Which Dem has a Shot?

[rmcrobertson]

As for the thread...well, I've seen the Democrats. And they ain't even minor gods. And I loved hearing Daniel Schor say," Well, the Republicans are running a picture of Howard Dean with his mouth open, which it usually is..."

Personally, I recommend going back and reading J.G. Ballard, "Assassination of John F. Kennedy Viewed as A Downhill Motor Race," "Why I Want to F*** Ronald Reagan," and "Hello, America."

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil


1. No, it isn't.

2. When you learn the difference between reality and movies, you'll be well on your way to forming a working philosophy.

3. Cooperation for mutual benefit and individualism are not mutually exclusive. Mutual gain is the very foundation for individual prosperity, as people working with and trading with one another have more opportunity than do individuals living completely alone.

4. When you understand that individualism is not atomism and that individuals do not live outside of context, you'll grasp the idea that there are no communities -- only individuals who interact (by choice in a free society).

5. Need does not constitute a valid claim on the efforts of others. You do not have the right to live at someone else's expense without their consent. Voluntary charity is fine; forced government redistribution of earnings is not.

6. Reality is the metaphysically given. Egalitarian wishes are irrelevant. There will always be people who are better at certain things and who have more than you. I see no reason to punish them it, any more than I would punish you for being better off than someone else.

7. I'm not. Neither are you. We are all individuals -- if we choose to be.

1. Prove that most wealth is not inherited. The paycheck to paycheck pittance of the middle class does not constitute wealth.
2. Have you ever heard of allagory? I guess the entire body of human literature has nothing to say to you.
3. This is the basis of community. You've given the reason for its existance.
4. Special Pleading and Argument from authority. Fallacious.
5. This is crap. Without redistribution of wealth you'd still be a peasent in the fields. Ever crack a history book?
6. So, the rich are rich because God wills it. Your argument is jumped up fuedelism. Let them eat cake eh? You don't understand that we are "them"

I a bit irritated with your replies. They basically follow a strict ideology. They are comprised of catagorical statements without a hint of evidence. You present yourself as if you are issuing commandments from above. Perhaps think about humility...

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson


a) The existence of the symbols--let along the collective unconscious and its archetypal origin--cannot be verified scientifically. These are metaphysical concepts, not physical ones, and their "proof," always relies upon anecdotal or otherwise-biased evidence ("my aunt dreamed of an angel the night before her father died")

b) this sort of essentialist thinking (see Kaja Silverman, "The Subject of Semiotics" for a quick intro to the term) relies upon the notion that ALL human beings share the same collective unconscious. To call this ethnocentric, biased towards men's ideas, and slanted toward Western culture, is to be kind. Further, Jung's ideas clearly impose RACIAL notions upon who has what ideas. This stuff is bad scholarship: Campbell, for example, simply takes Western culture as all there is in the world, andd warps the few examples from other cultures into Western terms;

c) this sort of "analysis," frequently gets employed to justify a whole host of really fairly nasty ideas--men are from Mars, women are from Venus; black people and white people are fundamentally different; Hitler is the symbolic expression of the German hero--a Siegfried--out of the raciallly-determined collective unconscious.

a. According to any sociologist, especially one versed in the usage of statistics, any social/psychological experiment could be anything else because there are too many veriables to control. With this being said, if I shaved your head and placed peizometers at various places and then if I showed you a symbol and that symbol registered as a signal in the limbic system of your brain, you would be feeling an emotion. Where did that emotion come from? The collective unconcious or your environment? This is difficult to prove unless you were to do this experiment cross culterally across the world making sure you measured as many different people as possible. This experiment was done by one of Jung's students.

b. You make no point here. You present no connection between racial, sexual, or enthocentric biases in the concept of the collective unconcious. By its very nature, the collective unconcious includes everybody and cannot be biased toward one culture or another.

c. With no point and no "analysis" above, there is really no point here either. Please provide a connection between the term collective unconcious and show where the racial, sexual, and ethnocentric bias is inherit in that term.

Now to Robert's second post - I will eventually relate this to the topic.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson


1. Moving on then. Problems with taking genes as determining of behaviour. Oops--that's not what the work says. They--at most--pre-dispose individuals.

2. Next problem: it's a big jump from Jung's archetypes to genes. Not only was he talking religion and metaphysics, not biology and genetics

3. As for scraping the slime of what we want. Sorry, that particular slime don't scrape off so easy--unless, of course, we lie about what's on our hands. However, there remains such a thing as moral choice.

4. We none of us know what we would do in such a situation as that of 1933 Germany. But it is an insult to the memories of the White Rose, Martin Niemoller, and a LOT of other people to even suggest that we'd all just collaborate in one way or another. And this, "they were all good people who had NO idea what was going on," crap...all Good Germans, eh? All misled by a few conspirators eh? Where the hell are Robert Jackson and Simone Weil and Eichmann when you need them?

5. This ties into that ridiculous claim by the ad exec. Advertising has two methods: fear, and desire. These haven't changed since forever. And ads don't "work" on their own--that's self-aggrandizing bull. Ads do their work as part of a whole suite of devices belonging to what Marx correctly identified as the ways capitalism reproduces itself across generations. Cultures need ways to perpetuate their ideas, their, "MEMES," to use last year's fashionable terms, and ads are one of them. By themselves--nada. Give your buddy an unlimited budget for throwing ads at me, aand unless he can directly affect my freedom, health, relationships or livelihood, ads as such won't do jack. Except get his *** sued for harassment.

6. Why am I so bugged by this. Here are the elements of "upnorth's" argument.
1. People are helpless pawns of a small, secret elite.
2. Symbols drawn from a collective and racial unconscious are totipotent in their ability to control thought.
3. These symbols are being manipulated on behalf of an international conspiracy.
4. This conspiracy can be seen through its appearance in certain quasi-secret groups--the Trilateral Comission, the Masons, etc.
5. The intellectual ground for my ideas contains a) a lot of "scientifc," notions about genes and behavior; b) a lot of C.G. Jung's ideas about archetypes.
6. The history of such theories traces straight into some very, very ugly ideas indeed--and in Jung, we see once again the same old same old enemy: them Jews.

Man, I would very strongly suggest getting yourself a bucket and a big brush and painting some of that "slime," back ON to the theories you're espousing.

1. I believe that I said the same thing. Prediliction was the term I used. The collective unconcious does not mean that everyone behaves the same when confronted by a symbol. It means that an emotional response is induced and your behavior in response to that emotion is taught to you by culture. Your emotional response is loosely determined by your genetic prediliction.

2. The jump from archtypes to genes is not such a big jump when you look at religion cross culturally. The similarities are astounding. Whether or not they are the product of genetics or the natural environment (which is the basis for all religion) is a different story. Yet, couldn't either one be the collective unconcious? Again, Jung's students are a good source for this interpretation.

3. You have made the moral choice to disregard this theory because of Jung's connection with Nazi's. To be fair, perhaps you should unplug your house from the power grid.

4. Prediliction is not behavior. People are able to choose the response for the emotion the symbol elicits, if the response to the emotion is taught by the individual to him or herself. There was an interesting psychological study done where a group of people were chosen and put to a test. There was a room, an opaque wall, a set of electrodes, a switch and a list of questions. One experimentor put the electrodes on himself and the other adorned himself with the symbols of authority and held a clipboard with the questions. The testees job was to flip the switch when the man on the other side got a question wrong. Needless to say, only one of the large group refused the experiment. Even when the experimentor on the other side of the wall was wailing in agony and begging for mercy, the testees flipped the switch again and again and again.

5. I addressed this point above. You've said nothing really against the concept that archtypes can be used to make people buy things. I bet you have been manipulated in the fasion and don't even know it. List some of the movies you own.

6. The last bit is pure spin. If you would pause to read what I said and stop reading into it things that are not there, you would see that I am saying that a healthy knowledge of archtypes and symbols is essential in politics. The truth is that symbols/archtypes can be used to control behavior and the reason this bothers you is because you realize that your mind is not nearly as impregnable as you thought. In fact, your speech is replete with symbols and archtypes. You KNOW they work, if you catch my meaning. I see your attempt at tying this concept to these tragically flawed conspiracy theories as nothing more then denial.

With that being said...

Fear is the key to winning this election. The candidate that controls the symbols of fear will take the majority of the votes.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I see. You don't know the work I've cited--including Jung, Campbell, Neumann, and you aren't about to look. Instead, you choose to selectively edit what I wrote--and for that matter, what you wrote.

Tell me--how exactly does one get around Jung's statement that Freud, as Jews do, oversimplified? Gee, nothing racial there. And well, Jung became head of a pro-Nazi psychological association, but so? Nothing to do with the slightest racism. Not at all. Absolutely not.

Those "cross-cultural," comparasions of symbols? They don't exist. Are you familiar with Campbell and Jung's work at all? Their analyses run about as deep as saying, well, Zen artists and Tibetan mandals and American Indians all draw four-sided figures, so see there? Further, please go back and re-read: the erasure of cultural differences, the supposition that European white guys are the yardstick by which everything else is to be measured, is the very essence of this particular kind of racism.

The bit about disconnecting from the power grid is an absurd collapsing of moral issues. (And by the way, go back and re-read: throwing Werner von Braun and the rocket program is kinda useless, since I BROUGHT IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE) It's one thing to either employ technology devised for ugly purposes (though I do find that a problem in and of itself); it's quite another to rely for your whole structure of thought upon ideas that are, in their essential character, racist. And again, let's not even get into Jung's idiot notions about women's proper roles.

Here are two of your quotes:

"Robert, the Nazis were normal people, completely controlled with symbols and rhetoric. Put yourself in 30's Germany and we will see how "human" you become."

So, in other words, the Nazis were simply victims. Really. So who did the puppeteering? The same guys as on a couple of the websites you quoted on another topic, and demanded that everybody keep an open mind about? You know--them? Eeew, gross.

Second:

"According to Jung, using a symbol reveals an archtype that is already fixed in the mind. This response is an emotion which can be tied to another response through education and it is so powerful that it can cause people to do vastly horrible things. Robert, you can compare stories cross-culterally and across oceans and the same archtypes appear. If you know the context of these archtypes you can control people. Plain and simple. Also, the U of M twins studies support the theory of genetic archtypes which take the form of predilictions."

So tell me--what's a "genetic archetype," if not one of Jung's archetypes existing in human beings at a genetic--and therefore biological--level? Yes, you mentioned "predeliction," a term which contradicts a) your calling them genetic, b) your insistence that these archetypes are invariable, and c) your notion that the individual is completely helpless before the manipulators of such symbols.

And why're you quoting twin studies if not to attempt to back up Jung's notions with science, even if it is pseudo-science? Which you continued to do in your latest posts, incidentally--that hooking people up to electrodes and showing them symbols bit is a ridiculous bit of pseudo-science. For openers, there's no link between the GSR and the inward conceepts that one can reliably establish.

If you will go back to the post directly above this one, you will find your writing. It says, unequivocally, that, "symbols can be used to control people," and asserts that whoever controls the symbols will control the election because Jung was right. "Plain and simple," was your phrase. No good trying to wriggle away from it with waffles about, "predeliction," and claims that somehow I'm in, "denial."

Luckily, symbols simply don't work in the mechanistic, "plain and simple," way you're describing. And again, I realize that it's very flattering to put ourselves in the position of being the ones who really, really see what's going on unlike all THOSE poor benighted fools, but sorry, nope.

In fact, the ideas you're militating for fit beautifully into dominant ideology as it is presently constructed. Critique? Not in the least.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh yes--neither rocketry nor nuclear power "came from Germany." The direct ancestors of manned rockets, satellites and all the rest are the Russian, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, and the American, Robert Goddard. As for nuclear power, while assured Otto Hahn and Lise...dammit, what was her name? Meinerl? did the first atom-splitting experiments, they were directly inspired by the Brit Ernest Rutherford. And if memory serves--which it does--Enrico Fermi was running a self-sustaining pile at the Univ. of Chicago while Heisenberg and the rest were still screwing around with little cubes and chains. Then too, the American Robert Oppenheimer had a tad bit to do with the Manhattan project, to which the Germans had nothing comparable.

And Einstein? he got the hell out, early, and played no direct part in a-bomb development after the famous letter to Roosevelt.

Read Richard Rhodes, dude.

 

[Makalakumu]

Robert

You do a good job in ignoring just about everything I say and selectively quoting what you do read. You dance around my points and make an endrun with illogic. I think that I have said enough on this subject. The only thing I can do in response to your unreason is dig out the books I have from my Jungian Psychology class and start quoting. Fat chance anyone will have of understanding that! If anything could be said about that guy its that his terminology is quite - dense. As far as Psuedoscience goes...that is a symbol in itself and your usage of excellent. Also, I noticed that all of the symbols I "placed" in my rhetoric were regurgitated back. I've obviously strummed the learned scholar archtype with the "I see your attempt at tying this concept to these tragically flawed conspiracy theories as nothing more then denial" quote. Predictably, your miffed. Archtypes can't be used to control people when used contextually? Who says?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Piffle.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Prove that most wealth is not inherited.

Prove that it is.

The paycheck to paycheck pittance of the middle class does not constitute wealth.

Vaguely Marxist terminology does not constitute insight.

Have you ever heard of allagory?

No, but I've heard of "allegory."

I guess the entire body of human literature has nothing to say to you.

I wouldn't know; I haven't yet gotten around to reading the entire body of human literature. I'm working on it. I suggest you get started, too.

This is the basis of community. You've given the reason for its existance.

Not in the sense that you believe in it. There is a difference in understanding the benefit of cooperation among sovereign individuals who respect each other's rights and believing the collective is more important than the individual.

Special Pleading and Argument from authority. Fallacious.

No, but then, it doesn't surprise me that you'd apply logical laws incorrectly.

This is crap. Without redistribution of wealth you'd still be a peasent in the fields.

No, responses like "this is crap" are what is "crap." Deluded Marxists might believe that all human benefit is the result of government-mandated wealth transfers, but to do so they must ignore centuries of innovation and the success of capitalism in making individuals upwardly mobile. The industrial revolution is what took the peasants out of the fields -- but then, to understand that one has to have at least a tenuous grasp of history.

Ever crack a history book?

Why, yes. Why, are you asking for assistance in getting started? I suggest you start with Myths about the Depression and go from there.

So, the rich are rich because God wills it.

No one here invoked theism, but I suppose a spurious leap like this is par for the course where you are concerned.

Your argument is jumped up fuedelism. Let them eat cake eh? You don't understand that we are "them"

There is no such thing as "fuedelism." You don't understand that you are only them if you persist in blaming external factors for your own lack of prosperity. No one ever became wealthy by whining about what others have. Your entire philosophy is one of envy -- an ugly emotion built on the notion that you desire what others have. You wish to possess what you have not earned and so you blame the "winners of life's lottery for daring to have more than you do -- without realizing that another human being's wealth does not diminish your own in any way.

Only you are responsible for your choices and your actions. Learn that and you'll be better off.

I a bit irritated with your replies.

Who cares?

They basically follow a strict ideology.

Now that's a thundering insight. Yes, my replies follow a strict ideology. I'm an Objectivist. My replies are logical and philosophically consistent. While concepts like consistency, logic, and rationality may be alien to you, they are not foreign to others.

They are comprised of catagorical statements without a hint of evidence.

Examine your own replies, which are nothing but assertions "without a hint of evidence." I'm not going to be held to a higher standard in refuting your assertions than that to which you hold yourself in making them. The difference is that I can support, philosophically, what I believe, and I can do so without mewling that it isn't fair that other people are better off than I am.

You present yourself as if you are issuing commandments from above.

I present myself as one person with one person's opinions who believes strongly in what he says. If that threatens you or makes you feel somehow inferior, that is not my problem.

Perhaps think about humility...

Perhaps think about education.

 

[rmcrobertson]

As for, "which Democrat has a shot," I'd say none of 'em.

Beyond their all-too-clear incompetence, the real problem seems to be the one that Hunter S. Thompson identified some time back--this batch doesn't act like they stand for anything other than gettting elected. That's why Dean's doing so well--even his rapidly-becoming-legend mouthiness at least resembles commitment.

It's actually easier for the Republicans, and specifically the present Bush. (I still say, read Molly Ivens.) Their approaches to reality and history are simple-minded, so they can appear to be standing on a few timeless principles. They aren't well-educated--seriously, folks, comparing, say, Carter and Clinton to Reagan and Bush Jr. as intellectuals causes me to clutch my gut and fall over laughing--and the upshot of it is, the Republicans are able to articulate a clearer message because that's all they can see. Moreover, the present Pres is actually dumb enough to BELIEVE the claptrap he's spouting, and the result is, he looks more real on TV.

Then too, the historical conditions are such that voters prefer somebody who looks OK riding on a tank. The way we're pissing away trillions on crazed military expenditures, loonbox tax cuts for the wealthy, ridiculous drug benefits for the elderly that we wouldn't need if we had a rational health care system---so what? (Just stuns me, the way that somebody's bound to respond to this by yelling slogans that TAX CUTS ARE GOOD, never mind if they got little and the wealthiest got a lot...I know, I know, the wealthy and their corporations are the salt of the earth and anybody who says different is a Marxist.) He's doing something, and the hell with all this analysis. Don't they do that in France?

The Dems are gonna lose. It isn't going to make any difference that our present fiscal policies are insane, we're engaged in at least one completely unnecessary war, the present government "plans," in a way that would get the manager of the local ACE hardware fired, we're spending like a drunken sailor on leave in Bangkok, and we're throwing away opportunities right and left. If it mattered, we'd be listening to Colin Powell and not that nutcase Condoleeza Rice. The Dems are gonna lose.

 

[Cruentus]

In regards to politics of course.

I am only a quarter of a century old at this point, so I'll probably remain optimistic for the next few years until the establishment beats it out of me.

My question for you is, are you going to vote at all? You don't have to tell me who, if you don't want to say, but are you going to vote at least?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Haven't decided yet. However, you have a point about having seen this before--I recommend reading HST's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail," books, and looking at Nixon/McGovern. McGovern--a combat pilot, incidentally, before anybody starts screaming about peaceniks--was right all down the line. We'd be far better off today if he'd been elected--among other things, it is unlikely he would've had to resign in disgrace to forestall impeachment. Didn't help in the least. In fact, it seems to've hurt.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil


1. Prove that it is.

2. Vaguely Marxist terminology does not constitute insight.

3. No, but I've heard of "allegory."

4. I wouldn't know; I haven't yet gotten around to reading the entire body of human literature. I'm working on it. I suggest you get started, too.

5. Not in the sense that you believe in it. There is a difference in understanding the benefit of cooperation among sovereign individuals who respect each other's rights and believing the collective is more important than the individual.

6. No, but then, it doesn't surprise me that you'd apply logical laws incorrectly.

7. No, responses like "this is crap" are what is "crap." Deluded Marxists might believe that all human benefit is the result of government-mandated wealth transfers, but to do so they must ignore centuries of innovation and the success of capitalism in making individuals upwardly mobile. The industrial revolution is what took the peasants out of the fields -- but then, to understand that one has to have at least a tenuous grasp of history.

8. Why, yes. Why, are you asking for assistance in getting started? I suggest you start with Myths about the Depression and go from there.

9. No one here invoked theism, but I suppose a spurious leap like this is par for the course where you are concerned.

10. There is no such thing as "fuedelism." You don't understand that you are only them if you persist in blaming external factors for your own lack of prosperity. No one ever became wealthy by whining about what others have. Your entire philosophy is one of envy -- an ugly emotion built on the notion that you desire what others have. You wish to possess what you have not earned and so you blame the "winners of life's lottery for daring to have more than you do -- without realizing that another human being's wealth does not diminish your own in any way.

11. Only you are responsible for your choices and your actions. Learn that and you'll be better off.

12. Who cares?

13. Now that's a thundering insight. Yes, my replies follow a strict ideology. I'm an Objectivist. My replies are logical and philosophically consistent. While concepts like consistency, logic, and rationality may be alien to you, they are not foreign to others.

14. Examine your own replies, which are nothing but assertions "without a hint of evidence." I'm not going to be held to a higher standard in refuting your assertions than that to which you hold yourself in making them. The difference is that I can support, philosophically, what I believe, and I can do so without mewling that it isn't fair that other people are better off than I am.

15. I present myself as one person with one person's opinions who believes strongly in what he says. If that threatens you or makes you feel somehow inferior, that is not my problem.

16. Perhaps think about education.

1. Question. Where is most wealth located?
2. Why not? You deflect insight with a flip tongue and expect that to be an honest response?
3. Cheap Shot from the "perfect"
4. Nice.
5. Which is a difference that you fail to make again and again and again. You spout all of this philosophy and respond to questions like a preacher in a pulpit. You are just a man and no body gives a damn what you think unless you can explain. You must have been ignored alot as a child.
6. Okay, more sarcasm and no substance. I'm beginning to sense a pattern. Paper thin callous remarks from behind the computer screen. If you think that I've applied the laws incorrectly, show me, or shut up.
7. It's blah blah blah again. Clearly you have some basis for these beliefs yet you keep this hidden. Why are you afraid?
8. Finally, some insight. It's an interesting article. I think its a bit slanted. Try reading "People History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. This will give you a different perspective that has been researched a lot better then your citation.
9. To quote you "Reality is the metaphysically given" this is pure predestination. Out of all the statements that you have made, this is one that you cannot support. You invoked a higher power no matter how much you waffle and waver.
10. I get your point here. "Fate is only what you make" Yet, you persist in this belief that we can do anything we want if we set our minds too it. Their is nothing realistic in this position and it does nothing to address the difference in us all. In fact, instead of embracing the individual, you have lumped humanity into a collective fishbowl with limited food and resources. Only the strong survive, right. Is this the truth? I see you wear glasses...yet you have overcome that physical weakness. Take them away and in your society, you are naturally selected out - meaning you die. Isn't it possible then, that others have limitations that require other methods to over come? How about someone with Down's syndrome? According to your philosophy we should just let them die.
11. Bullsh!t! Pretend for a moment your mother smoked crack before you were born. How are you responsible for that?
12. My grandmother is an old german marm and she would slap your smart mouth! (and mine too for engaging in this pettiness most likely...sigh she's right)

Ahhh forget it. Thanks Grandma...

 

[Phil Elmore]

Question. Where is most wealth located?

Most wealth is located with the people who earned it. Envious collectivists spend a great deal of time worrying about where other people's wealth is located -- while failing to realize that economies are dynamic, not static, and therefore every dollar in another man's pocket does not necessarily come from their own wallets.

Why not? You deflect insight with a flip tongue and expect that to be an honest response?

You flatter yourself if you think you've offered any insights.

You spout all of this philosophy and respond to questions like a preacher in a pulpit. You are just a man and no body gives a damn what you think unless you can explain. You must have been ignored alot as a child.

I'd say you're the one who was ignored a lot, as you seem to get very upset when confronted with opinions you do not like. You seem, in fact, to be very threatened and offended by the fact that I believe I am correct. Why do you have so much trouble coping with the confident expression of philosophical ideas?

Okay, more sarcasm and no substance.

You flatter yourself if you think you've offered any "substance."

I'm beginning to sense a pattern.

There is indeed a pattern -- I ridicule the ridiculous and don't care if that hurts your feelings.

Paper thin callous remarks from behind the computer screen.

Would you prefer I opened the window and shouted in your general direction?

If you think that I've applied the laws incorrectly, show me, or shut up.

I'm not your mommy. Do your homework and educate yourself, or shut up.

It's blah blah blah again. Clearly you have some basis for these beliefs yet you keep this hidden. Why are you afraid?

Spare us. There is an entire section on my personal website devoted to my philosophy. I would direct you to it, but I am redesigning the site at the moment. If you'd been paying attention, however, you would have noted that I mentioned being an Objectivist, a statement that is not exactly hiding one's philosophical beliefs.

Finally, some insight. It's an interesting article. I think its a bit slanted.

Of course you do. You're a Marxist.

To quote you "Reality is the metaphysically given" this is pure predestination.

No, it is simply a fact of objective reality. Reality is that with which you are granted to deal. It is the totality of everything with which you must cope.

You invoked a higher power no matter how much you waffle and waver.

I have not invoked any "higher power," nor have I wavered in any way from the consistent statement of my beliefs. If you're going to make foolish attacks, at least don't miss the painfully obvious.

Yet, you persist in this belief that we can do anything we want if we set our minds too it.

I persist in no such belief. Anything you manage to accomplish in life is your own responsibility, and you certainly will accomplish nothing if you spend your time whining. However, you are always constrained by reality. You are constrained by the limits of your abilities and your ambitions and your intelligence. You may want to become an NBA star or sprout wings and fly; you cannot do these things no matter how much you "set your mind to it."

When you understand that nothing occurs outside of context -- that is, outside of reality -- you'll take a step towards understanding of these concepts.

...it does nothing to address the difference in us all. In fact, instead of embracing the individual, you have lumped humanity into a collective fishbowl with limited food and resources.

That's a painful misinterpretation of what we've been discussing. The "differences in us all" are not things that need to be "addressed." They are simply facts.

Only the strong survive, right. Is this the truth? I see you wear glasses...yet you have overcome that physical weakness.

Only those with the will to do so "survive." Had I been born in an era in which there was no technology for glasses, I would have lived my life as a "blind" man. Would that mean I was owed a living at the expense of my better-sighted fellow citizens? No, it would not. Thankfully, human innovation enables us to compensate for these things, just as medical technology allows us to heal easily certain illnesses that would have been fatal fifty or a hundred years ago. None of these are the actions of a government. Doctors are private citizens who trade their skills for payment.

Take them away and in your society, you are naturally selected out - meaning you die. Isn't it possible then, that others have limitations that require other methods to over come?

Overcoming adversity is the responsibility of the individual. If I could not afford to buy glasses, it would not be society's responsibiltiy to provide me with them. You don't have the right to live your life at the expense of others without their consent. Yes, some of your fellow citizens may indeed choose to keep you alive out of charity -- to help you with their consent. In the absence of such charity, you would indeed be "naturally selected." Do you honestly believe you have a right to continue living regardless of any effort on your part? That's not how life works, though it certainly is how egalitarians approach it.

How about someone with Down's syndrome? According to your philosophy we should just let them die.

No, according to my philosophy it is the responsibility of that person's family or of private citizens inclined to charity to care for that person, rather than the government's.

Bullsh!t! Pretend for a moment your mother smoked crack before you were born. How are you responsible for that?

Spare us the childishly profane interjections. Life isn't fair. If your mother smoked crack it would explain quite a lot, but the fact is that this is what you've been metaphysically granted and this is the challenge with which you must deal in life. It is not the responsibility of your government to make your life easier for you. If you'd been born with cloven hoof for a foot or an extra hole through your face it would not be the government's responsibility to fix them for you, either.

My grandmother is an old german marm and she would slap your smart mouth!

Does your grandmother fight all your battles for you?

 

[khadaji]

A reminder, the govenment of our here country is not a Democracy, It is a Republic.

While we may have many democratic ideals with in our society, the government which is ours is officaly a Republic. That is why it runs the way it does.

It was astabilished under the ussumption that it was best that the Highly Educated Elite would rule justly for everyone else.


In this system, you can still make things happen, buy choosing the Elite that is in offace. (Atleast choose the people that choose, thanks elector collage)

I think Dean has the best chance. The reason for it, is that he is able to act, and speak in the mannor that helped Bush in running. However he also seems to have some if the speaking, and seemingly outsider advantages that Clinton had. The one problem I see with him is that he is not from any of the Sothern states. That makes it hard for running for president. I will almost bet that if he does get the nomination he will choose a running mate who is from the southern states. Overall I am realy waiting for this election. I want to see how all the campains on all sides play out. I have my small hope that we will even get to see some actual debates this time, but I know deep down it will never happen.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Does your grandmother fight all your battles for you?

No, Phil, she teaches us how to behave and how to become strong, successful adults.

All right Phil, I'm not going to participate in your brand of nastiness, but I am going to address your points. You may not like what I have to say, but that gives you no right to be disrespectful. Your name may be Sharp Phil, but in this forum, isn't the rule "respectful discussion?"

You remind me a lot of my uncle-in-law. When we start discussing our personally philosophies it ends in a good old wrestling match out in the snow until we are both laughing.

Our wealth is dynamic. It changes hands rapidly because the quantities are small. We can become rich or poor in an instant based on the decisions we make. Most americans live this way. They don't save, they charge way too much, and they barely have any left over to pay the bills. Personally, I don't have any credit cards, I save everything I can, and I live a spartan existance to keep my bills low. That is me and I am not most people. I take pride in taking care of myself and I take pride in the fact that I am providing my daughter with a better life then I had when I grew up.

On the other hand, inherited wealth is not nearly as dynamic. It is not the norm. Most of my peers will leave very little for thier children. I may not be able to leave much when I'm gone. If I can provide my child with enough to cover her needs as she grows into an adult (this include education and a firm home base that she can trust) that may have to be good enough. This is not the case for someone who is born into their wealth. Have they worked in any way to earn it? No, their parents may have, but again, the norm here is that the parents too, inherited the wealth. By this process, the majority of wealth (if we define this term as that which is over and above what is needed to do that which I described above for my family) in this country changes hands. Exceptions exist. My uncle for instance. He is an engineer and he invented a whole new class of medical equipment. In his lifetime, he has made millions of dollars. This quantity will now be passed on into his line when he is gone, inherited, altered and, hopefully, multiplied. The greatest thing about this country is that people like my uncle can come from a working class family that worked and saved and provided the chance for him to take the fortunes of his intellect and turn it into millions of dollars.

Your assertion that this is just a metaphysical element of the universe is true. It's predestination and whether or not you believe in God or Gods, there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Yet, this in an opportunity that exist in very few places in this world. If you have traveled to a variety of places on this planet, you may have noticed this fact.

Despite what you may have heard, it was not always this way in our country. Pre-industrial society was constructed of a small middle class, a mass of peasentry, and a small group of elite. When industrialism entered into the picture, this model was very slow to change. It was people like my grandfather and great grandfather and his father who took the bullets and forced a change to provide more people with a chance to do the things that we are able to do at this moment. In fact, if you talk to my grandfather, who stormed the beaches of Normandy without so much as a scratch to tell and who was shot by government troops during a workers strike, where he truly fought for our rights, he will tell you hands down, the strike. From this strife emerged a new and truly American way of thinking (as opposed to the aristocratic European pre-industrial way of thinking). In America, a person works to make themselves who they are, yet we believe that the provision of some basic needs for all is a fair price to pay for those who have been provided with the opportunity to accumulate wealth through inheritance or hard work.

Without this belief and without the blood of people like my grandfather we would still be a peasant working in a sweatshop with no oppotunity to make a better life for ourselves.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Admin. Note.
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Rich Parsons
-MT Assistant Administrator-

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Do your homework and educate yourself, or shut up.

You asked and now you shall recieve.

Logical problems with your arguments. The source for this information is "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. The book chapter is "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" which is quite appropriate in this instance.

1. Ad-Hominem - latin for "to the man" attacking the arguer and not the argument. Instances...

"You're a Marxist"

"If your mother smoked crack it would explain quite a lot..."

"I'd say you're the one who was ignored a lot, as you seem to get very upset when confronted with opinions you do not like. You seem, in fact, to be very threatened and offended by the fact that I believe I am correct. Why do you have so much trouble coping with the confident expression of philosophical ideas?"


"No, but I've heard of "allegory."

"I wouldn't know; I haven't yet gotten around to reading the entire body of human literature. I'm working on it. I suggest you get started, too."

"While concepts like consistency, logic, and rationality may be alien to you, they are not foreign to others."

"Perhaps think about education. "

"Envious collectivists spend a great deal of time worrying about where other people's wealth is located..."

"When you learn the difference between reality and movies, you'll be well on your way to forming a working philosophy."


2. Special Pleading - often used to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble. Example...how can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead - you don't understand the doctrine of "free will." This fallacy is used to deflect an argument rather then deal with its substance.

"When you understand that nothing occurs outside of context -- that is, outside of reality -- you'll take a step towards understanding of these concepts"

"Not in the sense that you believe in it. There is a difference in understanding the benefit of cooperation among sovereign individuals who respect each other's rights and believing the collective is more important than the individual."

"Envious collectivists spend a great deal of time worrying about where other people's wealth is located -- while failing to realize that economies are dynamic, not static, and therefore every dollar in another man's pocket does not necessarily come from their own wallets."

"When you understand that individualism is not atomism and that individuals do not live outside of context, you'll grasp the idea that there are no communities -- only individuals who interact (by choice in a free society"

"When you learn the difference between reality and movies, you'll be well on your way to forming a working philosophy."

"When you understand that individualism is not atomism and that individuals do not live outside of context, you'll grasp the idea that there are no communities -- only individuals who interact (by choice in a free society)."

"When you understand that individualism is not atomism and that individuals do not live outside of context, you'll grasp the idea that there are no communities -- only individuals who interact (by choice in a free society)."


3. Straw Man - caricturizing a position to make it easier to attack.

"Vaguely Marxist terminology does not constitute insight"

Just about everything else...my daughter is coloring on the walls and I have to go for a minute

I could go on, but this is enough. The ONLY reason I did this is to hopefully show you that your personal attacks, your slick deflections, and your caricturization are not a very good method for presenting your philosophy. There is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs. I am very curious about those beliefs and I think that others are too. In a discussion like this, in my opinion, you need to show us why, instead of relying on fallacious logic. This is not a personal attack, it's just an observation and hopefully, being an "objectivist" you can appreciate it. If you disagree, fine, but I am not going to respond to any more personal attacks.

Merry Christmas, Sharp Phil

Upnorthkyosa

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, Christmas IS a great time for the worst of Heinlein and the best of Ayn Rand to be advocated as social philosophy and moral guide...

Merry Christmas, gentlemen.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Haven't we covered the fact that you haven't even read Rand in recent memory, Robert, and that you have never read any nonfiction produced by Objectivists?

No, Phil, she teaches us how to behave and how to become strong, successful adults.

I don't hear anything that makes me think of a strong, successful adult from you. I hear envy, which is a weak, unsuccessful, childish emotion.

All right Phil, I'm not going to participate in your brand of nastiness

Don't confuse disdain for "nastiness." There's a difference.

...but that gives you no right to be disrespectful.

You haven't earned my respect. I generally ridicule the ridiculous and hold in contempt the contemptible.

Your name may be Sharp Phil, but in this forum, isn't the rule "respectful discussion?"

I believe I've treated you in equal measure for your own tone.

You remind me a lot of my uncle-in-law. When we start discussing our personally philosophies it ends in a good old wrestling match out in the snow until we are both laughing.

Great. Cry "uncle" and this is over.

Our wealth is dynamic. It changes hands rapidly because the quantities are small. We can become rich or poor in an instant based on the decisions we make. Most americans live this way. They don't save, they charge way too much, and they barely have any left over to pay the bills. Personally, I don't have any credit cards, I save everything I can, and I live a spartan existance to keep my bills low. That is me and I am not most people. I take pride in taking care of myself and I take pride in the fact that I am providing my daughter with a better life then I had when I grew up.

You understand that wealth is dynamic and you understand that we are directly responsible for it. That's a very good start.

On the other hand, inherited wealth is not nearly as dynamic. It is not the norm. Most of my peers will leave very little for thier children. I may not be able to leave much when I'm gone. If I can provide my child with enough to cover her needs as she grows into an adult (this include education and a firm home base that she can trust) that may have to be good enough. This is not the case for someone who is born into their wealth. Have they worked in any way to earn it? No, their parents may have, but again, the norm here is that the parents too, inherited the wealth. By this process, the majority of wealth (if we define this term as that which is over and above what is needed to do that which I described above for my family) in this country changes hands.

Here you run aground. The economy is dynamic; money is not a static pie, all of whose slices come at the expense of others' pieces. The accumulated wealth passed from family to family has no relevance to you or your life; it does not make you poorer in any way and it does not come at your expense. It is none of your concern. To be so concerned over it is a manifestation of jealousy. It is also not the case that "most wealth is inherited," as you originally asserted without support.

My uncle for instance. He is an engineer and he invented a whole new class of medical equipment. In his lifetime, he has made millions of dollars. This quantity will now be passed on into his line when he is gone, inherited, altered and, hopefully, multiplied. The greatest thing about this country is that people like my uncle can come from a working class family that worked and saved and provided the chance for him to take the fortunes of his intellect and turn it into millions of dollars.

Wonderful! You understand the upwards mobility of capitalism, at least at a rudimentary level.

Your assertion that this is just a metaphysical element of the universe is true.

Our circumstances and our abilities are the metaphysically granted, yes. Our choices are not. The choice to make the most of what we can within the scope of our abilities and in accordance with our circumstances is what makes the difference.

It's predestination and whether or not you believe in God or Gods, there is nothing anyone can do to change it.

Incorrect. This would only be "predestination" if the outcome were the metaphysically granted, which is not the case. On the circumstances and the abilities with which we are born are metaphysically granted. Our wills are our own; our choices make the difference. We can choose to be rational, or we can choose to be irrational; we can choose to work hard, or we can choose not to work hard. That is what we can do "change it." That is an internal locus of control. Those operating under the crushing weight of a philosophy whose locus of control is external are doomed to bemoan their fates and look with envy on the gains of others.

Yet, this in an opportunity that exist in very few places in this world. If you have traveled to a variety of places on this planet, you may have noticed this fact.

Thus we see that capitalism -- a free society -- is superior to the Marxist schools of thought that dominate, in whole or in part, many of the world's other societies.

Despite what you may have heard, it was not always this way in our country. Pre-industrial society was constructed of a small middle class, a mass of peasentry, and a small group of elite. When industrialism entered into the picture, this model was very slow to change.

Actually, when industrialism entered the picture, this model changed very quickly, because suddenly we had the ability to sustain a population much larger in size within the same given geographic area than we were able to sustain in a predominantly rural economy.

It was people like my grandfather and great grandfather and his father who took the bullets and forced a change to provide more people with a chance to do the things that we are able to do at this moment. In fact, if you talk to my grandfather, who stormed the beaches of Normandy without so much as a scratch to tell and who was shot by government troops during a workers strike, where he truly fought for our rights, he will tell you hands down, the strike. From this strife emerged a new and truly American way of thinking (as opposed to the aristocratic European pre-industrial way of thinking). In America, a person works to make themselves who they are, yet we believe that the provision of some basic needs for all is a fair price to pay for those who have been provided with the opportunity to accumulate wealth through inheritance or hard work.

Labor unions are fine, as long as they are voluntary -- and the implementation of unions was simply the other side of the economic equation. When workers realized that employment is, ultimately, a voluntary and mutual contract, they realized they had leverage they could use to gain more by bargaining with what they had to offer -- their effort.

Without this belief and without the blood of people like my grandfather we would still be a peasant working in a sweatshop with no oppotunity to make a better life for ourselves.

This contradicts, at least philosophically (though you may not be aware of it) your original assertion that the government brought the peasants out of the fields (which it didn't). Labor unions likewise did not "bring the peasants out of the fields," though you're getting closer to an understanding of basic economic theory. It was a recognition of the fact that labor is half of the economic equation that enabled workers to better their lives, within the context of a capitalist system.

Where government did play a role in the industrial revolution was in cracking down on those things that hinder a capitalist system -- namely manifestations of fraud, theft, and force. The government's role in a free society is that of guardian of individual rights -- which means it is that of policeman. The government protected individual consumers by passing laws relevant to, and cracking down on, widespread fraud in certain consumer industries -- such as the meat packing industry. It did not, however, liberate the oppressed worker; the workers themselves managed that by recognizing their role and the leverage it offered them.

Logical problems with your arguments. The source for this information is "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. The book chapter is "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" which is quite appropriate in this instance.

Quoting a book does not constitute supporting your argument. I'm more familiar than are you with the laws of logic and with logical fallacies, I am sure; you seem to believe that your own arguments were laden with substance, which was not the case. When you offer substantive arguments you will receive substantive replies. The fact remains, however, that anyone who starts going on about liberating the oppressed worker and the evils of inherited wealth is indeed spouting Marxist ideals, the identification of which is relevant in the course of the argument because Marxism is unsound and discredited economic theory.

I do indeed believe in sprinkling my prose with appropriate amounts of venom, however, specifically because I lack both patience and tolerance. It's a character failing; foolishness makes me mean. The fact is that you chose to apply a certain attitude to your posts, and I simply gave it back to you in equal measure. Don't complain that you got worse than you gave.

Special Pleading - often used to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble. Example...how can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead - you don't understand the doctrine of "free will." This fallacy is used to deflect an argument rather then deal with its substance.

When you offer a substantive argument, you will receive a substantive reply. For your misapplication of the "special pleading" to apply, you would have to have been offering logical discourse yourself.

I could go on, but this is enough. The ONLY reason I did this is to hopefully show you that your personal attacks, your slick deflections, and your caricturization are not a very good method for presenting your philosophy.

You failed in the attempt, then, though I give you credit for trying. I'm not primarily attempting to present my philosophy; I am simply enjoying poking holes in yours. There's a difference.

There is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs. I am very curious about those beliefs and I think that others are too. In a discussion like this, in my opinion, you need to show us why, instead of relying on fallacious logic.

I offer logic where logic is offered. When presented with empty rhetoric, I supply superior (and sharper) rhetoric. This is recreation for me. If you want to start a philosophical thread in which you ask substantive answers in order to receive substantive replies, that's fine; you're certainly free to do so. This thread has not offered much in that regard and I feel no obligation to supply it in its absence.

This is not a personal attack, it's just an observation and hopefully, being an "objectivist" you can appreciate it. If you disagree, fine, but I am not going to respond to any more personal attacks.

I think you labor under the misconception that I want you to respond; I'm indifferent to the idea.

Nothing I've written has been intended as disrespectful, but I cannot pretend to have respect for ideas or attitudes I find silly or hostile. I always respond in equal measure, though I admit I tend to escalate.