The fallacy you and Sloth are chasing after is that the freedom you’re promoting means merely maximizing your range in a preconstructed, predigested environment.
Sloth is saying that the more you succumb to some primal urges the merrier/free-er. (It’s telling that it’s mostly violent stuff -eg.rape & kill-, as if we wouldn’t have other urges! )
Sloth defines a man as a vile beast that is either unfree and civilized or free and barbaric. His swallowed a silly concept at face value that is a retarded bastard child of american christianity and Miss Rand.
You’re reiterating the idea by projecting it unto physical limits.
Why go for limits? Why not define or choose limits? Why not choose (or even ignore) the environment itself?
Is a step towards a border necessarily less free then the action of choosing not to approach?
Also: the very idea of a limit is limiting in itself, isn’t it?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The casting aside of traditional views of marriage, divorce, and family, (social constraints) to pursue individualistic self-interest? Individualism or collectivism?[/quote]
Your definition of self-interest is the irrational one, the selfishness of beasts. Selfishness for a rational being is quite different. Ayn Rand could explain this to you, if you but read.
[/quote]
Maybe it should tell you something that ever increasing worship of the self, of the individual, has led to the above. You can try to draw a line with rational/irrational, but isn’t going to stop the trajectory that the worship of self will set. While living self-interest to the fullest might be possible for the wealthy, for working class people it is the other-interest of family, neighbor, community, religious institutions (oh no!), and civil society in general, which provides the necessary social structure for local reliance. The indifference of the cold individualism of Rand is what shifts from the local to the central.
Tocqueville warned of the rise of the nanny state long before Rand was born. For America, what did he see as the potential foundation for the tutelary state? Was it collective thought, or a hyperindividualism?
“Since…no one is obliged to lend his force to those like him and no one has the right to expect great support from those like him, each is at once independent and weak. These two states–which must neither be viewed separately nor confused–give the citizen of democracies very contrary instincts. His independence fills him with confidence and pride among his equals, and his debility makes him feel, from time to time, the need of the outside help that he cannot expect from any of them, since they are all impotent and cold. In this extremity, he naturally turns his regard to the immense being [the tutelary, bureaucratic, centralized State] that rises alone in the midst of universal debasement. His needs and above all his desires constantly lead him back toward it, and in the end he views it as the unique and necessary support for his individual weakness.”(II.iv.3)
Sloth, interest for one’s family, community, etc., is self-interest.
It is impossible for a rational being to not act out of self-interest unless he willfully becomes a slave to the incompetent. This is after all the mentality of the impoverished class which HH is describing.
Yet, the only thing self interest seems to have accomplished is to produce the market-state, and people whose social/civic norms are so empty and perverted they CAN’T govern themselves. And, in their weakness, out of their self interest, turn to a central state to pick up the pieces.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth, interest for one’s family, community, etc., is self-interest.
It is impossible for a rational being to not act out of self-interest unless he willfully becomes a slave to the incompetent. This is after all the mentality of the impoverished class which HH is describing.[/quote]
Really, Lift? Really? What families? What communities? The ceaseless chasing of pleasure and maximum profit seems to have gutted the hell out of them. Leaving nothing, nothing, to take the place of a tutelary state.
The fallacy you and Sloth are chasing after is that the freedom you’re promoting means merely maximizing your range in a preconstructed, predigested environment.
Sloth is saying that the more you succumb to some primal urges the merrier/free-er. (It’s telling that it’s mostly violent stuff -eg.rape & kill-, as if we wouldn’t have other urges! )
Sloth defines a man as a vile beast that is either unfree and civilized or free and barbaric. His swallowed a silly concept at face value that is a retarded bastard child of american christianity and Miss Rand.
You’re reiterating the idea by projecting it unto physical limits.
Why go for limits? Why not define or choose limits? Why not choose (or even ignore) the environment itself?
Is a step towards a border necessarily less free then the action of choosing not to approach?
Also: the very idea of a limit is limiting in itself, isn’t it?
[/quote]
I don’t care what sloth says. I’m saying the physical limits are unavoidable, the manmade ones are not.
True freedom (free will) would mean you can literally do anything you want, walk on the surface of the sun for example. I think everyone would agree that would be desirable. Why not be as close to that as possible?
And you didn’t answer my question. I have a better shot defending myself from you than I do the IRS or local cops.
Choosing your own personal limits is what its all about with the exception of environmental ones mentioned.
Sloth is saying that the more you succumb to some primal urges the merrier/free-er. (It’s telling that it’s mostly violent stuff -eg.rape & kill-, as if we wouldn’t have other urges! )
Sloth defines a man as a vile beast that is either unfree and civilized or free and barbaric. His swallowed a silly concept at face value that is a retarded bastard child of american christianity and Miss Rand. [/quote]
No, you are free to want or wish to walk on whichever surface you like.
I probably won’t walk on the sun, but even more surly I won’t walk on surfaces I cannot conceive.
The mind, reason, will, a vision, being able to express a powerful dream; these are things paramount in allowing your very own flower of freedom to bloom radiantly.
I couldn’t care less for the sun if I’m in love with the moon.
p.s. your question is a bit pointless, especially the IRS addendum. Let’s leave those and Adolf out of the thread this time, please?
Sloth is saying that the more you succumb to some primal urges the merrier/free-er. (It’s telling that it’s mostly violent stuff -eg.rape & kill-, as if we wouldn’t have other urges! )
Sloth defines a man as a vile beast that is either unfree and civilized or free and barbaric. His swallowed a silly concept at face value that is a retarded bastard child of american christianity and Miss Rand. [/quote]
Nope.[/quote]
Beautifully said. Your eloquence should address the full meeting of the UN council.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yet, the only thing self interest seems to have accomplished is to produce the market-state, and people whose social/civic norms are so empty and perverted they CAN’T govern themselves. And, in their weakness, out of their self interest, turn to a central state to pick up the pieces.[/quote]
You’ve really swallowed the kool-aid. Why do you think this is the only reason that it happened? Why do you think the market is so predatory? It’s funny that conservatives talk about self-reliance and responsibility yet here you are making every excuse imaginable for the welfare state. “They just can’t do it themselves!”, “If we eliminate ‘X’ program, the poor and sick will be laying on the street dying!”. I will say one thing, and that is the people who do turn to a central state to help themselves are not necessarily wrong. They are acting in their self-interest. We are wrong for instituting it.
Sloth is saying that the more you succumb to some primal urges the merrier/free-er. (It’s telling that it’s mostly violent stuff -eg.rape & kill-, as if we wouldn’t have other urges! )
Sloth defines a man as a vile beast that is either unfree and civilized or free and barbaric. His swallowed a silly concept at face value that is a retarded bastard child of american christianity and Miss Rand. [/quote]
Nope.[/quote]
Beautifully said. Your eloquence should address the full meeting of the UN council.[/quote]
I was simply pointing out that freedom in of itself isn’t a virtue. You made it sound as if I was lamenting the fact that we aren’t ‘truly free.’ That wasn’t my point.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Maybe it should tell you something that ever increasing worship of the self, of the individual, has led to the above.[/quote]
No. Progressives have made it clear from day one that they are more interested in the “collective” then the individual. THIS is why libertarianism arose in the first place.
Ayn Rand’s moral individualism has little to do with the political and economic philosophy of individualism. Individualism simply means the elevating of individual rights over group rights. Individualists see laws as inherently aggressive and therefore must be limited. Nowhere in this definition is compassion or community left out of the equation. You’ve been fooled as to what individualism really is by the collectivists.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No, you are free to want or wish to walk on whichever surface you like.
I probably won’t walk on the sun, but even more surly I won’t walk on surfaces I cannot conceive.
The mind, reason, will, a vision, being able to express a powerful dream; these are things paramount in allowing your very own flower of freedom to bloom radiantly.
I couldn’t care less for the sun if I’m in love with the moon.
p.s. your question is a bit pointless, especially the IRS addendum. Let’s leave those and Adolf out of the thread this time, please?[/quote]
No, it’s entirely poignant.
So I could tie you to a table, preventing you from moving entirely, and you’d still be free, because you can still want anything? Freedom includes the physical ability to do as we’ll as the mental freedom to want, whether or not you do something.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Yet, the only thing self interest seems to have accomplished is to produce the market-state, and people whose social/civic norms are so empty and perverted they CAN’T govern themselves. And, in their weakness, out of their self interest, turn to a central state to pick up the pieces.[/quote]
You’ve really swallowed the kool-aid. Why do you think this is the only reason that it happened? Why do you think the market is so predatory? It’s funny that conservatives talk about self-reliance and responsibility yet here you are making every excuse imaginable for the welfare state. “They just can’t do it themselves!”, “If we eliminate ‘X’ program, the poor and sick will be laying on the street dying!”. I will say one thing, and that is the people who do turn to a central state to help themselves are not necessarily wrong. They are acting in their self-interest. We are wrong for instituting it.[/quote]
Why is the market so predatory? Bald self-interest/individualism. Not a whole lot wrong with free markets when the people participating are inculcated through customs, norms, traditions, and even some laws, with a love and loyalty for family, community, their state, and then their country. Now, now they’ll use government, economies of scale, and 3rd world labor to crush small-local competition. We’re becoming less of a entrepreneurial-employee-citizen nation, and more like a nation of consumers-employees-strangers for a few distant capitalists living on large gated estates. Centralized market power. Out of the weathiest nations, where do we sit as far as small-business ownership goes?
They (the dependant) can’t do it ‘themselves,’ anymore. Traditional social structures have been succesfully eroded. Perhaps even to a point of no return.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why is the market so predatory? Bald self-interest/individualism. Not a whole lot wrong with free markets when the people participating or inculcated through customs, norms, traditions, and even some laws, with a love and loyalty for family, community, their state, and then their country. Now, now they’ll use government, economies of scale, and 3rd world labor to crush small-local competition. We’re becoming less of a entrepreneurial nation, and more like a nation of employees for a few distant capitalists living on large gated estates. Centralized power. Out of the weathiest nations, where do we sit as far as small-business ownership goes?
They can’t do it ‘themselves,’ anymore. Traditional social structures have been succesfully eroded. Perhaps to a point of no return. [/quote]
And perhaps your missing the point again. Perhaps it is the growth of government itself that has eroded these structures and caused the people to be dependent, servile humans. Maybe self-interest in the market actually leads to compassion for your fellow man. And the iron fist of government destroys this. You’re also making the mistake it seems of believing that we actually have individualism and capitalism today. We don’t. There is not much individualist about our society nowadays. Almost all of the symptoms you mention of a failing nation are because we have become LESS economically free, not more.
It isn’t freedom that eroded businessmen and others’ character. It was reckless government spending that eroded the value of our money and our community to the point where no one could trust them to hold their true value.
Sloth is saying that the more you succumb to some primal urges the merrier/free-er. (It’s telling that it’s mostly violent stuff -eg.rape & kill-, as if we wouldn’t have other urges! )
Sloth defines a man as a vile beast that is either unfree and civilized or free and barbaric. His swallowed a silly concept at face value that is a retarded bastard child of american christianity and Miss Rand. [/quote]
Nope.[/quote]
Beautifully said. Your eloquence should address the full meeting of the UN council.[/quote]
I was simply pointing out that freedom in of itself isn’t a virtue. You made it sound as if I was lamenting the fact that we aren’t truly free. That wasn’t my point. [/quote]
I don’t say freedom is that. At all.
You, however, are in some strange reasoning-cul-de-sac without realizing it.
Reacting to urges may be an act of freedom, but so is abstaining from them.
Also, maybe even more important not for the discussion, but for you, personally:
Human base behaviour isn’t necessarily wild and violent. It can be even the opposite.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No, you are free to want or wish to walk on whichever surface you like.
I probably won’t walk on the sun, but even more surly I won’t walk on surfaces I cannot conceive.
The mind, reason, will, a vision, being able to express a powerful dream; these are things paramount in allowing your very own flower of freedom to bloom radiantly.
I couldn’t care less for the sun if I’m in love with the moon.
[/quote]
No, it’s entirely poignant.
So I could tie you to a table, preventing you from moving entirely, and you’d still be free, because you can still want anything? Freedom includes the physical ability to do as we’ll as the mental freedom to want, whether or not you do something.[/quote]
I don’t say it’s the only quality, but it’s the prerequisite.
The physical component comes later.
Also, being bound is relative. (The rightwingers here couldn’t even decide if waterboarding is torture And I might have a chance at freeing myself eventually or at the very least, inspiring others (think of jesus or Bin Laden).
Restricting the mind and spirit leads to people not even knowing they are bound by others.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You, however, are in some strange reasoning-cul-de-sac without realizing it.[/quote]
False.
Welcome to the point I was making. Though freedom can be the choice to abstain from unvirtuous means and ends, it is also the ability to not abstain from them. So, freedom–being able to choose (not necessairily having the strength to carry out the choice) to do anything–isn’t a virtue. Murder and rape make for fine examples because it really pushes “freedom abover every other consideration!” worshipers to the test.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth, interest for one’s family, community, etc., is self-interest.
It is impossible for a rational being to not act out of self-interest unless he willfully becomes a slave to the incompetent. This is after all the mentality of the impoverished class which HH is describing.[/quote]
Really, Lift? Really? What families? What communities? The ceaseless chasing of pleasure and maximum profit seems to have gutted the hell out of them. Leaving nothing, nothing, to take the place of a tutelary state. [/quote]
Your response smacks of uninformed and emotive hyperbole.
And I might have a chance at freeing myself eventually or at the very least, inspiring others (think of jesus or Bin Laden).