[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[/quote]
Yeah sure, the idea that conservatioves tried to legislate morality is something I just pulled out of my own ass.
Also, it would not be me praising the Lord but him, the moment they came to Jesus, so it would be entirely appropriate.
[quote]
Of course that is the case, but ideas do not necessarily come in a bundle.
Just because you know that something can be done does not mean that you know how to do it.
That requires a whole new set of ideas.
So, knowing that aspiring exists is all well and good, but knowing how to produce it cheaply is a different set of ideas.
If you want aspirin you better pay someone to study these ideas though. [/quote]
ok, very well.
but i still don’t understand why all these interlinked and very useful ideas are “the most important”.
why is it more important than the actual production of aspirin, which certainly require some rare skills, and maybe some rare ressources, etc ?
why is it more important than the production of idea producers.
why is it the agricultural scientist who make billions and not the university which educated him, or the parents who raised him ?
Summary: The fundamental concept is that our world falls apart when individuals stop seeking their own satisfaction through personal achievement and feel a sense of entitlement to the accomplishments and work of others. This book challenges us on many levels; you may find it conflicting with your value of other people, her treatment of God, or any other beliefs you already hold. Yet, who can argue with â??The most depraved type of human being â?¦ (is) the man without a purpose.â??
Her philosophy becomes OUR philosophy…or we persish.
And to paraphrase Francisco: ‘Your time is running out.’
[quote]kamui wrote:
Because, at least in an ideal world, their contribution is valued by the market according to its relative scarcity too, except for the parents of course, and that scarcity is not nearly as high as someone who can make a groundbreaking discovery AND implement it?
[quote]orion wrote:<<< Yeah sure, the idea that conservatives tried to legislate morality is something I just pulled out of my own ass. >>>[/quote]I didn’t say they haven’t tried. I said it’ll never work. [quote]orion wrote:<<< Also, it would not be me praising the Lord, >>>[/quote]There was a time when I would have said that =] [quote]orion wrote:<<< but him the moment they came to Jesus, so it would be entirely appropriate. >>>[/quote]The reality of my salvation was pretty much instant, but it took me a while to learn how to rightly praise Him. A good long while actually. My own fault. Not the same for everybody.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Has not prevented them from really, really trying and that is enough to grow the state.
[quote]orion wrote:
Pish posh, the nanny state was not a result of libertarianism, I will give you though that a welfare state combined with an anything goes mentality leads to consequences.
However, the libertarian ideal is not anything goes, it is anything goes and you better deal with the fucking consequences of your actions yourself.[/quote]
Excellent, you’ve made my point for me.
I know libertarians believe in the philosophy of anything goes and you better deal with the consequences of your actions yourself. LIbertarians believe it, preach it, urge it.
But such a rule is a practical impossibility in the real world, to the degree libertarians preach it. And that is exactly the problem.
They preach it, urge it, and make common cause with left-wing idelogoues who preach the same kind of social liberalism. Then, to the extent this preaching gains ground in the culture (and it has, have a look around), the inevitable consequences of the bad behavior set in. And, of course, it is the result of denunciation of and disintegration of all the customs, conventions, laws and institutions that disciplined people from engaging in the kinds of behavior that has led to the bad consequences - after all, all these things were unfair impediments to “muh liberty!” - are no longer in tact.
And with bad consequences all around, something has to fill the void to try and resolve the bad consequences. With all other institutions discredited - after all, none of them ever existed in good faith, they were always just illegitimate, freedom-hating authorities - there’s but one left to merely play clean-up on all the mess - the nanny-state.
You see, we all know libertarians believe in (roughly) absolute freedom, absolute responsibility. Thing is, this is utopian thinking. No such paradigm exists, nor will it ever. But advocacy of such winds its way to the nanny-state. It may be an unintended consequence, but it is the consequence nonetheless.
Again, libertarians don’t much care where liberty leads, as long as a person was free to get to that destination. The “Liberty As An End” view disconnects liberty and virtue. And, this is the reason that libertarians are actually more dangerous to the concept and profliration of liberty than helpful to it - naively, they destroy its foundations by misunderstanding liberty and then fetishizing it.
This is nonsense, of course, but you knew that. Conservatives don’t want government to legislate morality - but they want morality. And they want ordered society. This order can be provided by all sorts of social institutions that aren’t government, of course. Government only belongs in certain spheres of order. But when these other institutions begin to falter - usually due to some faddish assault on them as vehicles of “oppression” by the libertines of the Right and Left - they can’t fulfill their mission and a power vacuum occurs. All to often, government fills that vacuum.
That brings no joy to the conservative. But, conservatives aren’t ready to simply abandon the order of society and see where the disintegration of these institutions lead.
Again, you’ve made my point for me. Libertarianism (the brand around here, anyway) can’t be implemented. And libertarians make of mockery of liberty by cheapening in and not treating it as the valuable good it is. Liberty for libertarians has become nothing more than the modern consumption good, like cheap junk food.
I’d use this analogy. Conservatives treat liberty like a vegetable garden, libertarians treat liberty like a bag of Cheetos.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Pish posh, the nanny state was not a result of libertarianism, I will give you though that a welfare state combined with an anything goes mentality leads to consequences.
However, the libertarian ideal is not anything goes, it is anything goes and you better deal with the fucking consequences of your actions yourself.[/quote]
Excellent, you’ve made my point for me.
I know libertarians believe in the philosophy of anything goes and you better deal with the consequences of your actions yourself. LIbertarians believe it, preach it, urge it.
But such a rule is a practical impossibility in the real world, to the degree libertarians preach it. And that is exactly the problem.
They preach it, urge it, and make common cause with left-wing idelogoues who preach the same kind of social liberalism. Then, to the extent this preaching gains ground in the culture (and it has, have a look around), the inevitable consequences of the bad behavior set in. And, of course, it is the result of denunciation of and disintegration of all the customs, conventions, laws and institutions that disciplined people from engaging in the kinds of behavior that has led to the bad consequences - after all, all these things were unfair impediments to “muh liberty!” - are no longer in tact.
And with bad consequences all around, something has to fill the void to try and resolve the bad consequences. With all other institutions discredited - after all, none of them ever existed in good faith, they were always just illegitimate, freedom-hating authorities - there’s but one left to merely play clean-up on all the mess - the nanny-state.
You see, we all know libertarians believe in (roughly) absolute freedom, absolute responsibility. Thing is, this is utopian thinking. No such paradigm exists, nor will it ever. But advocacy of such winds its way to the nanny-state. It may be an unintended consequence, but it is the consequence nonetheless.
Again, libertarians don’t much care where liberty leads, as long as a person was free to get to that destination. The “Liberty As An End” view disconnects liberty and virtue. And, this is the reason that libertarians are actually more dangerous to the concept and profliration of liberty than helpful to it - naively, they destroy its foundations by misunderstanding liberty and then fetishizing it.
This is nonsense, of course, but you knew that. Conservatives don’t want government to legislate morality - but they want morality. And they want ordered society. This order can be provided by all sorts of social institutions that aren’t government, of course. Government only belongs in certain spheres of order. But when these other institutions begin to falter - usually due to some faddish assault on them as vehicles of “oppression” by the libertines of the Right and Left - they can’t fulfill their mission and a power vacuum occurs. All to often, government fills that vacuum.
That brings no joy to the conservative. But, conservatives aren’t ready to simply abandon the order of society and see where the disintegration of these institutions lead.
Again, you’ve made my point for me. Libertarianism (the brand around here, anyway) can’t be implemented. And libertarians make of mockery of liberty by cheapening in and not treating it as the valuable good it is. Liberty for libertarians has become nothing more than the modern consumption good, like cheap junk food.
I’d use this analogy. Conservatives treat liberty like a vegetable garden, libertarians treat liberty like a bag of Cheetos. [/quote]
This is something I’ve been trying to say, but never so well.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Do you have an opinion on her atheism?[/quote]
I would like to know this as well.
A little light reading:
As a life-long atheist Rand rejected organized religion and specifically Christianity, which she decreed “the best kindergarten of communism possible.” More recent Objectivists have argued that religion is incompatible with American ideals, and the Christian right poses a threat to individual rights. Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives, displaying religious symbols in government facilities, and the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools.
Discuss.[/quote]
Sounds like a religious hating liberal. Hmmm…[/quote]
Sounds like a bullshit hating rationalist, whatever the affiliation. [/quote]
Lol, well Rand’s biggest mistake was thinking all truth was knowable through the senses. I guess she didn’t hate all bullshit, she made some up, too.
Bestselling author, political adviser and social and ethical prophet Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
LBJ
[/quote]
LeBron James?
I didn’t know you were such a fan of Johnson treatment.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Sounds like a religious hating liberal. Hmmm…[/quote]Nonesense. I think you mean “a religious liberal hating”.
[/quote]
I am religious and I hate liberals…or did I read that wrong.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Bestselling author, political adviser and social and ethical prophet Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society
Jeremy Rifkin - The Empathic Civilization (BREAKNECK DUB MIX) - YouTube [/quote]
I’m actually quite moved by this lecture. I had never heard from this guy before, but the message resonates with me.
Instead of Rand’s detachment from others, here we have an outlook [yes, confirmation bias] that moves in empathy.
I like it. I like it a lot.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Pish posh, the nanny state was not a result of libertarianism, I will give you though that a welfare state combined with an anything goes mentality leads to consequences.
However, the libertarian ideal is not anything goes, it is anything goes and you better deal with the fucking consequences of your actions yourself.[/quote]
Excellent, you’ve made my point for me.
I know libertarians believe in the philosophy of anything goes and you better deal with the consequences of your actions yourself. LIbertarians believe it, preach it, urge it.
But such a rule is a practical impossibility in the real world, to the degree libertarians preach it. And that is exactly the problem.
They preach it, urge it, and make common cause with left-wing idelogoues who preach the same kind of social liberalism. Then, to the extent this preaching gains ground in the culture (and it has, have a look around), the inevitable consequences of the bad behavior set in. And, of course, it is the result of denunciation of and disintegration of all the customs, conventions, laws and institutions that disciplined people from engaging in the kinds of behavior that has led to the bad consequences - after all, all these things were unfair impediments to “muh liberty!” - are no longer in tact.
And with bad consequences all around, something has to fill the void to try and resolve the bad consequences. With all other institutions discredited - after all, none of them ever existed in good faith, they were always just illegitimate, freedom-hating authorities - there’s but one left to merely play clean-up on all the mess - the nanny-state.
You see, we all know libertarians believe in (roughly) absolute freedom, absolute responsibility. Thing is, this is utopian thinking. No such paradigm exists, nor will it ever. But advocacy of such winds its way to the nanny-state. It may be an unintended consequence, but it is the consequence nonetheless.
Again, libertarians don’t much care where liberty leads, as long as a person was free to get to that destination. The “Liberty As An End” view disconnects liberty and virtue. And, this is the reason that libertarians are actually more dangerous to the concept and profliration of liberty than helpful to it - naively, they destroy its foundations by misunderstanding liberty and then fetishizing it.
This is nonsense, of course, but you knew that. Conservatives don’t want government to legislate morality - but they want morality. And they want ordered society. This order can be provided by all sorts of social institutions that aren’t government, of course. Government only belongs in certain spheres of order. But when these other institutions begin to falter - usually due to some faddish assault on them as vehicles of “oppression” by the libertines of the Right and Left - they can’t fulfill their mission and a power vacuum occurs. All to often, government fills that vacuum.
That brings no joy to the conservative. But, conservatives aren’t ready to simply abandon the order of society and see where the disintegration of these institutions lead.
Again, you’ve made my point for me. Libertarianism (the brand around here, anyway) can’t be implemented. And libertarians make of mockery of liberty by cheapening in and not treating it as the valuable good it is. Liberty for libertarians has become nothing more than the modern consumption good, like cheap junk food.
I’d use this analogy. Conservatives treat liberty like a vegetable garden, libertarians treat liberty like a bag of Cheetos. [/quote]
Where did you cut your teeth on, my brother?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Sounds like a religious hating liberal. Hmmm…[/quote]Nonesense. I think you mean “a religious liberal hating”.
[/quote]
I am religious and I hate liberals…or did I read that wrong.[/quote]No Chris ya goof you. Now I have to spell it out and ruin the whole thing. Him being a religious liberal… in the present act of displaying hatred like they always do. I thought fer sher you’d get that.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Bestselling author, political adviser and social and ethical prophet Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society
Jeremy Rifkin - The Empathic Civilization (BREAKNECK DUB MIX) - YouTube [/quote]
I’m actually quite moved by this lecture. I had never heard from this guy before, but the message resonates with me.
Instead of Rand’s detachment from others, here we have an outlook [yes, confirmation bias] that moves in empathy.
I like it. I like it a lot.
[/quote]
Very Good , I like it also
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:Sounds like a religious hating liberal. Hmmm…[/quote]Nonesense. I think you mean “a religious liberal hating”.
[/quote]
I am religious and I hate liberals…or did I read that wrong.[/quote]No Chris ya goof you. Now I have to spell it out and ruin the whole thing. Him being a religious liberal… in the present act of displaying hatred like they always do. I thought fer sher you’d get that.
[/quote]
I guess I was confused why it didn’t seem like there was a pronoun. Okay.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Bestselling author, political adviser and social and ethical prophet Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society [/quote]
I’m actually quite moved by this lecture. I had never heard from this guy before, but the message resonates with me.
Instead of Rand’s detachment from others, here we have an outlook [yes, confirmation bias] that moves in empathy.
I like it. I like it a lot.
[/quote]
Very Good , I like it also [/quote]
I’m glad to hear that. Spread the word, lol!
This Rifkin guy seems to be an interesting critter.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
To think that you can further conservative goals by sacrificing liberty and not run into a nanny state once it has been sacrificed and then have the gall to call libertarians naive is highly entertaining. [/quote]
Of course conservatives can further conservative goals by sacrificing liberty, as is sometimes necessary when liberty leads to a bad result - what you don’t get, and is the result of predictable libertarian myopia, is that these “sacrifices” don’t strictly come from inviting state coercion to further a conservative goals. Far from it - conservatives may feel the need to restrict liberty for some End, but most often the preferred vehicle for doing so is some other institution other than the state.
Libertarians never get this - maybe they never will. [/quote]
Libertarianism does not call for the destruction of naturally arising social constructs and to say that it does is to conflate what many secular anarchists would like to see and what actual libertarianism requires. I have absolutely zero qualms with whatever social institutions exist out there, religious or otherwise, in so far as they do not try and prevent others from living their own lives. Nothing about beating back the leviathan of government even remotely implies this, in fact, if anything the beating back of government is PREDICATED on the notion that just such social institutions would provide the structure many nanny state types claim only the state can provide.
Your whole argument about libertarianism being the handmaiden of the state rests on the above assumption that to be a libertarian you must hate god and religion, want to erase all cultural norms, societal structures and mores and start completely from scratch in some moral de novo world. This could not be more false if you tried. The fact that some self-ascribed libertarian anarchists like Rand ALSO think religion is a net negative does not mean to love liberty is to hate all prior conceived social constructs or require their destruction.
What is the phrase so many folks around here like to use? Straw man fallacy or something like that? I think I just saw one.
You are very cavalier with the term ‘naive’ and seem to think all libertarians, and basically anyone besides yourself, must be ‘naive’ beyond repair. But if you think that you can somehow use the state to achieve your desired end via coercion and then stop it right there then I think you might just want to stop throwing those stones in your glass house. All these examples of nations acting badly you have pointed to how have they justified their actions? How did they come about? Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, etc., etc. all started with the notion that they were going to bring order to society and make it greater via there efforts. Of course they would stop once certain ends were achieved, but those ends never seemed to materialize. But how could anyone think it is naive to assume the government would keep its word or relinquish it’s power once it got it?
Or maybe you don’t think you should use the state for these purposes and thus avoid the above scenario of government run amok. Instead government should be kept very small so that social institutions could pick up the slack and organize things better and more voluntarily. If this is what you mean then you might just be more of a libertarian than you think.