10:07pm