I'm a Liberal Liberatarian!

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

So, how do you feel about these "transgressions" within the larger picture? Do you feel the "transgressions" stand alone, in a vaccum, so to speak, or do you see that even those at the bottom of the totem pole have a valid a necessary position in the evolutionary overview? I'd love to hear some detail in your answer, if at all possible.

In order to answer your question in detail, I'll need you to define "valid necessary position in the evolutionary overview". I have no idea what this means. Do you mean evolution in the sense of biological evolution, moral evolution, political evolution, all, or something else? By "valid" to you mean just or correct or something else? By necessary to you mean predetermined or destined or something else?

Certainly I see people occupying positions on the "totem pole" for reasons. They aren't there "just because". They are where they are because of choices and actions, both their own and others'. The specific nature of those choices and actions would dictate the validity and necessity of those positions, along with the evolutionary path they are set upon.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Both suicide and witlessness are moral transgressions a person can commit against themselves. Furthermore, witlessness is the slowest route to suicide a person can take. Human life requires reason, at least at some level in society. The witless, as it stands today, simply loot to survive, rather than create. The instant they run out of things to loot is the instant they'll start starving.



The more you're concerned about me, the better I'm probably doing.

Odd language, "suicide", on a question of "blame."

Every human on the planet is hardwired in need of the same basic elements of existence. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, good food to eat, and shelter. A little further up the scale of reason, there are the same basic emotional needs that all humans have in common, through family, companionship, sexuality, and communication.

No one can be blamed for these needs of ours. It is what we are.

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

Every human on the planet is hardwired in need of the same basic elements of existence. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, good food to eat, and shelter. A little further up the scale of reason, there are the same basic emotional needs that all humans have in common, through family, companionship, sexuality, and communication.

No one can be blamed for these needs of ours. It is what we are.

This is not ideology. It is fact.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

In order to answer your question in detail, I'll need you to define "valid necessary position in the evolutionary overview". I have no idea what this means. Do you mean evolution in the sense of biological evolution, moral evolution, political evolution, all, or something else? By "valid" to you mean just or correct or something else? By necessary to you mean predetermined or destined or something else?

Okay. Yeah, I mean in all of reality, as it stands--All.

Certainly I see people occupying positions on the "totem pole" for reasons. They aren't there "just because". They are where they are because of choices and actions, both their own and others'. The specific nature of those choices and actions would dictate the validity and necessity of those positions, along with the evolutionary path they are set upon.

I think my real question is pertaining to the fact that I think that you and I agree that everything is happening for a reason, and is exactly the way it is for that reason. And therefore the person who is playing the "witless" role, is there for a reason, like someone playing the "intelligent" role. And part of the perfection is that we accept the consequences of those perfect roles, whether we realize it or not. And within this logic, everything is the way it is NOW. It's not the way a libertarian view would like it to be. So, considering the reality and the perfection of everything that IS, including that you are being held as a slave of the system, it is what it is, in my view--it's reality, and it's for a reason. Then that means an objectivist worldview, or a libertarian one, or a New Age one for that, are all just mental ideas, and therefore are not reasonable in terms of application, at this time, besides the degree that they have currently invaded the system, or the degree that they have the potential to.

You argue your ideals, which is great, but I'd like to hear your view of what exists. Such as what I've mentioned here. What do you think of the present overview? Do you agree with my assessment above?

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

This is not ideology. It is fact.

In reality, many of us don't get our needs met by a long shot.

And those that do, it is to varying degrees, as per Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

In other words, no one ever said life is fair.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

Odd language, "suicide", on a question of "blame."

Why? Is a suicide blameless?

Every human on the planet is hardwired in need of the same basic elements of existence. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, good food to eat, and shelter.

That's awesome. Yet your "hardwiring" will not tell you how to acquire food, how to clean your air, how to build your home. A desire doesn't magically make something appear.

A little further up the scale of reason, there are the same basic emotional needs that all humans have in common, through family, companionship, sexuality, and communication.

Very much so. But none of those things are actually "further up the scale of reason". Sex without reason is nothing more than an act of lust or an act of rape. Family without reason is nothing more than slavery or a blind biological attachment. Companionship is impossible without reasonably accepting another as a companion. And communication without reason is nothing more than gibberish or mindless reaction.

No one can be blamed for these needs of ours. It is what we are.

I'm not blaming anyone for their desires. I'm blaming someone who does not understand that a desire and a fulfillment of that desire are two very different things.

If you desire food, you're not to blame for that. If you shoot a man and steal his bread, you are to blame for that. If you desire shelter, you're not to blame for that. If you burn down another man's house to build a mansion, you are to blame for that. If you desire sex, you're not to blame for that. If you rape the first girl you come across, you are to blame for that. If you desire companionship, you're not to blame for that. If you chain the first person you find to your wrist, you are to blame for that. Understand?

A desire is an effect of your nature. An action is an effect of your morality, the part of you that monitors your desires and your options and willingly chooses from them. Nature is to blame for your desires, good and bad. You are to blame for your actions, good and bad. To suggest that a desire is a cause of an action is to suggest that reason is impossible. And to suggest that reason is impossible begs the question: what the fuck are we doing here?

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Why? Is a suicide blameless?



That's awesome. Yet your "hardwiring" will not tell you how to acquire food, how to clean your air, how to build your home. A desire doesn't magically make something appear.



Very much so. But none of those things are actually "further up the scale of reason". Sex without reason is nothing more than an act of lust or an act of rape. Family without reason is nothing more than slavery or a blind biological attachment. Companionship is impossible without reasonably accepting another as a companion. And communication without reason is nothing more than gibberish or mindless reaction.



I'm not blaming anyone for their desires. I'm blaming someone who does not understand that a desire and a fulfillment of that desire are two very different things.

If you desire food, you're not to blame for that. If you shoot a man and steal his bread, you are to blame for that. If you desire shelter, you're not to blame for that. If you burn down another man's house to build a mansion, you are to blame for that. If you desire sex, you're not to blame for that. If you rape the first girl you come across, you are to blame for that. If you desire companionship, you're not to blame for that. If you chain the first person you find to your wrist, you are to blame for that. Understand?

A desire is an effect of your nature. An action is an effect of your morality, the part of you that monitors your desires and your options and willingly chooses from them. Nature is to blame for your desires, good and bad. You are to blame for your actions, good and bad. To suggest that a desire is a cause of an action is to suggest that reason is impossible. And to suggest that reason is impossible begs the question: what the fuck are we doing here?

You're nuts.
It was a simple statement. One that you can't seem to absorb, which is probably true of many people.

I left off at 'basic emotions' but you certainly didn't add anything to it from there.

From there, I could have written about teaching/learning, child development, storytelling, music, the seasons of a man's life, etc...that sort of thing.

We've got to have some common ground here, but you seem to be hostile to that idea. Unless it's about Ron Paul.

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

A Libertarian's philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of liberty. My philosophical basis is a belief in the primacy of reason.

I am an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Objectivism extends far outside politics, and its political components only stem from its primary moral principles. Libertarians simply hold similar political positions to the ones that extend from Objectivist morality.

Pure Libertarian ideology would say an absence of government coersion is a good thing, by default. I would say however, that an absence of government coersions is nothing, by default. It only becomes a good thing when other moral and economic qualities emerge from it outside of political ideologies.Libertarians often invoke moral principles as extending from political ones, which is backwards. I disagree with the default existence of the state, as well as elements of Libertarian ideology that would still invoke the concepts of "social contract" or "silent consent". Libertarians are primarily Constitutionalists, and while I prefer strict Constitutionalism to non-Constitutionalism, I believe the concepts of both are flawed.

Do your political purposes extend from the primary moral principles of Objectivism? And what may those primary moral principles be?

I recall you criticizing Ayn Rand's moral principles...if my recollection is correct, was that regarding Ayn Rand's moral principles that had been further extended from the primary principles?

PaperPlates

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and

economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one

that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose

government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate

diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties

El_Kabong

farfromglorified wrote:

Definitely! There are many good corporations in China, just like there are many bad ones.

how do you know the difference? have you researched every company before you buy their product?

gue_barium

El_Kabong wrote:

how do you know the difference? have you researched every company before you buy their product?

He's being a smart ass.

He freaked out today.

Or, he lost his cool, or something.

whatever it was...

hope he's doing alright.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

He freaked out today.

Or, he lost his cool, or something.

Where did he lose his cool?

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

Where did he lose his cool?

He made almost no sense in his last reply to me...the one i told him he was nuts, smiley face, reply.

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

He made almost no sense in his last reply to me...the one i told him he was nuts, smiley face, reply.

I thought he made perfect sense in that post.

gue_barium

angelica wrote:

I thought he made perfect sense in that post.

Well, that's you.

I wonder why he disappeared?

angelica

gue_barium wrote:

Well, that's you.

I wonder why he disappeared?

He disappears here and there. Probably busy. You know he loves to spend all day posting!

gue_barium

gue_barium wrote:

Odd language, "suicide", on a question of "blame."

Every human on the planet is hardwired in need of the same basic elements of existence. Clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, good food to eat, and shelter. A little further up the scale of reason, there are the same basic emotional needs that all humans have in common, through family, companionship, sexuality, and communication.

No one can be blamed for these needs of ours. It is what we are.

He had brought up "blame", as in the "witless" have only themselves to blame kind of thing. When I questioned the blame idea..he comes up with the suicide analogy.
He's hardwired into something psychologically steadfast...along the lines that failure is suicide.
Kind of whacky, if you ask me.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Why? Is a suicide blameless?



That's awesome. Yet your "hardwiring" will not tell you how to acquire food, how to clean your air, how to build your home. A desire doesn't magically make something appear.



Very much so. But none of those things are actually "further up the scale of reason". Sex without reason is nothing more than an act of lust or an act of rape. Family without reason is nothing more than slavery or a blind biological attachment. Companionship is impossible without reasonably accepting another as a companion. And communication without reason is nothing more than gibberish or mindless reaction.



I'm not blaming anyone for their desires. I'm blaming someone who does not understand that a desire and a fulfillment of that desire are two very different things.

If you desire food, you're not to blame for that. If you shoot a man and steal his bread, you are to blame for that. If you desire shelter, you're not to blame for that. If you burn down another man's house to build a mansion, you are to blame for that. If you desire sex, you're not to blame for that. If you rape the first girl you come across, you are to blame for that. If you desire companionship, you're not to blame for that. If you chain the first person you find to your wrist, you are to blame for that. Understand?

A desire is an effect of your nature. An action is an effect of your morality, the part of you that monitors your desires and your options and willingly chooses from them. Nature is to blame for your desires, good and bad. You are to blame for your actions, good and bad. To suggest that a desire is a cause of an action is to suggest that reason is impossible. And to suggest that reason is impossible begs the question: what the fuck are we doing here?

Then in this post he changes what I called basic human "needs" into human "desire".

Crazy, mon.

To me.

tony vi

government is a legal mafia and we are all pupet folowing the system rules , war of color or war for money will give to our kids an unpleasant journey .no need to get mad or angry , the difference in this world is we have to make it happen . (dont fight me on this thread , it is just my opinion)

Inkdaub

Liberal. I always score liberal on these quizzes.