New Zealand To Greatly Tighten Gun Laws After Christchurch Massacre

TeaRex14

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2018
Messages
629
I think private sector dominance is greatly exaggerated by people opposed to libertarianism. Without the governmental sectors to create untouchables, like in the case with Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and varying other monopolies you can think of, there would be little to no room for single corporations to dominate. But, lets just say for arguments sake we couldn't entirely eliminate the monopolized control over our markets, how exactly would that be worse then governmental tyranny? Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook haven't ever told me to pay taxes, what I can and cant put in my body, threatened to take my guns, etc. I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think public sector is worse than private sectors. To me it's obvious which one is worse.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
I think private sector dominance is greatly exaggerated by people opposed to libertarianism. Without the governmental sectors to create untouchables, like in the case with Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and varying other monopolies you can think of, there would be little to no room for single corporations to dominate. But, lets just say for arguments sake we couldn't entirely eliminate the monopolized control over our markets, how exactly would that be worse then governmental tyranny? Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook haven't ever told me to pay taxes, what I can and cant put in my body, threatened to take my guns, etc. I guess it all boils down to whether or not you think public sector is worse than private sectors. To me it's obvious which one is worse.

+1

This is precisely what I said in an earlier post. This is called crony capitalism, not true capitalism. I think virtually all of us here hate the FDA for example. Well guess what, the FDA is in collusion with many food companies. These food companies are nothing more than extensions of the government. So how does one trust the government to provide fair regulations when it comes to safety nets, but not to provide dietary advice or other guidelines? This is cognitive dissonance at its finest gentleman.

Like you said it boils down to who do you trust more - the government or free will?

BTW not once have I said I am against safety nets. I am against people who don't need it getting it and I am generally against the government providing it. A snide comment was made saying this isn't very Christian-like well I'd actually argue the opposite. Jesus never once said that one should give to the poor out of duty, in fact the Pharisees were the people group he spoke out against the most - they are basically today's SJW/liberals - because they gave not because their heart was in it, but because of both duty and for bragging rights. How is this different from the virtue signaling that todays' liberals do? Liberals LOVE to brag about how generous they are about giving away other peoples' money, but true Christians are not supposed to openly brag or show off how much money they give. I am 100% confident the average conservative Christian tithes/gives away more money than the average liberal but you wouldn't know it because they don't brag. My parents are literally the most ultra conservative people you will ever meet, even more than me, but they give away TONS of money to the church and charity - they just don't brag about it. Jesus wanted us to give out of the generosity of our hearts, which does not happen when its forced. That's why safety nets should be left to groups like churches IMO.
 
Last edited:

TeaRex14

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2018
Messages
629
+1

This is precisely what I said in an earlier post. This is called crony capitalism, not true capitalism. I think virtually all of us here hate the FDA for example. Well guess what, the FDA is in collusion with many food companies. These food companies are nothing more than extensions of the government. So how does one trust the government to provide fair regulations when it comes to safety nets, but not to provide dietary advice or other guidelines? This is cognitive dissonance at its finest gentleman.

Like you said it boils down to who do you trust more - the government or free will?

BTW not once have I said I am against safety nets. I am against people who don't need it getting it and I am generally against the government providing it. A snide comment was made saying this isn't very Christian-like well I'd actually argue the opposite. Jesus never once said that one should give to the poor out of duty, in fact the Pharisees were the people group he spoke out against the most - they are basically today's SJW/liberals - because they gave not because their heart was in it, but because of both duty and for bragging rights. How is this different from the virtue signaling that todays' liberals do? Liberals LOVE to brag about how generous they are about giving away other peoples' money, but true Christians are not supposed to openly brag or show off how much money they give. I am 100% confident the average conservative Christian tithes/gives away more money than the average liberal but you wouldn't know it because they don't brag. My parents are literally the most ultra conservative people you will ever meet, even more than me, but they give away TONS of money to the church and charity - they just don't brag about it. Jesus wanted us to give out of the generosity of our hearts, which does not happen when its forced. That's why safety nets should be left to groups like churches IMO.
That's exactly right. If we could ever remove the socialistic elements to our market system, then the free market could generate enough wealth that private charitable donations could cover most if not all of the welfare. In our current environment however, there is no financial incentive to contribute to private charities. The welfare state is designed to enslave people, financially, and to create a permanent underclass dedicated to their political party.
 
OP
S

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
I'm not even a Christian (I just respect and understand the need for spiritual values) and this took me a few seconds to find..

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Luke 12:33-34 (NIV)
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Timothy 6:18 (NIV)
“Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”

Believe what you must, but be brutally honest with yourself and own it. We're talking about legislation with the sole and only purpose of providing basic human rights for the poor. Legislation that literally exists and is active in the world. Pretending everyone in government is simply your enemy is just ignoring lots of real world examples.

Expecting private charitable donations to cover welfare is immediately refutable - there is immense wealth in Western Nations and yet the highest levels of poverty and homelessness in a century after years of economic deregulation. Charity doesn't even come close to funding it. You cannot expect charity from rampant inequality. We have the exact situation happening now!

Mega rich media barons are so detached from lower class and real world hardships that they simply find tax a mere frustration and put the rhetoric out that poor people are simply lazy without a shred of understanding or consideration of nuance and complex circumstance.

Empathy comes from hardship and understanding and shared strife. It has to be relatable.

Liberalism is what it is, but it is NOT Christian. Good begets good. The very act of giving brings goodness into the world both to yourself and the recipient. Every religion teaches the same thing.
 
Last edited:

TeaRex14

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2018
Messages
629
I'm not even a Christian (I just respect and understand the need for spiritual values) and this took me a few seconds to find..

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Luke 12:33-34 (NIV)
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Timothy 6:18 (NIV)
“Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”

Believe what you must, but be brutally honest with yourself and own it. We're talking about legislation with the sole and only purpose of providing basic human rights for the poor. Legislation that literally exists and is active in the world. Pretending everyone in government is simply your enemy is just ignoring lots of real world examples.

Expecting private charitable donations to cover welfare is immediately refutable - there is immense wealth in Western Nations and yet the highest levels of poverty and homelessness in a century after years of economic deregulation. Charity doesn't even come close to funding it. You cannot expect charity from rampant inequality. We have the exact situation happening now!

Mega rich media barons are so detached from lower class and real world hardships that they simply find tax a mere frustration and put the rhetoric out that poor people are simply lazy without a shred of understanding or consideration of nuance and complex circumstance.

Empathy comes from hardship and understanding and shared strife. It has to be relatable.

Liberalism is what it is, but it is NOT Christian. Good begets good. The very act of giving brings goodness into the world both to yourself and the recipient. Every religion teaches the same thing.
I don't care about inequality, it's a good thing. In fact I actively promote inequality. The only thing that should be equal is the equality of opportunity. Private charities are more efficient than governmental welfare to proper distribution of the allotted funds. The problem with welfare is there's a bunch of people on it who don't deserve it. They rather draw off the tax payer than to work for a living, that needs to stop.
 

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
I have enjoyed this debate but I think I'm done because I have clearly laid out my thoughts and don't wish to repeat them over and over, and it's clear you trust government whereas I do not nor do you see that $20T+ of debt is a problem that needs addressing even though I explained why it is.

Of course the Bible tells us to be good and generous to the poor and needy, but it never once says to rely on the government to do so.

As a closing note I'll re-hash what @TeaRex14 just said - if taxes were less of a burden, there would be more money to spare and people would be free to help people more with the extra money. Of course right now no one has money to spare, taxes are a huge burden on everyone including not just poor but also middle class.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
I think private sector dominance is greatly exaggerated by people opposed to libertarianism.


The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other’s control techniques. A worker is a part time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called “insubordination,” just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who work?

The demeaning system of domination I’ve described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it’s not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or — better still — industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are “free” is lying or stupid. You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid monotonous work, chances are you’ll end up boring, stupid and monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all their lives, handed off to work from school and bracketed by the family in the beginning and the nursing home at the end, are habituated to heirarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from people at work, they’ll likely submit to heirarchy and expertise in everything. They’re used to it.

Bob Black
The Abolition of Work


Of course now things are even worse with that mobile phone that makes work emails so convenient during the weekend, the gig economy etc
 
OP
S

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
I have enjoyed this debate but I think I'm done because I have clearly laid out my thoughts and don't wish to repeat them over and over, and it's clear you trust government whereas I do not nor do you see that $20T+ of debt is a problem that needs addressing even though I explained why it is.

Of course the Bible tells us to be good and generous to the poor and needy, but it never once says to rely on the government to do so.

As a closing note I'll re-hash what @TeaRex14 just said - if taxes were less of a burden, there would be more money to spare and people would be free to help people more with the extra money. Of course right now no one has money to spare, taxes are a huge burden on everyone including not just poor but also middle class.

You're right, the conversation has run its course.

I'm glad we had it and while these reflections and exchanges can sometimes be uncomfortable it's better to have them than not to, imo. It's really important to share precise ideas instead of rhetoric on a public forum.

I enjoyed it, too!
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
I'm not even a Christian (I just respect and understand the need for spiritual values) and this took me a few seconds to find..

Proverbs 31:8-9 (NIV)
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Luke 12:33-34 (NIV)
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

Timothy 6:18 (NIV)
“Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”

Believe what you must, but be brutally honest with yourself and own it. We're talking about legislation with the sole and only purpose of providing basic human rights for the poor. Legislation that literally exists and is active in the world. Pretending everyone in government is simply your enemy is just ignoring lots of real world examples.

Expecting private charitable donations to cover welfare is immediately refutable - there is immense wealth in Western Nations and yet the highest levels of poverty and homelessness in a century after years of economic deregulation. Charity doesn't even come close to funding it. You cannot expect charity from rampant inequality. We have the exact situation happening now!

Mega rich media barons are so detached from lower class and real world hardships that they simply find tax a mere frustration and put the rhetoric out that poor people are simply lazy without a shred of understanding or consideration of nuance and complex circumstance.

Empathy comes from hardship and understanding and shared strife. It has to be relatable.

Liberalism is what it is, but it is NOT Christian. Good begets good. The very act of giving brings goodness into the world both to yourself and the recipient. Every religion teaches the same thing.

Matthew 22:21
Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Romans 13:1
"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

As you've mentioned, the New Testament rejects money, property, selfish indulgence, markets (as with Christ banishing the Jewish money changers) and so forth. Only Protestantism gives birth to the modern bastardized union between capitalism and Christianity.

The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other’s control techniques. A worker is a part time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called “insubordination,” just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who work?

The demeaning system of domination I’ve described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it’s not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or — better still — industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are “free” is lying or stupid. You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid monotonous work, chances are you’ll end up boring, stupid and monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all their lives, handed off to work from school and bracketed by the family in the beginning and the nursing home at the end, are habituated to heirarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from people at work, they’ll likely submit to heirarchy and expertise in everything. They’re used to it.

Bob Black
The Abolition of Work


Of course now things are even worse with that mobile phone that makes work emails so convenient during the weekend, the gig economy etc
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, tradesmen worked all day long and enjoyed their work. Their occupations wove into their lives and reflected their identities as craftsmen, builders, smiths and so on. After the mechanization of labor, every minute and second became itemized, and workers experienced monumental stress. Social roles dissolved and people became psychologically burdened; rationalism replaced religion with the Death of God. The malaise and horrors of factory work birthed Bolshevism, European fascism and similar movements. Neoliberalism won out against the other two, and now we have anomie, atomization and profound existential anguish, where consumerism and materialism abound.

Liberalism results in democracy, and democracy, ochlocracy ("mob rule"). This gives birth to Communism and a dissolution of all institutions and customs in society. The more redeeming aspects of Communism lie in their non-resemblance to Marxism: neo-Confucianism in China for example.
 
Last edited:

Luann

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
1,615
I am 100% confident the average conservative Christian tithes/gives away more money than the average liberal but you wouldn't know it because they don't brag. My parents are literally the most ultra conservative people you will ever meet, even more than me, but they give away TONS of money to the church and charity - they just don't brag about it. Jesus wanted us to give out of the generosity of our hearts, which does not happen when its forced. That's why safety nets should be left to groups like churches IMO.

If they're like conversative Christians I know, much of the donation is probably not even money, it's driving time, gas, and labors of love. And it's still more efficient for both parties than government aid is.
 

TeaRex14

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2018
Messages
629
The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other’s control techniques. A worker is a part time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called “insubordination,” just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who work?

The demeaning system of domination I’ve described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it’s not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or — better still — industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are “free” is lying or stupid. You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid monotonous work, chances are you’ll end up boring, stupid and monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all their lives, handed off to work from school and bracketed by the family in the beginning and the nursing home at the end, are habituated to heirarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from people at work, they’ll likely submit to heirarchy and expertise in everything. They’re used to it.

Bob Black
The Abolition of Work


Of course now things are even worse with that mobile phone that makes work emails so convenient during the weekend, the gig economy etc
I'm not understanding the point you're making. That sounds like a bunch of transhumanist propaganda to me. There is no hierarchy in the absence of a state. Employers and entrepreneurs aren't controlling society, they take all the risks. The employer is simply responding to the demand of the consumers. The consumers control society, not the wealthy CEOs. But according to this why bother right, we can all just go home and sit on our lazy butts all day and let artificial intelligence take over the world.
 

Waremu

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
532
lol I never said anything about équality of outcome'. That seems to be your hobby horse.


Nonsense. That’s exactly what you’re insinuating because we have, for the most part equal opportunity under the law and economically. Not perfect due to government intervention with monopolies, etc., and could be much better, but for the most part we have equal opportunity and economic mobility, which, again, is diminishing due to government is still there.


But you already alluded to what you mean by ‘inequality’ and that is essentially, more people who have more than you or are better off. So clearly you are for the economic outcomes in that sense being more ‘equalized.’


You've read Jordie Peterson (and obviously little else) and you've decided anybody who isn't like you must fall into the other category of people he describes. I guess it makes for a simple life.


See, because I call on the nonsensical and failed equality of outcome doctrine which you support, you immediately jump to me reading Jordan Peterson. You are projecting that you are essentially an advocate for that doctrine after denying it by your assumption that I read him.


Well, since you lack any understanding of history let alone economic history, I will let you know that Jordan Peterson is not unique in what he says against those doctrines which you advocate for. There have been many before Peterson, many academics and others who survived communism. Peterson borrows and reads them.


Simple life, or just simple minded? It appears the latter holds true for you.


All that said, what Peterson says because he has read history and is right on many of things still hold true. This is clearly what offends you. It offends you because you hold the same murderous doctrines and you try to call it good and moral.


Well, feel free to post some science saying how we aren't áll equal'(whatever that means). So far you've just gotten by with foot stamping.


The science is clear that we aren’t equal.

Basic evolutionary psychology and biology has long established this. Clearly to science deniers such as yourself, all would be too complex.


But we all have different athletic abilities, otherwise everyone would win 1-3rd place in the Olympics. Sexual dimorphism, fast and slow twitch muscle fibers, everyone is of a different height, and the IQ average is not the same across all individuals. We all have different interests and these things influence our choices.


All of these are just some of the well established facts. The mere fact that you bring such things to question really shows your level of intelligence. And this is why people of such low intelligence have to rely on pseudo-scientific conspiratorial nonsense, because when you deny science to the degree that you do, you have to explain every inequality away with the idea that there is this all elusive conspiracy keeping everyone down and assuring such inequalities, which in of itself are almost always not scientifically substantiated or valid either, or is possible in the real world.


A few messages ago you were getting uppity because I raised the issue of a 3 year old getting hundreds of thousands a year. Now you want to talk about rewards based on merit and intellect.


No. I was getting uppity because you were saying that people have no right to do what they want with the fruit of their labor.


That has nothing to do with merit. The family already produced the value that allowed them to accumulate that money over time, so the economic energy was already spent. It is their property and they can pass it down to their own bloodline. It is their family and their own blood. Parents raise their kids and buy them things and pass things down to their own children all the time and naturally.


You are trying to equate this to someone who does not own someone’s property and is not their bloodline/child getting some of that property which was produced with the money and labor of someone else.


The two are not the same thing. Earning something on merit means you do not already own what you are working for in the first place and must earn it according to your ability. The money of those wealthy parents was already earned on merit and doesn’t have to be earned again because it is their property and they can give it to anyone whom they choose. The economic energy was already spent.


You just want to justify taking peoples property because you envy them for doing better. Those same wealthy people likely paid far more in tax revenue than you did as well, despite producing more value than you produced in your lifetime.


The kind of society you are describing is the antithesis of civilizational progress. The only way to advance anything is for people to have the opportunities to reach their full potential.


Facts speak for themselves, and over the last centuries who have moved closer to that society and that has been directly correlated to more prosperity and more people being pulled out of poverty.


So the facts speak for themselves. The societies which have done the best are the societies which are more merit-based societies and economic systems.


What you propose has been tried in various ways, always leading to more poverty over the long run and more dead bodies.



It's clear that you are motivated by reward (and like every other authoritarian mind, insist others should be too) which is the hallmark of a slave mentality. You either crave approval or want to be in a position where people are on their knees begging for it from you.


Filtering them out on the basis of whether or not they can win the approval of the priests of science and technology (who is going to decide what constitutes a benefit?) is pretty much the worst system imaginable.


Worst system imaginable compared to what?


Oh, that’s right. Compared to everything else which we failed and done worse in the past. So not an argument there. The fact is, what we have today is the best thing we have relative to everything we have already had.


And win the approval of who? What such nonsense are you speaking of?


Ideas and products succeed ultimately if there is a market for it. There is no perfect system. That said, the market itself is far more efficient at deciding whether something is beneficial than some politician because politicians and government are a middleman that reallocates useful resources and sucks them, and will on average be ignorant of the things the market place develops or produces, and the value that it trades for it, and will therefore usually make rules according to its own special self-interest (because human nature is and always will be corruptible). So the marketplace is more efficient at deciding what is beneficial or valuable because people know what they need more than politicians do on average, and the people developing those products are almost always specialists in that particular field and therefore know more than the average politician will and therefore make better decisions on average.


Now what government does, usually, is try to act as some form of moral legal arbiter when humans cannot self-regulate and that’s an argument for how regulation works or if it’s necessary and, if so, to what degree, and I am not against any regulation, as there are good arguments for both sides of the regulation debate, though the less regulation side generally tends to have a better argument. I believe humans can self-regulate as libertarians say, but I also do not think it’s as simple as libertarians say because the ability to self-regulate relies on culture itself having a strong moral structure or framework and that includes the family. It also relies on having enough intelligent people, though intelligence in of itself is not the end-all-be-all if you have a wrong moral framework or the wrong information or extreme bias. And when the culture itself is lacking in a common shared morality, then societies ability to self-reflate diminishes to whatever degree, though all humans do appear to have basic instinct mechanisms regardless of whichever morality which allows them to self-regulate to some degree and this is beneficial to the marketplace, generally speaking.


But that’s a different matter than arguing what is valuable or beneficial generally. The fact remains that, until today, the economies which are more merit based and free have created the most value.


In an economic-merit system, if you produce value, then the market itself will usually decide that it is beneficial because if it is valuable to the market, that creates its own demand, providing the resources/investments are there for it. Humans wants and desires are infinite but resources are not. What often distorts things is when government gets involved and uses other people’s or endless credit capital to fund things which the marketplace doesn’t see much value in, or at prices that the marketplace doesn’t find to be of good value.


This is how we get asset bubbles, diminishing economic mobility, and usually this happens when government and corporations are in bed/monopolies form.


If you develop something that is beneficial and works, the investors who have investment capital will usually loan money, if you prove that it is a good idea. And the investors usually will only invest and take on risk if it is profitable. And it is only profitable if the marketplace sees value in it. If it is valuable to the marketplace, then it is usually valuable to humans in some part of the economy. The marketplace has specialists and researches that are far better than government because they have skin in the game and therefore have their own self-interest to make sure that the product they are producing works and that in of itself doesn’t make it beneficial until the market decides it is beneficial.


If the product doesn’t work, it will be rejected by the producers or the market, and if it is not beneficial, more times than not, the marketplace will reject it.


It is usually monopoly and government which continue to fund things which the marketplace does not find beneficial.



Most of it is actually. You don't seem at all well versed on nutrition or epidemiology of pre industrial societies.We are not dealing with infectious disease and malnutrition that plagued those groups. We are dealing with chemical poisoning, socio-economic stress and a degraded food supply.


  1. You did not read what I said.
  2. Claiming you understand something and I don’t doesn’t make you smart or right.
  3. I never said we were dealing with the same problems. To the contrary, I said we were dealing with different issues, but that there are trade-offs in the sense that many of the things that harmed us today were not around back then but many things which harmed us back then are not as prevalent today.
  4. I’d be careful to tell people they don’t know much about a certain subject if I were the science denier that you are when it comes to basic evolution, like evolutionary differences among the species, which undoubtedly contribute unequal outcomes.

You can't accept it because it doesn't fit with your belief that its part of nature and we should just accept the degradation around us and the suffering it causes. Talk about justification for learned helplessness.potential.


Show me where I said we should accept the degradation of nature. Now you’re going full potato.


Genetic explanations are the refuge of scientists who like to write promissory notes. You're in the wrong place and reading the wrong things if you want to trot out those explanations and not be dismissed. Honestly it doesn't sound like you've read anything Peat has read, apart from the political stuff which got you upset.


That’s nice poetic nonsensical gibberish, but genetic explanations for things do exist and are well established among the scientific fields. They are not the only explanation for these things, but they are one factor in explaining many of these things.


I’ve read what Peat says and Peat tends to downplay the role of genetics too much. There is truth to what he says on how the establishment focuses too much on it, but that actually has been changing for the worse and a lot of things have changed since his time. Now the establishment tends to be rejecting a lot of the scientific evidence that has long been established concerning genetics, and they are throwing the baby out with the bath water in that regard. It seems both you and Peat need to catch up with the times because they are uh-changing.


You say these problems are self inflicted but won't consider the context that it's happening in. You would happily hold a child responsible for the world they are born into and expect them to take all the blame for drinking tainted baby formula, eating bad food, receiving reckless medical treatment and totalitarian schooling and then you behave like you have something to teach everybody else about personal responsibility.


No, I didn’t say problems are self-inflicted. I said some or many problems are self-inflicted.


And no, parents have the responsibility to their kids until adulthood because they brought them into the world. And adults have a responsibility to keeping the world a clean place that they bring other generations into. It seems you are too emotionally charged to read what I write and think before claiming I said something in never said.


You seem to equate my stance on your slave master version of morality being bad to therefore being for poisoning the food and water supply. Such a nonsensical and simplistic way of thinking.


Some good people in power doing good things (lol, who?) does not cancel out the bad, nor does it provide any kind of coherent justification for anybody to have large amounts of power.


I never said anyone should have large amounts of power. You are equating inheritance to power. You may think they are the same thing but they factually are not.


That you can be so easily impressed by a few good acts to allow domination of every resource on the planet by a parasitic few says a lot.


Nope. Never said that. Just more emotionally charged word salad. A parasitic mob of many is just as bad as a parasitic mob of a few. The fact is, you think you can trade the latter in for the former and not have the same net outcome. That says quite a lot.


I'd love to see you say that to a thalidomide victim.


Straw-man.


You obviously have no idea and I am wasting my time. PUFA in the food supply? Fluoride in the water supply? SSRI handed out en masse? All the people on the receiving ends fault it seems.


Poisoning the food supply physically hurts people. That is an act of aggression on the innocent. I wouldn’t be against not allowing such things and am for laws to stop toxic things from being put in the food supply. That is not the victims fault if they eat toxic food.


That said, there will always be junk food that harms that is legal and not tainted with toxins and someone eating a diet or that food heavily while knowing at a basic level that it will lead to disease is not the same thing as people being poisoned by industry.


What is the difference between both scenarios? In the first scenario, other people are being affected. In the second scenario, there are no other people being harmed by that one person choosing to eat junk food every day. It’s similar to murder and suicide.


A person who makes bad choices should be held accountable and take the risk on for their choices. If the risk is only concerning themselves, then they only are harmed. If it is unto other people, they are harmed and it becomes criminal. Having to eat food that, often unbeknownst to you, is poisoned is not the same thing as someone who is a victim because a crime has been done against them.


The person who gave themselves diabetes and doesn’t exercise is not really a victim. They did it to themselves. Many people want to live taking drugs knowing it will kill them. Telling them not to do drugs or bear the consequences according to you would be victim shaming equal to actually shaming a victim who lived in a town and perhaps got liver cancer due to GMO’s. It’s absurd. The two are not the same.


If someone chooses to commit suicide, then they are not a victim of a crime done by someone else. If someone smokes, they are not either. Both people know what the outcome would be of their choices and regardless took that on. It’s not the same thing as a towns water or food being poisoned by industry. The outcome is, was harm done at the hand of a person to others or just themselves. You can’t stop people from harming themselves if they want to.


So you'd blame the victim in an act of collective punishment because the person responsible was corrupt?


You read wrong. I was saying the chemical spill in some cases would be self-inflicted because the people involved were corrupt and so they did that to themselves and not just to others.


The people hurt by the chemical spill wouldn’t be the ones who committed a crime that was self-inflicted. Some crimes are self-inflicted and they harm no one but the actor. Other crimes are self-inflicted in that they hurt the actor perpetrating the crime and other people/parties. When innocent people are involved they are victims, but if someone gives themselves cancer but no one else is harmed, they are not a victim, really.


So? It still stands that weather or not a doctor will treat someone or not is a matter of discretion, and a healthcare system which values life above else makes a judgement call.corrupt?


No. It’s not just an act of discretion. No one is entitled to another persons property of service. Demanding someone do something for you is not a right. Having mechanic services isn’t a right because to demand that would come at the expensive of another’s rights. Same with doctors.


You can have a healthcare system that works without being a totalitarian and holding people at gun point to work because they have been assigned to serve someone else because it is someone’s right to that persons body. That makes you a slave master. That is the essence of corrupt.


The failure to act is not a crime because no one is entitled to you because they do not own you. You are trying to justify a doctor or someone not giving service as being a crime while also justifying that their bodies are the right of someone else.


You moral argument.



people who make this argument never apply it to constant decreases in the corporate tax rate. Curiously that can always be afforded without detriment.


That argument is not the same thing as the corporate tax rate. Corporations are not demanding other people’s services and calling it a right. Cooperations being taxed a certain rate is a deflection and not the same argument because you have no valid moral argument.



Equal in regards to what? These are just generalized terms being thrown around for fun.


You were saying there were inequalities due to different outcomes in people’s pay. That is what you were complaining about. So you are talking about that and calling them inequalities but they are not inequalities because people are not all paid the same because all jobs and products do not have equal value.


No, those are terms you are using.




This is just the arch conservative view of evolution that can't bring itself to accept the evidence of cooperation in evolution, largely because the former is rooted in a strong religious disgust of human nature. Nevertheless, the evidence of cooperation is there weather they choose to read it or go on hating themselves and other people.


No, that is the general view of many if not most classic evolutionists. Anything that doesn’t compute with a progressive slant on the world is ‘conservative’ to people like you. We did cooperate, but self-interests still came first for many different species for much of our history, if not most. Self-interest/reproduction comes before cooperation. There was less of a need for cooperation when there wasn’t agriculture and large tribal society’s. But even then, it was nothing on the scale of what we see today with civilization. The evolutionary pressures were so great that we made sure we sought our most basic needs first, like food and reproduction. Also, you are wrongly conflating cooperation with your version of morality.


Corporation is important, but you can have cooperation without being a totalitarian holding people at gun point and demanding them to comply. That’s not cooperation. That’s slavery.




They do actually all grow on trees, come from the air and in the ground.


Now I understand why you’re not so bright.


Universities are businesses that want to attract as many fee paying students as possible, regardless of the outcome. I think you don't know much about how they function and what impressions they give to people. If a degree won't produce gainful employment then they have responsibility to tell people that. Guess how much that happens in a for-profit system?


I already voiced my opinion that colleges were in a bubble and full of corruption and error. So there is no disagreement that they should better regulate the things they teach and the information they give to students regarding carriers, but that doesn’t negate the responsibility the student has to make sure they pick the right degree program that has economic value. A college isn’t going to fully understand the economic ramifications of all their degree programs like an individual will who takes it upon themselves to do the research in what they choose. And at the end of the day, they are the ones making the choice what to study. The college isn’t making that choice for them.


So that isn’t a valid argument and doesn’t negate the fact that the student has their own responsibility for how they spend their money and time.


The market place is driven by consumption. A degree and career path might have value based on that. But a system that arranges itself around consumption values little else.


The marketplace is driven around consumption, but that doesn’t mean it values just consumption. That’s wrong. The market place is driven by consumption but it is based on determining value. That’s all the market does. It’s a means to determine value by medium of exchange/trade efficiently. That is what the marketplace is arranged around. When people come together to trade, they do so to obtain value for what they trade and the marketplace is how they do that. It’s not just consumption. That’s a overly-simplistic way of loot at it.



If you think good information is so widespread then why are you here? By definition you wouldn't be if good advice was so popular and by logic you must think popular health advice is of good quality.


I didn’t say good information is widespread. Read it again. I said many if not most people don’t make the right decision even with good information.


My point is that people still make bad choices even when they have good information. Therefore, your argument that people will make good choices if they have good information is proven to be false. That is not always or even the case most of the time. So that’s not a true argument that you make.



Most people do not know any such thing. They rely on the authority figures who tell them they have the best advice (who make things worse) or see naturopaths. A few end up here after years of searching.


Yes, but again, even most people when given good information do not act on it. And much information is so basic there really is no excuse to say you didn’t know. Most people for example know at a very basic level that eating McDonalds or smoking every day is unhealthy. So once again, your argument that people making the right decision is largely based on getting the right information is false.



with the USSR any criticism was obvious mental illness (because it was a perfect system) with capitalism any criticism is envy (because it's a perfect system). Same pathology.


No, I never said nor do I think capitalism is the ‘perfect System’ because there is no perfect system. Only totalitarian psychopaths believe in such fiction. But capitalism is the best system we have had compared to all other systems, unlike the USSR. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its problems, but true progress is “better than” rather than “perfect.”



Paranoia of the most subtle of changes is always rooted in this neuroses. No wonder conservatives feel the needs to hold onto things, even when it's something inherently harmful to them.


No. Most of it is rooted in the fact that they realize civilization has accomplished very much in a short period of time relative to our long and violent history, and many of the values/principles that made it progressively better over time shouldn’t just be thrown out every time a progressive nut job comes along and says “I am the enlightened one. Follow me because I have a cure for all of mans problems and my political theory will make everyone moral and good.”


A lot of good things in wisdom has been passed down and many want to conserve what worked rather than throw the baby out with the bath water because some self-described intellectual holds the forbidden fruit of knowledge.



You place a lot of emphasis on protecting somebody's ability to turn a blind eye to the suffering they trained to treat.


Well, I know freedom is a hard concept for a totalitarian like you to comprehend, but you see that is how it works. In a free world where you don’t own someone, they can chose to not engage with you. Not engaging someone is not an act of aggression. If someone is sick, that was there before they were to be treated.


Two wrongs don’t make a right and using aggression/force on someone against their will even in the name of good doesn’t make it just.


Just because someone was trained to do something doesn’t make them anyone’s property. You might as well say that just because those people over there knew how to grow food we were justified in exploiting them for their skill and enslaving them.


More slavemaster morality from the enlightened progressive one.



If only you put it as much energy into reading about healthcare systems around the world where doctors get paid, aren't forced to do anything and patients get treated regardless of their financial situation, you might not be so bogged down in quasi-philosophical arguments that ensure overpaid doctors don't get hurt feelings.


First of all, there are many things we could do better in our healthcare system, so you fail in assuming that I think it is perfect. I’ve looked at healthcare systems around the world and it isn’t as cut dry as you would like to make it. The main problems with the US system isn’t that doctors are overpaid. Many of them are actually not paid as good as they should be paid relative to the overtime many of them work and how costly medical school is. The main problems with the US is overly expensive medication due to the government/FDA and big pharma monopolies and suppression of alternatives, and a few other things. If these things were fixed our healthcare would be much better. Lastly, healthcare costs relative to overall standard of living in those counties have to be factored in as well. A country might have slightly better healthcare or cheaper healthcare, but it may cost more to live there in many other important aspects of ones life. That said, many of the countries that pulled future productively and resources to have cheaper or free healthcare are on the verge of being insolvent, so not a good argument for something working long term if it comes at the cost of other things.


You're already there. Of course you can choose not to submit to labor and live on the streets. It's good to have options I guess.


In your ideal utopian society people won’t live long enough to get sick. You’d murder them all off when there are shortages in resources and then say it wasn’t the perfect version of your system and then try to start it all over again.



Firstly, what is the argument you are advancing as to why people should continue to compete for resources rather than share them?


Resources are not all plentiful. And it takes money and resources to get resources. So resources must be valued efficiently by the marketplace to be used efficiently, which requires enough growth, because of growth doesn’t come from savings it comes from debt expansion/borrowing. Now, you can have a more type of ‘sharing economy’, but that wouldn’t allow for enough economic productive growth in the long term to make the investments needed to keep pulling those resources forward, so on a bell curve distribution, it works for a time as you mine those resources and they are relatively cheap, but eventually you run out of the cheaper resources and have to mine for the more expensive resources, using more expensive resources. This requires more productive capital investment and resources to come on to exploit the more expensive resources, which means in the sharing economy more resources and money will have to come from the same net tax base already funding the sharing economy. So growth has to come from savings or debt. The people sharing to consume are not creating the per capita economic value required to keep growing the economy to exploit those resources as it become more expensive. This is why, as you go on about the wealthy who ‘consume more’, the net effect is still positive because they create the economic value needed to expand or grow the economy so that more resources can come online.

And their money isn’t just always sitting and collecting interest. They collect interest lending capital when they buy stocks or other assets and those companies grow more as a result as they collect interest. Or if they keep their money in banks to collect interest, it allows banks to give more loans put as they have more on deposit. All of this economic activity allows the much needed growth needed to exploit more resources. If you only relied on taxes, like in a sharing type of economy, you hit a point of diminishing returns on what those taxes can do. And that’s considering there isn’t an increasing debt load to service.


This is why ALL western economies have been taking on more debt over the decades, to compensate for non-debt economic growth because of more expensive resources. Even if they raised taxes on all corporations and went to a more sharing economy today, it would be worse because they wouldn’t get the tax revenue needed to service increasing debt needed to grow the economy so that expensive resources can continue to come online.


Requiring people to give 50% of what they make in a sharing economy still won’t be enough to both service the debt and bring on the resources to run those countries. There needs to be a lot of growth.


In the US, they couldn’t raise taxes more than what they wanted so this is why we devalue the currency, to inflate much of the debt away at the cost of destroying purchasing power. But even with the current rate of inflation, it isn’t enough in of itself, so borrowing and raising taxes continues, but the taxes only service the debt, allowing more debt to be taken on because growth wouldn’t be enough by raising taxes alone. And all that would be considering there wouldn’t be capital flight. Even in a sharing economy you would have capital flight once you began taxes the rich more than they want. It happens every time a critical mass is reached. California and NY is currently seeing more capital leave as the result of raising taxes.



And secondly, mass concentration of wealth is no sign of progress.


Sure it is. Because much if not most of that wealth is put to productive use in some way. If it is collectivist interest, it is being used. It takes money to make money and much of the wealth is what allows for larger leverage to be put to more productive use. Even wealthy people who hold hard assets as bullion banks are being productive because they allows the bank to lend more and it creates jobs through that way and by employing those at the banks.



said every psycho ever


To the narcissist, anything that isn’t his is unjust, and everyone who he isn’t entitled to is a psycho. You sound like the psycho here.



More theory.


No, this has happened on real time if you study economic history.



In reality the countries which have access to the most resources use them to make sex toys for pets and other really efficient and useful products.


Wrong. The majority of total products made in any country are not sex toys for pets. And if there is demand for sex toys for pets, it creates jobs and value for the economy because that is more capital being generated.


Because you think something is a silly product doesn’t mean it wasn’t made as efficiently as it would otherwise have been made.


Your definition of useful products is highly subjective. The markets demands is not.


I know, you would probably want to cut off everyone’s head for that as well in your utopian perfect system ever-society.





lol what are these 'bad choices' you keep referring to? Have we met before?


A bad choice is something that does not have more reward for the risk that you take on, or something that takes more than it gives, or that does more harm than good. If what you take doesn’t compensate you for the risk you take on, then it is a bad choice.




You whine about not wanting to be a slave but you cannot handle the idea of anybody wanting to even question the drudgery of modern work and corporate serfdom. You want to get out but you've been programmed in such a way that any criticism of the status quo is by definition a character flaw: 'envy', like those nasty commies and liberals. So you're kept wedded to the beliefs which keep you little more than a rat in rat race and now the only option is try and climb the dungheap in the hope that you can be the owner instead of the owned.


I know. You hate having to do what everyone else does, which is work and do things you don’t like, is so hard! Well, little child, let me tell you, life is full of having to do things you do not enjoy. People have to work to eat. And guess what. We also get sick! And we also have to feel pain when we go to the dentist to get a tooth pulled! Life is so hard! Why can’t the sky just rain down chocolate brownies and gold!


While you’re at it, why don’t you go hold a soothsayer at gunpoint and tell her to grant you another life because you hate death and don’t want to die and see how that works. Resort will slap you pretty hard.
 

Waremu

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
532
You keep talking about resources being too limited. Resources over and over again.


That's the whole point. An enormity and majority of wealth is aggregated in a few hands. That wealth is actively being used to oppress and control. You can't literally believe a person sitting back and earning millions from passive investments is working harder than hundreds of millions working 40 hour weeks in soul destroying jobs just to scrape by.


No, it’s not as simple as that. You don’t understand how wealth is created. Even when a person has money in passive investments, that capital is being productive because that allows companies to bring on more capital.


It’s also not just stealing from people to give to non-productive people. Because your concept of what is moral in of itself requires immoral acts to work, you lose the moral argument.


You literally have no concept of how reality works. Come back, please try again.



Aside from any political and social opinions and differences between us all (Cirion and I discussed empathy earlier), your comments in this post are quite literally psychopathic.


I understand this seems inflammatory but I mean it in actual physiological terms.


Psychopathy - Wikipedia


All I can say is the majority of the world don't have the same neurochemistry as you, so it's going to be hard to align with their views.


Well, congrats. You at least know how to use Wikipedia. I don’t think you have the intellectual ability to grasp half of what I said to know whether it matches the definition of anything you pull up on Wikipedia.
 
OP
S

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
I don't care about inequality, it's a good thing. In fact I actively promote inequality. The only thing that should be equal is the equality of opportunity. Private charities are more efficient than governmental welfare to proper distribution of the allotted funds. The problem with welfare is there's a bunch of people on it who don't deserve it. They rather draw off the tax payer than to work for a living, that needs to stop.

In that case I have found you a utopia. Somalia circa 2004.

You're going to need a time machine, sadly.

Living in Somalia's Anarchy
 
OP
S

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
Matthew 22:21
Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Romans 13:1
"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

As you've mentioned, the New Testament rejects money, property, selfish indulgence, markets (as with Christ banishing the Jewish money changers) and so forth. Only Protestantism gives birth to the modern bastardized union between capitalism and Christianity.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, tradesmen worked all day long and enjoyed their work. Their occupations wove into their lives and reflected their identities as craftsmen, builders, smiths and so on. After the mechanization of labor, every minute and second became itemized, and workers experienced monumental stress. Social roles dissolved and people became psychologically burdened; rationalism replaced religion with the Death of God. The malaise and horrors of factory work birthed Bolshevism, European fascism and similar movements. Neoliberalism won out against the other two, and now we have anomie, atomization and profound existential anguish, where consumerism and materialism abound.

Liberalism results in democracy, and democracy, ochlocracy ("mob rule"). This gives birth to Communism and a dissolution of all institutions and customs in society. The more redeeming aspects of Communism lie in their non-resemblance to Marxism: neo-Confucianism in China for example.

The spirit of the teachings is still clear. They couldn't possibly have perceived modern social infrastructure and the ways in which it could facilitate centralisation.

One of my favourite quotes, from Epictetus:

"It is another's fault if he be ungrateful, but it is mine if I do not give."

Did you study philosophy by any chance?

I don't think communism will ever need to be part of the cycle again. If you simply keep government workers on median salary and encourage union conversation constantly they'll be able to stay in a state of empathy with their peers and fellow humans.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
The spirit of the teachings is still clear. They couldn't possibly have perceived modern social infrastructure and the ways in which it could facilitate centralisation.

One of my favourite quotes, from Epictetus:

"It is another's fault if he be ungrateful, but it is mine if I do not give."

Did you study philosophy by any chance?

I don't think communism will ever need to be part of the cycle again. If you simply keep government workers on median salary and encourage union conversation constantly they'll be able to stay in a state of empathy with their peers and fellow humans.
The question of charity remains a hard one. Teaching a man to fish would be preferable, but there's a much grander question of purpose; "Beyond subsistence, what should be given?"

In the academy, I studied medieval history and religion. If not for the financial barriers, I would have went on to graduate school in the field. Since my childhood, I've studied philosophy in my spare time. The main progression of my study would be Gnosticism and theosophy; Communism; objectivism, rationalism and classical liberalism; fascism; and most recently, mythology, religion and metaphysics. Academia pushes Foucault's philosophy, and that of other post-modernists, so I'm familiar with his work as well.
 
OP
S

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
The question of charity remains a hard one. Teaching a man to fish would be preferable, but there's a much grander question of purpose; "Beyond subsistence, what should be given?"

In the academy, I studied medieval history and religion. If not for the financial barriers, I would have went on to graduate school in the field. Since my childhood, I've studied philosophy in my spare time. The main progression of my study would be Gnosticism and theosophy; Communism; objectivism, rationalism and classical liberalism; fascism; and most recently, mythology, religion and metaphysics. Academia pushes Foucault's philosophy, and that of other post-modernists, so I'm familiar with his work as well.

You were coming across as very well read, so I wondered.

I don't have the breadth of different topics that you seem to have become interested in, but if you ever get interested in moral or "life" philosophy then there are some really interesting Roman stoic accounts, especially from Marcus Aurelius and Seneca.

I had read bits and bobs of Socrates and Plato about their views on kindness and humanity and self conduct, but saw you mention Plato's "hearts of gold" approach, so went to read up on it. I found it pretty surprising and it doesn't at all fit in with the perceptions I had of both Plato and Socrates.

Hopefully you'll get to study again in an official capacity one day.
 

DaveFoster

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,027
Location
Portland, Oregon
You were coming across as very well read, so I wondered.

I don't have the breadth of different topics that you seem to have become interested in, but if you ever get interested in moral or "life" philosophy then there are some really interesting Roman stoic accounts, especially from Marcus Aurelius and Seneca.

I had read bits and bobs of Socrates and Plato about their views on kindness and humanity and self conduct, but saw you mention Plato's "hearts of gold" approach, so went to read up on it. I found it pretty surprising and it doesn't at all fit in with the perceptions I had of both Plato and Socrates.

Hopefully you'll get to study again in an official capacity one day.
Thank you. Maybe I will study again. I've never finished Meditations, but many antiquated volumes of commentary, which includes those by Marcus Aurelius, have similarities across cultures, as also with the Tao Te Ching or The Book of Five Rings. Basically, "Live a life that you know is right." Virtually all pre-modern philosophy revolves around a trust in yourself, particularly the self-evident truths revealed through a unification of the body and mind. Modern philosophy, on the other hand, separates the mind from the body and vice versa. Descartes' mechanical philosophy and his Cartesian dualism degraded philosophy so profoundly, and even now social constructionists have a similar effect. Other examples of a more naturalistic variety would be the indiscriminate natural selection of Darwinism, which frames life as only a series of feedback loop within an ecology. Other examples would include genetic or environmental determinism.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
See, because I call on the nonsensical and failed equality of outcome doctrine which you support, you immediately jump to me reading Jordan Peterson.

I point it out as you are merely parroting somebody else's arguments.

This Peterson/conservative view that holds people responsible for absolutely everything that happens to them is simply a way for unhealthy folk to justify their cruel disposition towards others and not have to suffer the challenge of entertaining more complex perspectives on things. It's a rationale for not having to change or have to listen to people you've been taught to be scared of, bought to you by the those who don't want you to ask questions about them (does it not bother you that all of the arguments you advance have their origins in PR firms and corporate funded think tanks who are explicit in their mission to manipulate public opinion?)

Free market champions who insist they are the solution but admit they don't exist by virtue of the government interference they decry, advocates of merit who defend inherited wealth, critics of state authority who casually defend the same authority if it's in private hands, detractors of government violence carried out in the name of socialism but not when it's done for capitalism, sycophantic fawning over private enterprises' innovations built off the technology created by government scientists with public money.... exemplary ethics and self awareness.

The science is clear that we aren’t equal.

But we all have different athletic abilities, otherwise everyone would win 1-3rd place in the Olympics. Sexual dimorphism, fast and slow twitch muscle fibers, everyone is of a different height, and the IQ average is not the same across all individuals. We all have different interests and these things influence our choices.

'Equal' is a value judgement. Difference is a more appropriate term for a scientific observation here.

I know. You hate having to do what everyone else does, which is work and do things you don’t like, is so hard! Well, little child, let me tell you, life is full of having to do things you do not enjoy.

Your parents told you this because they never experienced anything better. Now you tell it to others because neither have you.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom