The Root of ALL Evil

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hence why I've largely been discarding binary morality... though "laissez-faire God"? What are you talking about with that?

A laissez-faire (deist) God is one that created this natural, rational universe as a stage where sentient creatures could exercise moral free will without divine influence--which would negate that free will.

I don't see these as inherently in opposition, and thus I've encountered very, very few places where I must choose between them.

If that's true, you're probably exercising enlightened self-interest without knowing it. But "selfless" as most people use it means a moral duty to sacrifice yourself for another, or especially for the "greater good".

I have Asperger's Syndrome, and so am hyper-empathic. I basically empathize with any pain I either see in others, or project that others are feeling, in full-force (sometimes even more than person who's actually feeling it). Hand-in-hand with that empathy comes the strong desire to remove that pain from the other person, for both our sakes equally.

While this sort of thing is normal in tribe-social species like humans, people like me feel it far stronger than others.

Hmmm, didn't know that was a symptom. Sort of explains your avatar. Would you turn it down if you could?

You just termed "enlightened self-interest", without actually defining it. But based on your word-usage, it looks like you're still using binary morality as your baseline, even if you deviate from it. I would be interested, however, to see a concise definition of it. I can work better with one.

Enlightened self-interest could also be called moral selfishness, which put another way still, is to make yourself #1 while defending the same status for everybody else, which spirals your society up as a whole, strengthening your rights even further in the process. By such examples, we promote equal rights for all and the greater good order they engender. Immoral selfishness would of course produce a downward spiral.

 

[Riverwolf]

A laissez-faire (deist) God is one that created this natural, rational universe as a stage where sentient creatures could exercise moral free will without divine influence--which would negate that free will.

...k... my Gods aren't deist, or universe-creators of any kind, and I don't believe in any kind of objective morality, so I still don't see the relevance.

If that's true, you're probably exercising enlightened self-interest without knowing it. But "selfless" as most people use it means a moral duty to sacrifice yourself for another, or especially for the "greater good".

I've heard it used like that on occasion, but not ubiquitously in my region. Selfless as I hear and use it most just means doing something for someone else without any measurable gain for oneself (and no, I don't count "feel good" as a measurable gain; I would count overcoming depression as one, though).

Hmmm, didn't know that was a symptom. Sort of explains your avatar. Would you turn it down if you could?

Turn what down? My avatar? What's Majora's Mask got to do with Asperger's Syndrome or hyper-empathy?

Enlightened self-interest could also be called moral selfishness, which put another way still, is to make yourself #1 while defending the same status for everybody else, which spirals your society up as a whole, strengthening your rights even further in the process. By such examples, we promote equal rights for all and the greater good order they engender. Immoral selfishness would of course produce a downward spiral.

I see. I wouldn't think in those terms at all, because I don't see myself as my absolute first priority in all cases, equal to everybody else. If everyone is super, nobody is, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

I do suspect we're both kind of on the same track, though. The difference, however, is that I don't word it in the same way, and as a result, there are plenty of subtle but very key differences.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Turn what down?

Your hyper-empathy.

What's Majora's Mask got to do with Asperger's Syndrome or hyper-empathy?

It's hyper.

I see. I wouldn't think in those terms at all, because I don't see myself as my absolute first priority in all cases, equal to everybody else. If everyone is super, nobody is

I think Jefferson didn't get it quite right. We aren't all created equal, because we aren't. But we are all created with equal rights, which is the only thing government should be concerned with.

, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

I hate that scene. It takes an act of great self-sacrifice as the only logical solution (in sync with enlightened self-interest btw in the same sense as the risks we take when we go to war), and makes a statement that demeans the individual in relation to the group. Yeah, it was true in that particular instance, but it's presented (and quoted) in a vacuum as a overarching maxim for the universe.

I do suspect we're both kind of on the same track, though. The difference, however, is that I don't word it in the same way, and as a result, there are plenty of subtle but very key differences.

If they're key, you need to drop the other shoe.

 

[Laika]

Actually a moral/legal double standard is not only the root of all evil, it's the definition of evil itself. Subverting the equal rights of all to their life, liberty, property and self-defense, at the individual level or in mass populations, establishes a double standard. To clarify, a double standard not involving those moral/legal rights, is not evil.

Only those who wish to violate the rights of others (dictators, nihilists, anarchists), sacrificing good order in the process, object to calling those rights universal and objective as the only way to rationalize their self-serving agendas.

I think it is important here to make a distinction between equality of rights and the actual inequality of persons. legal rights do not exist objectively and a dependent on the means to exercise them. It is easy for someone to defend "equality of rights" as way to defend a tyranny in which someone owns and controls property and therefore the means by which others to exercise their rights. A defense of equality of rights necessarily assumes that this legal equality implies an equal ability to be free which is not automatically the case.

The evil in denying equality of rights is that it denies individual freedom as a universal right. This distinction between legal inequality and actual inequalities in society can be stretched so far as to render a person's rights invalid, when the defense of a persons rights become the defense of an oppressor. Supposedly "liberal" societies are able to defend considerable inequalities within their own social fabric on the grounds, of class, gender, race etc which engaging in a systematic hypocrisy that because the oppressed have legal rights no entitlement to express their grievances (or to the point of denying such grievances exist because legal equality is substituted for actual equal) since they have rights to redress them even when that does not entailing having the means to do so. For example, everyone has an equal right to own private property, but that does not mean everyone is fed, clothed, housed or has a source of income to support themselves. The evils of poverty are simply made legal. Women and ethnic minorities may have an equal right to employment, but that does not mean they are not discriminated against. The Rich and the poor may have equal political and legal rights, but money can buy political influence in the formation of policy and a better legal team to defend social injustices which serve their interests.

In the event that equality of rights is reduced to equality on paper only, it means that such equality conceals deep conflicts within a society. the greater evil is to do nothing as the language of "rights" is perverted as an instrument for tyranny, since to do nothing is to defend a situation in which people are denied their freedom, not by loss of rights, but by the loss of the means to exercise them.

Anarchists defend equality of rights, and attack the state as a source of inequality, institutional power and the evils of coercion as the means to deny individual freedom. Anarchists are rare, Nihilists are even rarer but often there actions are justified on the grounds of exercising their freedom in spite of what they believe are artificially imposed legal and moral constraints. Nihilists therefore share a great deal in common with Anarchists and libertarians.

"Dictators" are slippery. Dictatorship is a lesser evil to civil war, but is often simply a concealed form of civil war. In societies that have become so polarized that a conception of universal rights has no longer become effective, the defense of equality of oppressor and oppressed constitutes a form of social pacifism and a complicit acceptance of the right of the dictator to rule. The problem with dictatorship is that in the face of such polarization, dictators have granted themselves the "freedom" to deny others rights. Whilst we may wish to say it is wrong, the depth of social conflict often rules out the possibilities for compromise and therefore an equality of rights even in something as fundamental as life, liberty, property and self-defense. The right of self-defense in such situations becomes irreconcilably opposed with maintaining the illusion of equality between oppressor and oppressed.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think it is important here to make a distinction between equality of rights and the actual inequality of persons.

That's equality of legal rights. There are all kinds of other non-legal rights that usually aren't equal. What inequality of persons, intelligence for example? Yes, but that's got nothing to do with legal rights, though I do know some liberals try to us legislation to equalize everything.

legal rights do not exist objectively and a dependent on the means to exercise them.

Well of course they need to be protected, that's government raison d'etre. But they are objective based on the assumption that good order is the goal. To argue otherwise is to argue for chaos and double standards for everything.

It is easy for someone to defend "equality of rights" as way to defend a tyranny in which someone owns and controls property and therefore the means by which others to exercise their rights.

Again, it's the governments job to enforce the rights equally for all, which includes the wealthy, corporations and any others on the left's automatically assumed bad guy list. And racism, hatred and sexism, for example, are not automatically immoral. They only become so when they result in the trespass of rights.

A defense of equality of rights necessarily assumes that this legal equality implies an equal ability to be free which is not automatically the case.

No, it assumes and equal opportunity to be free. Attempting to legislate outcomes is when the government becomes immoral by trampling on the rights of some with the impossible goal of making everyone equally wealthy, or actually, equally poor, as well as equally free etc. The left always tries to bring the top down instead of vice versa. As Kennedy said, a rising tide lifts all boats.

The evil in denying equality of rights is that it denies individual freedom as a universal right.

Again, your talking legislating equal outcomes which would be immoral even if it was possible, or if the elite would not take advantage of their situation--which is what you argue for every time you attempt to legislate outcomes via socialization.

This distinction between legal inequality and actual inequalities in society can be stretched so far as to render a person's rights invalid, when the defense of a persons rights become the defense of an oppressor. Supposedly "liberal" societies are able to defend considerable inequalities within their own social fabric on the grounds, of class, gender, race etc which engaging in a systematic hypocrisy that because the oppressed have legal rights no entitlement to express their grievances (or to the point of denying such grievances exist because legal equality is substituted for actual equal) since they have rights to redress them even when that does not entailing having the means to do so. For example, everyone has an equal right to own private property, but that does not mean everyone is fed, clothed, housed or has a source of income to support themselves.

So you're saying everyone has a right to food, clothing and shelter, and they don't have to work for it?

The evils of poverty are simply made legal. Women and ethnic minorities may have an equal right to employment, but that does not mean they are not discriminated against. The Rich and the poor may have equal political and legal rights, but money can buy political influence in the formation of policy and a better legal team to defend social injustices which serve their interests.

In the latter example you are talking corruption which is already illegal. When you sell influence to favor the poor through votes, that influence can sometimes be outbid by the corrupt rich, when we have corrupt officials. Integrity of officials, should always be first in the minds of voters, but it's rarely on the radar. People on all issues are too often more concerned that it's ok to turn a blind side when the issue in question is theirs.

In the event that equality of rights is reduced to equality on paper only, it means that such equality conceals deep conflicts within a society. the greater evil is to do nothing as the language of "rights" is perverted as an instrument for tyranny, since to do nothing is to defend a situation in which people are denied their freedom, not by loss of rights, but by the loss of the means to exercise them.

Meaning that its necessary to legislated the outcomes via legislating the "means". Opportunity is all that's required except for the physically and mentally handicapped.

Anarchists defend equality of rights, and attack the state as a source of inequality, institutional power and the evils of coercion as the means to deny individual freedom. Anarchists are rare, Nihilists are even rarer but often there actions are justified on the grounds of exercising their freedom in spite of what they believe are artificially imposed legal and moral constraints. Nihilists therefore share a great deal in common with Anarchists and libertarians.

It's apparently vain for me to declare you vision of libertarianism is way off.

"Dictators" are slippery. Dictatorship is a lesser evil to civil war, but is often simply a concealed form of civil war. In societies that have become so polarized that a conception of universal rights has no longer become effective, the defense of equality of oppressor and oppressed constitutes a form of social pacifism and a complicit acceptance of the right of the dictator to rule.

There is no defense for the oppressor. The principle is the equal protection of equal rights for all. If someone is violating the rights of others, his rights are forfeit.

The problem with dictatorship is that in the face of such polarization, dictators have granted themselves the "freedom" to deny others rights.

Correct, which is why dictatorships (via dictators, or oligarchies) are immoral and must be removed. And, btw, dictatorships, of whatever flavor, are usually the ones who established the polarization in the first place, in order to exploit it and direct attention away from their other forms of corruption.

Whilst we may wish to say it is wrong, the depth of social conflict often rules out the possibilities for compromise and therefore an equality of rights even in something as fundamental as life, liberty, property and self-defense.

So we should surrender those hard won for rights? Appeasement ALWAYS encourages the corrupt.

The right of self-defense in such situations becomes irreconcilably opposed with maintaining the illusion of equality between oppressor and oppressed.

??? I'm not sure but that appears to be irreconcilably convoluted. You're working too hard to justify the unjustifiable, which again, is the attempt to legislate outcomes. Whoever has the power to determine what an outcome will be, is too powerful, and thus inevitably corrupted. Viz our current situation here in the US.

 

[Laika]

That's equality of legal rights. There are all kinds of other non-legal rights that usually aren't equal. What inequality of persons, intelligence for example? Yes, but that's got nothing to do with legal rights, though I do know some liberals try to us legislation to equalize everything.

It's apparently vain for me to declare you vision of libertarianism is way off.

I think the major disagreement is the conflict between the legal statement of rights and the actual ability to exercise those rights which is dependent on the ownership of property- a conflict between means and ends if you will. I think perhaps you should give a definition of libertarianism so I know how this relationship works in that ideology, as it is clearly very different from how it works in socialism and most especially Marxism.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think the major disagreement is the conflict between the legal statement of rights and the actual ability to exercise those rights which is dependent on the ownership of property- a conflict between means and ends if you will. I think perhaps you should give a definition of libertarianism so I know how this relationship works in that ideology, as it is clearly very different from how it works in socialism and most especially Marxism.

Absolutely it is!

Libertarianism is advocating a government which sole mandate is to protect the rights of individuals and economic co-operatives to life, liberty, property and self-defense--and the power to collect the minimal taxes to accomplish that mandate. That said, I go against many of my fellow libertarians when I say there are some minimal public works necessary at least till we can wean ourselves off them such as roads, and minimal aid to the poor. The latter should only be for the physically/mentally handicapped, or earned in return for work such as caring for the grounds around public housing etc. Neither should we go so far out of our way as we have to protect the slackers delicate sensibilities.

But I think the main problem with leftist big government is the idea we can legislate outcomes. It's not only immoral, it's impossible.

 

[Laika]

Absolutely it is!

Libertarianism is advocating a government which sole mandate is to protect the rights of individuals and economic co-operatives to life, liberty, property and self-defense--and the power to collect the minimal taxes to accomplish that mandate. That said, I go against many of my fellow libertarians when I say there are some minimal public works necessary at least till we can wean ourselves off them such as roads, and minimal aid to the poor. The latter should only be for the physically/mentally handicapped, or earned in return for work such as caring for the grounds around public housing etc. Neither should we go so far out of our way as we have to protect the slackers delicate sensibilities.

But I think the main problem with leftist big government is the idea we can legislate outcomes. It's not only immoral, it's impossible.

My issue with "libertarianism" as I understand it, this is as the maximization of individual liberty, is to do with the conception of freedom. Freedom is not an innate property of the will or consciousness of the individual; it is a property of human action. Freedom is the ability to act in ways which we can achieve an anticipated outcome to satisfy human needs. The reason I make such a strong distinction between the legal rights and the ability to exercise those rights, is that legal rights do not entail the ability to act in ways which will fulfill our goals only the "opportunity" to achieve them.

By far the biggest obstacle to realizing this opportunity to achieve these goals is private property. Whilst private property acts as a strong basis for protecting the freedom for individuals to act according to their will, it does not safeguard a person's ability to have the means to produce the anticipated outcomes.Consequently private property entails the right to deny a person the means to satisfy their needs, to deny them opportunities and the ability to be free. Freedom in a market economy is freedom for those who own property. Therefore equality of rights as prescribed in law does not entail equality in the enjoyment nor exercise of those rights. Therefore equality of rights does not mean that people are equally free.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

My issue with "libertarianism" as I understand it, this is as the maximization of individual liberty, is to do with the conception of freedom. Freedom is not an innate property of the will or consciousness of the individual; it is a property of human action. Freedom is the ability to act in ways which we can achieve an anticipated outcome to satisfy human needs. The reason I make such a strong distinction between the legal rights and the ability to exercise those rights, is that legal rights do not entail the ability to act in ways which will fulfill our goals only the "opportunity" to achieve them.

How else do we achieve or pursue our goals without taking advantage of opportunities. Yeah, we could hope if falls in our lap, but that's an extremely low percentage play, and more importantly, brings no fulfillment. Freedom with rights and the proper motivation is the surest way to achieve them. My definition of freedom is the ability to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime--"dumb" being the Monday morning quarterback casual evaluation of failure. You own yourself, but there's a lot of leftists who would disagree with that.

By far the biggest obstacle to realizing this opportunity to achieve these goals is private property. Whilst private property acts as a strong basis for protecting the freedom for individuals to act according to their will, it does not safeguard a person's ability to have the means to produce the anticipated outcomes.Consequently private property entails the right to deny a person the means to satisfy their needs, to deny them opportunities and the ability to be free. Freedom in a market economy is freedom for those who own property. Therefore equality of rights as prescribed in law does not entail equality in the enjoyment nor exercise of those rights. Therefore equality of rights does not mean that people are equally free.

But it does mean they are equally free, just that we don't start with equal resources, and again, attempting to engineer outcomes by equaling outcomes through bureaucratic committee will always fail without 95%+ luck or better. How do you equate the sexes, or the strong vs. the weak, or the smart vs. the dumb, or most importantly the ones with drive & motivation vs. those without? Your job is to take your rights and opportunity, which is the greatest advantage anyone will have, and make the most of it. More people will succeed in that free market, than with reams of artificial, micromanaging regulations that are already outdated by the time they're enacted--except for the ones they favor the most. It's a recipe for corruption.

Private property may be an obstacle, but only one of many which we face in various situations. Outlawing it reduces incentive for everyone. Like the Pilgrims, we just work much more industriously when we have that incentive. Incentive and competition, the engines of any economy.

Communism wishes to do away with both.

 

[Laika]

How else do we achieve or pursue our goals without taking advantage of opportunities. Yeah, we could hope if falls in our lap, but that's an extremely low percentage play, and more importantly, brings no fulfillment. Freedom with rights and the proper motivation is the surest way to achieve them. My definition of freedom is the ability to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime--"dumb" being the Monday morning quarterback casual evaluation of failure. You own yourself, but there's a lot of leftists who would disagree with that.

granted people can be stupid; but part of the learning process is the ability to make mistakes. From an entrepreneurial perspective, someone who starts up a small business has something like a 2 in 3 chance of failing in the first year. So that means that two-thirds of people who set up a business failed and it wasn't down to lack of motivation, or opportunity, but the fact that the marketplace can be inhospitable, especially for new competitors. it takes a unusual combination of circumstances for a business to go from start-up to success and most businessmen do not attribute it to being smarter than everyone else, but being "lucky". Ability does not grantee success even in a competitive marketplace. In a Market economy in which business are large enough to influence the market and have the power to determine price and quantity, it is even harder for people to get ahead.

I know what you mean about self-ownership as I have had doubts as to whether the position that someone 'owns' themselves is actually consistent with my view, and that if I rejected the concept of self-ownership it would easily lead down a totalitarian path. (The word "slavery" rings in the back of my head). But, if I were to try to defend that view- the issue is that people have talents and abilities which could well be employed better in a bigger organization and therefore their talents can be "used" more effectively to increase the social wealth and therefore the social good. The issue with this is less the size of the organization- but the fact that if such an organization is state run, it will combine economic coercion that already occurs in a market place with political and legal coercion of a totalitarian/collectivist state. I'm open to hearing your opinions on this.

But it does mean they are equally free, just that we don't start with equal resources, and again, attempting to engineer outcomes by equaling outcomes through bureaucratic committee will always fail without 95%+ luck or better. How do you equate the sexes, or the strong vs. the weak, or the smart vs. the dumb, or most importantly the ones with drive & motivation vs. those without? Your job is to take your rights and opportunity, which is the greatest advantage anyone will have, and make the most of it. More people will succeed in that free market, than with reams of artificial, micromanaging regulations that are already outdated by the time they're enacted--except for the ones they favor the most. It's a recipe for corruption.

Private property may be an obstacle, but only one of many which we face in various situations. Outlawing it reduces incentive for everyone. Like the Pilgrims, we just work much more industriously when we have that incentive. Incentive and competition, the engines of any economy.

Communism wishes to do away with both.

This will come down to underlying assumptions about human nature. You are assuming that drive and motivation are innate qualities where as I would not. Society can cripple people to the point where they no longer have the drive to make the best of the opportunities presented because those opportunities do not exist for them. This is particular true of someone in poverty.
Whilst free markets have proven to be very successful, that does not mean they are the only system capable of giving people incentives to work hard and succeed. This is based on an assumption that people are motivated only by money as a way to pursue their self-interest. But motivation is as malleable as the conception of the self; capitalism has only been around for two to three hundred years, and whilst it has undoubtedly changed a lot, it is not the only way to organize society and to motivate people. Communism would not do away with people's motivations, but it would represent a fundamental change in how people value themselves and their work from individual self-interest in a competitive market system towards working for the common good by making a contribution to fulfilling the plan in a command economy.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

granted people can be stupid; but part of the learning process is the ability to make mistakes. From an entrepreneurial perspective, someone who starts up a small business has something like a 2 in 3 chance of failing in the first year. So that means that two-thirds of people who set up a business failed and it wasn't down to lack of motivation, or opportunity, but the fact that the marketplace can be inhospitable, especially for new competitors. it takes a unusual combination of circumstances for a business to go from start-up to success and most businessmen do not attribute it to being smarter than everyone else, but being "lucky". Ability does not grantee success even in a competitive marketplace. In a Market economy in which business are large enough to influence the market and have the power to determine price and quantity, it is even harder for people to get ahead.

Can't disagree with any of that except to say that there's luck and then there's dumb luck, like finding a winning lottery ticket (buying it being pretty close to that).

I know what you mean about self-ownership as I have had doubts as to whether the position that someone 'owns' themselves is actually consistent with my view, and that if I rejected the concept of self-ownership it would easily lead down a totalitarian path. (The word "slavery" rings in the back of my head). But, if I were to try to defend that view- the issue is that people have talents and abilities which could well be employed better in a bigger organization and therefore their talents can be "used" more effectively to increase the social wealth and therefore the social good. The issue with this is less the size of the organization- but the fact that if such an organization is state run, it will combine economic coercion that already occurs in a market place with political and legal coercion of a totalitarian/collectivist state. I'm open to hearing your opinions on this.

I agree except that we need to distinguish between voluntary or involuntary slavery. Technically, a job is voluntary contract slavery, but that word has such negative emotional connotations it usually warps the true meaning of "job"--though some jobs may seem like slavery. And there are all kinds of talents from niche, such as say a movie star, to cog talents where you're a cog in a very big machine with varying degrees of consequence...and pay and perks. You're path to a totalitarian/collectivist state is dead on.

On a side note, I think the biggest obstacle most people face in this world is not knowing who the hell they are. To get there, you have to know what you're not good at, and know what you're truthfully good at, which is almost always something you enjoy doing. Then find a way of employing that talent and you'll never work a day in your life. The amazing and weird thing is that people are so widely varied in this respect, which is good for society and the individuals. But even those who know what they're good at can't always turn that into a living. The key is to pursue the Truth and be true to yourself no matter what. I'd rather clean toilets than rule the world under false pretenses. We can't bully ourselves into self-respect, and neither should we bully ourselves in to self-deprecation. Just sayin'.

This will come down to underlying assumptions about human nature. You are assuming that drive and motivation are innate qualities where as I would not. Society can cripple people to the point where they no longer have the drive to make the best of the opportunities presented because those opportunities do not exist for them. This is particular true of someone in poverty.

No, I understand that drive and motivation vary widely, but that's mostly because so many people don't know who they are, and worse, don't like who they are or think they are. There are, for instance, many types of intelligence but society focuses on just a few (mainly memory and athleticism, which is a form of intelligence beyond brute strength), and teaches us in schools to develop those, even those who aren't adept in those areas, while the rest are allowed to atrophy or are actually repressed. The point is that this situation can only be corrected with learning more about intelligence, and above all, with freedom which allows them, us, to flourish.

Whilst free markets have proven to be very successful, that does not mean they are the only system capable of giving people incentives to work hard and succeed. This is based on an assumption that people are motivated only by money as a way to pursue their self-interest. But motivation is as malleable as the conception of the self; capitalism has only been around for two to three hundred years, and whilst it has undoubtedly changed a lot, it is not the only way to organize society and to motivate people. Communism would not do away with people's motivations, but it would represent a fundamental change in how people value themselves and their work from individual self-interest in a competitive market system towards working for the common good by making a contribution to fulfilling the plan in a command economy.

That first part and what I just said are pretty much the same. But communism has two flaws: The submission of self to the collective, and the inevitable abuse of power that leads to. It's the economic equivalent of Islam which literally means submission to Allah and his prophet, with its attendant abuse of power. Submission of self, in self-aware individuals, subverts the self, but that and the life that supports it is what those individuals hold as having the greatest value. You tell me to subvert myself, to a higher cause or to a lie, you tell me to commit spiritual suicide--and for what, the glory of some dictator/oligarchy with the inevitable resultant oppression of the rest of that society? As I said, I'd get more fulfillment out of cleaning toilets.

 

[Laika]

I agree except that we need to distinguish between voluntary or involuntary slavery. Technically, a job is voluntary contract slavery, but that word has such negative emotional connotations it usually warps the true meaning of "job"--though some jobs may seem like slavery. And there are all kinds of talents from niche, such as say a movie star, to cog talents where you're a cog in a very big machine with varying degrees of consequence...and pay and perks. You're path to a totalitarian/collectivist state is dead on.

Yeah, Communism works up to a certain point until it becomes a logical absurdity. The problem is learning to balance the need for individual and collective rights in society because these are both dimensions of the human psyche which have to be developed for free and healthy society. Too much individualism and too much collectivism both create problems.

On a side note, I think the biggest obstacle most people face in this world is not knowing who the hell they are. To get there, you have to know what you're not good at, and know what you're truthfully good at, which is almost always something you enjoy doing. Then find a way of employing that talent and you'll never work a day in your life. The amazing and weird thing is that people are so widely varied in this respect, which is good for society and the individuals. But even those who know what they're good at can't always turn that into a living. The key is to pursue the Truth and be true to yourself no matter what. I'd rather clean toilets than rule the world under false pretenses. We can't bully ourselves into self-respect, and neither should we bully ourselves in to self-deprecation. Just sayin'.

I would agree with this quite strongly to be honest. And big respect for; "I'd rather clear toilets than rule the world under false pretenses."

No, I understand that drive and motivation vary widely, but that's mostly because so many people don't know who they are, and worse, don't like who they are or think they are. There are, for instance, many types of intelligence but society focuses on just a few (mainly memory and athleticism, which is a form of intelligence beyond brute strength), and teaches us in schools to develop those, even those who aren't adept in those areas, while the rest are allowed to atrophy or are actually repressed. The point is that this situation can only be corrected with learning more about intelligence, and above all, with freedom which allows them, us, to flourish.

Also in a agreement. To know what we want to do is probably our biggest challenge. society's definition of intelligence is too narrow and reflects a preference for academic achievement over other dimensions of intelligence.

That first part and what I just said are pretty much the same. But communism has two flaws: The submission of self to the collective, and the inevitable abuse of power that leads to. It's the economic equivalent of Islam which literally means submission to Allah and his prophet, with its attendant abuse of power. Submission of self, in self-aware individuals, subverts the self, but that and the life that supports it is what those individuals hold as having the greatest value. You tell me to subvert myself, to a higher cause or to a lie, you tell me to commit spiritual suicide--and for what, the glory of some dictator/oligarchy with the inevitable resultant oppression of the rest of that society? As I said, I'd get more fulfillment out of cleaning toilets.

[cough] Islamism derived some of it's ideas of the state from Leninism. [cough].

I agree that the very concept of 'submission' is alien to our culture and society and our notions of "self". Ideally, communism implies submission in so far as we consciousness give our time to work for the benefit of others, usually as a small part of a bigger picture. The question is what happens outside of that as economic activity determines everything else in our society and politics. There is a sense that we belong to a much bigger picture and recognizing our insignificance does make collectivism more acceptable, but it comes with the danger that the willingness for self-sacrifice can be abused.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yeah, Communism works up to a certain point until it becomes a logical absurdity. The problem is learning to balance the need for individual and collective rights in society because these are both dimensions of the human psyche which have to be developed for free and healthy society. Too much individualism and too much collectivism both create problems.

Again, I agree. My modified Golden Rule protects the individuals from the group and vice versa. What's necessary is for government to protect individual rights, and for the people to watch the government for any signs of selling out.

I would agree with this quite strongly to be honest. And big respect for; "I'd rather clear toilets than rule the world under false pretenses."

You and I are in a miniscule minority.

Also in a agreement. To know what we want to do is probably our biggest challenge. society's definition of intelligence is too narrow and reflects a preference for academic achievement over other dimensions of intelligence.

[cough] Islamism derived some of it's ideas of the state from Leninism. [cough].

I assume you mean modern, Jihadist Islam. And though that's news to me, I'll take your word for it--given the similarities.

I agree that the very concept of 'submission' is alien to our culture and society and our notions of "self". Ideally, communism implies submission in so far as we consciousness give our time to work for the benefit of others, usually as a small part of a bigger picture. The question is what happens outside of that as economic activity determines everything else in our society and politics. There is a sense that we belong to a much bigger picture and recognizing our insignificance does make collectivism more acceptable, but it comes with the danger that the willingness for self-sacrifice can be abused.

....or expected/mandated. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"--Karl Marx. It boils down to who/what would you rather have deciding need and ability, the natural forces of the market or the bureaucrats in the Politburo. Neither is perfect, but there's a huge gap between them.

 

[Laika]

You and I are in a miniscule minority.

yeah. Deep convictions of any sort rely on considerable self-knowledge and both are necessary to leading a fulfilling life. When you value yourself, you value your own time and want to make the best of it. That's no guarantee of success though. (Dam!)

....or expected/mandated. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"--Karl Marx. It boils down to who/what would you rather have deciding need and ability, the natural forces of the market or the bureaucrats in the Politburo. Neither is perfect, but there's a huge gap between them.

In much the same way decision making by individuals in interpreted as a' law of nature', decision making by the politburo is interpreted as a 'law of history'. It's bizarre when you realize just how much is relative to the socioeconomic system you live in. Neither is perfect (and the goal of utopia is unachievable as our ideas never perfectly reflect our reality, and yes there is a huge gap in between. The problem is that with the concentration of capital, this gap narrows as capitalism prepares the groundwork for communism. The libertarian response is to want to break up these corporations so that we can go back to a more individualized world based on private property; the Communist response is to want to realize turn the process by which society has become interdependent by commodity exchange, into a self-consciousness socialization of production by economic planning.
I lean towards communism because I think that breaking up companies would attack economies of scale and therefore the productivity of labour. The devastation of Shock Therapy in Post-Communist Russia demonstrates how dangerous it is to attempt that and it still did not succeed as Russia is ruled by oligarchs and an authoritarian state. But I'm not "sold" on Communism either as we are so unready to change ourselves and instead such a system would provide opportunists to do great evil. we're just not wise enough. We could grow up, but it would be a long, hard and difficult process of re-examining who we are as a species and what we want to become.

 

[Riverwolf]

Your hyper-empathy.

No.

It's hyper.

...k.

I think Jefferson didn't get it quite right. We aren't all created equal, because we aren't. But we are all created with equal rights, which is the only thing government should be concerned with.

Actually, he did specify that in the Declaration. It's just that people tend to forget everything beyond the "all men are created equal" part, because the rest uses smarty-smart smart words. ...'course, to be fair, by "men", he really did mean white males over 21 who owned property.

I hate that scene. It takes an act of great self-sacrifice as the only logical solution (in sync with enlightened self-interest btw in the same sense as the risks we take when we go to war), and makes a statement that demeans the individual in relation to the group. Yeah, it was true in that particular instance, but it's presented (and quoted) in a vacuum as a overarching maxim for the universe.

Humans are a tribe-social species. The individual has worth, but that worth is tied intimately to the overall worth to the Group. Heck, we don't even have solid identities except for the context of the Group.

So while the individual does have great worth, that worth is ultimately less than the worth of the overall Group. How much less is going to vary from situation to situation.

If they're key, you need to drop the other shoe.

I don't know that saying.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I was shocked to see your new avatar. I appreciate the ironic humor in its blood red cliCHE. But given all the morons who adorn their walls and their bodies with it (I'd like to strangle Johnny Depp with the necklace it's dangling from, metaphorically speaking of course), and your moniker, Red Economist, I can see where the satire might go unnoticed or misinterpreted as just another use of that particular icon. Just sayin to be ready for the slings and arrows, as well as useful idiots creamin' all over you.

Actually, he did specify that in the Declaration. It's just that people tend to forget everything beyond the "all men are created equal" part, because the rest uses smarty-smart smart words. ...'course, to be fair, by "men", he really did mean white males over 21 who owned property.

It's not that they forget it, it's that it's right but what precedes it is wrong. In any case it's a major distinction that needs to be made: we are not created/born equal, and there's no way humanly possible to make us equal. Equal rights is the best we can strive to achieve.

Humans are a tribe-social species. The individual has worth, but that worth is tied intimately to the overall worth to the Group. Heck, we don't even have solid identities except for the context of the Group.

Speak for yourself, though I understand that most of us want to be a part of society and to contribute. I think we all long for applause and that roar of approval. Unfortunately too many of us are willing to sell our souls to get it and don't understand how painfully hollow it is when you arrive there through deception, corruption and tyranny.

So while the individual does have great worth, that worth is ultimately less than the worth of the overall Group. How much less is going to vary from situation to situation.

I understand, but I'm not really sure how that works. I understand that sometimes it's necessary for the individual to make a sacrifice for the common good, but rights are strictly individual in nature, group "rights" merely being collective individual rights--one on one with each moral violation. If such a sacrifice is judged to be necessary by an unwilling or unwitting victim, it is done so immorally by those who make the decision or acquiesce to it. Human sacrifice, which is what we're talking about here, is more than a slippery slope. It smacks of a witchdoctor sacrificing a virgin for better crops, with the population looking on--
or a prophet being crucified for our sins so the mob can rejoice at drinking from the blood they’re being washed in. Another example is the military draft.

I don't know that saying.

Delineate what those "very key differences" are.

 

[Riverwolf]

It's not that they forget it, it's that it's right but what precedes it is wrong. In any case it's a major distinction that needs to be made: we are not created/born equal, and there's no way humanly possible to make us equal. Equal rights is the best we can strive to achieve.

The preceding statement of "all men are created equal" is expanded upon. The next statement continues the same sentence, with "in that".

Speak for yourself, though I understand that most of us want to be a part of society and to contribute. I think we all long for applause and that roar of approval. Unfortunately too many of us are willing to sell our souls to get it and don't understand how painfully hollow it is when you arrive there through deception, corruption and tyranny.

It's not "applause and the roar of approval" that is being longed for, or what I'm talking about at all. I HATE being applauded. It's one of the things I hate most of all.

It's the same instinct that brought you here, and causes you to interact with people at all. It's the need to simply interact with other people, and belong in some kind of community. Except maybe for certain people with certain anti-social disorders, every human being needs this as fundamentally as food, water, sex, etc. It's inherent to our species.

I understand, but I'm not really sure how that works. I understand that sometimes it's necessary for the individual to make a sacrifice for the common good, but rights are strictly individual in nature, group "rights" merely being collective individual rights--one on one with each moral violation. If such a sacrifice is judged to be necessary by an unwilling or unwitting victim, it is done so immorally by those who make the decision or acquiesce to it. Human sacrifice, which is what we're talking about here, is more than a slippery slope. It smacks of a witchdoctor sacrificing a virgin for better crops, with the population looking on--
or a prophet being crucified for our sins so the mob can rejoice at drinking from the blood they’re being washed in. Another example is the military draft.

First of all, historical human sacrifice was a rarity in most cultures (and as far as I know, among the Aztec people, "victims" were sacrificed willingly), and among the Celto-Germanic peoples, it was more of a ritualized execution of war-prisoners and outlaws (and so had little or nothing to do with crops, and "virgins" are really just a modern cultural myth with a whole baggage of its own to deconstruct). I understand the analogy, however.

Second of all, I think you hit a very important point of agreement: "group rights being collective individual rights". The Group is a collection of Individuals, after all. Everyone must contribute to the Tribe's well-being in order to be allowed in, but each individual is more or less allowed to contribute in whatever way is possible. (Ideally, anyway).

I tend to think of things in a Tribal context, while it seems that your philosophy is more based on modern conceptions of European Enlightenment philosophy (which is the primary secular core of modern Western cultural values).

Delineate what those "very key differences" are.

The three steps are intention, action, and consequence. I think both our approaches have ultimately the same, or at least very similar, consequences. However, the intentions and situational actions are where the differences are.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The preceding statement of "all men are created equal" is expanded upon. The next statement continues the same sentence, with "in that".

No, it doesn't say "in that". "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Each "that" introduces a self-evident Truth.

It's not "applause and the roar of approval" that is being longed for, or what I'm talking about at all. I HATE being applauded. It's one of the things I hate most of all.

If so, you're unusual, very unusual, which I'm not criticizing, just sayin'.

It's the same instinct that brought you here, and causes you to interact with people at all. It's the need to simply interact with other people, and belong in some kind of community. Except maybe for certain people with certain anti-social disorders, every human being needs this as fundamentally as food, water, sex, etc. It's inherent to our species.

Looks like you just contradicted what you just said. And I'm not saying approbation is the ultimate goal, in fact it's just gravy.

First of all, historical human sacrifice was a rarity in most cultures (and as far as I know, among the Aztec people, "victims" were sacrificed willingly), and among the Celto-Germanic peoples, it was more of a ritualized execution of war-prisoners and outlaws (and so had little or nothing to do with crops, and "virgins" are really just a modern cultural myth with a whole baggage of its own to deconstruct). I understand the analogy, however.

Not that rare at all, in fact the Israelites practiced it.

Second of all, I think you hit a very important point of agreement: "group rights being collective individual rights". The Group is a collection of Individuals, after all. Everyone must contribute to the Tribe's well-being in order to be allowed in, but each individual is more or less allowed to contribute in whatever way is possible. (Ideally, anyway).

But contributing doesn't deal with the issue of rights--as TJ said, their unalienable.

I tend to think of things in a Tribal context, while it seems that your philosophy is more based on modern conceptions of European Enlightenment philosophy (which is the primary secular core of modern Western cultural values).

as

I'll take your word for it. I've stayed away intentionally from structured philosophy which tends to be centered on personalities as validation or criticism, and tends to veer off into psychobabble far to often.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, it doesn't say "in that". "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Each "that" introduces a self-evident Truth.

Ah, I appreciate the connection, which I should have double-checked myself.

However, the meaning I had gleaned from the sentence seems to still be intact. The first comma ought to be a :, the commas separating...

Blah! This is another tangent! I don't think either of us are wrong; perhaps he was conveying both.

If so, you're unusual, very unusual, which I'm not criticizing, just sayin'.

I know it's unusual (though not entirely unheard of) to hate applause (though I'd expect it to be it's common among people who suffer from self-loathing; I hate it because it's sensory overload). What I'm saying, however, is that even those who don't hate it aren't necessarily only seeking it. Selfishness and selflessness hand in hand: the giver receives praise (and more importantly, social acceptance), and the given receives the gift. Everyone wins.

Looks like you just contradicted what you just said. And I'm not saying approbation is the ultimate goal, in fact it's just gravy.

I don't believe I did. However, a common cynical philosophy is that people only do apparent good to receive praise or attention; i.e., that any degree of altruism is entirely nonexistent, and all actions are 100% self-serving. I regard that idea as nonsensical quite passionately, and that passion may have projected it on your argument when it wasn't actually there.

Not that rare at all, in fact the Israelites practiced it.

The Israelites were one small Tribe out of an entire planet of millions of Tribes, popping up and dying out over thousands of years. No one Tribe is a microcosm for any other Tribe, even neighboring ones.

But contributing doesn't deal with the issue of rights--as TJ said, their unalienable.

Except for certain inalienable ones (which are further refined and currently standardized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), rights can be granted or taken away depending on a given individual's relationship to the overall Group. A criminal, for instance, does not have any right to free movement among the Group's agreed-upon territory.

I'll take your word for it. I've stayed away intentionally from structured philosophy which tends to be centered on personalities as validation or criticism, and tends to veer off into psychobabble far to often.

Understandable, and probably wise. I'm the same way; I'm only peripherally familiar with Euro-American Enlightenment literature. However, the values you're presenting do line up with what I know of those schools.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

What I'm saying, however, is that even those who don't hate it aren't necessarily only seeking it.

Yes, as I said, "I'm not saying approbation is the ultimate goal, in fact it's just gravy." I might also should have said that it can sometimes carry a degree of validation or encouragement. It's hard holding a position with little or no positive feedback.

I don't believe I did. However, a common cynical philosophy is that people only do apparent good to receive praise or attention; i.e., that any degree of altruism is entirely nonexistent, and all actions are 100% self-serving. I regard that idea as nonsensical quite passionately, and that passion may have projected it on your argument when it wasn't actually there.

Don't forget, a feeling of fulfillment at having achieved something, not to mention the possibility of the final acceptance of it years, decades or even millennia in the future. Not to mention people, including myself, who have hope in the possibility of a reward on one's deathbed, or beyond. Any of that is possible, but often the only immediate reward is that senses of fulfillment, which does make one's motivations self-serving via the third option to selfishness & selflessness, enlightened-self-interest which combines the two.

The Israelites were one small Tribe out of an entire planet of millions of Tribes, popping up and dying out over thousands of years. No one Tribe is a microcosm for any other Tribe, even neighboring ones.

I was just making a point that human sacrifice wasn't that rare. Most people don't realize there are three stories directly about human sacrifice in the Bible, not to mention innuendo as well as animal sacrifice. Human/animal sacrifices is one of the most evil concepts religion has ever devised.

Except for certain inalienable ones (which are further refined and currently standardized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), rights can be granted or taken away depending on a given individual's relationship to the overall Group. A criminal, for instance, does not have any right to free movement among the Group's agreed-upon territory.

People who violate other's rights, forfeit their own. Otherwise, our rights are in full force for all adults. And the UDHR sounds real good till you get near the end where it says, "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."--Article 29(3). That makes the whole thing nothing but kindling.