Capitalism and Socialism
Popescu Lucian
They forgot one thing both ideologies have in common: mob rule. In
capitalism, the power belongs to the consumer. Who are these
consumers? THE MASS. In socialism, the power belongs to the "people".
Who are these "people"? THE MASS.
Thus, in both systems more or less competing today, truth and
objectivity have been replaced by the plebiscite. It is true whatever
the majority rules as true (and as the majority is completely
irational our goal is to build up propaganda and just "inform" them
what "reality" would be).
It is beyond doubt that any form of democracy living today is paving a
firm way towards totalitarianism, be that consumerist or populist
democracies.
I'm interested for a feedback regarding whether you think if there's
anything possible to stop this process.
tom neville
13.66...@posting.google.com>...
> I saw many people in here advocating whether capitalism or socialism.
> They forgot one thing both ideologies have in common: mob rule. In
> capitalism, the power belongs to the consumer. Who are these
> consumers? THE MASS. In socialism, the power belongs to the "people".
> Who are these "people"? THE MASS.
> firm way towards totalitarianism, be that consumerist or populist
> democracies.
It is my view that capitalism and socialism are unsuitable systems
of government due to the intrinsic problem of "class" inflicted on
both.
Using the family as an example, mother and father govern the family
making decisions to provide economic, phsycological well-being.
Over time within a mutually accepted system of regulation a form of
uniqueness, "class" is aquired by members. Anyone who seeks their
own interests to the detriment of others gets a hostile response.
If we now join this family with another of different uniqueness,
conflicts will arise. The more population, more problems. I use
this reasoning to say "Globalisation" is doomed to failure as is
any form of world family. Would you lodge another family in your
house with equal rights?
Who would disagree that wealth is important? It is the foundation
of civilisation. Rich and poor classes always exist.
Unfortunately I cannot suggest an alternative, except to say it
will take an human catastrophy of hugely more than WTT to change
attitude, the most concrete of human traits.
There is need to devolve from the tragic effects of some evolution.
Hopefully this discussion will not sink into the boring bog of
capitalism vs socialism.
These are my own thoughts, intended apolitically.
Tom-N
TommCatt
> I saw many people in here advocating whether capitalism or socialism.
> They forgot one thing both ideologies have in common: mob rule. In
> capitalism, the power belongs to the consumer. Who are these
> consumers? THE MASS. In socialism, the power belongs to the "people".
> Who are these "people"? THE MASS.
You couldn't be more wrong. You are making the classic mistake of
equivocation. Yes, in Capitalism, power resides in the consumer. But
not "consumer" as a group. The power resides in each and every
individual consumer in the group of consumers. In Socialism, power
belongs to the people. But, as opposed to Capitalism, in this case it
is the *group* that has the power, not any individual within the group.
The individual is powerless.
In Capitalism, control begins at the individual level and flows upward;
in Socialism, control begins at the group level and flows downward.
So they are diametrically opposed. Only by equivocating "the consumer"
and "the people" can you make an erroneous attempt to connect them.
> It is beyond doubt that any form of democracy living today is paving a
> firm way towards totalitarianism, be that consumerist or populist
> democracies.
More argument by definition. It is like the theist who attempts to
argue that atheism is a religion in its own right. If he can pull it
off, he has reduced the argument as one religion against another so it
all becomes a matter of preference.
If you can get people to accept the idea that all roads lead to
totalitarianism, you're just arguing about which poison is better.
Fortunately, I don't think too many people here will fall for this trick.
> I'm interested for a feedback regarding whether you think if there's
> anything possible to stop this process.
Let us hope not.
Tomm
--
Mathematicians are like Frenchmen: whatever you say to them, they
translate it into their own language, and forthwith it means something
entirely different.
- Goethe
Popescu Lucian
mputer.org>...
> In Capitalism, control begins at the individual level and flows upward;
> in Socialism, control begins at the group level and flows downward.
Your argument would stand if what "objectivists" call individuals
would truly exist. In fact, humans (with infinitesimal exceptions) let
society dictate their values. Thus, according to your OWN
deffinitions, both systems are taking sinuous roads around the same
issue: Mass control.
As about the "free choice" BULLSHIT i'm seing on each worthless
commercial, either you are what we are an idealist or you're
shamelessly succombing to cheapest propaganda available. You should
note, instead, that incidentally or not the more this slogan appears,
the more world is turning toward a system where the very notion of
free choice is out of even the relative context of today.
Nevertheless, I liked your argument. It's well reasoned. I just hope
you're not quoting from your favorite author:-)
> So they are diametrically opposed. Only by equivocating "the consumer"
> and "the people" can you make an erroneous attempt to connect them.
You should truly end considering man as a rational being. Man is NOT
rational. It's simply an advanced animal ready to mold on every
compromize, just in order to survive and prosper. Inside a
non-rational world, man is acting as a tentacle of the group. He likes
big breasted blondes, because SOCIETY learnt him to like them. He
loves expensive cars, because SOCIETY learnt him that by owning an
expensive car, you boost your social status. Every word, every
gesture, every dream, EVERYTHING in him are just variations of the
same social norm and IF there is some "individuality" left, be sure he
would always avoid showing it, just in order to keep himself out of
trouble. Rational men are better keeping themselves away of direct
social control, but yet again we are SOCIAL beings and if we study
ourselves closely we shall see the sheer extent of things we take as
granted. Actually, life isn't long enough for us to rationalize even
the array of thoughts AT ONE CERTAIN TIME.
> More argument by definition. It is like the theist who attempts to
> argue that atheism is a religion in its own right. If he can pull it
> off, he has reduced the argument as one religion against another so it
> all becomes a matter of preference.
You are wrong, because the case is different. For more information,
read above.
> If you can get people to accept the idea that all roads lead to
> totalitarianism, you're just arguing about which poison is better.
> Fortunately, I don't think too many people here will fall for this trick.
Every system the man constructed during his history is subject to a
period of life, just as a human's. In our times, democracy has become
redundant. In my oppinion, it has always been redundant starting with
the couple of idealists that imagined they could revive a system dead
from 2000 years, in a society that had a completely different social
reality than Athens in antiquity.
People in US, for instance, are clearly starting to become identical
with each other, which makes the "individual rights" issue empty of
meaning. What future needs it's a new system to address clones of a
same organism, not non-existing individuals in an anachronic
dreamworld. Such an expected system is by all means totalitarian (an
exact application of Hitler's dream of state as an organism and people
as cells of that organism), only that there will be no more people to
cast that name for the system of future.
> Let us hope not.
Reading your post, I might have made the mistake of considering you
too intelligent to throw me the "communist" label just for puting a
question mark on established views among many so-called
"objectivists", especially those concerning the imuable nature of
capitalism. Religion should be once and for all evicted from
philosophy.
TommCatt
> TommCatt <Tomm...@computer.org> wrote:
>>In Capitalism, control begins at the individual level and flows upward;
>>in Socialism, control begins at the group level and flows downward.
>
> Your argument would stand if what "objectivists" call individuals
> would truly exist. In fact, humans (with infinitesimal exceptions) let
> society dictate their values. Thus, according to your OWN
> deffinitions, both systems are taking sinuous roads around the same
> issue: Mass control.
Oh great. Yet another
everyone-but-me-are-mindless-automatons-controlled-by-commercials
elitist. The most powerful tyrants in the world hoping to rule the
world have trouble controlling their own countrymen using the most
brutal methods known to Man, but Madison Avenue does it with a
quarter-page ad just to sell a pack of gum.
>>So they are diametrically opposed. Only by equivocating "the consumer"
>>and "the people" can you make an erroneous attempt to connect them.
>
> You should truly end considering man as a rational being. Man is NOT
> rational. It's simply an advanced animal ready to mold on every
> compromize, just in order to survive and prosper. Inside a
> non-rational world, man is acting as a tentacle of the group. He likes
> big breasted blondes, because SOCIETY learnt him to like them. He
> loves expensive cars, because SOCIETY learnt him that by owning an
> expensive car, you boost your social status. Every word, every
> gesture, every dream, EVERYTHING in him are just variations of the
> same social norm and IF there is some "individuality" left, be sure he
> would always avoid showing it, just in order to keep himself out of
> trouble.
My only problem is that I keep forgetting to hold my arms straight out
in front of me when I walk. "They" are starting to notice...
Tomm
--
Does the name 'Pavlov' ring a bell?
John Alway
56.56...@posting.google.com>...
> TommCatt <Tomm...@computer.org> wrote in message news:<3E65A0E4.9090005@co
> mputer.org>...
> > In Capitalism, control begins at the individual level and flows upward;
> > in Socialism, control begins at the group level and flows downward.
> Your argument would stand if what "objectivists" call individuals
> would truly exist. In fact, humans (with infinitesimal exceptions) let
> society dictate their values.
Your argument is wrong on a fundamental level, but does have an
element of truth to it.
Societies are merely collections of individuals. Societies do not
think, only individuals do. Societies do not choose, only individuals
do. For this reason, societies aren't the arbiters of values,
individuals are. I have the power of choice and I know it. I also
have chosen the value system I have.
However, there are two big factors I can think of that would make
you think as you do:
1> Very few people are original thinkers, and a much smaller
fraction still are truly original when it comes to philosophy. For
this reason when people do choose values the vast majority select from
a few value systems that a few great minds have derived or invented.
2> Men driven by bad value systems more often than not create bad
societal mechanisms, which coerce people into a single value system.
In such cases, it's much harder for people to break those chains and
go their own way.
...John
Curt Doolittle
13.66...@posting.google.com>...
> I saw many people in here advocating whether capitalism or socialism.
> They forgot one thing both ideologies have in common: mob rule. In
> capitalism, the power belongs to the consumer. Who are these
> consumers? THE MASS. In socialism, the power belongs to the "people".
> Who are these "people"? THE MASS.
economic benefit. Socialism, by depriving people of choice, reduces
the overall effect of the knowledge posessed by distributed people.
> Thus, in both systems more or less competing today, truth and
> objectivity have been replaced by the plebiscite. It is true whatever
> the majority rules as true (and as the majority is completely
> irational our goal is to build up propaganda and just "inform" them
> what "reality" would be).
Argument for conspiracy of ignorance. Only in government. Socialism
is unable to determine truth because there is no outcome by which to
measure it. It generates no knowledge. In fact, the argument can be
made that socialism by definition actually generates ignorance.
Democracy does not produce truth or wisdom, it is more a measure of
relative knowledge and ignorance in a populace. Capitalism places both
power and knowledge in the same hands, and generates the most
knowledge in the greatest numbers. (There is an argument for stress
on participants, but this is a function of culture, not the system,
and therefore an issue of education.)
> It is beyond doubt that any form of democracy living today is paving a
> firm way towards totalitarianism, be that consumerist or populist
> democracies.
This is erroneous. It extrapolates a curve that does not necessarily
follow that behavior over time. Democracy is a means of choosing. It
works not because it's best, but because, if at least half of voters
are educated in any way, the system is mildy chaotic and difficult to
corrupt - at least more difficult to corrupt than any other system.
The voting process of democracy is separate from the economic model of
capitalism. We employ both competitively. It is this competition
that protects us, because, all nonsense aside, we vote economically,
which is the only sensible thing to do. The problem with socialism,
is that while it's economic affects are devastating and
semi-permanent, it is so slow that the voting process cannot correct
it as quickly as can democracy with capitalism. The past forty years
were kind of scary that way.
> I'm interested for a feedback regarding whether you think if there's
> anything possible to stop this process.
(This is a very indirect set of responses. Could have simplified it,
but then, that wouldn't have been any fun. Less probabalistic than
you think as long as incomes and educatoin continue to rise,and
especially if we can get voucher schools.)
Our system works best, so far, simply because it is so ineffective at
instituting change. (Re-instututing the property requirement might
help this a bit.) By being an effective resistor to change, the mob
rule you are concerned about, is significantly slowed but not
eliminated. If it weren't for the fact that the average guy will
actually 'get it' after a while, (sometimes a long while) then the
90's, if continued, could have put us economically in the same
terrible shape as europe. It's still going to be almost impossible to
disentagle or eliminate this government. Bush has a very nice
incrementalist plan, I just can't see him or anyone else staying in
power long enough to accomplish it.
In the broader context, the Anarcho-Capitalists are close to the right
answer, because they are most willing to put the knowledge into use
where it exists in the people who possess it. But they have at least
two errors: AC requires too large a sub-population to adopt it's
principles because it does not account for variation and error, (this
is the problem with libertarianism as well) secondly, it fails to
recognize that the purpose of govenment is to provide a means for the
resolution of differences, and that this cannot be avoided. The third
issue is the fact that law tends to pre-compute and codify risks for
dispute resolution in business, and therefore is useful at reducing
risk to capital. This is too broad for our current discussion though.
Most absolutist theoretical systems will fail (in adoption) because of
the first issue, and Rand in Objecivism's current state is no
exception. Hayek said something like "if we could do something, we
should, but we can't so we can't". An absolutist system is good
because it gives us a non-arbitrary mean of measurement for our
current systems. But such systems will never be implemented, not
because they shouldn't be, but because they can't be. The most likely
long term solution to the problem of government is to raise education
standards, make it harder for the ignorant to vote, and privatize all
functions of government except the judiciary and police forces, then
prohibit government from having the ability to levy taxes. There is
much more to it than this, but should be enough fodder here for the AC
crowd, and enough room for absolutists of all kinds to play with.
-Curt
(Late at night. This msg will get me in trouble somehow, too much
coverage, to thinly spread...)
Popescu Lucian
.14b1...@posting.google.com>...
> Societies are merely collections of individuals.
NO. Rand said that and she was the one fundamentally wrong. Actually,
if I remember well, she had more defensible positions. She aggreed
"individuals" were almost like unexisting before the Enlightment Age.
Also, she termed the mass as afraid to reason, which sounds true but
it's in fact WRONG, being another enstatement of the 400 years old
MYTH portraying man as a rational being. In reality, rationality is a
PERSONAL and not a collective achievement.
Indeed, society is a collection of homo sapiens specimens. But those
specimens are individuals only in the broad sence of "different
bodies". The minds are One. Why? Because society offers a set of
symbols that help the man avoid forcing himself to ask questions and
act on an individual responsibility.
Always the easiest route is taken. If, in a given society, a man can
live only by withholding societaln recipieces, he WILL do that. Even
individuals don't think because they have a natural tendency towards
thinking. They think because thinking is their method to cope
existence.
> Societies do not think, only individuals do.
Individuals are very rare and they have (now) NO lasting influence
upon society. Society functions upon Darwinian laws. Those laws value
only SURVIVAL and PROSPERITY. In society's oppinion, a poor
phylosopher is NOTHING more than a looser. Just open your eyes and
look around you... How many times have you heard the slogan: LIVE YOUR
LIFE? THIS is what society values: survival and physical welness.
What I say is: without "elitist" control, every democracy is DOOMED to
degrade in totalitarian dictatorship. Here Rand was right. Our global
nation decided that it no longer needs philosophical guiding and
turned at "what people want". Both socialism and capitalism have no
internal backbone. They try different methods to fulfil "what people
want", of course ignoring that people DON'T KNOW what they want
(unless they are educated to form a system of values). Are they doing
that because they are idealist? HARDLY!
Why did "commercial music" appear? EXACTLY because of these premises:
to fulfil "people's needs", with ABSOLUTELY no intent in education.
"Commercial culture" is not only similar, but IDENTICAL with communist
proletcult. How did "self-esteem" education appear? Thanks to the
premise there are no GOVERNING values and every value is personal. If
this is so, then how come people in US colleges, when being put key
questions, all happen to answer IDENTICALLY?
I don't say socialism or capitalism are inherently wrong. They are
wrong only if they lack a minimum array of governing guidelines, which
should be consistent and able of further improvement.
> Societies do not choose, only individuals do. For this reason, societies
> > aren't the arbiters of values, individuals are. I have the power
> > of choice > and I know it. I also have chosen the value system I
> > have.
Unfortunately, what you have told me is far from a "personal value
system". It's laissez-faire propaganda which one might find in any
rightist newspaper. Thus you served yourself as a counter example from
your own arguments.
Say there are two pedofiles: a Russian and an American. How would
everyone typically act? The Russian would grab the kid, do his things
with the poor lad and then put a bullet in boy's head. The American
would buy the kid candies, do his things, put $1,000 in boy's pocket
and then leave telling the boy it was an honor meeting him. While in
2nd case the boy might be happy (with all $$$ involved), it's
nevertheless pedophily in both cases.
Both socialists and capitalists see themselves as champions of
morality, but in the REAL world their attitude towards the very crowd
they claim to represent could be described at best as UTTERLY
DISRESPECTFUL.
Think about it!
Popescu Lucian
mputer.org>...
> Oh great. Yet another everyone-but-me-are-mindless-automatons-controlled
> -by-> commercials elitist.
What can I say... You are pitiful. The very use of the word "elitist"
denotes a man lacking bone structure hiding behind Political
Correctness. Is that something new to me? HARDLY!
Besides, with the risk of burning your simplistic brain structure,
I've never said what you are accusing me of. However, sucking cock
from pieces of shit bringing up CRAP and saying: "this is what the
consumers want" is most certainly NOT an option, AT LEAST ON MY
BEHALF.
Popescu Lucian
.030305231...@posting.google.com>...
> The issue is: who has the knowledge to make decisions for greatest
> economic benefit. Socialism, by depriving people of choice, reduces
> the overall effect of the knowledge posessed by distributed people.
I aggree. I was though discussing the convergence between Capitalist
and Socialist ideologies. As economic system, capitalism has proven
itself considerably better. On the human level, they hover around
proletcultism.
> Argument for conspiracy of ignorance. Only in government. Socialism
> is unable to determine truth because there is no outcome by which to
> measure it. It generates no knowledge. In fact, the argument can be
> made that socialism by definition actually generates ignorance.
Just pay a visit in Russia and you shall be amazed to see people with
much more articulated ideas and knowledge than their american
counterparts. This has only one explanation: in US relativism is
almost a religious belief, while Communist Russia still basically
propagated the philosophy of Enlightment.
When I think in history, i would find literally HUNDREDS of great men
with leftist ideas and just a handful of those with rightist ideas.
Thus, your oppinion is goes straight AGAINST evidence.
> Democracy does not produce truth or wisdom, it is more a measure of
> relative knowledge and ignorance in a populace. Capitalism places both
> power and knowledge in the same hands, and generates the most
> knowledge in the greatest numbers. (There is an argument for stress
> on participants, but this is a function of culture, not the system,
> and therefore an issue of education.)
False. Soviet students were more intelligent, more rational and vastly
more knowledge-inclined than Americans. By the way, if capitalism
generates knowledge, how come there is almost no noteworthy
personality in Social Sciences and Humanities to rise from American
culture. Arendt, Heidegger, Spengler, Rand were ALL born and raised in
European culture, puting a greater stress on INTELLECTUAL rather than
MATERIAL achievements. Of course, when material achievements come
first, science becomes bastardized with all kinds of impostors, whose
only goal is keep their positions at all costs. Which is the EXACT
situation in most american colleges.
> This is erroneous. It extrapolates a curve that does not necessarily
> follow that behavior over time. Democracy is a means of choosing. It
> works not because it's best, but because, if at least half of voters
> are educated in any way, the system is mildy chaotic and difficult to
> corrupt - at least more difficult to corrupt than any other system.
Yes, but voters are ignorant and perpetually kept in even greater
ignorance. Besides, as the parties lines have almost reached identity,
thus democracy is reduced to a simple formality.
> The voting process of democracy is separate from the economic model of
> capitalism. We employ both competitively. It is this competition
> that protects us, because, all nonsense aside, we vote economically,
> which is the only sensible thing to do.
NO. We should vote RATIONALLY.
> The problem with socialism,
> is that while it's economic affects are devastating and
> semi-permanent, it is so slow that the voting process cannot correct
> it as quickly as can democracy with capitalism. The past forty years
> were kind of scary that way.
Analyzing socialism through its radical representatives, the
communists, is to me as worthless as analyzing Christianity through
Inquisition and anti-Jewish pogroms. Also, equating post-modernism
with socialism is very tricky, because of a key difference: socialism
is universalist, a radical Enlightment movement, while post-modernism
(such as Political Correctness) is particularist and the antithesis of
Enlightment (anti-reason, anti-education). Socialism projects itself
into the future, while Post-Modernism finds confort in a MADE-UP
"history". Today, most Socialist movements are Post-Modern, while it's
older supporters quit politics or moved to the right.
Post-Modernism is an ideology by itself, in fact closer to fascism,
with the typical mix of racial and class warfare propaganda.
Post-Modernism and Politically Correctness is continuing the work of
Adolf Hitler, although "fascist" is its most usual SLUR.
As for what you implied, one counter-example would suffice: SWEDEN.
Sweden has been traditionally run by socialists from about 60 years.
Sweden is the Socialist heaven. A very generous welfare system, free
education, free medical care and YET it's among the richest countries
in the Globe. Censorship practically does not exist, free speech is
guaranteed by constitution, criminality is among lowest in the world.
> The most likely
> long term solution to the problem of government is to raise education
> standards, make it harder for the ignorant to vote, and privatize all
> functions of government except the judiciary and police forces, then
> prohibit government from having the ability to levy taxes.
I absolutely aggree. But, Kurt, this will never be achieved with
Post-Modernity and ist mindless relativism so influential.
You offered me a well reasoned feedback, lacking the partisan
radicalism i'm more than tired of. So far, you have provided the only
noteworthy answer.
John Alway
10.41...@posting.google.com>...
> John Alway <jwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dbb7370e.0303052129
> .14b1...@posting.google.com>...
> > Societies are merely collections of individuals.
>
> NO. Rand said that and she was the one fundamentally wrong.
Ah, Popescu, look at yourself in the mirror. You are an
*individual entity*. You have your own mind disconnected from any
other mind. You have the ability to chose, to plan a long range
course for *your* life and your life only. I have no say so over
you.
The problem would only be a coercive power, such as a thuggish
government. Absent that, you are free to do almost anything you wish.
Actually,
> if I remember well, she had more defensible positions. She aggreed
> "individuals" were almost like unexisting before the Enlightment Age.
> Also, she termed the mass as afraid to reason, which sounds true but
> it's in fact WRONG, being another enstatement of the 400 years old
> MYTH portraying man as a rational being. In reality, rationality is a
> PERSONAL and not a collective achievement.
>
> Indeed, society is a collection of homo sapiens specimens. But those
> specimens are individuals only in the broad sence of "different
> bodies". The minds are One. Why? Because society offers a set of
> symbols that help the man avoid forcing himself to ask questions and
> act on an individual responsibility.
Individuals come up with these ideas. For exampe, Mozart came up
with symphonies on his own, not through others. He learned techniques
and tools other individuals had invented before him, but he put things
together in ways original to him.
People ask questions all the time. I certainly do. True, in some
societies you aren't free to ask questions openly. I made this point
in my posting to you, but that doesn't change the fundamental that you
can make your own decisions and that in a free society there is
nothing stopping you.
> Always the easiest route is taken. If, in a given society, a man can
> live only by withholding societaln recipieces, he WILL do that. Even
> individuals don't think because they have a natural tendency towards
> thinking. They think because thinking is their method to cope
> existence.
>
> > Societies do not think, only individuals do.
>
> Individuals are very rare and they have (now) NO lasting influence
> upon society.
Aristotle came up with the laws of logic, with science, with the
view that man is the rational animal. His ideas resulted in the
Renaissance, and in Locke's derivation of individual rights and the
freedoms that we in America enjoy.
Newton came up with the three laws of motion, which have had a
profound effect on mankind. They made it possible for us build
aircraft, and even get to the moon.
Examples like this are endless.
> Society functions upon Darwinian laws. Those laws value
> only SURVIVAL and PROSPERITY.
Darwin's principles apply to the jungle, not to societies. If
you uphold the rights of your fellow man, you aren't behaving
according to Darwinian laws.
The trader principle works opposite to Darwin's laws. In the
jungle its kill or be killed. With the trader principle there is a
win-win situation. I pay my money to get someting I value, and in
return the person giving me the value gains some money.
> In society's oppinion, a poor
> phylosopher is NOTHING more than a looser. Just open your eyes and
> look around you... How many times have you heard the slogan: LIVE YOUR
> LIFE? THIS is what society values: survival and physical welness.
I would hope that people value that, because without it we'd all
be dead. The fact is that many societies don't value it. For
example, Islamic societies which pursue an after life.
I've read left wing, right wing, every wing you can imagine, and
have assessed continually. I've been exposed to a myriad of views,
and have even tried coming up with original views of my own. In some
cases I have come up with my own narrowly original idea.
Also, laissez-faire propaganda is good propaganda, because it
squares with reality. Iows, it's true propaganda. John Locke had a
fair bit right, as did Adam Smith, as did Fredrick Bastiat, et. al.
> Both socialists and capitalists see themselves as champions of
> morality, but in the REAL world their attitude towards the very crowd
> they claim to represent could be described at best as UTTERLY
> DISRESPECTFUL.
I disagree with this. Socialists believe in enslaving mankind.
Lassiez-faire capitalists uphold individual rights. I uphold
individual rights on principle, which results in defacto capitalism.
Anyway, your are drifting from your central point. Individuals are
the arbiters of what a society becomes.
...John
tom neville
> P.L wrote:
<snipped>
> > The most likely
> > long term solution to the problem of government is to raise education
> > standards, make it harder for the ignorant to vote, and privatize all
> > functions of government except the judiciary and police forces, then
> > prohibit government from having the ability to levy taxes.
Spoken like a truly high class Capitalist right winger?
> I absolutely aggree.
>
> You offered me a well reasoned feedback, lacking the partisan
> radicalism i'm more than tired of
Are you joking? Out of the boring bog has emerged only the
slime of the evoluting capitalist/socialist dogma. Religions,
which if you had your way would be banned on HPO! LOL.
Tom-N
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Curt Doolittle
Popescu Lucian <ahe...@p16.pub.ro> wrote in message news:<6c5953dc.03030607
19.69...@posting.google.com>...
Curt Doolittle <curt_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4332b246
.030305231...@posting.google.com>...
>> Argument for conspiracy of ignorance. Only in government.
Socialism
>> is unable to determine truth because there is no outcome by which
to
>> measure it. It generates no knowledge. In fact, the argument can be
>> made that socialism by definition actually generates ignorance.
>Just pay a visit in Russia and you shall be amazed to see people with
>much more articulated ideas and knowledge than their american
>counterparts.
You have just defined a scope of knowledge, a subset, that was
intentionally implanted, rather than a universe of knowledge that is
unmanaged. If 80% of ideas are good and 20% are not, and that 20% is
economics, and therefore survival, the 80% is irrelevant. The people
were not surviving, nor was the government. An excellent education is
meaningless without the economic means of perpetuating the human being
which contains the knowledge.
Knowledge needs to exist where it can provide benefit.
>This has only one explanation: in US relativism is
>almost a religious belief, while Communist Russia still basically
>propagated the philosophy of Enlightment.
I can't quite parse this statment so I 'm not sure what you're saying.
I can guess, but that's a bad idea.
>When I think in history, i would find literally HUNDREDS of great men
>with leftist ideas and just a handful of those with rightist ideas.
>Thus, your oppinion is goes straight AGAINST evidence.
This is a mistaken attribution of good. The issue is that the
econmically and techically productive advances were not happening in
leftist thinking. It is irrelevent how many people pursue a bad idea,
other than the human cost of proving it was wrong. It's the value of
the idea, measured in economic terms that's important. The rightist
ideas were better, and the leftist ideas are of necessity IDEAS
because they could not survive implementations and trials in order to
become KNOWLEDGE. This mistaken attribution of good, is essentially a
denial that all "goodness" is based upon economics.
>> Democracy does not produce truth or wisdom, it is more a measure of
>> relative knowledge and ignorance in a populace. Capitalism places
both
>> power and knowledge in the same hands, and generates the most
>> knowledge in the greatest numbers. (There is an argument for
stress
>> on participants, but this is a function of culture, not the system,
>> and therefore an issue of education.)
>False. Soviet students were more intelligent, more rational and
vastly
>more knowledge-inclined than Americans.
Within some realm of influcence I would agree that EDUCATION in the
USSR was superior in many ways, especially those ways that were not
economic, and which cannot withstand economic scrutiny. Education
under democracy and captitalism could be sustained just as easily,
although they would also need an economic education as well. Today,
in the US we do not supply EITHER.
However, this satetment about education does not address the formation
of knowledge about means and needs. In fact, the USSR supressed
infomration formation about means and needs by supressing economic
education as well as supressing the development of knowledge that was
unintentional, distributed, and economic, and residing in the people
who produced and distributed goods and services. This vacuum created
the black market which DID form that education. Albiet in a primitive
state that lacked the ability to resolve disputes, or concentrate
capital.
>By the way, if capitalism
>generates knowledge, how come there is almost no noteworthy
>personality in Social Sciences and Humanities to rise from American
>culture. Arendt, Heidegger, Spengler, Rand were ALL born and raised
in
>European culture, puting a greater stress on INTELLECTUAL rather than
>MATERIAL achievements.
Great deltas are accomplished due to stress. That stress was not
present. Social Sciences are anything but sciences. If you can
state some artist rather than some mystic, then I would be more
interested. Rand was a product of the destruction of socialism having
experienced commercialism and enlightenment before that destruction.
>Of course, when material achievements come
>first, science becomes bastardized with all kinds of impostors, whose
>only goal is keep their positions at all costs. Which is the EXACT
>situation in most american colleges.
You are confusing the academic with the economic without understanding
the dependency. You also do not see how the curve of academic value
decreases as a population and technology increase. I understand the
error because it is emotionally compelling, but is is not measureable,
it is not testable, and it is not true. This is another improper
attribution of "good-ness". All things require calories. More compelx
things require more calories. Whatever the measure, increases in
productivity are consistently necessary up to some point of maximum
human consumption.
American education in it's top 20% is still the best in the world.
The fact that we educate so many so poorly is a shame, but the fact
is, the economics aren't there to produce a higher number of
mathemeticians, engineers, artists and musicians. We don't need them.
We can't support them. We have more writers producing more pap than
anyone can consume. Excellence is NOT PRODUCED IN A LINEAR
PROGRESSION. If more people CAN be artist, it does not follow that
more people WILL be GOOD artists. This is a function of the knowledge
necessary to fill in new areas of discovery. (too complex for this
thread)
>> This is erroneous. It extrapolates a curve that does not
necessarily
>> follow that behavior over time. Democracy is a means of choosing.
It
>> works not because it's best, but because, if at least half of
voters
>> are educated in any way, the system is mildy chaotic and difficult
to
>> corrupt - at least more difficult to corrupt than any other system.
>Yes, but voters are ignorant and perpetually kept in even greater
>ignorance. Besides, as the parties lines have almost reached
identity,
>thus democracy is reduced to a simple formality.
Argh. It is irrelevant that people get what they want from a
government. Your assumption is that we would be better off. Ignorant
of WHAT? You are placing an arbitrary value on a class of knowlege
that is actually opinon rather than knowledge, And completely ignoring
a class of knowledge that is provable and has real merit. I'm
probably being silly beating this horse, but that's the fundamental
issue you're having. PICKING AN ARBITRARY GOOD.
> >The voting process of democracy is separate from the economic model of
> >capitalism. We employ both competitively. It is this competition
> >that protects us, because, all nonsense aside, we vote economically,
> >which is the only sensible thing to do.
>NO. We should vote RATIONALLY.
This assumes two things: First, that it is possible to educate enough
people with a small enough variance to create a rational vote. This is
only possible by removing choices from them - by totalitarianism.
Second, you do not state the goal of this rationalism which is a
process. What you mean is, we should POSSESS THE KNOWLEDGE TO EMPLOY
THE MEANS. The problem is, that a large body of people possess
knowlege in a distributed fashion, and at some point, the knowledge
necessary is impossible to distribute across a large enough body of
people such that they can make a rational decisino based on logical
processes, using agreed upon means for agreed upon ends. This is
ideological. It works for families and villages. It does NOT work for
states, countries, empires, worlds and universes.
> The problem with socialism,
> is that while it's economic affects are devastating and
> semi-permanent, it is so slow that the voting process cannot correct
> it as quickly as can democracy with capitalism. The past forty years
> were kind of scary that way.
>Analyzing socialism through its radical representatives, the
>communists, is to me as worthless as analyzing Christianity through
>Inquisition and anti-Jewish pogroms. Also, equating post-modernism
>with socialism is very tricky, because of a key difference: socialism
>is universalist, a radical Enlightment movement, while post-modernism
>(such as Political Correctness) is particularist and the antithesis
of
>Enlightment (anti-reason, anti-education). Socialism projects itself
>into the future, while Post-Modernism finds confort in a MADE-UP
>"history". Today, most Socialist movements are Post-Modern, while
it's
>older supporters quit politics or moved to the right.
This is untrue. Socialism is criticized for removing freedom, which
is silly because if we COULD trade freedom for that security and
prosperity WE SHOULD. The problem is that all "GOODS" are funamentally
economic, and that no MANAGED system beyond a certain and small size
CAN distribute knowledge, goods and services effectivley enough to
generate continuously improving economic surpluses. The problem is a
function of KNOWLEDGE and numbers. Not one of belief.
>Post-Modernism is an ideology by itself, in fact closer to fascism,
>with the typical mix of racial and class warfare propaganda.
>Post-Modernism and Politically Correctness is continuing the work of
>Adolf Hitler, although "fascist" is its most usual SLUR.
This is a category of generalizations that I can't really attribute
since you are mixing a number of other concepts that are related but
not necessarily dependent.
>As for what you implied, one counter-example would suffice: SWEDEN.
>Sweden has been traditionally run by socialists from about 60 years.
>Sweden is the Socialist heaven. A very generous welfare system, free
>education, free medical care and YET it's among the richest countries
>in the Globe. Censorship practically does not exist, free speech is
>guaranteed by constitution, criminality is among lowest in the world.
This is one of the most widely spread pieces of untrue pap in the
socialist purse of propaganda. Here are the facts:
In 1850 Sweeden was poor and starvation was common
In the mid to late 1800's they enacted reforms for freedom including
freedom of trade
1860-1910 the manufacturing wage increased 170 per cent
Swedish life expectancy increased ten years and infant mortality
declined rapidly
Prior to WW1, the Swedish public sector did not spend more than 6 per
cent of GDP
In 1970 Sweden was the fourth richest among the OECD-members, after
USA, Luxembourg and Switzerland
From 1976 to 1982 public spending rose from 50 to 65 per cent
Sweden had to devalue the currency five times by a total of 45 percent
The average growth rate was halved to 2 percent in the 1970s and
declined further in the 1980s
By 1990 private enterprise had not created a single net job since
1950, but the public sector had increased by more than a million
employees
After more than 30 years of high taxation and an expanding welfare
state, Sweden is not the 4th richest OECD-country any longer, but the
17th
Between 1980 and 1999, the gross income of Sweden's poorest households
increased by just over six percent while the poorest in the United
States enjoyed a three times bigger increase
If Sweden left the European Union and joined the United States they
would be the poorest state in America.
Using fixed prices and purchasing power parity adjusted data, the
median household income in Sweden in the late 1990s was the equivalent
of $26,800 compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households -
before taxes.
And then we should remember that Sweden has the world's highest taxes
(from Johathan Norberg)
>> The most likely
>> long term solution to the problem of government is to raise
education
>> standards, make it harder for the ignorant to vote, and privatize
all
>> functions of government except the judiciary and police forces,
then
>> prohibit government from having the ability to levy taxes.
>I absolutely aggree. But, Kurt, this will never be achieved with
>Post-Modernity and ist mindless relativism so influential.
People think in terms of ladders or railroad cars. Things are not that
deterministic, and intentionalism and planned solutions will fail
beacause, although we understand the goal, we cannot actually KNOW the
MEANS of getting there until after we've done it. VOUCHER EDUCATION
ALONE WILL FIX THIS PROBLEM. That's all we need to do. Competitive
education alone is all that is necessary. And of course, wait two or
three generations. But that WILL fix the problem.
>You offered me a well reasoned feedback, lacking the partisan
>radicalism i'm more than tired of. So far, you have provided the only
>noteworthy answer.
So far you haven't gone insane on me either. <g>
I'm not sure that it's either pleasant or comforting, but I'm quite
certain it's the correct answer. I'm sure because it's mechanical and
simple and it tolerates errors. We do not adopt traditions and
economics because we understand them, we do so because we can imitate
them. This problem has made it difficult to analyze and attribute
many philosophical concepts.
-curt
Popescu Lucian
> You have just defined a scope of knowledge, a subset, that was
> intentionally implanted, rather than a universe of knowledge that is
> unmanaged. If 80% of ideas are good and 20% are not, and that 20% is
> economics, and therefore survival, the 80% is irrelevant. The people
> were not surviving, nor was the government. An excellent education is
> meaningless without the economic means of perpetuating the human being
> which contains the knowledge.
As far as I know, extrapolating from my own experience under
communism, people in USSR valued education because it was a way of
dealing with the extreme orthodody required by the Party. When
russians met with American "culture", the whole structure collapsed
instantly. Why? Because people started to realize they have been
frozen in time all along the communist dictatorship. Indeed,
totalitarian system has the awkward quality to function as a
refrigerator. Russians were more rational than Americans simply
because post-modern ideas never permeated among them, thanks to
systematic isolation from the rest of the world.
> Knowledge needs to exist where it can provide benefit.
NO. "Benefit" in most cases is antithetical with "improvement".
Knowledge exists as a mean to itself. It has no "function" and it
cannot be "productive". What kind of benefit did Nietzsche provide?
How about Sartre? NONE. Philosophers are NOT "working men". Those who
accept the function of an entertaining PARROT, are no philosophers at
all.
> I can't quite parse this statment so I 'm not sure what you're saying.
> I can guess, but that's a bad idea.
What? Are you yet to notice the first and foremost reason why
education in US collapsed so ridiculously has been this idiotic
"feel-good", "self-esteem", "sensitive", "anti-rationalist" peopaganda
bullshit?
> This is a mistaken attribution of good. The issue is that the
> econmically and techically productive advances were not happening in
> leftist thinking. It is irrelevent how many people pursue a bad idea,
> other than the human cost of proving it was wrong. It's the value of
> the idea, measured in economic terms that's important. The rightist
> ideas were better, and the leftist ideas are of necessity IDEAS
> because they could not survive implementations and trials in order to
> become KNOWLEDGE. This mistaken attribution of good, is essentially a
> denial that all "goodness" is based upon economics.
NOBODY with a right mind questions that capitalism is immensely more
suitable as an economic system compared to socialism. However, I see
no reason to equate economical achievement with value: American
pop-culture is VASTLY inferior to Romanian ethnic culture. Yet,
unfortunately, economical syncronism is always followed by social and
cultural. I find it truly bizarre to find so many of my fellow
countrymen try acting "American": accumulate big money, buy houses and
convertible, YET lacking the basic qualities in American business:
seriousness, honesty.
> Within some realm of influcence I would agree that EDUCATION in the
> USSR was superior in many ways, especially those ways that were not
> economic, and which cannot withstand economic scrutiny. Education
> under democracy and captitalism could be sustained just as easily,
> although they would also need an economic education as well. Today,
> in the US we do not supply EITHER.
I aggree. Capitalism isn't by default anti-rational. Neither is
Socialism. Both systems need a minimum of ethical or philosophical
guidance. Socialism could never make a man prosper, while Capitalism
certainly can. Thus, a restricted form of Capitalism is in this aspect
clearly more suitable. However, as Capitalism addresses fulfillment of
basic needs (the need to survive and prosper), its abilities to
generate true intellectuals are MINIMAL. It creates SPECIALISTS:
people good in their narrow domain. Specialists are productive, but
they are as farther from intellectuals as common men.
> Great deltas are accomplished due to stress. That stress was not
> present. Social Sciences are anything but sciences. If you can
> state some artist rather than some mystic, then I would be more
> interested.
I don't consider post-modern music or art of ANY value. Atonalism,
cubism, surrealism, dadaism, commercialism are for me synonymous with
pernicious scum. Since 99% of all "artists" belong to this movement,
it's clearly impossible to name at least one true artist living, not
to mention his political views.
Neither Arendt, nor Heidegger were ANY close to mysticism. If you
claim accumulation of knowledge coupled with rationalization and
systematization to be just MYSTICISM, then i'm a man of Jesus
myself.:-)
> Rand was a product of the destruction of socialism having
> experienced commercialism and enlightenment before that destruction.
Interesting remark. Please go further.
> You are confusing the academic with the economic without understanding
> the dependency. You also do not see how the curve of academic value
> decreases as a population and technology increase. I understand the
> error because it is emotionally compelling, but is is not measureable,
> it is not testable, and it is not true. This is another improper
> attribution of "good-ness". All things require calories. More compelx
> things require more calories. Whatever the measure, increases in
> productivity are consistently necessary up to some point of maximum
> human consumption.
I consider the separation of humanity between reason and instincts as
pure MYSTICAL CRAP. Reason exists in dependency with instincts. Living
in utter luxury is the dream of every man...
> American education in it's top 20% is still the best in the world.
> The fact that we educate so many so poorly is a shame, but the fact
> is, the economics aren't there to produce a higher number of
> mathemeticians, engineers, artists and musicians. We don't need them.
> We can't support them. We have more writers producing more pap than
> anyone can consume.
You are contradicting yourself. You said: "Education under democracy
and captitalism could be sustained just as easily". Now you say that
you don't actually need intellectuals, because they are, you claimed,
too many for you to support. I've seen these views put into practice.
(ROMANIA) In early 1950's all artists amd intellectuals were
imprisoned because they were "social parasites preying on the money of
the working class". All these dictates came followed by a "culture"
which sanctioned them as RIGHTFUL and NECESSARY. The outcome of
proletcultism was so disastrous, after a decade they had to make a
compromise.
> Excellence is NOT PRODUCED IN A LINEAR
> PROGRESSION. If more people CAN be artist, it does not follow that
> more people WILL be GOOD artists. This is a function of the knowledge
> necessary to fill in new areas of discovery. (too complex for this
> thread)
Au contraire, I claim that in present social and educational climate,
the outcome of excellence is COMPLETELY UNLIKELY.
> Argh. It is irrelevant that people get what they want from a
> government.
How come then you are supporting democracy???
> Your assumption is that we would be better off.
Until the electorate gets a MINIMUM of political education, YES!
> Ignorant of WHAT?
Ignorant of politics. How can people vote if they DON'T HAVE a firm
idea what they are voting. If electorate would be better prepared, so
politicians would have to leave populism and demagoguery behind and
FINALLY do the business they are elected for.
> You are placing an arbitrary value on a class of knowlege
> that is actually opinon rather than knowledge, and completely ignoring
> a class of knowledge that is provable and has real merit.
> I'm probably being silly beating this horse, but that's the fundamental
> issue you're having. PICKING AN ARBITRARY GOOD.
> This assumes two things: First, that it is possible to educate enough
> people with a small enough variance to create a rational vote. This is
> only possible by removing choices from them - by totalitarianism.
> Second, you do not state the goal of this rationalism which is a
> process. What you mean is, we should POSSESS THE KNOWLEDGE TO EMPLOY
> THE MEANS. The problem is, that a large body of people possess
> knowlege in a distributed fashion, and at some point, the knowledge
> necessary is impossible to distribute across a large enough body of
> people such that they can make a rational decisino based on logical
> processes, using agreed upon means for agreed upon ends. This is
> ideological. It works for families and villages. It does NOT work for
> states, countries, empires, worlds and universes.
STANDARD SET OF RELATIVISM. Standard ABSOLUTE argument of refuting it:
"If all things are relative, you're wrong because that means your your
own statement is relative".
> This is untrue. Socialism is criticized for removing freedom, which
> is silly because if we COULD trade freedom for that security and
> prosperity WE SHOULD.
With above excerpts of relativism, typically attempting to stop
COMPETITION of ideas, I wouldn't bring about the "freedom" issue if I
were you.
> This is a category of generalizations that I can't really attribute
> since you are mixing a number of other concepts that are related but
> not necessarily dependent.
Nazism believed Aryan race is destined to rule the world and all
earth's achievements have been done by Aryan peoples. Aryans have
always been good, civilized and "Germanic". Jews were to blame for all
German problems. They had a disproportionate share among artists,
lawyers, scientists and other educated people that could only be
explained by a world wide conspiration to keep the working class Aryan
people down. Jews oppressed Germans and for that reason they were
filthy rich people, wanting to get richer and richer. Aryans were
people having qualities unknown to Jews. They were "sensitive" and
"spiritual". Thus, if history was wrestling with Nazy bullshit,
history HAD TO BE "corrected". When Hitler came into power, he had the
firm idea that Jews should pay Aryans "reparations" for their "crimes
against German people". Reparation ultimately meant confiscation of
all Jewish property and redistributing it back to "the rightful
owners".
Just put "Negroes" instead of "Aryans" and "White Males" instead of
"Jews" and , with minor variations, you get the same picture.
If Post-Modern racism is of certain national-socialist connections,
the environmentalist part is even more crypto-Nazy. The first
environmentalist movement appeared in Germany in the late 20's. The
movement got incorporated into NSDAP, both with members and ideology.
Hitler was a great animal and environment lover. He was known to say
dogs are better than humans (standard issue: "because they are more
faithful").
NSDAP was clearly socialist, not only in name (The National Socialist
German Workers' Party), but also in economic practice. In 1939, state
owned business was running with no competition from the private side.
All key industry elements were state owned of under state control.
Nazism had a lack of respect for intellectuals matching the present
pattern. Goering was known to be a "man of action". He was known to
say: "Whenever I hear the very word "intellectual", i'm instinctively
looking for a gun". Goebbels, although himself an intellectual,
created world 1st "commercial culture" with a hidden propaganda
intent.
All these matches are no coincidences. Both Post-Modernism and Nazism
originated from early 1920's "deviationist" German leftwing movements,
composed of former idealists onto which the impact of war has been
long lasting. This generation of nihilism parted almost immediately
into national "socialism" and various internationalist unaffiliated
movements, also calling themselves "socialist", but lacking
recognition from established pro-Soviet socialist parties. The later's
impact upon modern ideologies has been decisive. Post-Modernism was
first a German (mainly Jewish) business, which got very easily
exported in France because of similar social conditions. It permeated
the Anglo-Saxon world around 1930's, generating a wave of positive
oppinion towards some of left's ideas.
> I'm not sure that it's either pleasant or comforting, but I'm quite
> certain it's the correct answer. I'm sure because it's mechanical and
> simple and it tolerates errors. We do not adopt traditions and
> economics because we understand them, we do so because we can imitate
> them. This problem has made it difficult to analyze and attribute
> many philosophical concepts.
You are right.
joe teicher
56.56...@posting.google.com>...
> TommCatt <Tomm...@computer.org> wrote in message news:<3E65A0E4.9090005@co
> mputer.org>...
> > In Capitalism, control begins at the individual level and flows upward;
> > in Socialism, control begins at the group level and flows downward.
>
> Your argument would stand if what "objectivists" call individuals
> would truly exist. In fact, humans (with infinitesimal exceptions) let
> society dictate their values. Thus, according to your OWN
> deffinitions, both systems are taking sinuous roads around the same
> issue: Mass control.
This is observably untrue. For one thing, most (or at least many)
human values are much more attributable to human nature than any
societal influence. I don't like sex because society told me to like
sex, I like it because I was "designed" to like sex, because my
ancestors who liked sex reproduced more than the those weirdos that
didn't like sex. For another thing, society doesn't produce some image
that people can blindly attach themselves to. Instead, it presents a
jumble of contradictory images and we have to choose (somehow) which
way we are going to go. I mean, go to a supermarket, they have candy
bars and magazines with anorexic people right next to each other.
There has to be some choice, and I'm not saying it's a "free choice",
but it's clearly an individual, rather than a group choice, whether to
be like the woman in the magazine or the tubbo with the snickers bar.
I mean, society is filled with contradictory images, products, ideas
that are all touted with equal volume. People ultimately have to
choose, based on factors more or less unique to them, just what
images/products/ideas they are going to pick.
Joe Teicher
Popescu Lucian
6770...@posting.google.com>...
> > would truly exist. In fact, humans (with infinitesimal exceptions) let
> > society dictate their values. Thus, according to your OWN
> > deffinitions, both systems are taking sinuous roads around the same
> > issue: Mass control.
>
> This is observably untrue. For one thing, most (or at least many) human
> > values are much more attributable to human nature than any societal
> > > influence.
What is this "human nature" if not just a couple of contradictory set
of behavioral principles common to all of us. Man IS part of the
society. He can dream about some autonomy from societal influence, but
no more than that. Why? Because society provides protection and a set
of minimal the member
> I don't like sex because society told me to like
> sex, I like it because I was "designed" to like sex, because my
> ancestors who liked sex reproduced more than the those weirdos that
> didn't like sex.
So do the dogs. Does that make them "individuals"?
However, make this following experiment. Raise a dog in an 100% human
environment. For his first four years in life put "him" aside ANY
contact with other dogs. Also, deprive him of parental nurturing.
Then, suddenly, place "him" near a bitch. Will he get arroused: YES.
Will he act or do anything in favor of his instincts: NO. Instead, he
would likely feel threatened and back away. This is also a biological
issue. For instance, if a human doesn't learn how to speak until teen
age, he will NEVER be able to speak in his entire life. WHy? Because
the nervous structure in the brain responsible for speaking and
understanding communication will simply fade because of the lack of
use. Also, men or women who, for some reason, begin their sexual life
very late are likely to have severe problems in arrousal and
satisfaction.
What does this all prove? Instincts are meaningless unless no social
methodology is assimilated in order to channel this raw material. It's
like knowing all Chinese words but lacking the slightest notions of
Chinese grammar.
> There has to be some choice, and I'm not saying it's a "free choice",
> but it's clearly an individual, rather than a group choice, whether to
> be like the woman in the magazine or the tubbo with the snickers bar.
I think we are talking about different issues. I consider an
individual someone who quits the so-called "natural" state of
animalistic perplexity. This issue can be very easily analyzed by the
extent to which a certain person goes aside of societal control.
You define individual in an animalistic sence. YES, i aggree. But you
should remember also each dog has something particular, but that is
very far from any notion I'd be able to cope with regarding
individuality. If you base on biological exidence saying: "if every
human has a different DNA and if he consistently differs in behavior
from other human, then he's an individual" you must accept
"individuals" among every mammalian specie, because the basis of
dimorphism are a thing of much older ancestry than a mere five million
years.
> I mean, society is filled with contradictory images, products, ideas
> that are all touted with equal volume. People ultimately have to
> choose, based on factors more or less unique to them, just what
> images/products/ideas they are going to pick.
Let us suppose society indeed provides us contradictory images.
Whether it does or not it's a highly complicated issue which could
occupy a book rather than just a Usenet posting. There are arguments
for and there are arguments against that, but for the sake of having a
beautiful set of rationalle, let us follow your version. If society
provides contradictory images this is BY NO MEANS denoting those
contradictory images aren't expected for members to conform with.
Besides, there is considerably more evidence that society tries to
provide a SINGLE path (which is actually a good thing), which
sometimes is camouflaged into an array of APPARENTLY different ones
for the sake of a greater permeation.
Curt Doolittle
distance with you. I'm not sure I can help you separate these concepts
into the actual dependencies versus the dependencies you state.
Despite your confusion, there is one element of truth to your
argument, and the rest is sitting on a set of faulty premises. I
didn't edit this at all, so I hope it's readable.
Here is the accurate statement:
"Democracy can only be improved if enough people are educated with
enough knowledge about how to keep and maintain a democracy".
And you're right about that.
But, here is the set of things your holding in error:
1) Education in America is not capitalist, its implementation is
socialist. Our entire educational system is run by socialists, it was
conceived (in the 1840's?) as a socialist entity, it's administered by
socialists, and in it's very concept it's socialist. It's by
definition egalitarian because it is centrally administered and
directed, and does not allow competition. The problem with this is
that IT PURPORTS TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE IT CANNOT POSSESS. (That's the part
I'm trying to get across.)
Education can be improved as quickly as possible through voucher-based
education which supplies both the universal need for all to have
education, and the competitive means by which to identify BETTER
education by giving people with BETTER education a competitive
outcome. Parents will FLOCK to schools that teach better skills,
because even in this ridiculously socialist system we now have, THEY
ALREADY DO, and they do so by moving to those communities that HAVE
GOOD SCHOOLS. This is morally objectionable because all humans should
have the ability to achieve their greatest potential (and thereby
humanities greatest potential) regardless of whether their parents
possess the financial resources to relocate to a place that through
happenstance and luck, despite socialist controls, can produce
competitive excellence.
2) Socialism is anti-rational. Or, in reality, it fails to understand
the limitation of reason. REASON CANNOT EXPOSE WHAT IS UNKNOWN, JUST
WHAT IS KNOWN BUT NOT UNDERSTOOD. The only way to find new knowledge
is through trial and error. Socialism is DIRECTED. It assumes it has
knowledge. It cannot evolve. It can't evolve because there is no
measurable means of success, and no competitive alternate strategy.
3) PRESCRIPTIVE METHODS, which is what you really want to promote, can
only distribute, can only TEACH what is already KNOWN. But
prescriptive methods cannot create new knowledge. Capitalism is
basically the recognition that the largest permutation of trial and
error creates the greatest knowledge, and that the KNOWLEDGE CREATION
IS IN THE HANDS OF THOSE WITH THE MOST RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE. Capitalism
works because the greatest trial and error is in the hands of people
with the greatest likelihood of producing the most successful outcome
because they have the greatest knowledge. This is merely the
application of evolutionary principles to economics, government and
social affairs.
4) Intellectuals. This is the heart of your confusion. While you
appreciate and love intellectuals, you cannot separate out what they
produce from WHAT MAKES THEM POSSIBLE. You must have economic
prosperity for a large number of people in order to produce
intellectuals. IN the US, we have so many artists, that only 8-10% of
them (1990 figures, so I'm a little behind) can survive. We have more
actors, more playwrights, more writers, more filmmakers and more
literature, -- more everything PER CAPITA than anywhere else on the
planet.
The problem your stating, is that THEY ARE PRODUCING SUBJECTIVIST
CRAP. And you are entirely correct.
But this is NOT the affect of CAPITALISM; it's the affect of SOCIALISM
in America. ALL BOUNDED SYSTEMS ARE DETERMINISTIC: Our educational
system from the grade schools through the universities is SOCIALIST,
the teachers and professors are SOCIALISTS, they are SUBJECTIVISTS.
We have, despite the greatest economy in the world, a HUGE movement of
people who embrace collectivist and managed-economy and managed-mind
people. They are unintentionally promoting the anti-industrial
revolution, and they are, as you state, destroying American culture.
They are the producers of the objectionable anti-moral nonsense you so
clearly despise.
What keeps them marginally in check is two factors:
a)Subjectivists are not economically powerful. They can't be, because
they are not economically productive. When someone gets out of school,
the numbers look like it takes around SEVEN YEARS for a student to
lose what subjectivist nonsense they learned in college, and adopt
moral the basic principles of business: contracts, performance,
measurable outcomes, profit, honesty, integrity, consistency, customer
satisfaction and retention, continuous improvement, research and
development, capital management and appreciation, accountability to
investors, and most of all, absolute truth.
If the economy is productive now, how much better will it be if we can
increase productivity to the point where a student is productive at 21
rather than 28 or 30?
b)There is a strong religious base in the country, most of which is
Christian, most of which is catholic, and the vanguard of this
movement is a coalition of (this is important) competitively
interacting, but cooperatively goal-seeking, conservative Christians,
who are, with no small degree of effort, acting as a BANKING SYSTEM
for our ECONOMICALLY SOUND MORAL CODES. Despite the ridiculous dogma
each one uses as a defensive wall around these codes, the CODES ARE
ECONOMICALLY SOUND, and MORAL.
So, this error you see in our culture is not an affect of capitalism,
it's the affect of NOT EMPLOYING CAPITALIST PRINCIPLES TO EDUCATION.
The current state of affairs is what happens when you interject
socialist (MANAGED) principles into this kind of society.
5) Cultural Values
You make a number of statements:
"However, as Capitalism addresses fulfillment of basic needs (the need
to survive and prosper), its abilities to generate true intellectuals
are MINIMAL. It creates SPECIALISTS: people good in their narrow
domain."
This is true. BUT IT'S WHAT YOU REALLY WANT. Because of the existing
body of distributed knowledge and the increasing complexity of
technologies, only specialists can uncover new knowledge. You are
picking an "either a or b" when the answer is we can have both "a and
b". Where we can have sound economic principles, continuously
advancing knowledge, excellent humanities, people capable of making
good political decisions, and where morality maintains these concepts
across generations.
What we all really want is the following:
a) For people to receive a prescriptive education in what is known
(reading, writing, math, science, history)
b) For people to receive a prescriptive education in non-prescriptive
methods: how to uncover the unknown (Capitalism, economics,
evolutionary principles, and the scientific method)
c) For people to receive a prescriptive education in how to think
(objective philosophy and logic)
d) For people to receive a prescriptive education in how to perpetuate
the knowledge (moral principles and their relation to economic values
and economic systems)
e) For people to receive a prescriptive education in aesthetics (arts,
literature, etc) so that they can perpetuate the IMITATIVE VALUES that
maintain and improve the system that lets them PRODUCE these things in
the FIRST place.
You are, in your previous post, making the mistake of valuing the
humanities in a vacuum. They don't exist there. Wealthy empires
produce the most art for a reason. (Sometimes the only art) It's
because they have the WEALTH. (Art is also a form of knowledge that
requires increasing resources) You need wealth to make art. I've been
having this argument for twenty-five years. All desires aside, there
are no goods that are not economic goods. Those things we value are,
primarily, economic values, or entirely dependent upon economic goods.
How many forms of "beauty" are not synonyms for
"Plenty/abundance/wealth/health"? Good, to a human equates to
`calories' in some way or another.
The answer to our mutual problem is in recognizing that there is a
competitive advantage for all of us to have educated people who can
make an educated vote, who can prosper and create a more prosperous
world for us, and who, once prosperous, can improve the human quality
of the world through improvement of the arts. Placing arts in a
vacuum will allow people to develop subjectivist thinking and avoid
the hard work of production in favor of adopting the practice of
hedonism rather than keeping a diligent watch on production and
economics so that they, and others can best enjoy life.
The evidence you see from America, the behavior that most people in
the world object to, is indeed immoral. But the source of this
immorality is not the capitalist culture, it is not the capitalist
morality, it is in fact, a set people who are subjectivist,
anti-moral, anti-knowledge, anti-industrial revolution, who are part
of the American socialist movement, not part of it's libertarian
movement (in philosophy, not the party).
We are fighting the same war inside the country as you, who are
outside the country, are dealing with. It's just because it's easier
for you to see, that you associate these internal socialist principles
with the US, versus the conservative, economic and moral principles
that make it an economic powerhouse, that can afford to create these
ignorant, subjectivist, immoral people in the arts, humanities and
education system, and not fall into pieces in spite of them.
What is most wonderful about our government, is that, despite the
efforts that the socialists have made during the 20th century, the
fact that our government is so difficult to change, has protected us,
at least in part, from the economic subjectivism that is present in
European democracy, even if it has not protected us from the social
effects. Europeans cannot generally see or make this distinction.
Robert Kolker
Curt Doolittle wrote:
>
> 1) Education in America is not capitalist, its implementation is
> socialist. Our entire educational system is run by socialists, it was
> conceived (in the 1840's?) as a socialist entity, it's administered by
> socialists, and in it's very concept it's socialist.
I would prefer the term statist to socialist. Horace Mann was very
impressed by the Prussian system in which the State became the sole
regulator and provider of schooling to the population. The intent was to
turn out a pliant, obedient citizenry ready to work for the good of the
State. Yes, it is collectivist in the essence but it is not Marxist or
Lenninist at all. This nonsense started well before Marx, Engles and
Lennin created a successful movement (and it was successful only in
Russia). The Statist system of schooling can co-exist with the private
ownership of the means of production, so it is not Socialist.
Bob Kolker
Alex Leibovici
> American pop-culture is VASTLY inferior to
> Romanian ethnic culture.
In my understanding of the terms "pop-culture" and
"ethnic culture", there is not sooo much value in either of them.
However,
- what do you mean by "ethnic culture", "pop-culture" ?
- what are, in your opinion, the essential characteristics of
American pop-culture and of Romanian ethnic culture?
- and din ce puncte de vedere ;) is one superior to the other ?
Alex Leibovici
--------
"He who believes absurdities will commit atrocities." Voltaire
Curt Doolittle
@attbi.com>...
In context this is irrelevant. The fact that such systems are
intentional and directed, by defintion renders them non-competitive.
The proper classification would be "those systems that presume reason"
when they do not posess either the knowledge or the means to reason,
and as such have no means of self-correction. Any other means of
classification leads to the same subjective means of measurement and
the same subjective outcome. While I appreciate your intention to
determine a shade of gray, this only results in giving excuses to
apologists because it focuses on the people and politics rather than
the source of causation.
tom neville
<snipped>
Tom-N wrote:
The sickening diatribe continues. Having spent the last three
decades of my seven observing the devestating effects of the
combined bastardisation of that which you discuss, in the un-
productive method of intellectual (snobish disregard) you apply
to it, perhaps it is time to educate you in the ways of the
common man and his family, who frankly dont give a shit for your
opinions of either capitalism or socialism. Let me list a few
effects as I have percieved or experienced them;
The almost total destruction of the family unit, with its self
disciplinary ethic, what for? The avarice and addiction to the
want for more and more social claptrap produced for less and less
by child labour and the pittance offered by those who have too
much to those with too little.
Deregulation, the antithesis of philosophy. Removing safe working
practises, skills and qualities resulting in ever increasing
accident and death statistics in the air, on rail and private and
commercial transport. WTT included.
The effects of Stress on mankind, still a stigma, covered up by
interllectual dolts scurrying like rats, eager to inflict their
latest evil hypotheses on the unsuspecting masses, in most cases
to draw attention from their previous distasteress cockups.
Youth crime, pre-teen murderers. Complete lack of self-discipline
because schools dont teach it. If it feels good do it! what ever
happened to conscequences?
Honor and respect gone, replaced with cowardice and selfishness.
All the responsibility falls on dickheaded interlectual dolts
employed by political megalomaniacs to *invent* dumbassed
policies which even my 19yr old university student grandson
can expose.
Is it any wonder as stated in someones earlier thread, that
so-called interlectuals heads are rolled literally when violent
action occurs, usually initiated by lower class against the
equally violent policy of so-called upper classes.
However I suspect "those who although they have ears cannot hear
and with eyes cannot see" will apply here.
Tom-N
Popescu Lucian
generates COUNTLESS errors in your argumentation:
1. "Socialism is anti-rational"
Socialism isn't anti-rational. Post-Modernism IS. You have probably
made this mistake because both systems are EGALITARIAN. HOWEVER, the
two understand "equality" on RADICALLY different perspectives:
marxists think equality should be achieved by upgrading proletarians
towards the elite, while post-modernists think equality should be
achieved by DOWNGRADING the elite towards the masses. This is because
Post-Modernism is an outcome of relativist nihilism, produced by
NON-socialist German philosophers in the first decades of 20th
century. Socialism does nothing more than taking a more RADICAL stance
of basic principles of Enlightment thinking. Enlightment philosophy
also taught the value of "rights" and "equality" and ALSO believed
it's within the DUTIES of the elite to bring "enlightment" among
ignorant illiterate masses. BOTH Socialism and Enlightment were
anti-bourgeois. They considered the bourgeois (capitalist) class as
"parasites" looking for nothing more than accumulating wealth. The
first forms of Socialism appeared during the French Revolution, but
the movement has taken its common form around the middle of 19th
century. It's important to know that supporters of enlightment were
all from the upper class, always the educated people. The bourgeois,
however, had NOTHING to do with both of these ideologies. In their
private life, they were RELIGIOUS (while elites were NOT), they
followed TRADITION (while Socialism preached the PROGRESS) and they
were COMPLETELY ignorant (and proud of being that) on arts/philosophy.
Contrary to frequent mistifications, capitalism has always been in
opposition with Enlightment thinking. If Voltaire, Rousseau, Marx
would see this system of private health and education sectors, they
would have abhor it absolutely, because it would have contradicted
their DEAREST ideals.
2. "Socialism is subjectivist"
This one is similar with the "socialism is anti-rational". Socialism
is among the last systems trying to create a morality alternative to
religion. It stresses crypto-christian moral ALL OVER (which is why
Nietzsche HATED Socialism). You must fraternize with the suffering,
you must help the less-advantaged, a.s.o. A TRUE socialist is the very
contrary of subjectivist, he's a MORAL ABSOLUTIST. However, because
you might experience great difficulty in finding one, you are inclined
to take the truckloads of "feminists", "gay activists",
"anti-racists", "environmentalists" as "socialists".
3. "Socialism is anti-knowledge"
Same as "socialism is subjectivist/anti-rational"
4. "Socialism is anti-industrial"
This one is really ridiculous. No such movement appeared in Socialism,
including its ultra-radical wing, the Communism. Because Socialism
was, basically, an Enlightment philosophy, the foremost value was THE
PROGRESS. Socialists have always championed "progress",
"industrialization", "alphabetization", "end of obscurantism", a free
health and education system.
Again, you are erroneously attributing Post-Modern characteristics to
Socialism. This is getting utterly counterproductive.
Anti-Industrialism became an element of Post-Modern "philosophy"
beginning with 1950's and it was NEVER included in any of official
socialist/communist parties worldwide. It entered America because of
the growing influence of Maoism in hippie generation. Maoism was a
deviant form of communism, abhored by ALL other leftist movements,
stressing anti-intelectualism and anti-industrialism. It ended with
Mao death.
Another set of mistakes you are commiting:
You said:
"Education in America is not capitalist, its implementation is
socialist. Our entire educational system is run by socialists, it was
conceived (in the 1840's?) as a socialist entity, it's administered by
socialists, and in it's very concept it's socialist."
This is pure ignorance: there was no socialism back into 1840's.
Besides, the first form of leftist/post-modern influence in American
education system have been introduced during the New Deal in 1930's.
American education system is BY ALL MEANS capitalist. It's based on
private owned schools, having almost complete autonomy one of another.
In Socialism, education is FREE, universities are FREE, health care is
also FREE. Private schools/hospitals were forbidden in all countries
whose systems were based on Marxism.
Now away with this false dichotomies you are creating, I shall say i'm
NOT a socialist. A human being must exist in ALL its integrity.
Socialists tend to be radical about this. Socialists inherited the
views of Enlightment thinkers, believing the essence of man is
fractured between reason and instincts. The socialist type of economy
is a MASSIVE FAILURE, exactly as the one when Christianity was ruling
Europe with an iron hand. It indeed created poverty which ultimately
downgraded EVERYBODY to an animal state needed to fulfill the ignored
basic needs. However, it became meeting ground for nearly all of
important intellectuals. Why such an intelligent person as J.-P.
Sartre be a COMMUNIST? Of course, because of a massive mistake, but
also because he felt FAR away of growing influence of commercialism.
Western intellectuals felt threatened by commercialism, with its
ability to produce things of dubious valor, but well crafted and
provided in endless amounts. They realized commercialism means their
ultimate downfall, thus they entered the only movement TRULY opposed
to commercialism: socialism/communism. The leftist intellectual
fraternizing in the Western world is an interesting symptom of
anti-capitalist reactions. So far, the capitalist system not only has
failed to create a class of decent intellectuals, but only furthers my
impression that, during human history, THINKING AND ACTING HAVE NEVER
GONE HAND TO HAND.
Because I sincerely liked your well structured posting, although it's
filled with the common "socialism=postmodernism" simplifications, I'll
offer you an idea you should pay time and think about: isn't
"Objectivism" itself a philosophy born from simplifying manicheistic
practices coupled with a sincere pleasure to make activism precede
essence? Isn't "Objectivism" one of the countless post-modern
quasi-religions, only with a "rationalist" agenda?
1.
As all Post-Modern movements, Objectivism revisits (read INVENTS) past
in order to create itself a precedent in history. It says to merely
follow the ideas of the Enlightment, which have now been bastardized
by socialist public enemies (again, the boring confusion
"socialism=post-modernism"). But Enlightment was similar with
objectivism only in APPEARANCE. In essence, they were was VERY
dissimilar: while Objectivism is fervently individualistic,
Enlightment philosophers were on this aspect quasi-"Socialists".
2.
Typical to post-modern movements, Objectivism is from the very start
defined as a philosophy built through adversity. Its anti-collectivism
and anti-socialism are THE defining aspects of a so-called
"philosophy" that lacks any epystemology. Similar to NAACP activists
thinking Whites are the source of all evil, Objectivists have
"discovered" collectivism to be the prime source of all wrongs. Rather
than defining ITS OWN characteristics, Objectivism lives and breathes
thanks to its paramount adversity with "Socialism". IT'S A DEFFINITION
THROUGH NEGATION. In order to be a good man, according to Objectivism,
you must be rational and have good survival instincts. However, what
is important IN REALITY is the OUTCOME of these, not their very
existence. Objectivism is happy to have the formal approval of members
being "rational men". By rational men, read MEMBERSHIP, because
Objectivism doesn't count thinkers, but MEMBERS. It's a fully
organized cult movement around Ayn Rand personality. Thus, it's a
congregation of irrational people doing an interesting process that
actually lied at the very basis of religious ideas. What happens is
that people approximate essence to existence, because existence (the
congregation of real, touchable things) is ALL what they are able to
understand.
Curt Doolittle
33.36...@posting.google.com>...
> Curt Doolittle <curt_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4332b246
> .030308151...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snipped>
>
> Tom-N wrote:
tom neville <nuc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message news:<b0e69798.03030820
33.36...@posting.google.com>...
> Curt Doolittle <curt_do...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<4332b246
> .030308151...@posting.google.com>...
Tom,
This diatribe of yours provides nothing of value either logically or
factually.
The context of the discussion is one where a Romanian man, using his
context and concerns, is making an improper attribution of the affects
of captitalism, in particular its affect on education. To avoid the
fairly deterministic nature of such a dialog, and avoid devolving into
tiresome old rants, I am attempting to move the debate out of the
realm of political superstition and belief, where lables have some
serious baggage, and into that of the fairly droll realm of
Popper/Hayek's behavior of knowledge in large populations. This
technique, aside from removing the nearly religous facination that
people have with their various religions of state or the absence of
state, focuses on what CAN be known, what IS known, and how to know
what ISN'T known, rather than applying inductive logic to what is
SUPPOSED, OPINED and BELIEVED.
If you have spent this much time on the subject, then you should have
encountered these ideas. If Hayek and Popper are disproved in some
way, I have yet to see it.
I do not claim to write particularly clearly at times, but that does
not necessarily mean that either the process I am using,which is
distinctly non-linear, nor the principles I'm employing, which are
also non-linear, are not both correct and provable.
I don't know you, your name, and I haven't read any of your threads.
So I can't place any pattern of behavior on your comments. I can only
go with what's below and your observations are well taken, even if
your conclusion is illogical.
Some examples from your post:
> Deregulation, [] Removing safe working [practices]
> The almost total destruction of the family unit,
> ever increasing accident and death statistics in the air
> The effects of Stress on mankind, still a stigma, covered up by
First, these are not TRUE. You have created in your mind a naive and
arbitrary utopian vision that is an innacurate depiction of history.
Deregulation of WHAT has been negative? Airlines? You mean the fact
that almost any one can fly versus the fact that only a few can
afford to? Deregulation forces out business that is no longer of
value. That's what it does. Period. What you really mean is, that
as an employee in an industry "I want someone to take care of me, and
I don't want to think about my job or how I can do it better, and I
want security (like I had when mommy took care of me.) Well, since
when in history did that happen? During the demand for war and
post-war labor in the 40's and 50's? That got us a large under-25
population and the subjectivism of the 1960's. After the black plague?
I don't want to repeat that again. This kind of thinking is the
error of extrapolating the curve. Do you really want those
circumstances? If so, we'd need to experience some fairly rigorous
genocide on a regular basis. It's insane.
My family, or some part of it, has been in the funeral business for
200 years. You can see from a brief scan of the records that you will
live longer today, happier, healthier, fewer of your friends and
family will die, you are less likely to meet a viloent end, you are
very unlikely to starve or be hungry, you will have an easy cushy life
watching TV rather than cutting wood and trying to keep warm. The
streets are cleaner. Sanitation is better. Healthcare is almost
unimagineable. You are unlikely to die from war or starvation. You
have access to more information than you can understand or have time
for, and your incorrect belief that accidents are rising instead of
decreasing is proof of it. This is not true. Seventy years ago,
people would die in two or three days from the prick of a needle. My
grandmother lived on a single-family farm in Maine and started working
at the age of four knitting mittens for lumberjacks. Life was VERY
hard. I have been poor. I hated it. I will never permit it to happen
to me again, and I will work every day to insure that it happens to as
few people as possible.
Yes, this increase in knowledge and rate of technology is stressful.
You no longer can afford to be in ignorant dolt taking vocational
training if you want to live a good life. But this is the same thing
that has happend throughout the history of civilization. It is an
artifact of the process of evolving knowledge. People need to work
harder at developing initial education because only reason and
intelligence have value in a world where physical labor and ignorance
have no value.
It is this ignorance of the relative state of affairs that causes
people to develop such utopian ideas, which are false. Technology,
and knowledge are what improve our lot, and they do so best when more
people use knowledge and technology. As these things increase in size
and scope, people specialize. Governments cannot, (it would be nice
if they could) but they cannot accrue this knowledge. The death and
destruction caused by this noble but foolish persuit is the greatest
crime in history.
But if you are defending managed processes in any of their statist
forms, you are fighting an economic battle of mechanics, versus an
intellectual battle, or a religious one of utopian ideas. And no
matter how hard you try, you will lose.
Furthermore, you are assuming that I am not trying to solve this same
problem that you are, and I am. I am just attemtping to find a means
of solving it, that is not economically destructive at the same time,
and will work. And all statist ideas are economically destructive.
These failures you elucidate are all the same, but they are not caused
by the conservative, economically sound, character-promoting,
behavior-limiting traditions of western cultural traditions. They are
caused by the subjective ignorance of less technologically advanced,
and less technologically educated peoples living within, and actively
dismantling western ideas. Ideas that are nothing more than
conceptual technologies whose premise states that one is valued thru
one's works, and that economics are the only measurable good that will
allow one to be free of economic chains.
In the end argument, the economic value that the family, friends, and
the village and for that matter whatever label you place on the tribe,
is diminishing because increases in population, education, knowledge
(technology could be used here as well) and increases in
specialization, along with the limited rate at which humans can
acquire knowledge, are increasing the economic power, flexibility,
production and importance of the individual, and decreasing the
economic power of any group. This is a function of the behavior of
knowledge. It is a fact and it is unalterable.
The only way to counter this is to freeze humanity in time in some
state-driven totalitarian luddite utopia. If there were some means of
converting all of human kind over at once to this dogma, it might have
a short but effective lifespan. But it will not work becauase it is
uncompetitive and neigboring civilizations will out-develop,
out-breed, and out-conquer (economically or physically), or
out-produce and therefore out-jealous and intellectually deprive the
frozen civilization. If it were otherwise, humanity, and most of the
life on this planet would not exist - because this is the basis of all
evolution.
Control. Intent. Management. These are all primitive, ignorant,
misguided totalitiarian concepts and worked well when everyone was
ignorant and powerless. Educated people who have knowledge and
economic means are neither. If the world is going to truly be a
better place for all, then we must adopt systems that do not attempt
to manage and control, but which use the carrot of self-betterment to
draw them to the optimum conclusion.
Curt Doolittle
55.3b...@posting.google.com>...
PL,
I have enjoyed this conversation, and have been giving it a bit of
thought. The problem with these forums is that they can easily
ecourage people to discord rather than to agreement. After trying to
approach this discussion using what I think is your line of thinking,
here is how I view our positions this issue:
My bias: I would like philosophy to catch up with Darwin. I try to
apply evolutionary principles wherever I see that induction (reason)
is limited by knowledge. This is how I view the world, it is my bias,
and colors my judgement.
As such, holding this view, I do not see that intentional, planned and
managed systems, especially systems of government, provide anywhere
near the value, or achieve anywhere near the excellence as do
unintentional, evolutionary systems, such as economies. There are
some very nice mathematics behind this, but although they are not
complicated, they are tedious. Simply put, evolutionary systems that
measure outcomes tend to produce a greater variety of trial and error
and produce more new knowledge. They also tend to extinguish beliefs,
processes and organizations that are not competitive (producing value
for participants). Planned and managed systems do not accomplish this
because they assume to possess knowledge that they do not have, they
become defensive bureaucracies, and they tend to become frozen in
time. They are deterministic processes, producing outcomes that are
bounded by the design and knowledge in the system and are therefore
non-adaptive.
We dislike the same things in American culture. There is no reason to
like them unless you're an imbecile. However, we disagree over the
cause of it. What you call Post Modernism, (something I ignored in
your posts, incorrectly assuming we meant the same thing) is not a
function of the thinking behind capitalism, (which is a
self-organizing concept, so there isn't any thinking) Post Modernist
thinking is a function of the SAME thinking that created socialism,
communism and all the rest of the planned, and managed processes of
government, Robert so kindly reminded me can be bundled into Statism.
The causal concept behind the problems of socialism and the problems
of post-modernism are the SAME: they have an unrealistic expectation
of the limited capabilities of deterministic systems, and induction.
What limits them is the mechanics of the processes in play when large
numbers of humans conduct their lives, and when knowledge is applied
to the system of human cooperation and competition.
Now I agree with you that education will solve the problems you
listed. But when I say capitalism generates information, I do not
mean that it generates the same (prescriptive) knowledge as education,
it simply generates new knowledge in the most likely places, and in
the hands of those who are most likely to use it. This is economic and
technological knowledge. I think when I say this, you are thinking of
humanities, and about what humanity SHOULD do, as in the arts and
behaviors. I don't disagree with you, but I disagree that the STATE
should control and monitor this process, rather, that people should
have educational choices, and these educational choices should compete
against eachother. This is why US universities excel, because they
are competing for students, and US schools are terrible, and produce
so many idiots. It's because there is no corrective process in the
schools, and the state is incapable of developing a corrective process
(for MANY reasons).
Likewise, there is a subtext in your argument that shows that you
believe in the goodness of the state, and that people should be
compelled to do things, even compelled to education. I disagree. I
do not like sticking a gun to people's heads for any reason, whether
it's war, taxes, or education. I would rather have a carrot in front
of the donkey, this alone, creates a choice. States are a necesary
evil, not a good. Even in education, states have a place, which is,
since eduction is rapidly approaching becoming a human right, they
have a place in defending that human right, and in providing
resolution of disputes over that right, but States cannot produce,
distribute nor qualify knowledge. They cannot do so, because they
have no means of creating it, or knowing what that knowledge is that
they should create. And if they did, they would misuse it, as they
misuse all other powers that we grant them. The people, the
citizenry, given equal access, will use all means at their disposal to
create organizations that will allow their children to have the
highest quality of life, because they had the highest quality of
education.
-Curt
PS: I try to visit Hungary every now and then, having just been in
October, visiting friends. I have not been to Romania, but will try
to get there this year and have a look myself. I am uncomfortable
travelling there without the ability to speak the language, but I'll
manage somehow.
Larry Allen
33.36...@posting.google.com>...
Well spoken Tom. Very well spoken.
Especially your very last statement.
Which truth gives philosophers whom understand it, much comfort and
peace.
A man whom is unaquainted with the nuances of individual conditioning
cannot possibly break that conditioning, in terms of the effect it has
on him.
God knows (pardon the phrase) its hard enough on the one who is
aquainted.
A blind man cannot will himself to see, a deaf man cannot will himself
to hear, an ignorant man cannot will himself to understand.
So be it.
The deepest, highest and or greatest issue (or meaning) here becomes
the ultimate question for the best philosophers among us.
To wit: is the condition we find ourselves in (collectively) perfect
or not?
To the one whom is just entering their philosophical puberty, so to
speak, this question causes great turmoil and distress.
Much like a 14 or 15 year old child that has just come to the sincere
conclusion that their parents are complete idiots. Not the magnificant
beings the supposed they were, just a few weeks, or perhaps months
ago.
To be sure, it is not easy to realize that the source of your very
being, not to mention the guardians of it, for all of your life, are
complete morons.
No, this is quite unpalatable.
As is the idea that the destruction, corruption and overall general
annihilation of family values is a necessary evil. In the long run.
Tough to take. Tough to accept. Tough to understand.
But I tell you a truth. It's true.
I trust Tom you have read enough of my posts to recall that I argue
for the necessity of polarity to experience the beauty and
magnificance of unity.
It is, nonetheless, a bitter pill to swallow.
Larry Allen
Curt Doolittle
I agree, in the context of what you're saying, I am incorrectly using
the term socialism. This has more to do with an attempt not to derail
the conversation than it is a representation of ignorance. It is a
religion and a disprovable religion, because, despite what has been
written, it is false on the facts and false on the logic, and this is
true due to how knowlege is generated in human organizations.
The problem is, that the terminology... it's all still discussing
angels on the heads of pins.
The reason I am compelled to hold this debate with you is that I can
tell that you want what is best for all men, not just for yourself. I
have this same desire. The debate is about means I think. I am
interested in a different means. I am concerned that you have made the
classical mistake that happens when one studies the history of ideas,
and that is, that it does not recognize the limits of the inductive
process, and all people who follow this train, end up at the same
destination. I think what you are reaching for, is an improvement in
a system of thinking (government) that has exceeded it's capabilities.
Furthermore, you said:
>>>Socialism isn't anti-rational.
It depends. Do you mean it's rational in that it's non-spiritual, or
do you mean it's rational, as in logical? It is the former, but it is
NOT the latter. (Hayek) This is too big an argument to have here.
>>>Post-Modernism IS [anit-rational]
I have a problem with this statement because Post Modernism includes:
Lukacs, Gramsci, Levi-Strauss and Foucault, Sassure and Derrida. You
know, since they 're irrational philosophies, I can't discuss them. I
discounted them long ago. As for being anti-rational, then I agree.
But you lump in Objectivism, which is NOT Post Modern, it is own
school, currently most closely associated with the Revival of
Classical Realism , consisting of Maritain, Adler, Wiled and Dolhenty.
(Adler I know well, and can debate his positions, the others I do
not.) If it's in a Post Modern bucket somewhere, then this is an
error.
I do not think you have correctly categorized these concepts.
Objectivism is Aristotelian. It is questionably Darwinian. My
position is Objectivist AND Darwinian, with Popperian limitations and
Hayekian behaviors. It is certainly not either subjective or
anti-rational.
>>>Socialism is among the last systems trying to create a morality
alternative to religion
And thus IT IS WRONG. It cannot do so, because IT IS INTENTIONAL. By
attempting to rationalize the process it will CREATE IGNORANCE.
>>>"Socialism is anti-industrial"
What I said, is that it's "anti-industrial revolution". In the US,
the socialist movement is an attempt to reject religous values, DESIGN
new values, and protect familial and tribal values. The problem is
that values are technologies, not just beliefs. You CANNOT DESIGN
TRADITIONS because they are economic. Socialism is anti-economic. It
cannot form traditions that will survive the genetic impact of
inter-generational failure. I realize that this may be a lot of
information to assimilate, but I need to know what you don't know in
order to know what to say.
>>>This is pure ignorance: there was no socialism back into 1840's.
Look, you're argument is pointless. It's the concept. These ERRORS IN
THINKING regardless of LABEL are the same. I use Socialism not
knowing your background, and since then have tried a number of labels,
but each one is a problem. The best categorization I can come up with
would be "people who think that social good can be a) known by some
empirical means b) designed by intent or agreement and c) implemented
by the state." And this is patently FALSE. (Hayek, Popper) All these
errors are the same. By spiraling your discussion, youir thinking and
your argument down in the minute differences between concepts that ALL
RELY ON THE SAME FAULTY PREMISE you are missing the point altogether.
>>>So far, the capitalist system not only has failed to create a class
of decent intellectuals, but only furthers my impression that, during
human history, THINKING AND ACTING HAVE NEVER GONE HAND TO HAND.
Let me ask a question: List all the great intellectuals that you care
to name, and tell me what you think CAUSED THEM TO BE CREATED. We are
all people of our times, and we are all subject to the same stimuli.
You will find out through this analysis, that, like Rand, allmost all
intellectuals are created by technological (conceptual technology as
well) convergence in their times. They are systemic responses to
STRESS.
So why would capitalist societies produce fewer of what you call
intellectuals? If it were true, which it is not, then the answer
would be BECAUSE THESE SOCIETIES ARE SUBJECT TO LESS STRESS. Why do
you admire these intellectuals? Because they solve problems. Why do
they solve problems? BECAUSE PROBLEMS EXISTED. Rand was subject to
stress. She simply CODIFIED what was happening in the world at the
time. Great people do not change the universe. they are artifacts of
the time. (this needs a lot of exposition) People imitate what they
see, and give it a name. Each person is computationally simple. It's
the mass of humanity working through trial and error that make all the
progress, and all the change. More choices for individuals, more
freedom, create more permuatatoins, more permutations mean more proofs
and trials. It's simple mathematics.
There are MORE intellectuals in the US, but WHERE are they being USED?
They are not where you are seeking them. That's the only difference.
>>Isn't "Objectivism" one of the countless post-modern
You need a means for choosing. It works. It's the best so far.
Thinking something is perfect is impossilbe, because it's impossible
to KNOW without having data and evidence. So far, the evidence is
that she was correct. I would like to extend objectivism to tolerate
unintentional processes like economics and goverment. The fact that it
will tolerate these behaviors is not proof, but it further
substantiates that her philosophy is foundationally sound.
>>>IT'S A DEFFINITION THROUGH NEGATION.
This is true. And this is one of five problems with objectivism. Her
goal was to refute a destructive philosophy that she saw, and I still
see, as catastrophically detrimental to the survival of humankind.
However, it is a postive philosophy and it is economically sound, the
first that is economically sound. If those overtones of negation,
which I would describe differently, but you're correct, are removed
from the philosophy, which they can easily be, then the philosophical
framework still stands. The world is real and exists, man is heroic,
his purpose is his own happiness, reason is his means of survival,
capitalism is his means of using reason for greatest prosperity. I
can't seriously think that anyone is going to refute these concepts in
the next few lifetimes.
On the other hand, it is not compelling for many people, and that is
fixable too, since there is nothing preventing it, other than teaching
people that economic productivity is the foundation of survival, and
that without economic productivity, no humanities, no arts, can
survive. They are only created through excess calories. And the
determination of 'excess' is with each individual.
-Curt
tom neville
My wife believes every person is good? Even Hitler! I said you
should have married Larry. She said Larry who? I said never mind
let's go to bed.
Popescu Lucian
> But you lump in Objectivism, which is NOT Post Modern, it is own
> school, currently most closely associated with the Revival of
> Classical Realism , consisting of Maritain, Adler, Wiled and Dolhenty.
> (Adler I know well, and can debate his positions, the others I do
> not.) If it's in a Post Modern bucket somewhere, then this is an
> error.
Perhaps you're right. I let myself carried out, taking argumentation
too far. What I wanted to say is that our global society is severely
ill. Maybe Rand had a sincere belief in what she was advocating, but
because she lived in a period of cultural (and moral) decay, it would
have been imposible hers ideas not being taken in a manner typical to
hers epoch. Culture is going through a massive crisis and philosophy
is effectively reduced to a minimum number of jolly and easily
consumable ideas. Just as we live and die, civilizations also have a
period of life, after they become redundant and fade out. Enlightment
Civilization is dying not due to some skillful opponents, but because
it's no longer needed by the very people it was protecting. People
clearly seem in need of a new ideology, that must just be simple and
optimist. Of course, neither of us two have anything except contempt
for that, but remember that men once they discover an effective easy
method of survival will preffer it against ones more problematic, but
more fulfilling.
> I do not think you have correctly categorized these concepts.
> Objectivism is Aristotelian. It is questionably Darwinian. My
> position is Objectivist AND Darwinian, with Popperian limitations and
> Hayekian behaviors. It is certainly not either subjective or
> anti-rational.
Strangely, you provided me an indirect argument in my impression
rationalism under Objectivist patronage is a fake, a kind of
pre-produced packed item you buy in every supermarket. First of all,
popularizing rationalism is a classical case of COLLECTIVISM.
Objectivism does a similar job with that "buy my product and you'll be
life-long happy". Probably, Objectivism never had one single true
rational being, because if it had one, that person would abhor it from
the very start. Why? Because it defies the internal sense of tragedy
(of both personal and intellectual life) that lies inside EVERY
rational man and reduces him to a jolly wreck, filled with shallow
certainties.
People find shelter in "isms" for the same reason why dogs need
masters to guide them. Being under protection of a great Name, man
feels better and more powerful. Ideologies in the mind of simple man
always mean the realm of one person, thus paying tribute to X's person
instead of his ideas. Claiming to be an Objectivist (worship of
being), just as claiming to be an Anti-Socialist (worship of
anti-being), goes in close syncronism and perfect accordance.
Rand seems to have been the first person to put forward a NAME for
hers ideas. Ideas, however, have NO name. They are generalistic, thus
impossible to be personalized.
> Let me ask a question: List all the great intellectuals that you care
> to name, and tell me what you think CAUSED THEM TO BE CREATED.
NOTHING. Rationality is an outcome of intelligence, a domestic nature
and an array of favorable events (including minimal wealth and
education).
> So why would capitalist societies produce fewer of what you call
> intellectuals?
Simply because it's firmly against capitalist principles to sponsor
something without a convincing sign of productivity. In the eyes of
capitalists, philosophers (except parrots) are just as worthless as
homeless bums.
> Why do you admire these intellectuals?
First I admire them because I have conservation instincts:-) Second,
because they are immensely superior to people around. I don't ADMIRE
anybody, though. Admiring means WORSHIP. Instead, I respect them as
individuals, alone and unhappy, trying to get trough the nauseating
ordinarities of existence.
> This is true. And this is one of five problems with objectivism. Her
> goal was to refute a destructive philosophy that she saw, and I still
> see, as catastrophically detrimental to the survival of humankind.
> However, it is a positive philosophy and it is economically sound, the
> first that is economically sound. If those overtones of negation,
> which I would describe differently, but you're correct, are removed
> from the philosophy, which they can easily be, then the philosophical
> framework still stands. I can't seriously think that anyone is going to
> > refute these concepts in the next few lifetimes.
Philosophies don't have to be economically sound. It's like trying to
bait fishes by recitating verses from the Kapital.
Of course it is a positive "philosophy". No present "Movement" allows
itself to be pessimistic, because that would cause massive losses in
membership.
> The world is real and exists, man is heroic,
> his purpose is his own happiness, reason is his means of survival,
> capitalism is his means of using reason for greatest prosperity.
Why is man heroic?
IMHO, this again goes straight against evidence. Mankind is a
congregation of gutless cowards, able and willing to make ANY
compromize, just in order to stay alive. Just like ANY other animals.
Where are these illusive "heroes" Rand was talking about? Was she
reffering to these great figures of intellectual PROSTITUTES:
Heidegger, who participated with Nazy policies in his university?
Sartre, who albeit aware of Soviet Mass Killings DIED as a fervent
communist? Popper, enjoying a lasting afectuous relationship with
relativism? Nietzsche, who died of siphilis because of his too-often
visits to whores? Which one? I'll tell you: NONE. In their private
life, all these people were as craven cowards as all other people.
True, there were few who tried to live according to their ideas, but
all failed miserably. Rand was certainly not one of them. She probably
found great pleasure having followers able to do ANYTHING for her,
which as a rational man I FIND THAT DISGUSTING.
> On the other hand, it is not compelling for many people, and that is
> fixable too, since there is nothing preventing it, other than teaching
> people that economic productivity is the foundation of survival, and
> that without economic productivity, no humanities, no arts, can
> survive. They are only created through excess calories. And the
> determination of 'excess' is with each individual.
I aggree, but this is day to day business. No philosopher has ever
been preocupied by the prices of pigs on the market (although he would
have enjoyed pork meat alltogether). As I said, a man must live in all
his integrity, yet I don't see why does he need to philosophize when
he's eating, sleaping, "sexing" or doing any other personal business.
Popescu Lucian
> My bias: I would like philosophy to catch up with Darwin. I try to
> apply evolutionary principles wherever I see that induction (reason)
> is limited by knowledge. This is how I view the world, it is my bias,
> and colors my judgement.
Strangely, i'm doing the same thing. As a matter of fact, I'm watching
Discovery Channel and extrapolating human behavior from apes'. I love
my intelligence being intuitive rather than educated, because in this
way i can leave ideas and adopt new ones with least prejudice
possible.
> As such, holding this view, I do not see that intentional, planned and
> managed systems, especially systems of government, provide anywhere
> near the value, or achieve anywhere near the excellence as do
> unintentional, evolutionary systems, such as economies.
Planned economies are as religions. They are ineffective but they make
the man feel protected. It's a majestic version of what historians of
religions called "symbolic presence". People are worshiping unity
because "unity" is no longer a concept, but a "symbolic presence"
(synonymous with God). Same transition from concepts towards presence
by people unable to comprehend.
> There are some very nice mathematics behind this, but although they are not
> complicated, they are tedious. Simply put, evolutionary systems that
> measure outcomes tend to produce a greater variety of trial and error
> and produce more new knowledge. They also tend to extinguish beliefs,
> processes and organizations that are not competitive (producing value
> for participants). Planned and managed systems do not accomplish this
> because they assume to possess knowledge that they do not have, they
> become defensive bureaucracies, and they tend to become frozen in
> time. They are deterministic processes, producing outcomes that are
> bounded by the design and knowledge in the system and are therefore
> non-adaptive.
I aggree, leftism is economically bankrupt.
> We dislike the same things in American culture. There is no reason to
> like them unless you're an imbecile. However, we disagree over the
> cause of it. What you call Post Modernism, (something I ignored in
> your posts, incorrectly assuming we meant the same thing) is not a
> function of the thinking behind capitalism, (which is a
> self-organizing concept, so there isn't any thinking) Post Modernist
> thinking is a function of the SAME thinking that created socialism,
> communism and all the rest of the planned, and managed processes of
> government, Robert so kindly reminded me can be bundled into Statism.
The economic policies of Post-Modern movements are indeed marxist,
which is why they hover around being called "leftist". However,
marxism is MORE than an economic system. It's also a philosophy based
on "dialectic materialism". Post-Modern people REJECT dialectic
materialism. Instead of thinking: every idea is traceable to class and
amount of cash you owe, they say: every idea is specific to someone's
gender, culture and ancestry. By doing that, Post-Modernism is close
of 19th century reactionary anti-Darwinistic religious movements.
> The causal concept behind the problems of socialism and the problems
> of post-modernism are the SAME: they have an unrealistic expectation
> of the limited capabilities of deterministic systems, and induction.
> What limits them is the mechanics of the processes in play when large
> numbers of humans conduct their lives, and when knowledge is applied
> to the system of human cooperation and competition.
This is true, but that doesn't make them to be the same, if this is
what you were implying. Religion was behaving identically.
> Now I agree with you that education will solve the problems you
> listed. But when I say capitalism generates information, I do not
> mean that it generates the same (prescriptive) knowledge as education,
> it simply generates new knowledge in the most likely places, and in
> the hands of those who are most likely to use it. This is economic and
> technological knowledge. I think when I say this, you are thinking of
> humanities, and about what humanity SHOULD do, as in the arts and
> behaviors. I don't disagree with you, but I disagree that the STATE
> should control and monitor this process, rather, that people should
> have educational choices, and these educational choices should compete
> against eachother. This is why US universities excel, because they
> are competing for students, and US schools are terrible, and produce
> so many idiots. It's because there is no corrective process in the
> schools, and the state is incapable of developing a corrective process
> (for MANY reasons).
I think you are right. This information-education differentiation is
something I'm perhaps gonna assimilate into my thinking.
Decentralization of education system has
- good implications: encourages competition and multiplicity of
choices
- bad implications: creates a chaos suitable for relativism
As far as I see, American education system has both. Of course, not
living in US denies me of a true sense of perspective on this matter.
In order to be straight, man must also admit the outstanding advances
in science, which are the most straight forward proofs of a highly
effective learning in American Universities. Also, social sciences
have benefited of an important representation in US learning system,
although some if not most of newer theories bare the mark of
post-modernism. In arts, culture and humanities, US is instead far
behind the Old World, especially France. Strangely, here the left has
acquired important membership from people whose ideas run against
Official Thinking. France is perhaps the only country in the world
where socialist movement is freer of relativist contamination. Le
Monde is perhaps the only important newspaper in the civilized world
firmly commited to modernism rather than post-modernism. Of course, it
represents rationalism from a leftist perspective, but i'm so SICK AND
TIRED of biased news from American media, that I preffer Le Monde,
although it has things to be made accountable for. For instance, like
all leftist newspapers, Le Monde is quite mild with the evil of
communism.
> Likewise, there is a subtext in your argument that shows that you
> believe in the goodness of the state, and that people should be
> compelled to do things, even compelled to education. I disagree. I
> do not like sticking a gun to people's heads for any reason, whether
> it's war, taxes, or education. I would rather have a carrot in front
> of the donkey, this alone, creates a choice. States are a necesary
> evil, not a good. Even in education, states have a place, which is,
> since eduction is rapidly approaching becoming a human right, they
> have a place in defending that human right, and in providing
> resolution of disputes over that right, but States cannot produce,
> distribute nor qualify knowledge. They cannot do so, because they
> have no means of creating it, or knowing what that knowledge is that
> they should create. And if they did, they would misuse it, as they
> misuse all other powers that we grant them. The people, the
> citizenry, given equal access, will use all means at their disposal to
> create organizations that will allow their children to have the
> highest quality of life, because they had the highest quality of
> education.
IMHO, education should be under community (or state) patronage, just
like law enforcement agents. That does NOT mean I have any special
love for Statism. I'm as commited for a decentralized system as you
happen to be. It's just that I think education (and health care) are a
fundamental right for everybody to take advantage of.
> PS: I try to visit Hungary every now and then, having just been in
> October, visiting friends. I have not been to Romania, but will try
> to get there this year and have a look myself. I am uncomfortable
> travelling there without the ability to speak the language, but I'll
> manage somehow.
You should expect a country wrecked by corruption, poverty and
frequent reminders of the ultra-hardline totalitarianism we were so
unfortunate to experience. You should also observe an universal
feeling of unhappiness and dispair among every Romanians. On the other
hand, you could exploit your advantage for being a foreigner,
especially with our women.
If you decide by chance to visit it, announce me in time and (if I
have nothing better to do) I'll show you the good places to visit in
our capital:
- quarters inhabited by our beloved minority, the Gypsies, where
buildings have no windows and kids learn their first pickpocketting
and knife mastery lessons ignorant of the fact human feet have to be
protected by shoes, at least in the cold winters.
-the Soviet-style pitiful blocks of flats (where everything is gray
because of the crazy amount of noxes in our air), where people use
elevators to dump garbage into. (I've been in one of them)
The language is easier to learn if you have the basics of Italian. We
understand Italian but they don't understand us, because of linguistic
mutations of a larger quantity that took place when Vulgar Latin
evolved into Proto-Romanian.
I recommend you to visit Romania: its lighter side but its darker side
also. About the darker side, i'll be in charge...:-))
ADDENDA
Which is the difference between subjectivism and relativism?
1. Subjectivism considers every judgement to be subjective. Which is
true. Even if two judgements are subjective, there is clear ground for
classification.
2. Relativism, however, considers every judgement to be relative and
personal. Which is, of course, contradictory, because that denies the
relativist as well making an overall judgement.
I thought it would be useful to remind you on that, because you've
used "subjectivism" with same meaning as "relativism".
Looking forward,
LP
Larry Allen
50.44...@posting.google.com>...
Your wife has married a very intelligent and a very very good man.
I have read nearly every post you have posted, thus I know of what I
speak.
So to speak.
Larry Allen
P.S. By the way, does your wife happen to have a twin sister?, that is
single?, looking for a man of great wealth, though lacking in the
nuances of higher intelligence?
I may be a bit old, but hey, medical technology has come a long long
way.
Viagra comes to mind. In terms of the body.
And this forum itself, is assisting me with the mind.
:)