So Many LIberals, So Few Elections

[vroom]

[quote]Hers is an idealized world. Just like she didn’t accep all of Aristotle’s teaching, I don’t accept all of hers. But I do believe that the best, most prosperous society, is one which (a) uses force only if someone else initiated force, (b) keeps the government out of our lives as much as possible.

I don’t see how any rational person could argue against that.[/quote]

Headhunter,

I see things from a slightly different view. Basically, when we create systems, from an economic point of view for example, there are pressures that push us towards certain types of behavior.

I see a lot of past social programs as quite naive and short-sighted, especially with respect to the pressures that they placed on society. It is as if some ivory tower thinkers naively assumed that nobody would ever take advantage of the systems they built.

I too argue that I would like freedom, or minimal government interference or oversight, whenever possible. Surely you’ve seen me argue endlessly against the government and for the rights of individuals?

However, I do believe there are ways that the government can offer programs that better society without having to get deeply into peoples lives or create naive programs that are ripe for abuse.

A prime example of this is the help available to get people through the process of getting an education. When people that otherwise couldn’t afford an education are helped by these programs, they are able to improve their earnings potential and become producers, instead of potentially living off of other producers.

So, I am simply introducing a subtle shift to Rand’s philosophy, replacing it with the concept that I believe the role of government may be twofold. One, it should obviously set and enforce laws on behalf of the populace. Two, it should find ways to offer the opportunity for the populace to be successful within the national economy.

The second point is arguable, but in no way does it imply that people should be attached to a government teat throughout their lives.

I realize some who have had no help or who have climbed or inherited the top rungs may not like that others are given opportunities to rise also, but it really is better for the economy (hence everyone) if such non-naive methods of assistance could be engineered.

This, I think, may be the liberalism or the socialism of the future. Perhaps new terminology needs to be created to disassociate such systems from the past era of big government entitlement programs which I think everyone realizes have dangerous counter-productive qualities.

[Headhunter]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Hers is an idealized world. Just like she didn’t accep all of Aristotle’s teaching, I don’t accept all of hers. But I do believe that the best, most prosperous society, is one which (a) uses force only if someone else initiated force, (b) keeps the government out of our lives as much as possible.

I don’t see how any rational person could argue against that.

Headhunter,

I see things from a slightly different view. Basically, when we create systems, from an economic point of view for example, there are pressures that push us towards certain types of behavior.

I see a lot of past social programs as quite naive and short-sighted, especially with respect to the pressures that they placed on society. It is as if some ivory tower thinkers naively assumed that nobody would ever take advantage of the systems they built.

I too argue that I would like freedom, or minimal government interference or oversight, whenever possible. Surely you’ve seen me argue endlessly against the government and for the rights of individuals?

However, I do believe there are ways that the government can offer programs that better society without having to get deeply into peoples lives or create naive programs that are ripe for abuse.

A prime example of this is the help available to get people through the process of getting an education. When people that otherwise couldn’t afford an education are helped by these programs, they are able to improve their earnings potential and become producers, instead of potentially living off of other producers.

So, I am simply introducing a subtle shift to Rand’s philosophy, replacing it with the concept that I believe the role of government may be twofold. One, it should obviously set and enforce laws on behalf of the populace. Two, it should find ways to offer the opportunity for the populace to be successful within the national economy.

The second point is arguable, but in no way does it imply that people should be attached to a government teat throughout their lives.

I realize some who have had no help or who have climbed or inherited the top rungs may not like that others are given opportunities to rise also, but it really is better for the economy (hence everyone) if such non-naive methods of assistance could be engineered.

This, I think, may be the liberalism or the socialism of the future. Perhaps new terminology needs to be created to disassociate such systems from the past era of big government entitlement programs which I think everyone realizes have dangerous counter-productive qualities.[/quote]

Vroom,

I have to compliment you on this post. It was intelligent, to the point, non-insulting and most laudible. I probably agree with most of it, at first look.

Food for thought. Thank you.

[hedo]

You guys would be interested in a fascinating book about poverty and a proposal on how to eliminate it.

“Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” Eradicating Poverty thru Profits. by
C.K. Prahalad.

The author makes a strong case for private industry helping the poor, enabling them to become consumers and restoring their dignity thru ownership, micro-credit and excellence in market development. Fascinating how small investments in credit and lending enable the poor to start and run successful business ventures.

A link to a summary of his position follows:

http://www.changemakers.net/library/temp/fortunepyramid.cfm

[vroom]

Thanks Headhunter, I’m always ready to have a serious debate.

By the way, I am not aware of a term for the role of government that I am proposing, it’s basically a government dedicated to providing opportunities (a “government of opportunity” if you will).

While many will argue that there are plenty of opportunities now, but that many don’t work hard enough, I’d argue that there can never be too much opportunity – as every time someone takes advantage of an opportunity it strengthens the economy.

The trick will be to offer opportunity in either a cost effective, cost recovery or perhaps even a revenue earning manner. Finding ways to do the latter would theoretically have significant long term implications…

[harris447]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Harris,

I’m waiting.

Here, I’ll help you: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

That’s from Atlas Shrugged. Go for it.

Selfish, rugged individualist bullshit.

Plus, bad writing.

Please elaborate, “teacher”. Examples, point and counterpoint, rational discourse?

Also, does your definition of selfishness match hers? Hers is: Each living thing must act for its well-being, IN TERMS OF ITS DEFINING CHARACTERSITIC. Her definition of human being is – the animal that thinks using reason (she got it from Aristotle). To act in your self-interest AS A RATIONAL BEING is good. Since robbery, rape, pillaging are not rational, for ex, they are not selfish acts. Because they require other selves as victims, they are, in fact, unselfish.

Just some food for thought.

Harris,

You are dismissing someone because of the mainstream. If you think the mainstream media is biased, do you think what you’re reading about Ms. Rand might be biased also?

More food for thought.

[/quote]

When did I ever say the mainstream media is biased? I don’t believe all that Rush Limbaugh “liberal media” bullshit. I have never said that.

Nice try, though.

[Headhunter]

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Harris,

I’m waiting.

Here, I’ll help you: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

That’s from Atlas Shrugged. Go for it.

Selfish, rugged individualist bullshit.

Plus, bad writing.

Please elaborate, “teacher”. Examples, point and counterpoint, rational discourse?

Also, does your definition of selfishness match hers? Hers is: Each living thing must act for its well-being, IN TERMS OF ITS DEFINING CHARACTERSITIC. Her definition of human being is – the animal that thinks using reason (she got it from Aristotle). To act in your self-interest AS A RATIONAL BEING is good. Since robbery, rape, pillaging are not rational, for ex, they are not selfish acts. Because they require other selves as victims, they are, in fact, unselfish.

Just some food for thought.

Harris,

You are dismissing someone because of the mainstream. If you think the mainstream media is biased, do you think what you’re reading about Ms. Rand might be biased also?

More food for thought.

When did I ever say the mainstream media is biased? I don’t believe all that Rush Limbaugh “liberal media” bullshit. I have never said that.

Nice try, though.[/quote]

Still not answering any questions. Still avoiding thought, heh? All I asked you to do was pick and refute one of Ms. Rand’s statements. Too busy picking your nose?

Several members have PMed me, telling me to simply ignore you. I didn’t think so, but you are so negative, I think that you are beyond hope.

Goodbye and good luck to you!!

[vroom]

Oh boy, please don’t play the “I have so many PM friends” card.

[doogie]

Headhunter, how does someone who claims to be a Christian buy into Objectivism? These are obviously quotes just cut and pasted from various places, but they make it pretty clear that you can’t fully buy into both concepts.

“If you want to be perfect, go sell what you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.” (Matthew 19:16:21)

“THE MAN WHO SPEAKS OF SACRIFICE, SPEAKS OF SLAVES AND MASTERS, INTENDS TO BE THE MASTER.” Ayn Rand

"AND NOW I SEE THE FACE OF GOD, AND I RAISE THIS GOD OVER THE EARTH, THIS GOD WHOM MEN HAVE SOUGHT SINCE MEN CAME INTO BEING, THIS GOD WHO WILL GRANT THEM JOY AND PEACE AND PRIDE. THIS GOD, THIS ONE WORD “I”
AYN RAND

She called Christ’s instruction Judge not lest you be judged, “an abdication of moral responsibility.” She went on to say that the proper moral position should be “judge, and be prepared to be judged.”

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence…Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God… Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith…The purpose of man’s life…is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]

For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket - by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners. [Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual]

.if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking… the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind. [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged]

"If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a ‘moral commandment’ is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.

There has never been a philosophy, a theory or a doctrine, that attacked (or ‘limited’) reason, which did not preach submission to the power of some authority." [Ayn Rand, The Comprachicos, in The New Left]

Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute - and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp? The nature of your actions - and of your ambition - will be different, according to which set of answers you come to accept.

(The Doctrine of Original Sin) declares that (man) ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being/ He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which (the preachers) damn him are reason, morality, creativeness joy - all the cardinal values of his existence.

The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind.

Faith is the worse curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought.

“To rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies- that one has no rational arguments to offer.”

[Headhunter]

If you look above, Vroom and I touched on this earlier (though, with his last post, he seems back to his old self again). I do not accept her philosophy in toto. I accept her political philosophy, but do not totally accept her metaphysics. Her epistemology is well-thought out, but there are problems with her metaphysics.

She places more emphasis on the defining characteristic of humans than I would. I would include other qualities, such as empathy. She does not. Therefore, just as she does not totally accept Aristotole, I do not totally accept Rand.

I hope that clears things up more so.

You seem very knowledgeable of Ms. Rand’s work. I hereby give you the task of arguing with that cretin Harris

[doogie]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If you look above, Vroom and I touched on this earlier (though, with his last post, he seems back to his old self again). I do not accept her philosophy in toto. I accept her political philosophy, but do not totally accept her metaphysics. Her epistemology is well-thought out, but there are problems with her metaphysics.

She places more emphasis on the defining characteristic of humans than I would. I would include other qualities, such as empathy. She does not. Therefore, just as she does not totally accept Aristotole, I do not totally accept Rand.

I hope that clears things up more so.

[/quote]

Honestly, on the whole, you come across as being much more committed to Rand than to Christ.

[vroom]

(though, with his last post, he seems back to his old self again)

What is with the concern about how people choose to express themselves?

I was trying to be polite, I got rebuffed for it, so I responded. Oh no, it’s now a crisis of biblical proportions!

I’ve explained many times that I am happy to discuss things rationally, but I am equally happy to argue and fight about things… stop acting surprised.

[Edit: Oops, I might be talking about another thread… oh well]

[Headhunter]

[quote]vroom wrote:
(though, with his last post, he seems back to his old self again)

What is with the concern about how people choose to express themselves?

I was trying to be polite, I got rebuffed for it, so I responded. Oh no, it’s now a crisis of biblical proportions!

I’ve explained many times that I am happy to discuss things rationally, but I am equally happy to argue and fight about things… stop acting surprised.[/quote]

After our intelligent exchange, I got the impression that you were being a dick. If erroneous, I humbly apologize.

And wasn’t the post directed to Harris? I know it was public and, of course, you’re free to add your 2 cents.

I’m seriously considering forgetting about T-Nation. I know that’ll make many of you guys happy. But, saying things like Harris did about God, Vegita chimes in, the guy is NEVER flamed for what he said…this is just not the place for me. I do not think people like that are decent people, so I can’t converse with them.

Ah well, 'nuf said. Adios, boys. It’s been a hoot.

BTW: Flame away Harris…I’m gone. You can say all your nasty little things…no one will flame you on THIS board.

[vroom]

I’m seriously considering forgetting about T-Nation. I know that’ll make many of you guys happy. But, saying things like Harris did about God, Vegita chimes in, the guy is NEVER flamed for what he said…this is just not the place for me. I do not think people like that are decent people, so I can’t converse with them.

I haven’t seen you apologize for trying to get people to sign away their souls? I think your actions are pretty much on par with the others you complain about…

Anyway, honestly, I don’t think there is any need to go away, but perhaps simply stop trying to tell everyone how they should behave and let them decide for themselves?

[JeffR]

Headhunter wrote:

"After our intelligent exchange, I got the impression that you were being a dick. If erroneous, I humbly apologize.

And wasn’t the post directed to Harris? I know it was public and, of course, you’re free to add your 2 cents.

I’m seriously considering forgetting about T-Nation. I know that’ll make many of you guys happy. But, saying things like Harris did about God, Vegita chimes in, the guy is NEVER flamed for what he said…this is just not the place for me. I do not think people like that are decent people, so I can’t converse with them.

Ah well, 'nuf said. Adios, boys. It’s been a hoot.

BTW: Flame away Harris…I’m gone. You can say all your nasty little things…no one will flame you on THIS board."

Hey, Headhunter. I wanted to ask a question: Who is this “vroom” character you keep referencing? I remember there was a “vroom” on the boards in 2004. However, he left after making consistent Anti-American commentary. I doubt he’d return.

Second, take a deep breath. Don’t take the lefties so seriously. Trully, they aren’t worth it. It’s enough that they are out-voted and have no real power. Remember that. Further, I suggest limiting your serious discussions to people who are open-minded. Forget about the pox/harry/ron33/bradley cabal. I’d focus on people like heavythrower who aren’t as threatened by an alternative viewpoint

Please understand that those of us in the RIGHT don’t always respond to the garbage spewed by the liberals. It certainly isn’t because we think they are right. If we choose not to respond, it’s usually one of two things: Either it isn’t worth it (aka their brain is locked) or their commentary is meaningless.

I suggest stepping back, re-evaluating your target audience, and return with a fresh outlook.

JeffR

[vroom]

Jerffy,

You are such an asswad. While I have been accused of anti-American statements, I have never been anti-American.

I may have issue with some decisions that a certain administration has made, but that is hardly the same thing.

Anyway, if you put in the effort to make a good post, hell, I’d even have a rational discussion with you. However, your posts are about as one-sided as any on the entire site… so the odds of that happening are pretty small.

Keep living in your dreamworld. You are living proof that ignorance is bliss…