4 of 7
4
How Rich is Too Rich?  Has Sam gone off the deep end?
Posted: 29 August 2011 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

You have an absolutely distorted view of Libertarianism.  Here’s Libertarian critique of Popper- http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2011 01:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  12
Joined  2011-08-26

quick show of hands - who here “believes in” Big Govt, Big Brother, or the Iron Fist of Totalitarianism? come on, let’s get those hands up…

anybody?

anybody at all? don’t be shy, we’re all friends here.

still waiting…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2011 01:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  413
Joined  2005-06-05

Why do people consider Ayn Rand a libertarian?  She was an anarchist and an idiot.

I have to laugh, too, at the nearly universal presumption that we have to choose between capitalism and communalism (i don’t use the term communism, let alone socialism, because they have too much political baggage attached and i’m only talking about economics).  It’s clear that one size doesn’t fit all.  It’s a question of the scale at which groups or individuals interact with the marketplace.  On the macro scale of large corporations capitalism is more efficient, but on the micro scale a communal approach provides the best security for individuals and small groups.  Instead of waiting for someone to fix the tax code, those of us who are being pushed from the middle class into poverty should use the system, share our what’s left of our resources, skills, knowledge, and or or cash, and start by forming non-profit and for-profit corporations to support ourselves instead of riding the downward spiral of wage slavery.

I agree with Mr. Buffett’s statement regarding tax inequities, but i doubt they’ll be corrected as long as the tea baggers have control of the House.

 Signature 

The road of excess leads to the palace of Wisedom
-William Blake, “Proverbs of Hell”

Life, what is it but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll, “A boat Beneath a Sunny Sky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2011 01:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Rand was not an anarchist.  Do some research.  Why was she an idiot?  Because you don’t agree with her?  Because she was a woman?  What do you have against objective reality based on science?  Try to express yourself intelligently and try not to speak for others, just yourself.  Why is that so hard?  Yeah, yeah, relativism is everybody’s dogmatic philosophy here.  Humans are different and separate from other animals.  We’re all born with a blank slate.  We are absolutely living in a new dark age.  Everybody has the answer and is adamant to force their ideas on others.

[ Edited: 29 August 2011 01:39 PM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2011 06:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  6
Joined  2011-08-29
mormovies - 29 August 2011 05:12 PM

You have an absolutely distorted view of Libertarianism.  Here’s Libertarian critique of Popper- http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn065.htm

I have read Nozick, Rothbard and Reason magazine for some time - my dad was a subscriber till his company fired him and he had to get short term disability and discovered how much a of a pain in the ass it was.  I’m pretty sure I nailed what libertarianism is all about. 

I’m not going to read someone else’s arguments out of context, which from a brief scan those are.  Either paraphrase or learn to analyze Popper yourself.  I made the effort to read libertarian authors maybe you could try some liberal ones. 

Actually, I’ve never know a libertarian to leave the echo chamber.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 08:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-08-30

I don’t think you get it.


Having spent the past decade working for several of the wealthiest people in the history of the earth, I have no doubt whatsoever that they do not care about any of this. They hire people for that. They also regularly fire people (not me, I should point out) and appear to derive great satisfaction from doing so. While the rest of us look on their wealth in amazement, they are far more interested in power. For them, the government is something to compete with for power. This year, I have decided that enough is enough. I will not go back to working for them. I wish there was a way to work against them, but doing so just invites their ire. They will simply hire somebody to deal with you and hardly give it another thought.


These people must be reined in. If you think that they are going to stop accumulating on their own, you are wrong. If you think they are going to work for the advancement of society, you are deluded. If you think their goal is to create jobs that provide a decent living, you’re not paying attention. They will always try to pay less. Actually, they hire people to make sure that they are paying less. When their gardener goes on food stamps, they don’t even know or care about it. What they do care about is getting a better deal on gardening than their neighbor (I was not their gardener).


I have often heard these people express their pride in having made other people rich. This would turn my stomach in disgust every time for my first thought was always of how many had to be ruined or run off to the benefit of their close associates. I didn’t get rich, but I did well enough. I didn’t get cheated, but I probably would have done better working elsewhere. I was drawn to their interesting projects, but no longer. My opinion now is that the right thing to do is quit working for them.


I am very happy that Mr. Harris is taking up this topic and I hope he runs with it. We really need people with some intellectual heft to get on the bandwagon. I think this is the most important problem facing this world today and I don’t have a solution. We are allowing an aristocracy to form and this time it will be irreversible and revolution-proof. For the sake of humanity, they must be stopped.


You don’t have to have worked for the extremely rich/powerful to know that they aren’t at all concerned with the welfare of Average Joe, to put it lightly. One need only observe the world with a keen eye. And for the less observant under you there are always oscar-winning documentaries like ’ The inside job’.


Here is the situation were in, in a nutshell.


One of my opinions about economy is that before we even begin to establish its structure we must agree upon the ontological nature of reality. As we have based our current economic system on the implicit premisse of free will without considering that this might not be a true representation of reality.


Our society has made a giant leap forward by moving from the aristocracy of birth to the meritocracy we live in today, which sadly so many people by nature of their short-sightedness perceive as the final improvement. Although this is a major amelioration it is still inherently immoral.


We got a verb in my native language that suits well here: Each bird sings as its beak is mouthed.


We are determined in every way, we are what we are because of our genes ( internal factors) and our surroundings ( external factors). It is the ‘I’ that makes the decision, but do we decide what we decide?


So if we as a society agree upon the determined nature of ourselves, our entire economic system should be revised from the bottom up as it is based on the deeply immoral idea that a person should be rewarded based on his ability to make money , which is not the merit of this person, but simply made possible by chance or fate. Hence our economy is simply the application of the right of the strongest. Which is the fundamental rule that applies to life insofar that it is an unconscious unguided process. The difference is that man IS conscious and CAN guide the course of things (to an extent), this gives us a great responsibility to act and an ethical imperative to control and limit it. The problem is that the people who have the power will very rarely, if at all, have the moral courage and strength to undermine their own power for the good of the collective.


On a side-note, our economic structure is formed in such a way that we don’t even have to make a tangible contribution to society to earn legal money (financial investors and such).


Our economic system, and society as a whole, is inherently immoral on such a myriad of ways that it is hard to conceive that there aren’t countless of people like Sam who criticise it.


It are the people on wall street who are the real thieves, as they have by way of complex financial constructions tumbled the world in an downward spiral. By allowing more and more high-risk loans to be given and insuring themselves against it so that they make even more money when the creditor can’t pay it back. Rating-bureaus who give AAA ratings to even the highest risk loans, raising questions about their integrity. The people whom devised those mechanisms and countless others in the financial system make millions and millions while at the same time dozens of millions of people are left without a job just because of the domino effect that their actions created. Yet they aren’t reprimanded in any way, on the contrary, it are the same people who caused the financial depression who sit in the economic advisory board of Obama. Ensuring from the top that the banking system is deregulated, and aggressively putting down anyone who would suggest that it should be regulated.


Man must be controlled by law ( the state). And it is, among other things, thanks to the refusal of the government of the U.S. to regulate the banking system that we’re all in this mess. Allowing banks to speculate wildly with the money of Average Joe, putting their clients meager life savings on the line to make hundreds of millions themselves.


So I wonder who those readers whom criticise Sam’s economic ideologies would consider the biggest thief if they were fully informed? The financial investor on Wall Street that makes hundreds of millions a year on the back of Average Joe without contributing a thing to society, or the man that tries to limit their almost diabolical ruthless drive to make money and distribute their excess to the most needy.


I think\hope every rational and foremost ethical person would choose the first!

 Signature 

“Consider yourself. I want you to imagine a scene from your childhood. Pick something evocative… Something you can remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all, you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you WEREN’T there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Every bit of you has been replaced many times over… Steve Grand

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 08:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

No mortal human should be in charge of deciding who ‘contributes to society’ and who should be rich, especially any of the inept politicians from one of the duopoly of joke political parties.  Does Lady Gaga meaningfully contribute to society?  What super human or superior extraterrestrial will decide for us?  Why is that the criteria?  Again, the real discussion comes down to freedom vs. equality.  They can’t both exist equally.  If the goal is equality there can’t really be any freedom.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-08-30
mormovies - 31 August 2011 12:51 PM

No mortal human should be in charge of deciding who ‘contributes to society’ and who should be rich, especially any of the inept politicians from one of the duopoly of joke political parties.  Does Lady Gaga meaningfully contribute to society?  What super human or superior extraterrestrial will decide for us?  Why is that the criteria?  Again, the real discussion comes down to freedom vs. equality.  They can’t both exist equally.  If the goal is equality there can’t really be any freedom.


You don’t understand.


If we are all determined by chance, fate, destiny or whatever you would like to call it then Bill Gates is as much responsible for his contributions to society as the most low-life criminal is responsible for his not-contributing to society.


And since we ARE determined by chance (meaning that we have no free will) we are NOT responsible for the people we become, and so follows that we are equally irresponsible for the work we produce, and out of that follows that it is unjust and deeply immoral to attribute to one person enormous quantities of wealth and to another nothing at all.


It is unjust to give billions of dollars to Bill Gates and none to a beggar on the street because both are equally irresponsible for the way they are.


It is not one mortal man whom decides that it is immoral, it is not a man at all, it are the rules of logical deduction that decide it for us.


As soon as you accept the nature of reality, being that we are determined in every conceivable way, it follows that you find the massing of wealth to one person is inherently immoral. Whether you like it or not.

 Signature 

“Consider yourself. I want you to imagine a scene from your childhood. Pick something evocative… Something you can remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all, you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you WEREN’T there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Every bit of you has been replaced many times over… Steve Grand

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Okay, I get it, it’s a joke.  I guess you are pre-determined to post nonsense.  Have a great life!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-08-30
mormovies - 31 August 2011 01:21 PM

Okay, I get it, it’s a joke.  I guess you are pre-determined to post nonsense.  Have a great life!


You just proved to me that you are incapable of understanding at the moment because otherwise you would post valid criticism directed specifically at one of my comments.


That you fall back to ad hominem attacks is a testimony to this.


Maybe in time, when your defense mechanism diminishes, you’ll be able to read my post without prejudices and form criticism I can work with.


Good luck with that, and I’m not saying this in an ironic sense.

 Signature 

“Consider yourself. I want you to imagine a scene from your childhood. Pick something evocative… Something you can remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all, you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you WEREN’T there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Every bit of you has been replaced many times over… Steve Grand

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

If you’re a serious in any part of your post, then we don’t exist in the same reality.  I am unable and unwillingly to smoke… uh, step into your dimension to discuss this any further with you in any legitimate way.  If you really believe what you say, you’re on the wrong board, buddy!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 09:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  413
Joined  2005-06-05

As one woman judging another, i’m saying Rand was the Palin of her day; too stupid to see the real consequences of the policies she espoused.  Another poster said it earlier in this thread, but it bears paraphrasing:  screw the normal, average, bourgeois class long enough and hard enough and the result will be anarchy, not liberty.  (We are armed, after all, and thank the founders for the 2nd amendment.)  Unless u think the Russian and Chinese revolutions produced a better life for the people.  I don’t.

Stability is vital to the survival of liberty.  Without justice, stability crumbles.

Maybe it would be helpful in some ways if a large portion of the population were killed off in another civil war, but the cost would be way too high.  So i repeat, Ayn Rand was an anarchist and an idiot, just like the tea-baggers.

 Signature 

The road of excess leads to the palace of Wisedom
-William Blake, “Proverbs of Hell”

Life, what is it but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll, “A boat Beneath a Sunny Sky

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]  
Newbie
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  44
Joined  2011-08-30
mormovies - 31 August 2011 01:38 PM

If you’re a serious in any part of your post, then we don’t exist in the same reality.  I am unable and unwillingly to smoke… uh, step into your dimension to discuss this any further with you in any legitimate way.  If you really believe what you say, you’re on the wrong board, buddy!


Okay unless you bring up some valid criticism this is my last post I adress to you.


My view on the determined nature of reality is the same as the view of Harris himself. So as long as you don’t provide me valid criticism about the logical deduction that is made from that starting-point there is simply no debate possible.

 Signature 

“Consider yourself. I want you to imagine a scene from your childhood. Pick something evocative… Something you can remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all, you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else would you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you WEREN’T there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place. Every bit of you has been replaced many times over… Steve Grand

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 10:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

To Panthamor: I don’t think Sam would agree that you two share the same view of reality.

To Rabbit: Go ahead, knock yourself out hating Rand but are you’re venting based on a inaccurate stereotype of her.  She never advocated policies of any kind.  She explored ethics and created a unique non-mystical philosophy that defended capitalism on new moral grounds.  She shied away from politics and how to translate her philosophy into policy.  Most philosophers don’t mix their ideas with politics.  You can disagree with her ideas or hate her fiction or non-fiction work but that doesn’t make her an idiot.  Just associating her with the tea party shows your ignorance of her ideas.  She was not a republican or an anarchist.  I don’t need to defend her but I will point out when you are criticizing the wrong person.  You can hate Hitler too but it’s incorrect to say he founded McDonald’s.

[ Edited: 31 August 2011 10:06 AM by mormovies]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 August 2011 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  413
Joined  2005-06-05

panthamor, u may find, sadly, that, compared to the larger population, there are a higher proportion (i’d be willing to bet, statistically significant deviation) of posters here who could be clinically classified as sociopaths.  I look forward to the day when being a non-believer can’t be so easily associated with a wholesale lack of compassion.  Don’t give up and please try not to get frustrated, they’re not the majority.  And Sam’s posts are always worth reading.  Welcome to the forum, if no one else has said it yet.

 Signature 

The road of excess leads to the palace of Wisedom
-William Blake, “Proverbs of Hell”

Life, what is it but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll, “A boat Beneath a Sunny Sky

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 7
4
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed