Sam Harris

Just read thus great piece via Zite, which is far and away the best aggregator tgat I have used.

My spirits sank and soared simultaneously. I was not previously familiar with Sam’s work. I found myself uttering many an inward “yes!”. My dejection was at the prospect of having to steal a few hours somewhere to write a more fulsome response to the post.

In the meantime i had to get off a quick response.

Even as a teenager Rand struck me as sociopathic - although I probably didn’t know that was the word. It is that sociopathy that I find disturbing and disheartening about so much of what is touted as “free market”, small government rhetoric. I wonder whether it was always so and i just didn’t see it? To me it seems different now - more virulent, more desperate, more ignorant, more anti-intellectual.

Is it part of the death throws of the end of empire? These and more ideas will havecto be canvassed in a longer post.

I’m probably over simplifying this but it seems to me that the backlash towards Sam’s article is symptomatic of the plague of misinformation that many of our citizens suffer from.  While the few that actually profit from this type of thinking have selfish motivation for contributing to this way of thinking the vast majority are on the “train” with the sharpened instrument cutting their nose off to spite their face.

They have bought into the buzz of “Job Creators” or the trickle down crap that we know from history doesn’t work.  Another simple concept of an exact, no exception approach of everyone contributing the same percentage could go a long way. 

It’s sad that these “take no prisoners”, “hear no evil” without homicidal response people are largely contributing to their own decline.  What’s really sad is that they are dragging the rest of us down the sinkhole as well.

Gravel - 30 August 2011 01:43 PM

I’m probably over simplifying this but it seems to me that the backlash towards Sam’s article is symptomatic of the plague of misinformation that many of our citizens suffer from.  While the few that actually profit from this type of thinking have selfish motivation for contributing to this way of thinking the vast majority are on the “train” with the sharpened instrument cutting their nose off to spite their face.

They have bought into the buzz of “Job Creators” or the trickle down crap that we know from history doesn’t work.  Another simple concept of an exact, no exception approach of everyone contributing the same percentage could go a long way. 

It’s sad that these “take no prisoners”, “hear no evil” without homicidal response people are largely contributing to their own decline.  What’s really sad is that they are dragging the rest of us down the sinkhole as well.

Every society is somewhat equally divided between conservatives, those who wish to maintain that which appears to have worked in the past and liberals who desire to change things for what they believe will improve the status quo.
Each individual also contains various combinations of the above elements, usually with leanings to one side or the other.
In order for cultures or individuals to function, a balance must be reached between those elements that trust the past and those that want to try something different.
Each individual believes that they can actually influence the outcome of events and will climb atop their tiny soap box to add their tiny voice to the chaotic cacophony that drives the Magnus Machina.
They are driven by fear and simply seek a safer place.
In truth their contribution is comparable to that of a raindrop to the ocean.

You make many good points. 

The labeling of our society into two groups is a tactic that seems to work well for the self proclaimed “conservatives”.  They’ve further made “liberal” a negative term referring to soft, parasites on the rest of society.  That I disagree with, most persons don’t fit into either modern definition.  The labeling has become a control mechanism designed to shine the light of society’s attention away from the true issues.  And this is working at least in the short term.

I do hope this is only a few raindrops in the ocean and that our society will reach a stasis that is an actual evolvement to something better than what has come before.

Gravel - 30 August 2011 03:57 PM

You make many good points. 

The labeling of our society into two groups is a tactic that seems to work well for the self proclaimed “conservatives”.  They’ve further made “liberal” a negative term referring to soft, parasites on the rest of society.  That I disagree with, most persons don’t fit into either modern definition.  The labeling has become a control mechanism designed to shine the light of society’s attention away from the true issues.  And this is working at least in the short term.

 

(t)
Both “conservatives” and “liberals” develop terminology that attempts to demean and diminish each other.
A short scan through your own perception of conservatives should be an indicator.

 

I do hope this is only a few raindrops in the ocean and that our society will reach a stasis that is an actual evolvement to something better than what has come before.

It won’t.
This society, the one you are living right now, is the best that humans have ever experienced.
Travel anywhere else in the world if you don’t believe this.
Travel back through the history of humanity.
The conservatives and liberals will swing the pendulum back and forth.
As a liberal you will continue to finagle my vast wealth from me and my children.
As a conservative, I will try to keep it and hope you will someday learn to make your own way through this most mysterious adventure.
We can’t help it.
It’s all a grand, albeit involuntary, waltz.

Ladies and gentlemen…........Welcome to the Zombie Jamboree.

(I usually don’t dance with liberals…...but it have to admit…...this is fun.)

Dialog is the key to keeping the world moving forward so I appreciate the dance. 

I might not actually fit into the “liberal” mold considering some of my ideas and the fact that I would sooner other resources be available to those that truly need it than government ones.  I don’t like the labels but would fall somewhere in the middle or in a less defined area.  I believe in survival of the fittest in that it will yield the best in the long term.  But working within the system I have less respect for “conservatives” in that they tend to try and legislate morality.  (I believe that is only to control the religious into believing they are on the same team.)  Otherwise the idea of less intervention in government appeals to me.  I certainly don’t think it proper to take away from someone wealthy in order to place a perfectly capable person in the same strata. 

Our government gets a good percentage of our resources. Since this is the reality, I would rather see those resources go towards more than the few it seems to target now and much less towards supplementing corporations that have more than they need now.

I agree that this is the best society mankind has had in history but surely it can be better still.  While the Zeitgeist approach is never likely to gain a foothold, that ideal logy seems like a good concept.

Cheers.

Gravel - 30 August 2011 06:20 PM

Dialog is the key to keeping the world moving forward so I appreciate the dance. 

I might not actually fit into the “liberal” mold considering some of my ideas and the fact that I would sooner other resources be available to those that truly need it than government ones.

(t)
And I am not a typical conservative.
I am an atheist who gives freely to those less fortunate.
I have been a hospice volunteer for many years.
I have a friend who counsels the very rich is Silicon Valley.
As a group, they have become very depressed in their efforts to give money away to the poor.
What happens is never what one would suspect.
I tend to think that the wealthy are inclined to be more efficient in matters of charity than some government bureaucrat.
Perhaps I am wrong.

 

 

 

I don’t like the labels but would fall somewhere in the middle or in a less defined area.  I believe in survival of the fittest in that it will yield the best in the long term.  But working within the system I have less respect for “conservatives” in that they tend to try and legislate morality.  (I believe that is only to control the religious into believing they are on the same team.)  Otherwise the idea of less intervention in government appeals to me.  I certainly don’t think it proper to take away from someone wealthy in order to place a perfectly capable person in the same strata. 

 

(t)
I believe that we are closer than we think.
I also don’t believe that “morality” can’t be legislated simply because there is no such thing.

 

 

 

 

Our government gets a good percentage of our resources. Since this is the reality, I would rather see those resources go towards more than the few it seems to target now and much less towards supplementing corporations that have more than they need now.

 

 

 

(t)
I would like to think there is a middle ground.
Using the government is a means of equitable dispersion of public funds is notoriously inefficient and is inclined to benefit the local interest of the bureaucrats making the decisions.
There must be a better way.

 

 

I agree that this is the best society mankind has had in history but surely it can be better still.  While the Zeitgeist approach is never likely to gain a foothold, that ideal logy seems like a good concept.

Cheers.

Any ideas?