[quote]Headhunter wrote:
which is incompatible with capitalism.
[/quote]
Explain yourself, you give a conclusion but no premise.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Oh come on, TB, even the resident conservatives here know that there are none more smug than you.
[/quote]
TB, smuggest? Clearly you haven’t been following my posts.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Oh come on, TB, even the resident conservatives here know that there are none more smug than you.
[/quote]
TB, smuggest? Clearly you haven’t been following my posts.[/quote]
Heh, touche, he’s a bit more explicit, perhaps.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You need to calm down. So defensive. I’ve actually read Adam Smith, and most of Smith’s ideas came from Cantillon, but Cantillon explained it better and Smith was a little off on his explanations.[/quote]
I’m not un-calm, I’m just not willing to suffer fools gladly, and your pestering Rothbardian nonsense deserves a rebuke.
Most of Smith’s ideas didn’t come from Cantillon - Smith’s works are a compendium of a lot of thought at the time, which he notes, and he even cites to Cantillon (thus acknowledging credit to him).
The idea that Smith piggybacked Cantillon is incorrect, but popular among the Rothbardian dipshits. Me telling you so is not me being “excited”.
[/quote]
My irony is too deep. Did Adam Smith come up with original thoughts, sort of, enough to say yes. Did Adam Smith make capitalism popular, yes. Did Adam Smith get some of his more popular concepts (invisible hand for instances) from Cantillon, yes. Is Adam Smith a fake, no. Did he get credit by main stream media for coming up with concepts of other people, matters.
I like Rothbard he has a solid foundation of economics, but he’s fallible. I like to listen to him because he’s humourous and optimistic. As well, he’s one of the few economists that aren’t an atheist, and he’s conservative. Same reason I like Hayek, because even though he believes in freedom he was still conservative in his behavior.
I am a capitalist and the only government I am loyal to is the Catholic Church.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
[Ordering around][/quote]
What do you consider ordering around?
I pose this question to HH.
How do you suppose Christian morality will not allow for capitalism, and Aristotle’s morality will. When the truth is that even Ayn Rand directs us towards two Christian Philosophers (in her three A’s of Philosophy) when it comes to morality and philosophy, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas heavy influence morality, philosophy, and theology in the Catholic Church and one influences the other. Aquinas has heavy influence from Aristotle.
I hereby agree with TB in saying you are a fascists, not a libertarian or a capitalists.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
which is incompatible with capitalism.
[/quote]
Explain yourself, you give a conclusion but no premise.[/quote]
Because christians eventually will use government to “spread their message”. You saw this in the dark age’s. At least that is my fear.
At our local GOP center here I was talking with one catholic who said that most muslims where evil people. Perhaps she is a fringe element, but the fact that the Catholic church is hiding pedophiles and people who are biggoted towards gays and muslims I don’t see how they can be compatible with capitalism.
But then again I could be wrong, I was raised protestant.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Of course. Morality based on anything other than the nature of Man is meaningless and its practioners eventually have to resort to violence.
The IRS, the KGB, and the Taliban are all results of mystical moralities. They are the logical consequences of mysticism.[/quote]
Super. This has helped clarify - you are an atheist-capitalist who flirts, frankly, with a brand of fascism (I mean that definitionally, not as an unvarnished pejorative). Your ideas are completely foreign and antithetical to any Western canon of liberty or the Founding Fathers.
Good to know. But, I will say this - given this admitted philosophical detachment from (and rejection to) any American concept of ordered liberty, your “advice” as to what America should or should not do is considerable in a new (and lesser) perspective.[/quote]
Where’d you get the idea that I was an atheist? Like the Founding Fathers, I am a Deist. I believe in and value subjective experience of God; said that many times.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too – this is what I am saying. You cannot have a growing and dynamic industrial society based upon philosophical foundations created by and for goatherds (Ms. Rand points this out repeatedly). The Founding Fathers tried to create a society of Reason but the population is dominated by mystics. Can’t be done.
Therefore, we WILL collapse eventually. We WILL get a society based upon FORCE, since the population rejects Reason. That society must be fascistic in nature as humans either interact according to reason or according to who has the gun.
Pointing these things out does not make me a fascist or an atheist. I am myself.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I pose this question to HH.
How do you suppose Christian morality will not allow for capitalism, and Aristotle’s morality will. When the truth is that even Ayn Rand directs us towards two Christian Philosophers (in her three A’s of Philosophy) when it comes to morality and philosophy, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas heavy influence morality, philosophy, and theology in the Catholic Church and one influences the other. Aquinas has heavy influence from Aristotle.
I hereby agree with TB in saying you are a fascists, not a libertarian or a capitalists.[/quote]
The basic premise of capitalism is that pursuing your interests is good. The premise of religion is that you exist to serve the unknown goals of an unknowable Being who speaks to a select few and they will tell you what the Inscrutible Being had in mind for you. What a piss poor definition of God!
If people defined me in that way, I would be pissed off.
God WANTS you to live for yourself. God WANTS you climb ever-higher mountains, not sit in some dark dank building praying for magical manna to float down from heaven. Go out and get your own damnned manna!!
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I pose this question to HH.
How do you suppose Christian morality will not allow for capitalism, and Aristotle’s morality will. When the truth is that even Ayn Rand directs us towards two Christian Philosophers (in her three A’s of Philosophy) when it comes to morality and philosophy, Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas heavy influence morality, philosophy, and theology in the Catholic Church and one influences the other. Aquinas has heavy influence from Aristotle.
I hereby agree with TB in saying you are a fascists, not a libertarian or a capitalists.[/quote]
Am I missing something here? I don’t see how Aristotle is a Christian.
And let’s not forget one of the most mystical tenets of them all. One experienced everyday. Which would be that a man has a right to posses, to the exclusion of all others, matter (land, raw resources) he had absolutely no role in creating. That this is simply a natural right, and not one clearly perpetuated by original acts of conquest, aggression, or at least the implied threat of violence.
Yes, I know what some will say, but they’d be wrong.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I hear a lot about human nature from conservatives. I want to caution that “human nature” is not constant over time, and not identical between people. I know essentially no history, so I don’t have a lot of confidence in this, but it does seem that “human nature” – what people value, what actions they’re willing to take – has undergone various changes over time.[/quote]
With due respect, I think you have it exactly backwards. Human Nature never changes, it does not “evolve”, it cannot be perfected with just enough money or certain kinds of education. Humans can wiser, but their nature never changes.
There is no Perfectibility of Man through Reason, and this is one of the great themes I harp on as to why libertarians (and the Left) have it all wrong. Humans are and will always be slaves to their passions and at times irrational, and frankly, there is nothing inherently bad about that. Conservatives and many liberals are at peace with this and work around it.
Libertarianism - the strain we see here in PWI - ignores this iron law and proceeds as if Humans were perfectible or that they have a magic elixir of Reason that solves all our current problems. Thus, libertarians take Reason - which was classically seen as an antidote to unthinking ideology - and convert it into an ideology, thus turning Reason on its head.
At best, Humans have vices and passions, at worst, Humans are capable of great savagery. We can’t “cure” this, which is why, by way of example, our government is set up the way that it is: decentralized, but with enough power to operate. To borrow from Madison, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. By extension, libertarians believe that Humans are angels, and that is a recipe for disaster.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
Oh come on, TB, even the resident conservatives here know that there are none more smug than you.[/quote]
Smug: Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one’s situation; self-righteously complacent.
People can form their own opinions as to what or who I am, but the irony, of course, is that my major theme (lately) is to attack “self-righteous complacency” of ideologues that think they have it “all figured out”.
My watchphrase has been, over and over, “it’s hubris to think you have it all figured out”, kinda the opposite of smugness. But I digress.
Sure it is. The weakest argument you can offer is that “some people just can’t handle logic”. You haven’t yet demonstrated that you stand in a position to make that argument.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Where’d you get the idea that I was an atheist? Like the Founding Fathers, I am a Deist. I believe in and value subjective experience of God; said that many times.[/quote]
Because when I directly asked “So, you think Christianity (or any other religion, or any belief in a moral code beyond the terrestrial Man) is both false and an obstacle on the path to Utopia? Yes or no?”…
…you replied “Of course”. Endeavor to speak clearly - your bewlidering incoherence is a waste of time.
Completely false. The Founding Fathers expressly rejected a society built on Reason, based on their values, experience, and observation of the French Revolution, which was an attempt to build a society based on pure Reason.
This is a frabrication, and this speaks to the larger point I made earlier - you can’t buttress your wild-eyed ideology on the Founding Fathers, so stop attempting to do so.
You’re definitely a fascist, but if you are not an atheist, you are a traitor to Ms. Rand’s cause. Make up your mind.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Where’d you get the idea that I was an atheist? Like the Founding Fathers, I am a Deist. I believe in and value subjective experience of God; said that many times.[/quote]
Because when I directly asked “So, you think Christianity (or any other religion, or any belief in a moral code beyond the terrestrial Man) is both false and an obstacle on the path to Utopia? Yes or no?”…
…you replied “Of course”. Endeavor to speak clearly - your bewlidering incoherence is a waste of time.
Completely false. The Founding Fathers expressly rejected a society built on Reason, based on their values, experience, and observation of the French Revolution, which was an attempt to build a society based on pure Reason.
This is a frabrication, and this speaks to the larger point I made earlier - you can’t buttress your wild-eyed ideology on the Founding Fathers, so stop attempting to do so.
You’re definitely a fascist, but if you are not an atheist, you are a traitor to Ms. Rand’s cause. Make up your mind.[/quote]
If you’re not interested in rational discussion, then why post? You’re being simply silly – pointing things out does not make one a member of what you’re pointing out. You claim to explain American philosophical foundations of the Revolution but I certainly wouldn’t say that you subscribe to their particular philosophy.
The French Revolution happened after the American Revolution btw. Epic fail there dude.
Your posts are getting rather inane of late.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If you’re not interested in rational discussion, then why post? You’re being simply silly – pointing things out does not make one a member of what you’re pointing out. You claim to explain American philosophical foundations of the Revolution but I certainly wouldn’t say that you subscribe to their particular philosophy.[/quote]
Yes, but you have no idea as the American philosophical foundations of the Revolution, so why would I be all that concerned about it? It’s a topic for another day with someone who has a sense of the topic.
As for rational discussion, I’m all for it - which is why I am still flummoxed as to your answer as to my question about thinking that there is no such thing as a Divine Moral Code (outside of humans).
Er, that wasn’t the point, read more carefully - the French Revolution occurred during the early years of the Republic when the Founding Fathers, etc. were actually governing - they created a Constitution rejecting this notion of Reason-only, then observed the French Revolution in action and was repulsed by it - as such, they governed (putting the Constitution in practice) in direct opposition to the “society by Reason” after the Constitution was adopted.
Thus, when the Founders had a chance to “start building”, they were horrified by the French Revolution and built the society in a different direction.
Sure thing, Headhunter. Sure thing.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sure thing, Headhunter. Sure thing.[/quote]
I’m glad we can agree on something.
Tell me: if someone asks you, “What sort of animal is that?” and they said, “Its a kangaroo.”, then do you call that person a kangaroo?
Just as you know little of Ms. Rand’s philosophy, you know little of true philosophy, especially the FF’s.
‘Guided liberty’ for ex…LOL!!
Do you write for the Huffington Post? You should, srs.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
I hear a lot about human nature from conservatives. I want to caution that “human nature” is not constant over time, and not identical between people. I know essentially no history, so I don’t have a lot of confidence in this, but it does seem that “human nature” – what people value, what actions they’re willing to take – has undergone various changes over time.[/quote]
With due respect, I think you have it exactly backwards. Human Nature never changes, it does not “evolve”, it cannot be perfected with just enough money or certain kinds of education. Humans can wiser, but their nature never changes.
[/quote]
There are bunches of KO arguments to sweep this silly and even dangerous idea aside.
Phenotypic plasticity- The human world changes rapidly. New products, new lands, new ecology…
Are you sure this doesn’t affect us?
The speed of evolution- we still evolve, and quite fast. Who knows where we are heading? We are not talking millions of years here, humanity’s window of opportunity is a question of a few thousand years, ar best.
Clans are their own armies now- genetically, we are made for relatively small numbers.
Our whole way of thinking, rationalizing, socializing and planning cannot cope with huge populations.
The implications are enormous here. Some asian nations, like the chinese or the koreans, love their “mass games”. Do we function more effectively as an ant colony?
…
this alone should suffice.
There is no “human nature”
It’s contagious, but ultimately our doom, to spread such an idea.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There is no Perfectibility of Man through Reason, and this is one of the great themes I harp on as to why libertarians (and the Left) have it all wrong. Humans are and will always be slaves to their passions and at times irrational, and frankly, there is nothing inherently bad about that. Conservatives and many liberals are at peace with this and work around it.
[/quote]
lol. You have it doubly wrong:
It IS THE ONE BAD THING about humankind, it’s inablility to learn and grow as a species.
But it also changes; there are passions we have mostly overcome without anybody directing us.
For example: humans naturally live with their family and friends very close.
The great western rat race has, however, created a society where mobility is held as a virtue.
The idea to separate millions from their families and oldest friends in the name of GNP and productivity is astonishingly effective - but it goes totally against human nature.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Libertarianism - the strain we see here in PWI - ignores this iron law and proceeds as if Humans were perfectible or that they have a magic elixir of Reason that solves all our current problems. Thus, libertarians take Reason - which was classically seen as an antidote to unthinking ideology - and convert it into an ideology, thus turning Reason on its head.
[/quote]
I’m no libertarian, probably because It’s already humiliating to sit in the mostly dull atheist club.
I know what you speak of, but such is human behaviour; without labels, we cannot rally under a banner to change anything. Unlabeled ideas lack manpower.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
At best, Humans have vices and passions, at worst, Humans are capable of great savagery. We can’t “cure” this, which is why, by way of example, our government is set up the way that it is: decentralized, but with enough power to operate. To borrow from Madison, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. By extension, libertarians believe that Humans are angels, and that is a recipe for disaster.[/quote]
Perhaps we cannot and shouldn’t cure this, but we DO affect our passions very forcefully and directly.
In my opinion, we should channel our passions towards a greater goal.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Tell me: if someone asks you, “What sort of animal is that?” and they said, “Its a kangaroo.”, then do you call that person a kangaroo?[/quote]
But I am not asking "what sort of animal is that?, I am asking “what sort of animal are you?”
So, back to the question - do you believe there is a Divine/Providential Moral Code beyond mere Human Beings? Yes, or no?
Heh. Sure thing.
“Guided liberty”? What is that exactly?
Did you mean my reference to “ordered liberty”?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
this alone should suffice.
There is no “human nature”
It’s contagious, but ultimately our doom, to spread such an idea…[/quote]
Yet, shortly after:
[quote]…For example: humans naturally live with their family and friends very close.
The great western rat race has, however, created a society where mobility is held as a virtue.
The idea to separate millions from their families and oldest friends in the name of GNP and productivity is astonishingly effective - but it goes totally against human nature.[/quote]
Mind boggling attempt has succesfully boggled my mind.