America

just checking if i can get in here - logistics seem to be in place!

carry on, kent!

“Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."

Just sayin'...

Good luck, Kent!

Hi Katya, tib...

There is so much to say about the opening quote :- ) I said in another thread how some people's 'philosophies' were made up of clichés, old wives' tales, song lyrics and for them they are stumped if an issue isn't covered by any of those.

For someone to address in a rational manner, issues that come up, there has to be a solid philosophical structure that places the issue in a set of concepts that fit, without contradiction, into a hierarchy of concepts. It is the only way such an issue can be properly and significantly addressed.

While Rand's politics were very much like those of libertarians, the libertarians, for the most part, could not argue solidly, in principle, for the rights that they so assert are theirs. Some make good pragmatic arguments but that something 'works' doesn't carry the moral or ethical connotation that a 'right' does. That, and the fact that pragmatism as a philosophy is flawed, by the question - it works 'according to what standard'? And this invariably leads to some utilitarian (greatest good - ie 'collectivist') explanation, which has even more problems than strict pragmatism.

When the basis of rights have the foundation of principles - some of which you mention Katya, then there is no need to cling to either the pragmatism or utility of a concept - yet as Adam Smith has said of the rightness of pursuing one's self interest in the market place - that it 'as if by an invisible hand' furthers the cause of society - ie. it also works and it works for the greater good :- ) And that you do more harm when you go into the market with the opposite intent - to help society. This is basically why gov't social programs fail, despite the good intentions of some of the people who promote them.

And I say only 'some' because there are also some who know - by their own experience and observation, that they don't work, yet continue to promote them either for an attempt to get elected/re-elected by those who still don't know, or if not politicians, to promote themselves as 'caring' individuals even though they see the destruction that the policies they promote, have done, because again, there are friends and peers who are either ignorant of the destruction, or feign ignorance, so as not to lose their own "moral superiority" among their peers.

Oh yeesh! As usual this is over my pea brain!!

The challenge of communicating that corresponding philosophical structure to the givers and receivers of the pragmatic pseudo-benevolence is the hurdle that philosophy must vault. We've been a mixed-philosophy nation since inception. As we've grown, real individual rights have been made subservient to the 'group'. The moral case for the right of an individual to live their lives as they see fit, in the objective sense, hasn't been accepted by the nation to this point. There is reference to individualism in regards to the American success story, but the utilitarian aspect of the result is the usual context.

Does population size make collectivism inevitable? Is there a national, psychological point of no return? Can people eschew relativism's non-confrontational, group think, blank-out? Are we glued to it's true for you and afraid to say it's true?

I don't mean to be pessimistic here. Consider it a challenge to learn and apply that learning to the battle. Each of us has our own ability, and time available, to choose (an action) to think about philosophy. Even if you can't communicate to others what you've learned, you can be an example of a purposive,rational life. Not by obligation to others, but to yourself. It's in each American individual's best interest to exemplify a 'solid philosophical structure'. When you watch/read the news on yet more laws and regulations being proposed, ask -- by what right? -- to yourself, and to others when you are able. If you choose to not think, you exemplify America's hollow mixed-philosophy. We have quite enough of that. Enter the philosophical fray. America's survival depends on it.

Kent and others, I'm not handicapping what I've said or what I might say in the future here, but my mental resources are being exhausted elsewhere. I used to know this material. Now I'm a bit stale, especially communication wise. Please correct, and convince me of, any poor thinking on my part. Then we will all gain value.

Don't know when I can come back, but I've enjoyed my visit.

progg: Does population size make collectivism inevitable?

One of the main features of individualism and free market economics is that it obliterates the Marxist 'postulate' that collectivism is inevitable. Milton Friedman challenged and answered this in 'Free to Choose'. There isn't anything about the 'historical dialectic' or population that makes collectivism the 'end result'. There is much about the type of gov't and the use of force that tends to bring about either freedom or the slavery of a 'people's republic'.

Singapore and Hong Kong have the top population densities of countries with populations above 1 million and are currently the best examples of unregulated free market successes. (although their political freedoms suffer some).

Still in places where the individual right to property is upheld, you have the most employment and the most wealth and an 'upward mobility' among all income groups. Where property is considered 'the people's property' as a collective attribute rather than an individual one, there is poverty, misery and despair. In a mixed economy, you have some of both, but it matters 'from where' that economy came. If it were 'from collectivism' and now 'mixed' as a result of freer markets - China, eg., the outlook is better. If it were from a general free market economy, now going toward a more collectivist one - most of Europe, eg. - then the outlook is bleak. So the 'direction' of the 'mix' is important.

Is there a national, psychological point of no return? Can people eschew relativism's non-confrontational, group think, blank-out? Are we glued to it's true for you and afraid to say it's true?

For the US - a mix going the 'wrong' direction - there isn't so much a psychological point of no return, but one of mere numbers. When there are more looters and moochers than there are producers and workers, then the ballgame is over in a democracy that no longer uses the 'constitutional republic' part of the Constitution and Framing.

Prior to that there was what I'd call an 'educational' point (rather than a psychological one) where through public schools, media, hollywood, arts in general, promoted a basically marxist viewpoint - a propaganda scheme that, as I've said before, even Goebbels¹ would be proud. It was 'on a gradient' that was acceptable (think how gradual inflation works) and then much of it became 'fashionable' with the opposite view being ridiculed in much the way that Alinsky proscribes - a gentler, kinder 'liberal fascism' if you will - see Jonas Goldberg's book by that name.

In order to stop that, one must educate oneself or one's children either by homeschooling or private schooling that still teaches the founding principles of the country and makes good arguments against the ravages of collectivism, rather than the soft soaping ways it is taught in public schools.

And yes - you have to 'educate by example' - first you have to know it well enough to argue the case and then not allow certain comments to go unopposed and not agree to be "nice" by 'not arguing'. That type of behavior only gives the people who would enslave you the tools with which to do so. And now is the time to speak up, because now you'll only be met with funny looks, ridicule perhaps or tentative agreement, but later, down the road to serfdom, you'll be taken away to re-education camps Fortunately we have some people who know about that 'road', and unfortunately, some who have travelled it elsewhere, don't see the 'road construction signs' that some of us, here, see and have seen for a while now.

¹ Propaganda Part I: Bernays and Goebbels - Rw005g - Open Salon

I highly recommend 'Free to Choose' by the Friedmans. Previous philosophical or political in depth knowledge is not required. For the neophyte : Don't worry, it's not written as a text, your eyes won't glaze over and you'll probably stay awake long enough to gain value from it. It's written as a conversation.

I think the propaganda mechanisms used have been psychological in nature. Bernays' methods were admittedly, specifically psychological* .

Whether the manipulation is 'For the children' or for the 'Less fortunate' or 'It's your duty' the plea expects the same result. The plea plays on the empathy of an individual to another human's plight. Its initial calling isn't necessary to convince 'everyone'. The domino effect of group pressure and possible castigation from the group is the long-term strategy to achieve its goals. Pull the short-term heart-strings, engender guilt and avoid 'cold' logic at all costs.

Population size feeds this strategy's outcome towards ever increasing, gov't centralization. Paraphrasing Kent, when the anointed givers and receivers of the central govt's 'gifts', outnumber those who are forced at the point of a gun to pay the freight, collapse is inevitable. [Please understand, I said 'at the point of a gun' not to be inflammatory but to be clear of how agendas are carried out. When we ask the gov't to do something, anything, implicit in that request should be the recognition that ultimately force will result against any individual(s) who fails to comply with that request.]

Does a woman have the right to live for her own sake? Can people coexist not by force but through voluntary cooperation? Do humans need omnipresent force to rationally care for each other? Why do the so called enlightened, compassionate, humanity lovers have such a malevolent view of Man, that they require force to make him Good?

Can you see the contradiction there and the importance of each American choosing to think?


*Edward Bernays - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^^not the greatest source but there's plenty out there.

PS: How do you do a superscript on VB?

progg,

Superscript - 'Go Advanced' and you get the format there for 'strike' sub/superscript, other stuff

Both strategy and tactics in propaganda use psychology - otherwise it wouldn't work. And that's different than a 'psychological point of no return'. So I agree with you on those points of how they are used to "invade" a person's mind.

Rand again, says it best:

When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.AR

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual

This is playing out here, right now. The only power they have is what is given to them by those who 'just want everyone to get along' - what is usually a virtue, but it is used as a tool to further their own purposes by offering compromises. Principles mean nothing. Loyalty, nothing. And the threat of the use of force lies near the surface, and nearer the surface as a group, state, country goes more fascistic. They like to think of the movement as 'nudges' (Sunstein) but this goes far beyond 'suggestions'. The 'nudge' becomes a push and the push becomes a shove, etc. until you 'realize your duty' to be altruistic.

And you're right - in a libertarian world based on free exchange of ideas and goods - the only stop is a refusal to sell or to buy. And it involves only a choice - no force. But with the 'humanitarians' the underlying threat = after attempting to cajole, bribe, 'nudge', make guilty, extort.... is a gun. If you don't pay taxes, don't follow regulations, don't follow rules... you go to jail. And I'm not talking about things that would actually violated people's rights to life, liberty and property - but of the types of laws or regulations that forward a particular political agenda for control by a political/gov't class.