[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Monday, December 2 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Life forms (including humans) have all sorts of goals and find all sorts of means to achieve them. This is a fact of nature more than any Randian daydream about the nature of humans.

If a particular action or goal leads to immediate death then not very many life forms at a particular time will perform such an action or have such a goal because they soon after stop existing.

If a particular action or goal leads to eventual death with unsuccessful reproduction, then again few life forms will perform such actions or have such goals, because such is incompatible with continuing existence.

If a particular action or goal leads to successful reproduction, then many life forms will perform the action and have the goal, because such results in the continuance of such life forms and such actions and goals.

This is the ultimate long term underlying cause behind what actions and goals life forms have, whether humans or non.

====

In a system where majority vote wins, and where producers are generous towards parasites allow parasites to flourish... eventually the parasites will outnumber the producers. Then the parasites will have control of the producers. This is America from its establishment to now

And there will be people who do parasite, no matter how much Atlas Shrugged thumping you do... because being a parasite on other humans in our current political system results in successful reproduction. By fact of nature. So please now accept the futility of your endeavor to win/improve your situation by education. Rand already failed, why repeat her mistake?



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Monday, December 2 - 6:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,
...Randian daydream about the nature of humans.
You get zero points from me when you make sarcastic remarks about Rand's theories of human nature instead of addressing her theory in a serious way.
--------------
If a particular action or goal leads to immediate death then not very many life forms at a particular time will perform such an action or have such a goal because they soon after stop existing.
You have too simplistic a view of evolution (especially as if applies to humans). Lemmings run off of cliffs (actually, they engage in mass migratory behavior that often results in mass drowning). Humans fight wars and support tyrants that kill people in the millions.
---------------
This [successful reproduction] is the ultimate long term underlying cause behind what actions and goals life forms have, whether humans or non.
I don't agree when we are talking about humans... as you know. We have ideas - like a welfare state, for example. The idea leads to creating political structures that can reward incompetent individuals for reproducing - Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
---------------
In a system where majority vote wins, and where producers are generous towards parasites allow parasites to flourish... eventually the parasites will outnumber the producers. Then the parasites will have control of the producers. This is America from its establishment to now
I don't disagree with this. But it is not the product of biological evolution - it is the consequence of people adopting ideas and creating a political and social environment based upon those ideas. When the ideas are such that they favor the reproduction of people who behave like parasites, then you WILL have more parasites. But that isn't going to be good for the human species. The underlying cause is the ideas that are adapted.
----------------
And there will be people who do parasite, no matter how much Atlas Shrugged thumping you do...
If you no longer see truth in Objectivism, or hold Atlas Shrugged in good regard, then why bother showing up here? Is being here going to further your reproductive success? Why bother using that insulting language that equates me with a Bible thumper?
----------------
because being a parasite on other humans in our current political system results in successful reproduction. By fact of nature. So please now accept the futility of your endeavor to win/improve your situation by education. Rand already failed, why repeat her mistake?
Fucking results in reproduction. That's biology. When you decide that education is futile you make a fool of yourself by advocating a position (i.e., trying to 'educate' us here at RoR) that says education is futile. I'd say that Rand succeeded - wildly so. Measured by her ideas. And that Dean is the one who failed by 'thinking' that people don't think or have ideas and are just little biological reproduction units.

You keep whining about systems that have things like majority votes, or systems where parasites are supported... but those systems don't grow on trees. They are a product of thoughts. Better thoughts mean better systems which mean better outcomes. And who came up with the best ideas on political systems todate? Ayn Rand. How are those ideas going to be transmitted? Well, one key channel is education. Duh!



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Tuesday, December 3 - 6:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,
"If you no longer see truth in Objectivism, or hold Atlas Shrugged in good regard, then why bother showing up here?"

Read the about page. How do you interpret this? Is this website all about regurgitating whatever Ayn Rand said? Or is it about "to advance Objectivism"? To "be a tool for bringing about a new Renaissance."? "We also seek to be a microcosm of the world we want to create."

I think Objectivism is awesome compared to all other well developed philosophies. I think there are a few fundamental flaws with Rand's worldview, but most of her ideas on epistemology and ethics are valid and useful. Whether you consider my differences on certain fundamentals as being so significant that my philosophy should not be called "Objectivism" is up for debate. I call it "Objective Transhumanism" to distinguish it. Showing up here enables me to talk with some of the most brilliant and interesting minds on exactly this subject (about page). I want to bring about a new Renaissance.

My view of evolution is not too simplistic. My point is that people will act and do goals in whatever fashion is compatible with their own individual bodies living beyond the next few moments, and for the longer an action is compatible with individual's lives, the more people will do such an action. Humans do live and successfully reproduce, even if they in general gain their resources not by producing market values but instead by performing parasitic actions on us producers. So give that is the case, there will be lots of humans to behave like parasites, no matter how much teaching you do. The number of people who act like parasites on other people is much more dependent on the real net effect on individual's survival for individual parasites rather than the quality of your arguments.

You say that " The underlying cause is the ideas that are adapted." Invalid. The underlying cause is what reality is and how reality works. Given a particular social system in existence, different ideas result in success for different sets of people within the society.

I say that education is futile in bringing the change we want. Education will sway some people but not most of them. So education has some use but it is not the full solution. For the rest (who will not be our friends even despite "education") we need to defend ourselves, and this completes the solution. We need to find ways where we can defend the products of our work.

All humans don't by default consider all other humans as friends by default, that's a Randian dream. The issue is that humans have real differences in design and goals and means, and hence they'll never have perfectly mutually beneficial harmonious synergistic relationships. So even though the lives for market value producers would increase given the system was capitalist, given our current system where parasites and manipulators have the most power, there's no way for market producers to make the system capitalist through voting.

Ayn Rand identified that Capitalism is the best system for the success between friends. But she didn't identify exactly how producers can change society into a capitalist system. She came up with a fictional story (Atlas Shrugged) where the characters used fictional technology to empower themselves. Bitcoin is real technology that we can use to empower ourselves.



Post 23

Tuesday, December 3 - 9:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

I'd like to apologize, I do think I've been rude and insulting towards you and I don't think you deserve it. I guess its a way we express our frustrations... I kind of feel like if we'd come to agreement on what I think are my valid inspirations then we'd be able to accomplish more by focusing our efforts on problems/issues that can have a larger positive effect on our future rather than spending lots of effort on things that will have less of an impact.

I hope you still consider me a friend.
Cheers,
Dean



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Tuesday, December 3 - 12:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All humans don't by default consider all other humans as friends by default, that's a Randian dream.
I believe that Rand was using the word 'parasite' even before you were born. Her books, fiction and non-fiction never held back from pointing out villains. That means that your absurd reference to "considering all other humans as friends" as a "Randian dream" is nonsense.

You imply that I'm just regurgitating Rand's words like some kind of true believer. That's insulting and unsupported. What I've said is that people should criticize Rand in a responsible fashion. If you disagree with her on something, state it (preferably with quotes) and the explain what you see as a fallacy and perhaps even offer an improvement or alternative.
---------------------------

You quoted me when I said, "The underlying cause is the ideas that are adapted." Then you said, "Invalid. The underlying cause is what reality is and how reality works. Given a particular social system in existence...." Well, what do you think a 'particular social system' is? It's a collection of interrelated ideas on how people should interact and what social structures should be... ideas that have been adopted by most of the people in that society. (And, most of them adopted via traditional educational channels). You talk as if a social system just visits an area where people live, like a snow storm, and then inexplicably decides to stay.
----------------------------
The issue is that humans have real differences in design and goals and means, and hence they'll never have perfectly mutually beneficial harmonious synergistic relationships. So even though the lives for market value producers would increase given the system was capitalist, given our current system where parasites and manipulators have the most power, there's no way for market producers to make the system capitalist through voting.
If one were to drop the word "design" from the first sentence (maybe replace it with 'ideas' or 'beliefs') then I'd agree with it. (I'd point out that because people can change their mind, and do so all the time, a particular person isn't locked into a given conflict).

You say that "market producers" under our current system can't make the system capitalist through voting. There is a lot of truth in that statement. For a change via voting, there must be a majority. So whatever appeals to that majority would have to bring them to vote for candidates and a platform that based upon liberty. Right now, the numbers aren't showing that kind of trend. Right now, the majority share an ignorance of the basic principles they would need to understand liberty and where their best interests lie. Because we can choose, and because we can change our minds, and because we can learn, there is always a chance of a turn around. But right now, it looks like it would be a very long shot. However, predicting anything in politics is a fools game because ideas, good and bad, can sweep through a population turning everything the other way, a crisis can totally change peoples views, for better or worse, and charismatic leaders can sway a population beyond what currently would otherwise stand for good sense (like Obama has).
--------------------------
I say that education is futile in bringing the change we want. Education will sway some people but not most of them.
Dean, you tend to go to extremes. Let's say we have a nail that needs to be pounded in and the only tool that is available is a tiny little hammer and it is a large nail. You and I both agree that the hammer is not as large as we want it to be. But you throw it aside as futile when it is the only tool we have declaring that it won't work. I'm looking at the nail and saying, "Let's keep hammering, even if it moves the nail only a small amount - meantime we will figure out how to get a larger hammer." I admit that most people are stuck in whatever belief system they have, but as a former therapist I also know that can and do change - that was my business.

But mostly, you misunderstood me. I was talking about education of the young. We need to change the educational system so that kids don't graduate programmed to be little parasites, manipulators or supporters of the system that practices manipulation and parasite support.
--------------------------

In Objective Transhumanism you talk about defending one's self as if that weren't something that Rand agreed with. But clearly, in both fiction and non-fiction she was an advocate of self-defense. Even as a young man, Nathaniel could shoot pistols, with either hand, at competition level accuracy.



Post 25

Tuesday, December 3 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

Thank you for a gracious apology. Accepted. For whatever reason, we do seem to frustrate one another. My posts to you have also been snippy in places.

Your Friend,
Steve



Post 26

Tuesday, December 3 - 3:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

We need to change the educational system so that kids don't graduate programmed to be little parasites, manipulators or supporters of the system that practices manipulation and parasite support.

If we imagine a kind of education propaganda meter with three indicators:


(-) (Neutral) (+)


Where (-) was abuse of education as indoctrination for anti-Freedom socialization/collectivism, (Neutral) was simply education, and (+) was indoctrination for pro-Freedom individualism/Liberty,

then clearly what you are advocating above is a return to at least 'Neutral.'

On a relative scale, that would be a (+), because we are presently at (-).

A tactic in the current state of (-) is something like the following Progressive argument:

1] (Neutral) is impossible.
2] (+) is wrong/selfish/destructive.
3] (-) is necessary to implement social justice.


so, the Progressives have decided, might as well be (-), and for a hundred years or more, have plowed on like Christian Soldiers, marching as to war.


Let's grant them half credit; suppose Neutral is impossible. Education always occurs within some political context. Education in muslim theocracies is not like education in the USA, even if arithmetic is arithmetic. Our regard of our own secular first amendment is not the same as the regard for same in a theocracy.

If (Neutral) really is impossible, then the choices are only (-) or (+). Or mabe that means, (Neutral) is some kind of imperfect attempt at 'balance' between an equally weighted set of (-) and (+).

I don't think we are anywhere near either definition of (Neutral.) I think we are soaking wet with (-) and have been, for over a century. I think it's been an absolute rout of stealth progressive activism on one hand balanced by benign neglect on the other side.

Been studying Hitler's Germany recently. More aptly, studing the retelling of Hitler's Germany recently. I am surprised how deeply the progressive repackaging campaign has been. Hitler is now packaged as a rare, fringe 'individual' who somehow wrought all his mayhem without the collectivist mob and unfettered state marching lockstep behind him...Imagine that?

This latest cleanup in Aisle Nine is careful to present this 'Right Winger' (sure he was a Right Winger...in his political context, which is not and was not the American political context...at that rate, so was Joe Stalin a 'Right Winger...) as an abhorrent charismatic individual run amok. This -man-...and not just his ideas running loose in the unfettered German State-- had to be stopped.

Hitler the Individual, you see, murdered 70 million in the 20th century...not National Socialism having a local turf war with Communism for King of the World Totalitarians...

So this Progressive front is not just waged in education, but in the preparation of the materials feeding education, and the rewriting of history to suit.

regards,
Fred


















Post 27

Tuesday, December 3 - 3:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,
I don't think we are anywhere near either definition of (Neutral.) I think we are soaking wet with (-) and have been, for over a century. I think it's been an absolute rout of stealth progressive activism on one hand balanced by benign neglect on the other side.
I totally agree. That is the sad state of things.
--------------
...suppose Neutral is impossible...
Nope. We can measure a trend for it's duration, it's intensity, the estimates of the logistical efforts required to change the direction, and many other dimensions... but none of that accounts for human volition. People can change directions in a moment. Fads, movements, rebellions are all examples of sudden change in ideas taken by enough people to change the culture's direction. And here is another fact: Not only do people have a capacity to change direction, but they almost always do so in a pendulum-like fashion through history.

Is this a reason to be optimistic on a short-term basis? I don't think so - all of the short-term looks like we are toast, and it seems like any change on less than a multi-generation level doesn't look rosy, but long-term, good ideas are hard to kill so completely that they don't rise up and become the standard.

What we want is a revolution on sufficiently basic ideas of government that has intensity and makes most of society active in rooting out the progressives from the educational system and from the media. Do I see evidence of that on the horizon? No. But I know that it is possible, because we are capable of that, and because there have been revolutions of different sorts in the past.



Post 28

Wednesday, December 4 - 11:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,
I don't know how you read my post and said I don't think we have moral rights. You sounded angry and when people are they don't listen to reason.

Dean,
Yes, true, but not without a representative speaking for others and authorizing the political enforcement of the direct vote in the first place. If one person wouldn't otherwise support what is being voted on, then they must have been spoken for, twice, actually. Once to decide that the issue to be decided on is to be made by vote and second, to subsequently politically enforce the vote.)
(Just to be clear on something: When I say, 'Spoken for,' I mean the individuals opinion is politically respected as the final say in law; this is in addition to a 'right to free speech.' So the minority in a direct democracy is being spoken for by the majority.)
(There is no difference between a 'Republic' and a 'Direct Democracy.' If america was a direct democracy would all 300,000,000 people get to count all 300,000,000 votes? No? So someone must speak for others and the others must take someone else's word on election results. Functionally, the two ideas are the same thing.)
So. . .suppose two people (objectivists presumably) on an undeveloped land decided to equally contribute to the construction of a building. I would submit they don't need a written constitution to know there is an equal moral right to the building (just like you don't need a legislature to know murder is wrong). I also submit if people taking the initiative to cooperate in forming any and all desired collectively owned/used projects/services, a social order could be established and grow up around these ideas with out the help of any political leaders convening to represent anyone.
Rights are then delegated to someone else and that is the weakness exploited by today's politicians. It says right in the constitution: people will be represented by a representative. As if it is a benefit, like you will be able to get Obamacare.
The issue here is: Can a social order be developed around these moral laws without having any leader(s) who speak for others, convene? I think yes. And, if so, then that would be an example of a social order not needing a constitutional government empowering politicians. Rights would be protected via a different strategy.
(In a constitution, rights are attempted to be protected by written promises by people legally permitted to cancel promises when and if they get away with it. If functions of government are taken care of directly by the ownership of citizens, rights are protected when no one is legally authorized to infringe on them in the first place.)
Here is another way to look at it. Suppose a person living in a monarchy wants a speed limit on a stretch of road changed. What does their social order tell them to do? Essentially, they go a representative in parliament. The representative is in a bad mood and says, "Up yours," and that's the end of it. A citizen-to-citizen discussion of the matter would not help because it is not the way the system is set up.
This country has a different system. When the same situation occurs in america the citizen would get a better hearing from the legislature and, if needed, could also benefit from discussion the issue with other citizens.
Under your idea
(if I understand it) if I contribute $100.00 to a government that spends $1,000,000 then I get 1/10,000 of a vote. The constitution says I get the same 1 vote you do if I don't get off my mother's couch (so to speak). I'm saying the constitution would have to be stood on its head before that happens.
I say it is unconstitutional because there would be a different citizen-to-citizen relationship within the system. Such a relationship is not laid out - even if better. 'The system,' i.e. how citizens relate to each other in getting things done (including constructing courthouses, police buildings, and the military), itself, would be different.
(I will agree, outside of political reality, a fictional story could be imagined where legislatures within a constitutional republic are reasoned with and triumphantly in the end of the story decide to change the system to do this.)
I don't mind the idea, I would just extend the concept individually to each service government provides and prorate it likewise. So if I contribute 73 cents to a library fund with half a million dollars I get that amount of involvement, if $102.57 to a fire department with a budget of $756,938.93 then I get that much say in decision making if I choose.





Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.