Ideology, integrity and will
Ishambat
pronounced in one person, less pronounced in the next. Any ideology or religion
that has mass appeal gets its appeal by providing philosophical justification
for a part of the human nature, a part that is in all cases expressed more
naturally in some than in others. The battle of ideologies is in fact the
battle of parts of the human nature.
Capitalism provides fulfilment for the proprietary and competitive motives.
This is a part of the human nature, more expressed in some than in others.
Volunteerism provides fulfilment for altruism. This too is a part of the human
nature, more expressed in some than in others. Education and science provide
fulfilment for curiosity and intelligence, which is a part of the human nature,
more expressed in some than in others. Poetry, philosophy, and religion provide
fulfilment for emotions and for the spirit - also part of the human nature,
which some people have more than do others and take to more readily.
A person goes to war for an ideology because it reflects a part of himself, and
without it he is left without justification. A person needs an ideology because
it gives his natural propensities a moral cloak. The need for moral
justification is a part of the human nature, an extension of the fact that
people have conscience. The unforgiveable sin of ideologies is their claim that
the parts of the human nature that they justify are the only legitimate parts
of the human nature, and any other part of the human nature is corrupt.
Communism demonized the proprietary motive and individualism and menaced,
imprisoned or murdered the people who were insistent on expressing these
traits. Nazism demonized love and compassion and created a population of moral
degenerates that thought nothing of killing 50 million people. The ideology
that runs America has gone to great length to demonize the part of the human
nature that seeks meaning and beauty and passion, creating a population with
essential spiritual needs unfulfilled and those who had them as part of their
nature living miserable existence and, unguided, falling into drug addiction
and mental illness. But a desire for meaning, for beauty, for passion, for
love, for experience, is no more narcissism or sentimentalism or
self-obsession, as has been the common thread of thinking in some American
cultures, than the desire for property or individualism is lack of conscience,
as Communists claimed. Both are completely legitimate parts of the human
nature, and people who have those parts of the human nature within them do
themselves and the world a favor by finding a way to live these parts and
possibly benefit other people who likewise have these parts expressed.
Each ideology has succeeded in fulfilling the part of the human nature that it
claims to be legitimate. Nazism created the world's most murderous army and
most self-justified thugs; Communism put the first man in space and created
some of the world's best medicine, education and science; capitalism created
the most prosperous period in the history of humanity and empowered more people
over their lives than ever before. But each ideology has been oppressive to
those who aren't made of the stuff that the ideology appeals to, and each
ideology has created monsters that used the moral justification provided by the
ideology to indulge a part of their nature while demonizing and destroying
everything else, including the checks provided by the rest of the human nature
upon the damage created by uncontrolled fulfilment of one of its parts. No
ideology is right, as there is no justification for human nature or for
anything else that is natural; human nature - all parts of the human nature -
can be expressed in a way that is moral or immoral, or leading to improvement
or degradation in the condition of other people. The only ideology that can
succeed is one that allows for all essential parts of the human nature and
gives them a place to fulfil themselves in a moral way.
==============================================
Integrity is a state of acting completely as a single unit. It is easy to have
integrity when one has lived all his life in an insulated environment, coddled
by tariffs and speech restrictions and fallacious religious beliefs from ever
experiencing the rest of the world. The problem with such integrity is that it
is based on ignorance, insulation and lies, and what one becomes is an
integrated extension of the lie and ignorance on which one is founded. The
beliefs are not reality-tested against other mindsets and other cultures, and
the premises and conclusions remain unchecked. A personality that possesses
such an integrity is a big lie, perpetuating the same set of errors without
checking against reality of experience and forcing the same set of lies through
self-fulfilling mechanisms of beliefs onto others. Integrity is a lot harder to
have when one has been exposed to many different influences, but the integrity
that one does achieve is far truer, a result of a tour de force of one's mind
to make sense of everything that has come to oneself and to accept the best of
all things into a synthesis.
The people who speak to the fact that the cultural turmoil since 1960s has left
American people without identity and without integrity also tend to attack
immigration. What they want by attacking both the inner and outer scrutiny to
the culture is a culture with no checks and balances, with no insight, with no
questions, with no meaningful liberty, in which all people are raised to buy
into the same set of lies. What they want is a culture that does not have to
compete - a culture that does not have to provide fulfilment to people - a
culture that does not have to abide by its stated principles - a culture that
does not have to meet scrutiny of external and internal perspectives and can
steamroll its way into social totalitarianism by silencing all forms of
questioning and all forms of dissent.
For much of its history, the South has been such a culture. The result has been
a culture of violence, incest and corruption that bludgeons people into
silence, dishonesty and loss of self-esteem and claims that the alcoholic,
incestuous, violent family unit that it is protecting, like the culture that
protects such a family unit, is sacred. For much of their history, most peasant
societies around the world have been such cultures. The result has always been
a culture of brutality, ignorance and inbreeding in which all spirit and
innovation was stifled and errors and misery perpetuated through generations.
The cultures that work - that attract people, that improve people's lives, that
achieve global renown - are the cultures that have lots of influences and put
those influences into a synthesis that makes the best of all. Economically and
politically, America has been a result of this synthesis. America needs this
synthesis to take place also at the cultural level.
Before true integrity can conceivably be accomplished, the errors that exist in
one's founding structure must be removed, and the only way to see an error
within one's structure is through an external perspective. Honesty and
integrity in America require challenge of the entrenched cultures by other
cultures and by the people within America who have seen or experienced the
negative consequences of dynamics within the culture.
=============================================
The notion of will is misapplied when it is used to justify denial. A true
person of will deals with all problems and solves them, not bullies others into
shoving their problems under the rug. Emotions require understanding, knowledge
and development, not being stunted because they do not abide one's concept of
self-control. Intellect requires direction and opportunity for implementation,
not abuse by envious bullies who find it distressing to the lie that they are
forcing people to live. Mental illness, caused by either chemical abnormalities
or by trauma, neither the fault of the person, needs treatment, not stigma.
And family, far from needing to be preserved at all costs, is a human
arrangement that, like anything human, is capable of both good and bad, no more
or less sacred than the dynamics that it preserves and corrupted absolutely
when those dynamics include incest, alcoholism, violence and degradation.
Will is one of the things that exists in the human mind. Some things are will,
but many things are other things. Some things are brain chemistry. Some things
are experiences. Some things are information and training. Some things are
political and economical climate. A person who has been dominated all her life
will have a trouble finding her will, and it's not because of bad character. A
person who has had no guidance and finds that nothing he can think of doing can
make a difference will not be excercising his will either - hence the condition
of many people in the ghetto and in the Third World. It's easy to say that
where there is a will there is a way when the things that one's will is willing
to excercise have been predetermined, that is they come from one's
indoctrination and are easily available in one's environment. It's a lot harder
when there is no precedent, no information, no appreciation, for what one is,
and one has to struggle through both hostile climate and wrong information to
make it manifest.
A person who is motivated by property will have no problem getting his way in
America. A person who is motivated by altruism, or by beauty, or by intellect,
or by passion, or by meaning, or by soul, will find happiness a lot harder to
find. Nuch of the time a person does not even have any information to know that
he has a particular preference that would make him happy or by which he could
make for himself a life. It is by leaving everything behind, becoming homeless
and exerting a lot of thought and initiative that I discovered translating
poetry, and it is through the profound involvement of Virginia state government
that I found the organization for which I am volunteering. Most people can't
leave everything behind and go looking, nor do they know where to look, nor do
they get the correct kind of help, and they do not get anywhere outside of the
influences from which they come. Insisting on will, or integrity, in this case,
is nothing more than insistence on people remaining enslaved to the ignorance
and self-interest of their hometown. That is not a legitimate use of will, nor
is that a legitimate definition of life and liberty.
Middle American farmers like to claim that they have will and strength and
masculinity and integrity, but their claims fall apart when one looks at where
they get their money. The American government - that is, the taxpayers, the
rest of the people, the people the farmers claim they feed - gives giant
subsidies to the farmers and erects huge tax barriers to keep away foreign
competition. A true man, especially one in a country that gets most of its
pride from its ability to produce, will not need government to support him, nor
will he be afraid of what people in other countries can with their labor
produce. Rather he will be able to produce, with his labor, better than the
people in other countries, and be able to sell on the market, one's own and
international, honestly and without interference from political organizations.
He will be able to survive by his labor, that is by his ability to
provide something that somebody else will want.
Free market means that people get what they want if they have the resources to
get it. If people want a car, they get a car; if people want culture, they get
culture. If one does not want to be deemed greedy and stupid for wanting things
that provide for material comfort, then he must not deem others snobbish or
weak or arrogant or unrealistic for seeking products that cultivate the soul.
The fear and stigma that Americans have of art and intellect must be removed,
and people must be allowed to embrace the cultural influences that have the
most to offer and vote for them with their money and their lifestyle. If you
really want to live up to your notions of will and strength and responsibility,
then produce cultural output that can compete on a global market. And if other
cultures have something to offer that your own people want, as in the case of
the people with intellectual interests respecting and modeling themselves after
Russian or European or Native American cultures, then the solution is not
calling these people posers or traitors but rather learning what it is that the
Russian and European people are doing right, integrating it into one's own
culture and producing output that measures up to their standard and is
appealing both to one's own population and to the people abroad. The Communist
world has realized the error of their economic and political models and is
implementing models that provide their people a better lifestyle. It is time
that American realized the error of their cultural model and worked on creating
a culture that is intellectually, emotionally and spiritually fulfilling to its
citizens.
The standard response of Americans to being taken to task for the illiteracy of
their culture, the ugliness of the lanscapes they have created with all their
prosperity, the obscenely low quality of their education and their lack of
interest in the rest of the world, has consisted of attacking the political and
economical situation of those who take it to task and shaming them into keeping
silent. May I go on record as saying that not only is the American economic and
political situation in no way a result of the same factors as shaped the
culture of tasteless illiteracy, but the very people who are responsible for
making American economic and political situation successful are ones who find
the middle-American culture most repugnant. Thomas Jefferson would be seen by
Americans today as a snob with European intellectual pretensions; Steven Jobs
was a hippie; Howard Hughes was insane. The fact that France was overrun by
Germany during the Second World War does nothing to distract from the fact that
the French culture and educational system beats American culture hands down
hands down, and the fact of bringing up something that happened 60 years ago in
a generation that is now mostly dead shows the extent to which some Americans,
who claim themselves patriots but are ignorant of America's founding principles
and founding ideas, would go to deny the glaring reality. But reality has to be
faced before it can be corrected, and no amount of abuse and ad hominem will
change that.
America, and much of the rest of the world, has been held in a grip by a set of
bullies. True Americans - that is, the people who truly represent the spirit
that made America - are cosmopolitan, tolerant, open-minded and peaceful, a
reflection of the spirit of immigration and international cooperation, not the
ingrown inbred pseudo-machoistic parasites that the people who claim to speak
for patriotism in America are. The latter are neither true Americans nor do
they do honor to America by claiming to speak for it. They are pigs and
bullies, and if America is to become culturally equivalent to what it is
politically and economically it must refuse to buckle under to their cultural
tyranny and their abuse. If a country deserves its government, as many American
politicians so smugly assert in explaining to the people why they should not
get involved in helping the victims of Third World dictatorships, then it also
deserves its culture. The culture of violence, greed, illiteracy and
small-mindedness that exists in much of America is a direct result of the
ideology of
will-at-all-costs, and the denial, hypocrisy and ignorance that it breeds.
In order to once again become a viable political force, the Left needs to shed
the dead weight of the politically correct movement. In order to not be a front
for bullying, ignorance and deception, the Right needs to accept the reality of
human emotion and human soul. They need to accept the reality of human
experience and of the fact that will is not the be-all and end-all of human
existence. They need to accept the reality of human emotion and value rather
than disparage the pursuits of literature and of art that educate and
fulfil human emotion and allow people to grow into complete human beings. They
need to apply the honor they demand in others to themselves and rid their
constitutents of incest, alcoholism, parasitism and corruption. They also need
to recognize the reality that the lack of education and the lack of value for
artistic pursuit can only stunt people and make them enslaved to the circle
they come from, which, in a country founded by immigrants who rejected their
hometowns, is a violation of founding principles.
Resijinth
03...@mb-ml.aol.com>...
> Human nature differs from human being to human being. A quality is more
> pronounced in one person, less pronounced in the next. Any ideology or re
> ligion
> that has mass appeal gets its appeal by providing philosophical justification
> for a part of the human nature, a part that is in all cases expressed more
> naturally in some than in others. The battle of ideologies is in fact the
> battle of parts of the human nature.
>
> Capitalism provides fulfilment for the proprietary and competitive motives.
> This is a part of the human nature, more expressed in some than in others.
This is certainly true. Capitalism as a political application is a
necessity, though we can't always except people to like it.
> Volunteerism provides fulfilment for altruism.
This too is a part of the human
> nature, more expressed in some than in others.
Altruism, when keeping in-tune with the rights of others, is an vice
done only to oneself. To restrict people from committing harms unto
themselves is evil. However, it is more expressed in some than others.
Education and science provide
> fulfilment for curiosity and intelligence, which is a part of the human n
> ature,
> more expressed in some than in others.
This is also true. Many people ask questions about the phsysical
world.
Poetry, philosophy, and religion provide
> fulfilment for emotions and for the spirit - also part of the human nature,
> which some people have more than do others and take to more readily.
>
This is certainly true. Defining spirit, of course, to be that part of
a person needing mental knowledge of those things not in the phsyical
world.
> A person goes to war for an ideology because it reflects a part of himsel
> f, and
> without it he is left without justification.
War for its own sake is wrong. But there's nothing wrong with
sparring, so long as all participants, taken as individual persons,
have consented.
A person needs an ideology because
> it gives his natural propensities a moral cloak.
A cloak, but from what? Truth?
The need for moral
> justification is a part of the human nature, an extension of the fact that
> people have conscience. The unforgiveable sin of ideologies is their clai
> m that
> the parts of the human nature that they justify are the only legitimate parts
> of the human nature, and any other part of the human nature is corrupt.
>
Human nature is biologicall. Reguardless of some ideal human nature,
there will always be those better fitted to some things than to
others.
> Communism demonized the proprietary motive and individualism and menaced,
> imprisoned or murdered the people who were insistent on expressing these
> traits. Nazism demonized love and compassion and created a population of
> moral
> degenerates that thought nothing of killing 50 million people. The ideology
> that runs America has gone to great length to demonize the part of the human
> nature that seeks meaning and beauty and passion, creating a population with
> essential spiritual needs unfulfilled and those who had them as part of their
> nature living miserable existence and, unguided, falling into drug addiction
> and mental illness. But a desire for meaning, for beauty, for passion, for
> love, for experience, is no more narcissism or sentimentalism or
> self-obsession, as has been the common thread of thinking in some American
> cultures, than the desire for property or individualism is lack of consci
> ence,
> as Communists claimed. Both are completely legitimate parts of the human
> nature, and people who have those parts of the human nature within them do
> themselves and the world a favor by finding a way to live these parts and
> possibly benefit other people who likewise have these parts expressed.
>
These are indeed dark ages. Just like in the past, we had those who
demonized scientific knowledge, we have people who demonize other
aspects of human nature. One really wonders if human nature is just a
buzz word? Human nature is specific to the genetic code of each
individual. Humanity is defined genetically, and so should each
individual be so defined.
> Each ideology has succeeded in fulfilling the part of the human nature th
> at it
> claims to be legitimate. Nazism created the world's most murderous army and
> most self-justified thugs;
If you're talking about conventional army, then yes. As for
self-justified? They weren't really justified in doing more than they
had to for the sake of proactive self defense, that is, assuming
they'd allready gotten out of that dammed Versalles treaty which
nearly killed their country.
Communism put the first man in space and created
> some of the world's best medicine, education and science;
Communism didn't create it. Communism created theives who STOLE these
things from productive people. It also created artful and crafty
cheats who deceived people into creating these things voulentarily. Of
course, given that communist countries don't fuck around with animal
rights and embryo rights like us in America do, they probably could do
alot, so long as they base all cooperation on voulentary association.
capitalism created
> the most prosperous period in the history of humanity and empowered more
> people
> over their lives than ever before.
This is clearly true. And Capitalism, for the sake of individual
rights, should be observed as a prerequisite theory that allows people
to differ.
But each ideology has been oppressive to
> those who aren't made of the stuff that the ideology appeals to, and each
> ideology has created monsters that used the moral justification provided
> by the
> ideology to indulge a part of their nature while demonizing and destroying
> everything else, including the checks provided by the rest of the human n
> ature
> upon the damage created by uncontrolled fulfilment of one of its parts.
Voulentary association, natural rights, individual human nature, and a
legal framework protecting these things, are the solution. Not
subjectivism.
No
> ideology is right,
It depends on how you define ideology.
as there is no justification for human nature or for
> anything else that is natural;
That doesn't mean reality isn't reality.
human nature - all parts of the human nature -
> can be expressed in a way that is moral or immoral, or leading to improvement
> or degradation in the condition of other people. The only ideology that can
> succeed is one that allows for all essential parts of the human nature and
> gives them a place to fulfil themselves in a moral way.
>
But, you said no ideology is right. How can there, then, be a moral
way? I guess then we should define what is right as what is according
to your individual nature, and what is wrong as what infringes upon
another individual's nature. This is the only noncontradictory
definition of morality.
> ==============================================
>
> Integrity is a state of acting completely as a single unit.
I thought you were promoting a 'be yourself' attitude. People need to
act as individual units. I guess people still have to act in
accordance with the mechanisms of the larger framework of the system.
It is easy to have
> integrity when one has lived all his life in an insulated environment, co
> ddled
> by tariffs and speech restrictions and fallacious religious beliefs from ever
> experiencing the rest of the world. The problem with such integrity is th
> at it
> is based on ignorance, insulation and lies, and what one becomes is an
> integrated extension of the lie and ignorance on which one is founded.
I don't see what you're getting at here. But I do understand that it's
best that government abstain from things beyond it's scope, if that's
what you're trying to say.
The
> beliefs are not reality-tested against other mindsets and other cultures,
> and
> the premises and conclusions remain unchecked.
So you're suggesting pragmaticism? Then what of your other ideas? What
of your beleif that ideology is wrong?
A personality that possesses
> such an integrity is a big lie, perpetuating the same set of errors without
> checking against reality of experience and forcing the same set of lies t
> hrough
> self-fulfilling mechanisms of beliefs onto others.
If your argument is against circularity, then I guess that part can't
be argued. But, still, what are you trying to say?
Integrity is a lot harder to
> have when one has been exposed to many different influences, but the inte
> grity
> that one does achieve is far truer, a result of a tour de force of one's mind
> to make sense of everything that has come to oneself and to accept the be
> st of
> all things into a synthesis.
>
You haven't defined best. In fact, you've stated that best doesn't
exist.
> The people who speak to the fact that the cultural turmoil since 1960s ha
> s left
> American people without identity and without integrity also tend to attack
> immigration. What they want by attacking both the inner and outer scrutiny to
> the culture is a culture with no checks and balances, with no insight, wi
> th no
> questions, with no meaningful liberty, in which all people are raised to buy
> into the same set of lies. What they want is a culture that does not have to
> compete - a culture that does not have to provide fulfilment to people - a
> culture that does not have to abide by its stated principles - a culture
> that
> does not have to meet scrutiny of external and internal perspectives and can
> steamroll its way into social totalitarianism by silencing all forms of
> questioning and all forms of dissent.
If this is the basis for a government that does less commanding and
more safeguarding and acting on just principals, then I guess any
reason is as good as any. But you're missing the point.
>
> For much of its history, the South has been such a culture. The result ha
> s been
> a culture of violence, incest and corruption that bludgeons people into
> silence, dishonesty and loss of self-esteem and claims that the alcoholic,
> incestuous, violent family unit that it is protecting, like the culture that
> protects such a family unit, is sacred.
Southernism isn't wrong. Alchohol, for one, isn't entirely used. Many
people from the south are even staunch prohibitionists. Incest is also
attacked by religeous people in the south, in fact since the south is
very religeous, mainly in a baptist (a fool is born again every
minute) sort of way, you can't protect those claims. A family is not a
family if it is violent in such a manner. It is a tyrrany.
For much of their history, most peasant
> societies around the world have been such cultures. The result has always
> been
> a culture of brutality, ignorance and inbreeding in which all spirit and
> innovation was stifled and errors and misery perpetuated through generations.
In my words, tribalism, such as that which Ayn Rand spoke against, is
the basis for such evil. Is this what you are trying to say? Stop
beating around the bush. Say something worthwhile.
> The cultures that work - that attract people, that improve people's lives
> , that
> achieve global renown - are the cultures that have lots of influences and put
> those influences into a synthesis that makes the best of all. Economicall
> y and
> politically, America has been a result of this synthesis. America needs this
> synthesis to take place also at the cultural level.
>
I thought you said culture was wrong, or didn't exist. Then, what are
you saying? Again, I am confused. You seem to contradict yourself at
every turn.
> Before true integrity can conceivably be accomplished, the errors that ex
> ist in
> one's founding structure must be removed, and the only way to see an error
> within one's structure is through an external perspective. Honesty and
> integrity in America require challenge of the entrenched cultures by other
> cultures and by the people within America who have seen or experienced the
> negative consequences of dynamics within the culture.
>
Information should be an important basis for knowledge and
'correctness'. This is true, but I don't see how you came up with it,
since you said knowledge was incorrect. Perhaps it was merely
'metanarratives' you were speaking against.
> =============================================
>
> The notion of will is misapplied when it is used to justify denial. A true
> person of will deals with all problems and solves them, not bullies other
> s into
> shoving their problems under the rug. Emotions require understanding, kno
> wledge
> and development, not being stunted because they do not abide one's concept of
> self-control. Intellect requires direction and opportunity for implementa
> tion,
> not abuse by envious bullies who find it distressing to the lie that they are
> forcing people to live. Mental illness, caused by either chemical abnorma
> lities
> or by trauma, neither the fault of the person, needs treatment, not stigma.
> And family, far from needing to be preserved at all costs, is a human
> arrangement that, like anything human, is capable of both good and bad, n
> o more
> or less sacred than the dynamics that it preserves and corrupted absolutely
> when those dynamics include incest, alcoholism, violence and degradation.
>
This makes sense, but not from where you're standing. There are
further, deeper beleifs that underly truth. Clearly you are stating
this based on experience, or a principal you have accepted. I thought
you weren't supposed to have principals. Again, we have contradiction.
> Will is one of the things that exists in the human mind. Some things are
> will,
> but many things are other things. Some things are brain chemistry. Some t
> hings
> are experiences. Some things are information and training. Some things are
> political and economical climate. A person who has been dominated all her
> life
> will have a trouble finding her will, and it's not because of bad charact
> er. A
> person who has had no guidance and finds that nothing he can think of doi
> ng can
> make a difference will not be excercising his will either - hence the con
> dition
> of many people in the ghetto and in the Third World. It's easy to say that
> where there is a will there is a way when the things that one's will is w
> illing
> to excercise have been predetermined, that is they come from one's
> indoctrination and are easily available in one's environment. It's a lot
> harder
> when there is no precedent, no information, no appreciation, for what one is,
> and one has to struggle through both hostile climate and wrong information to
> make it manifest.
>
Are you saying indoctrination is bad or good? I think individual
experience and individual application of reason is more important. I
can't quite gather what you are saying. It's just a hodge podge of
philosophical and contextual ends, while provoding none of the means
associated heirchically.
> A person who is motivated by property will have no problem getting his way in
> America. A person who is motivated by altruism, or by beauty, or by intel
> lect,
> or by passion, or by meaning, or by soul, will find happiness a lot harder to
> find.
America is quite different now than it used to be. You should
integrate this knowledge into your texts.
Nuch of the time a person does not even have any information to know
that
> he has a particular preference that would make him happy or by which he could
> make for himself a life. It is by leaving everything behind, becoming hom
> eless
> and exerting a lot of thought and initiative that I discovered translating
> poetry,
It was utterly worthless if you ask me. I'd keep a mobile home and a
laptop comptuer from which to do work as a prerequisite to a nomadic
lifestyle, not homelessness, which is a detriment to yourself.
and it is through the profound involvement of Virginia state
government
>
> that I found the organization for which I am volunteering. Most people can't
> leave everything behind and go looking, nor do they know where to look, n
> or do
> they get the correct kind of help, and they do not get anywhere outside o
> f the
> influences from which they come.
So you're saying, you can make all the decisions for people? You have
first stated that everybody is wrong, then made this statement not
apply to you. This is why somebody must be right, and this is also why
this person is not you.
Insisting on will, or integrity, in this case,
> is nothing more than insistence on people remaining enslaved to the ignorance
> and self-interest of their hometown.
Will and integrity are virtues. Isn't that what you said earlier?
Clearly we are in disagreement. Now leave this place, or reform. You
must adapt to your environment. That is a great virtue, adaptability.
That is not a legitimate use of will, nor
> is that a legitimate definition of life and liberty.
>
Life, liberty, property, and voulentary transactions of said things,
are rights unto themseles. They result from reality. Not from falsity
and ignorance which you are yourself displaying.
> Middle American farmers like to claim that they have will and strength and
> masculinity and integrity, but their claims fall apart when one looks at
> where
> they get their money. The American government - that is, the taxpayers, the
> rest of the people, the people the farmers claim they feed - gives giant
> subsidies to the farmers and erects huge tax barriers to keep away foreign
> competition. A true man, especially one in a country that gets most of its
> pride from its ability to produce, will not need government to support hi
> m, nor
> will he be afraid of what people in other countries can with their labor
> produce. Rather he will be able to produce, with his labor, better than the
> people in other countries, and be able to sell on the market, one's own and
> international, honestly and without interference from political organizat
> ions.
> He will be able to survive by his labor, that is by his ability to
> provide something that somebody else will want.
>
This is correct with capitalism. But this is a RESULT of integrity and
will. People who command things from others have no integrity, and
people who let others command things from them are rejecting their own
will.
> Free market means that people get what they want if they have the resourc
> es to
> get it. If people want a car, they get a car; if people want culture, the
> y get
> culture. If one does not want to be deemed greedy and stupid for wanting
> things
> that provide for material comfort, then he must not deem others snobbish or
> weak or arrogant or unrealistic for seeking products that cultivate the soul.
Hypocracy is a vice.
> The fear and stigma that Americans have of art and intellect must be removed,
> and people must be allowed to embrace the cultural influences that have the
> most to offer and vote for them with their money and their lifestyle. If you
> really want to live up to your notions of will and strength and responsib
> ility,
> then produce cultural output that can compete on a global market. And if
> other
> cultures have something to offer that your own people want, as in the case of
> the people with intellectual interests respecting and modeling themselves
> after
> Russian or European or Native American cultures, then the solution is not
> calling these people posers or traitors but rather learning what it is th
> at the
> Russian and European people are doing right, integrating it into one's own
> culture and producing output that measures up to their standard and is
> appealing both to one's own population and to the people abroad. The Comm
> unist
> world has realized the error of their economic and political models and is
> implementing models that provide their people a better lifestyle. It is time
> that American realized the error of their cultural model and worked on cr
> eating
> a culture that is intellectually, emotionally and spiritually fulfilling
> to its
> citizens.
>
It used to almost have it. But we threw it away because we thought
government meant authority. True government is protection from
authority. The constitution is government, federal law is authority.
> The standard response of Americans to being taken to task for the illiter
> acy of
> their culture, the ugliness of the lanscapes they have created with all their
> prosperity, the obscenely low quality of their education and their lack of
> interest in the rest of the world, has consisted of attacking the politic
> al and
> economical situation of those who take it to task and shaming them into k
> eeping
> silent. May I go on record as saying that not only is the American econom
> ic and
> political situation in no way a result of the same factors as shaped the
> culture of tasteless illiteracy, but the very people who are responsible for
> making American economic and political situation successful are ones who find
> the middle-American culture most repugnant.
How do you define middle-America? Why do people of your sort hate
middle America? It's people who aren't quite high class but also
aren't quite low class that actually split the difference on issues so
as to make the balance of this country a possibility.
Thomas Jefferson would be seen by
> Americans today as a snob with European intellectual pretensions; Steven Jobs
> was a hippie; Howard Hughes was insane. The fact that France was overrun by
> Germany during the Second World War does nothing to distract from the fac
> t that
> the French culture and educational system beats American culture hands down
> hands down,
It won't once America fully privatizes education. America can't win
with education so long as America controls education.
and the fact of bringing up something that happened 60 years ago in
> a generation that is now mostly dead shows the extent to which some Ameri
> cans,
> who claim themselves patriots but are ignorant of America's founding prin
> ciples
> and founding ideas, would go to deny the glaring reality. But reality has
> to be
> faced before it can be corrected, and no amount of abuse and ad hominem will
> change that.
>
You seem to be osculating between foolishness and wisdom. And you
aren't even wholly subjective. It seems you are in the
cult-of-compromise. This is not constructive. It's cowardice.
> America, and much of the rest of the world, has been held in a grip by a
> set of
> bullies. True Americans - that is, the people who truly represent the spirit
> that made America - are cosmopolitan, tolerant, open-minded and peaceful, a
> reflection of the spirit of immigration and international cooperation,
Again, I don't know what you're saying. Use less buzz words and be
more clear.
not the
> ingrown inbred pseudo-machoistic parasites that the people who claim to speak
> for patriotism in America are. The latter are neither true Americans nor do
> they do honor to America by claiming to speak for it. They are pigs and
> bullies, and if America is to become culturally equivalent to what it is
> politically and economically it must refuse to buckle under to their cultural
> tyranny and their abuse.
What is it that defines this abuse? I clearly want less authoritative
powers in government than it allready is.
If a country deserves its government, as many American
> politicians so smugly assert in explaining to the people why they should not
> get involved in helping the victims of Third World dictatorships,
then it also
> deserves its culture.
It's America's involvement in the Third World that has created these
dictatorships. YOU are the one that is being smug. America should get
it's hands off of the rest of the world. That is not to say individual
citizens in America do not have a right to get involved. I fully
support action by individuals when it is not endorced by an
authoritive structure, by authoritive I mean rights violating. And by
rights, I mean those rights correctly defined by Objectivsts.
The culture of violence, greed, illiteracy and
> small-mindedness that exists in much of America is a direct result of the
> ideology of
> will-at-all-costs, and the denial, hypocrisy and ignorance that it breeds.
Will is important. We need to protect epistimilogical free will,
though we must do away with metaphysical free-will. And we need to
define the limits to one's will where another's will's limits start.
>
> In order to once again become a viable political force, the Left needs to
> shed
> the dead weight of the politically correct movement.
I agree whole-heartedly! The left has bred the majority of intolerance
in the 20th century.
In order to not be a front
> for bullying, ignorance and deception, the Right needs to accept the real
> ity of
> human emotion and human soul. They need to accept the reality of human
> experience and of the fact that will is not the be-all and end-all of human
> existence. They need to accept the reality of human emotion and value rather
> than disparage the pursuits of literature and of art that educate and
> fulfil human emotion and allow people to grow into complete human beings.
> They
> need to apply the honor they demand in others to themselves and rid their
> constitutents of incest, alcoholism, parasitism and corruption. They also
> need
> to recognize the reality that the lack of education and the lack of value for
> artistic pursuit can only stunt people and make them enslaved to the circle
> they come from, which, in a country founded by immigrants who rejected their
> hometowns, is a violation of founding principles.
>
The right has its chance to breed its own brand of intolerance in the
21st century. This is a big mistake.
> http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket
As for my own, real beleifs? We must preserve integrity and will in
encapsulated form. In programming terminology, Reality is the source
code, Objectivism is the compiler, and we need an effective linker,
perhaps a way of life which allows people to choose their own goals,
and to choose to cooperate with other people, and with entities,
before we can have the executable. I will offer two pages, made by my
friend Franc, to this extent. Both are logical. Perhaps you can learn
from them.
http://www.libertarianthought.com/
http://www.objectivethought.com/
These are both from Franc, not from me. I'm sure he doesn't mind me
spreading them here.
And then, with this, we can proceed to a lifestyle which promotes
encapsulation that is interacting to make a perfectly working world. I
mean, computers work perfectly because it is done this way. Each
portion is distinct, and they all do their own thing, but they also
interact, through transactions, still following their nature, and as
the sum of their parts, the whole works perfectly. Well, as perfect as
it can, with given errors. But it works, at least, and it works well.
This is what we want. This is what we need.
Ilya Shambat
573b...@posting.google.com>...
> > Volunteerism provides fulfilment for altruism.
> This too is a part of the human
> > nature, more expressed in some than in others.
> Altruism, when keeping in-tune with the rights of others, is an vice
> done only to oneself.
Altruism is not a vice, altruism is an action done by oneself that is
helpful to someone else. I value being of help to someone else. I find
it lifts my spirits, strengthens my connection to life, enhances my
self-esteem and makes me a better person. I get more fulfilment from
volunteering at the children's learning center than I did from working
in the computer industry. It is not rational, for someone whose
ideology bases its legitimacy on its ability to provide better life,
to attack something that helps people to live better lives. Altruism,
when in keeping with rights of others - when it takes such forms as
helping children to learn or helping a sick person to recover or
helping a lost person to find better fit - helps both parties. It
helps the object of altruism by helping him to lead a better
existence, and it helps the person who's being altruistic by giving
him a sense of having done something good. To many people that's very
important.
> To restrict people from committing harms unto
> themselves is evil.
Doing that is not in keeping with their rights.
> Poetry, philosophy, and religion provide
> > fulfilment for emotions and for the spirit - also part of the human nature,
> > which some people have more than do others and take to more readily.
> This is certainly true. Defining spirit, of course, to be that part of
> a person needing mental knowledge of those things not in the phsyical
> world.
The mind is not in the physical world. If you want to damn things that
are not in the physical world, you will also have to damn the thing
that is doing the damning - much like the Kantians using the mind to
disprove the mind.
> A person needs an ideology because
> > it gives his natural propensities a moral cloak.
> A cloak, but from what? Truth?
It gives his nature a moral justification. Then he is allowed morally
to be himself, and he is further justified in his propensities.
> > Each ideology has succeeded in fulfilling the part of the human nature th
> > at it
> > claims to be legitimate. Nazism created the world's most murderous army and
> > most self-justified thugs;
>
> If you're talking about conventional army, then yes. As for
> self-justified? They weren't really justified in doing more than they
> had to for the sake of proactive self defense, that is, assuming
> they'd allready gotten out of that dammed Versalles treaty which
> nearly killed their country.
By "self-justified" I mean they felt they were right. They felt they
were right to kill 50 million people and have no compunction.
> Communism didn't create it. Communism created theives who STOLE these
> things from productive people.
More like, it convinced or bullied people to become productive for the
sake of the state. Communism also created an educational system that
educated people to become productive. The productive people didn't get
to keep the monetary reward, but they did get recognition and sense of
accomplishment - both very important motivators for better people.
It also created artful and crafty
> cheats who deceived people into creating these things voulentarily. Of
> course, given that communist countries don't fuck around with animal
> rights and embryo rights like us in America do, they probably could do
> alot, so long as they base all cooperation on voulentary association.
They did do a lot. They put the first man in space. If Trotsky rather
than Stalin had come into power, Communism might not have taken such
horrible forms as it did.
> capitalism created
> > the most prosperous period in the history of humanity and empowered more
> > people
> > over their lives than ever before.
> This is clearly true. And Capitalism, for the sake of individual
> rights, should be observed as a prerequisite theory that allows people
> to differ.
OK.
> Voulentary association, natural rights, individual human nature, and a
> legal framework protecting these things, are the solution. Not
> subjectivism.
That's "voluntary." I am not advocating subjectivism, I am advocating
recognition of different parts of the human nature and values that
allow for their fulfilment.
> No ideology is right,
> It depends on how you define ideology.
That's true. I should have said "no ideology that justifies one part
of human nature at the expense of another."
> as there is no justification for human nature or for
> > anything else that is natural;
> That doesn't mean reality isn't reality.
I'm not talking about reality, I'm talking about moral justification.
> But, you said no ideology is right. How can there, then, be a moral
> way?
A way that allows for fulfilment of all parts of the human nature in a
way that benefits self and others.
I guess then we should define what is right as what is according
> to your individual nature, and what is wrong as what infringes upon
> another individual's nature. This is the only noncontradictory
> definition of morality.
That is a good definition.
> > Integrity is a state of acting completely as a single unit.
> I thought you were promoting a 'be yourself' attitude. People need to
> act as individual units. I guess people still have to act in
> accordance with the mechanisms of the larger framework of the system.
Sometimes, it's hard to become oneself when one's formative influences
have been hostile to one's nature and used ideology, religion,
limitation and disinformation to keep you from growing into oneself.
That also prevents a person from achieving integrity, as he is
disconnected from his own nature and cannot grow into its fulfilment.
> It is easy to have
> > integrity when one has lived all his life in an insulated environment, co
> > ddled
> > by tariffs and speech restrictions and fallacious religious beliefs fro
> > m ever
> > experiencing the rest of the world. The problem with such integrity is th
> > at it
> > is based on ignorance, insulation and lies, and what one becomes is an
> > integrated extension of the lie and ignorance on which one is founded.
> I don't see what you're getting at here. But I do understand that it's
> best that government abstain from things beyond it's scope, if that's
> what you're trying to say.
I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about the fact that,
when one has lived an insulated existence, it is easy to have
integrity, but that integrity is false.
> The
> > beliefs are not reality-tested against other mindsets and other cultures,
> > and
> > the premises and conclusions remain unchecked.
> So you're suggesting pragmaticism?
I'm suggesting exposure to many perspectives that give a fulfilment to
different aspects of human nature, following which exposure one can
figure out what resonates best with one's own nature and pursue its
fulfilment.
> Then what of your other ideas? What of your beleif that ideology is wrong?
How does that relate?
> A personality that possesses
> > such an integrity is a big lie, perpetuating the same set of errors without
> > checking against reality of experience and forcing the same set of lies t
> > hrough
> > self-fulfilling mechanisms of beliefs onto others.
> If your argument is against circularity, then I guess that part can't
> be argued. But, still, what are you trying to say?
That a personality based on growing up in an insulated environment
perpetuates the same set of errors and, though it possesses integrity,
its integrity is false.
> Integrity is a lot harder to
> > have when one has been exposed to many different influences, but the inte
> > grity
> > that one does achieve is far truer, a result of a tour de force of one'
> > s mind
> > to make sense of everything that has come to oneself and to accept the be
> > st of
> > all things into a synthesis.
> You haven't defined best.
One that leads to the most preferred outcome.
> In fact, you've stated that best doesn't exist.
No I didn't.
> > The people who speak to the fact that the cultural turmoil since 1960s ha
> > s left
> > American people without identity and without integrity also tend to attack
> > immigration. What they want by attacking both the inner and outer scrut
> > iny to
> > the culture is a culture with no checks and balances, with no insight, wi
> > th no
> > questions, with no meaningful liberty, in which all people are raised t
> > o buy
> > into the same set of lies. What they want is a culture that does not ha
> > ve to
> > compete - a culture that does not have to provide fulfilment to people - a
> > culture that does not have to abide by its stated principles - a culture
> > that
> > does not have to meet scrutiny of external and internal perspectives an
> > d can
> > steamroll its way into social totalitarianism by silencing all forms of
> > questioning and all forms of dissent.
> If this is the basis for a government that does less commanding and
> more safeguarding and acting on just principals, then I guess any
> reason is as good as any. But you're missing the point.
I said nothing about the government, I am talking about cultures.
Since I'm the one making the point, I can't be missing it.
> > For much of its history, the South has been such a culture. The result ha
> > s been
> > a culture of violence, incest and corruption that bludgeons people into
> > silence, dishonesty and loss of self-esteem and claims that the alcoholic,
> > incestuous, violent family unit that it is protecting, like the culture
> > that
> > protects such a family unit, is sacred.
> Southernism isn't wrong. Alchohol, for one, isn't entirely used. Many
> people from the south are even staunch prohibitionists. Incest is also
> attacked by religeous people in the south, in fact since the south is
> very religeous, mainly in a baptist (a fool is born again every
> minute) sort of way, you can't protect those claims.
Most women I know from the South have been raped by their relatives.
The attitude of the priests does nothing to stop incest. Rather than
preventing people from committing incest, it creates conspiracy of
silence against the victim that if she should tell anyone she would
ruin the pretense of a good family and therefore she must under no
circumstances tell anyone or face dire consequences if she does tell.
>A family is not a family if it is violent in such a manner. It is a
tyrrany.
That is true.
> For much of their history, most peasant
> > societies around the world have been such cultures. The result has always
> > been
> > a culture of brutality, ignorance and inbreeding in which all spirit and
> > innovation was stifled and errors and misery perpetuated through genera
> > tions.
> In my words, tribalism, such as that which Ayn Rand spoke against, is
> the basis for such evil. Is this what you are trying to say?
Yes.
> > The cultures that work - that attract people, that improve people's lives
> > , that
> > achieve global renown - are the cultures that have lots of influences a
> > nd put
> > those influences into a synthesis that makes the best of all. Economicall
> > y and
> > politically, America has been a result of this synthesis. America needs
> > this
> > synthesis to take place also at the cultural level.
> I thought you said culture was wrong, or didn't exist.
Cultural tyranny - being surrounded all one's life by one culture and
basing one's personality solely on the dynamics in that culture -
perpetuates errors that exist in the culture and make one's
personality whole but incomplete. To counteract this dynamic, there
needs to be vigorous and dynamic interplay between cultures in which
they borrow the best from each other and are rid through this
competition of the worst.
Then, what are
> you saying? Again, I am confused. You seem to contradict yourself at
> every turn.
No, I'm not contradicting myself at all. I am saying how culture can
be made to serve good individual and collective, and how individuals
in cultures can be allowed to avoid conformity toward something wrong.
> > not abuse by envious bullies who find it distressing to the lie
that they are
> > forcing people to live. Mental illness, caused by either chemical abnorma
> > lities
> > or by trauma, neither the fault of the person, needs treatment, not sti
> > gma.
> > And family, far from needing to be preserved at all costs, is a human
> > arrangement that, like anything human, is capable of both good and bad, n
> > o more
> > or less sacred than the dynamics that it preserves and corrupted absolutely
> > when those dynamics include incest, alcoholism, violence and degradation.
> This makes sense, but not from where you're standing. There are
> further, deeper beleifs that underly truth. Clearly you are stating
> this based on experience, or a principal you have accepted. I thought
> you weren't supposed to have principals. Again, we have contradiction.
I didn't say that at all. I said that no part of human nature was
better than another, and ideologies that justify parts of human nature
at the expense of other parts of human nature to be wrong. What
beliefs underly truth? I thought that truth was objective and not
dependent on our belief.
I'm saying that, when indoctrination provides one with goals that are
favorable to one's nature, will to achieve these goals is easy to come
by. When indoctrination provides one with goals that are hostile to
one's nature, coming into fulfilment of one's nature is a lot harder,
as is developing a will.
I think individual
> experience and individual application of reason is more important. I
> can't quite gather what you are saying. It's just a hodge podge of
> philosophical and contextual ends, while provoding none of the means
> associated heirchically.
What's so good about the hierarchical arrangement?
> > A person who is motivated by property will have no problem getting his
> > way in
> > America. A person who is motivated by altruism, or by beauty, or by intel
> > lect,
> > or by passion, or by meaning, or by soul, will find happiness a lot har
> > der to
> > find.
> America is quite different now than it used to be. You should
> integrate this knowledge into your texts.
I was talking about America of 1990s.
> and it is through the profound involvement of Virginia state
> government
> > that I found the organization for which I am volunteering. Most people
> > can't
> > leave everything behind and go looking, nor do they know where to look, n
> > or do
> > they get the correct kind of help, and they do not get anywhere outside o
> > f the
> > influences from which they come.
> So you're saying, you can make all the decisions for people?
I'm saying that the prerequisite for good decision is good
information. To most people this information is not available.
You have
> first stated that everybody is wrong,
No I didn't.
> then made this statement not
> apply to you. This is why somebody must be right, and this is also why
> this person is not you.
Since you come from a false premise, your conclusion is false.
> Insisting on will, or integrity, in this case,
> > is nothing more than insistence on people remaining enslaved to the ign
> > orance
> > and self-interest of their hometown.
> Will and integrity are virtues. Isn't that what you said earlier?
Integrity must be based on a correct understanding, not on one or
another lie.
> Clearly we are in disagreement. Now leave this place, or reform. You
> must adapt to your environment. That is a great virtue, adaptability.
Is it now? I thought that having principles was a great virtue. I
thought that following one's genius was a virtue. Howard Roark didn't
adapt to anything. What is the objectivist justification for your
statement?
> That is not a legitimate use of will, nor
> > is that a legitimate definition of life and liberty.
> Life, liberty, property, and voulentary transactions of said things,
> are rights unto themseles. They result from reality. Not from falsity
> and ignorance which you are yourself displaying.
Where am I displaying these?
>
> > Free market means that people get what they want if they have the resourc
> > es to
> > get it. If people want a car, they get a car; if people want culture, the
> > y get
> > culture. If one does not want to be deemed greedy and stupid for wanting
> > things
> > that provide for material comfort, then he must not deem others snobbish or
> > weak or arrogant or unrealistic for seeking products that cultivate the
> > soul.
> Hypocracy is a vice.
Exactly, and I've just discovered hypocrisy in the people who claim
integrity in themselves and hypocrisy in their critics.
> How do you define middle-America?
Midwest.
> Why do people of your sort hate middle America?
Because it's based in Protestant dogmas that want to rob people of
anything beautiful, sensual or creative and leave them no option in
their lives but as machines for producing and acquiring property.
> It's people who aren't quite high class but also
> aren't quite low class that actually split the difference on issues so
> as to make the balance of this country a possibility.
I'm not talking about income level, I'm talking about cultural
beliefs.
> > The fact that France was overrun by
> > Germany during the Second World War does nothing to distract from the fac
> > t that
> > the French culture and educational system beats American culture hands down
> > hands down,
> It won't once America fully privatizes education. America can't win
> with education so long as America controls education.
France controls education, and it has excellent education. The Soviet
Union controlled education, and it had excellent education. The
problem with American education is not the fact that it's run by the
government. It's the way in which it is run by the government and the
dogmas that shape it.
> > America, and much of the rest of the world, has been held in a grip by a
> > set of
> > bullies. True Americans - that is, the people who truly represent the s
> > pirit
> > that made America - are cosmopolitan, tolerant, open-minded and peaceful, a
> > reflection of the spirit of immigration and international cooperation,
> Again, I don't know what you're saying. Use less buzz words and be
> more clear.
I'm saying that the best in America was created in spirit of
immigration and international cooperation. The ingrown parts that have
been developed without external scrutiny have gone bad. In line with
my argument that one needs to have a constant competition and
challenge among the cultures to arrive at best results.
> not the
> > ingrown inbred pseudo-machoistic parasites that the people who claim to
> > speak
> > for patriotism in America are. The latter are neither true Americans nor do
> > they do honor to America by claiming to speak for it. They are pigs and
> > bullies, and if America is to become culturally equivalent to what it is
> > politically and economically it must refuse to buckle under to their cu
> > ltural
> > tyranny and their abuse.
> What is it that defines this abuse? I clearly want less authoritative
> powers in government than it allready is.
What defines this abuse is the constant attack that is directed at
intellectuals, artists and poets and those who value their works.
> If a country deserves its government, as many American
> > politicians so smugly assert in explaining to the people why they shoul
> > d not
> > get involved in helping the victims of Third World dictatorships,
> then it also deserves its culture.
> It's America's involvement in the Third World that has created these
> dictatorships.
In some cases this is true.
> YOU are the one that is being smug.
How?
> America should get
> it's hands off of the rest of the world. That is not to say individual
> citizens in America do not have a right to get involved. I fully
> support action by individuals when it is not endorced by an
> authoritive structure, by authoritive I mean rights violating. And by
> rights, I mean those rights correctly defined by Objectivsts.
The policy of America getting its hands off the rest of the world is
what allowed Hitler and Japan to think they could conquer half the
rest of the world and expect no consequences. In the present era, this
is what allowed Muslim madrasas to educate terrorists who blew up the
World Trade Center.
> > http://www.geocities.com/drr0cket
>
> As for my own, real beleifs? We must preserve integrity and will in
> encapsulated form. In programming terminology, Reality is the source
> code, Objectivism is the compiler, and we need an effective linker,
> perhaps a way of life which allows people to choose their own goals,
> and to choose to cooperate with other people, and with entities,
> before we can have the executable. I will offer two pages, made by my
> friend Franc, to this extent. Both are logical. Perhaps you can learn
> from them.
I read some of the Objectivism page. Two comments based on what I
read. "Feelings have nothing to do with reality" - feelings are a form
of cognition, just like reason, and are often accurate to reality.
When one is unloved, one feels depressed, which is accurate; when one
is betrayed, one feels betrayed. Feelings can be correct, or they can
be incorrect; so can reason. One should not dismiss them, one should
educate them with poetry and art.
The part about ways to discern reality being directed outwardly rather
than inwardly - the human being is a part of reality. The mind is a
part of reality and should be studied like all reality. It is not
visible, but it is observable. In the same way as minute particles
aren't visible but can be located by the forces that they produce.
> And then, with this, we can proceed to a lifestyle which promotes
> encapsulation that is interacting to make a perfectly working world. I
> mean, computers work perfectly because it is done this way. Each
> portion is distinct, and they all do their own thing, but they also
> interact, through transactions, still following their nature, and as
> the sum of their parts, the whole works perfectly. Well, as perfect as
> it can, with given errors. But it works, at least, and it works well.
> This is what we want. This is what we need.
In other words, a civilization in which people can all do their part
and reap the rewards. It's possible, yes. But one needs to account for
all of the human nature and provide a place in which it can do its
part and become fulfilled.