Ok Dan & HH..........give me some time. I'll write something up and post it later on today.
Thank you and PLEASE no more riddles or metaphors... I just really wanted a simple discussion on this, not one where I might have to analyse every single word to figure out what you're talking about.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
No, but you are making points about politics and other stuff, and want us to see it the same way. (if not, why bother posting?) It would help to get your meaning across then wouldn't it? You just seem to dense things up more than strictly necessary.
There's a difference in saying "get behind me" and "get out of my way". Most people here are saying the former, I'm saying the latter.
Exactly. Your neighbour isn't necessarily an anarchist. You got my point. As for what your neighbour holds of opnions, I would not venture a guess as to why, as I dont know your neighbour.
But I don't care what my neighbour thinks of my opinion. If he's a communist, he does care about mine. I'll touch on this in my write up.
Afraid this is one of those things where no opinions IS an opinion in itself. You want an anarchist society where you can be left alone and people mind their own business. There is your wish for society. Others have other wishes for how society should be ordered.
I don't care if I live in an "anarchist society". If I cared about that, I'd form one.
Anarchist capitalism would work brilliantly among entrepeneurial anarchists, and be a nightmare for people more oriented towards safety and predictability.
In an attempt to be more clear, let's try this. I'll probably have to split this into three parts. The first will be on Capitalism, the second on Communism, the third on violence.
Capitalism, at its root, is an economic system based on man's one and only active human Right: his freedom. A man's freedom is his ability to act and think within the confines of his environment. That environment includes time, the universe, the Earth itself, the elements of his geographical location, the other living beings around him, the other humans in and outside his "society", and every other entity within the reach of his hands and of his mind. Every piece of man's environment is an objective entity: it is what it is. A tree is a tree, a rock is a rock, an atom is an atom, gravity is gravity, and a man is a man. Furthermore, an entity cannot be contradictory. Something cannot be "what it is" and "not what it is" at the same time. While men can find different subjective meanings in trees, rocks, atoms, gravity, and men, no man can affect the objective reality of those things based on his perception of them. A man who wants to build a house cannot wish away the tree standing in his desired spot. A man who seeks to build a plane cannot make gravity weaker by simply wanting it to be for his craft to fly. A man who wishes to fill his stomach cannot make a tomato grow from nothing simply based on his need. In short, a man cannot contradict reality by his own perception of it. If man perceives reality in a manner consistent with its nature, he is correct. Otherwise, he is wrong.
Man thinks in his objective environment based on the perceptions he has of that environment combined with the ability of his mind. Man has five senses by which he perceives the world around him: sight, touch, taste, hearing and smell. Those senses feed his mind by acting as inputs into his brain. Unlike most of his living brethren, a man's brain does not rely on instinct to guide his action. A man's brain has the ability to process those inputs and combine them with other inputs and faculties such as memory, emotion, intelligence and logic. In short, man has the ability to decide based largely on his own process of thought. Furthermore, one man cannot think for another. A man's brain is his own. While he may affect the mind of others through his actions, he cannot affect the minds of others through his thoughts. Just as one man cannot see for another, one man cannot think for another. Each man's brain is his basic arbiter of survival. You are not a cheetah: you will have much difficulty running down your prey. You are not a gopher: you will have much difficulty burrowing for your food. You are not a shark: you cannot breathe underwater. You are not a bird: you cannot fly.
You are a man: you must think to survive. Your mind is nature's gift specific to your species. If you wish to run down your prey, create fire and run them off a cliff. If you wish to burrow for your food, invent a shovel. If you wish to breathe underwater, build an air tank. If you wish to fly, invent a plane.
Man acts within his objective environment based on the thoughts produced from his mental exploration of that environment. A man's thoughts create purpose: the desire to build shelter, the desire to find food, the desire to do whatever. A man's purpose is whatever his mind chooses. A man may chop down a tree to build a house. Another man may plant a tree because he finds them beautiful.
A man's purpose presupposes a morality. A morality is a man's code of values. It dictates what a man finds to be important or unimportant. A man's morality, therefore, dictates what he will seek out with his mind and his actions.
Each man is an end unto himself. His minds and actions are his own. No man can own another since no man can think or act as another. Each man must think and act for himself since no man can escape the identity of Self.
Capitalism accepts all of the above as self-evident truths and makes the following assumption: the basic morality of all men is a desire for happiness. Happiness is the emotion that stems from achievement of purpose. A man whose purpose was to build a house is happy when he lives there.
As a construction, capitalism first allows man the freedom to define his own standards for happiness and rejects the concept that another man can define his happiness.
Secondly, capitalism assumes that a man will likely need other men to achieve that happiness but rejects any inherent obligation of those others to that man. Men work together based on shared purpose. When your happiness and my happiness share similar means, we may cooperate willingly. However, your happiness is not my end nor is my happiness your end.
Capitalism therefore relies heavily on the concept of free exchange. In our complex economies, this exchange largely takes the form of money. Money is simply a standard that extends from the value one man finds in the efforts of another. You may work for your own happiness for free but in order for another to work for your happiness you must provide them something of value if your happiness means very little too them. Enter currency.
The desire for money is not what capitalism is about. Capitalism is about the desire for happiness. A man who will sacrifice his happiness for his money is not a capitalist. He is a materialist. Money is not the end of capitalism. Money is the secondary means of capitalism, the primary being the purposes and subsequent labor of men.
Profit is the price you pay for a man's mind. When you purchase another man's product, you're making a fundamental statement with your action: I am not able or willing to do this myself. The only reason, therefore, you have the product is because you were willing to pay for that man's mind or that man's effort to produce it. He did not think or act for you. He did so for himself. He owes you nothing and he may charge whatever price he deems fit, leaving you with the option to buy or not to buy. Profit is a large (but not necessary) piece of any capitalist model. A capitalistic system without profit, while possible, is not sustainable. Why? Because when no price is exchanged for the working of minds, the minds will eventually stop working. A capitalistic system that rejects the value of the mind will eventually get exactly what it asks for: worthless minds.
I am a capitalist. Here's what I believe:
- This world is an amazing place. It provides us with the resources we need to live and the means to achieve our comfort.
- My mind is my greatest gift. I love my life and I desire to live it. My mind is my only means to do so.
- I am a human being and I am free. You have no ability to force me to think for you. You have no right to force me to act for your happiness at the cost of my own.
- You are a human being and you are free. I have no ability to force you to think for me. I have no right to force you to act for my happiness at the cost of your own.
- My happiness is my highest standard of living. When I am happy, I am living as I should. When I am not happy, I'm living how I should not.
- I do not owe the products of my labor to anyone but myself. I work for me, not for you. My thoughts do not belong to "society". My actions do not belong to "the public". They belong to me. If you want them you have two choices: exchange me something I value for them or steal them by force. You're free to do either. But if you choose to steal them, do not tell me that it is not stealing and, more importantly, do not tell yourself it is not stealing.
So you don't believe that 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'?
Every action you take or don't take affects somebody else whether you accept or deny that.
You can say how we are all free to make certain decisions and all that but some of us just aren't born with that freedom or we get ourselves into other circumstances before we realise the benefits. And others are the controllers - they may not even realise the control they're having.
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
So you don't believe that 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'?
Every action you take or don't take affects somebody else whether you accept or deny that.
You can say how we are all free to make certain decisions and all that but some of us just aren't born with that freedom or we get ourselves into other circumstances before we realise the benefits. And others are the controllers - they may not even realise the control they're having.
I certainly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I certainly believe that our actions affect others. Does this negate anything I said?
You say that "some of us just aren't born with that freedom". I disagree. You are born with a mind and a body, just like I was. Each man is born into unique circumstances because each man is born unqiue, but each man is born with the basic freedom to think and act because each man is born with control of his own mind and his body.
Freedom is not a guarantee of success. Certainly we get ourselves into "other circumstances" before we realize the benefits or costs. Should others suffer because of our miscalculation? Does our error create an obligation for anyone else? If you stop eating, I will not die. Similarly, if I stop thinking, why should you?
Capitalism is the pursuit of happiness? What a completley frivolous, erroneous statement that is. It beggars belief that someone who seems to have an obvious amount of intelligence could even suggest such a thing. Its preposterous. But its your opinion, so yeah, good luck with that.
What you are is an isolationist. Live by the statements you make above, the line of the species that derives from you, that line will die.
Simply, Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production. Ownership by the minority, and ran for the exclusive, explicit financial profit of that minority. To hell with the rest.
To even begin to use the hundred and fifty year old (long ago proven redundant) argument of 'Capitalism is the principle of Individual Rights' to confuse the original question is ludicrous, and somewhat bizarre. You culeld your information from capitalism.org, amongst other places. YOu fail to be able to speak from the heart, which shows how little you believe in your own (appropriated) 'theories'
If you base happiness on the pursuit of money, again, good luck with that. As you shown in your comments regarding the hungry in Africa, your system rules out the possibility of you sharing, or even wanting others to lead what you call a "comfortable, happy life."
Apply your theory to the world, the real world, not the one in which you live in the woods, in isolation, then you wil see how Capitalism does not work. Dres it up in fancy, blundering rhetoric all you want, but you have failed to show or prove anything in support of what Capitalism is, and how it benefits society.
The individual rights you aspire to are nothing more than property rights. Capitalism and State capitalism is about nothing more than the protection of that property.
One person lives in a mansion, half a mile away another lives in squalor. Is that equality? Is that beneficial to humankind, the majority of which is way below the poverty line.
You talk of currency as being able to purchase the goods you need. Wrong. Catalonia, 1936/7, money was worthless. People helped each other, people traded, people were free.
Another redundancy is your reliance on THE MIND. Sorry, but most of the worlds workers are illiterate. They are not selling mind, they are selling their time, their bodies, their labour, at the expense of all else.
Humans are biologically wired to live and breed and work together. If the first man to invent the club had wanted to charge for the privelege of using that club, we would not exist now. If the man who discovered the ability to make fire had said nope, sorry, figure it out for yourself, again, ouir evolution would be an awful lot different to what it is now. These men gave away their discoveries for the greater profit OF THE COMMUNITY, tribe, commune, pack, whatever you cal it.
You cannot dress that co-operation up as 'trade', as a mere exchange of goods. It's comappssion , its the anthropoligically hard wired need to perpetuate the development of the species
The more you wrangle and bluster, the more you drown.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Well written ffg. I applaud you. This is what you really want to say. Much better than one-liner enigmas.
We've been over a lot of this before. Your view of reality, objectivism and uncontradictoriness of objects in the world. Again, my point is not that we can make things happen by only thinking them. But we integrate objects into our world in many potential different ways, which only share the physical existence at the core. But I won't harp on that too much. Here are my criticisms, points, call them what you willl, in response to this:
About man's confines: Can not society as it is be viewed as a confine of the environment that man adapts to, and will not this free action then be politically irrelevant to this debate, as it applies to all people all of the time regardless of societal structure?
About paradoxes: They can indeed exist, and do in many mnay cases. Whether they ultimately, beyond human perception, exists, is another matter.
Definition of capitalism: You have a very specific and somewhat peculiar definition and presentation of capitalism. I dont see why you should call it capitalism really, as your definition is wildly different from definitions most people would accept or use about it. But fair enough. Be aware that it's no wonder you get a lot of flak for talking about "capitalism" if the pursuit of happiness is what you really mean. Capitalism is a word holding a different meaning for most, indeed oxford would have capitalism mean "an economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by the owners of capital." Few draw the direct link between that and human pursuit of happiness.
Furthermore I see no need for "capitalism" in order for a man to define his standard of happiness. It doesn't hinder it, but neither is it necessary. I choose my own standards of happiness to a large extent, and I do not live under "capitalism" as you describe it.
Free exchange: Here-in is my major concern about your vision, namely that the exchanges must be free for them to work. I have asked you before where power fits in your theories, and it basically seems that they don't. How will you keep the exchanges free? How will you avoid people becoming dependant on a certain exchange, and hence un-free in the exchange? How will wealth not accumulate (and without state, also mean power in that money buys guns) to a degree where it grants the capitalist power over others? Which then can and most likely will be abused?
"when no price is exchanged for the working of minds, the minds will eventually stop working": In other words, human creativity is impossible without a pay-check? Surely you can't mean that. Most creative behaviour by humans are not directed at profit for profit's sakes. For many artists, for instance, money seems like a handy bonus more than anything. Humans have a drive for creativity, payment or no. This is where I cannot agree with the economic "rational actor" in full, because it really doesn't explain human behaviour, it just instrumentalizes it. The rational actor can describe an efficient way of getting something, but does not at all explain why that something is worth getting.
As for your "capitalist" beliefs at the end (Which also I see no need to attach the capitalism label to), I dont directly disagree with them. But, I see them as anti-social, selfish and narrow-minded if not supplemented with a belief of doing for others what you would have them do to you, about caring for the well-being of others, to have some social responsibility and generally carwe about your surroundings.
Your presentation here generally totally disregards the social elements if human nature and action. And by doing so, ignores a large chunk of human reality , knowledge and purpose. The freedom you seem to champion, to me seems hollow, lonely and not worth it.
Well written, ffg, but realize that none of what you put forward here holds any absolute undeniable truth, nor perspectives that cannot as justifiably be viewed completely different. But also note, the points which I didn't adress here, is because I somewhat agreed or at least didn't directly disagree with them, so I agree with some of what you said.
Can't wait for your communism diatribe, in which I will agree to much I think. I dont deny the benefits of capitalism, but it is short-sighted not also acknowledging the drawbacks and problems. Same goes for communism really.
(edit) please respond in paragraphs. Not one-liners.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Capitalism is the pursuit of happiness? What a completley frivolous, erroneous statement that is. It beggars belief that someone who seems to have an obvious amount of intelligence could even suggest such a thing. Its preposterous. But its your opinion, so yeah, good luck with that.
It's not my opinion. It's reality.
What you are is an isolationist.
Why?
Live by the statements you make above, the line of the species that derives from you, that line will die.
How?
Simply, Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production.
Ok. Then I grant you and everyone else on this board ownership of the means of production. Go use it. Fix it when it breaks. Operate it as well as the man who invented it.
Ownership by the minority, and ran for the exclusive, explicit financial profit of that minority.
Yet every single person in a capitalistic structure owns something. Otherwise they wouldn't be there.
To hell with the rest.
Very thoughtful.
To even begin to use the hundred and fifty year old (long ago proven redundant) argument of 'Capitalism is the principle of Individual Rights' to confuse the original question is ludicrous, and somewhat bizarre. You culeld your information from capitalism.org, amongst other places. YOu fail to be able to speak from the heart, which shows how little you believe in your own (appropriated) 'theories'
My heart cannot speak. It only beats.
If you base happiness on the pursuit of money, again, good luck with that.
I don't. I base happiness on my standard of happiness. My standard of happiness is my comfort, my ability to run my business, my ability to pay my employees, my ability to enjoy good foods, my ability to listen to Pearl Jam, my ability to spend time with my friends, my ability to see my family. A lot of that requires the effort of others and therefore requires that I give them something of value. But why would I be happy with a pile of money?
As you shown in your comments regarding the hungry in Africa, your system rules out the possibility of you sharing, or even wanting others to lead what you call a "comfortable, happy life."
"My system" allows you to share anything you wish to share. What you mean is that "my system" rules out your right to steal something from me and call it sharing.
"My system" allows anyone to live a comfortable, happy life. What you mean is that "my system" rules out your right to sacrifice my comfort and my happiness to yours.
Apply your theory to the world, the real world, not the one in which you live in the woods, in isolation, then you wil see how Capitalism does not work.
I apply my theory every day.
Dres it up in fancy, blundering rhetoric all you want, but you have failed to show or prove anything in support of what Capitalism is, and how it benefits society.
Ok. If you don't like capitalism, don't be a capitalist.
The individual rights you aspire to are nothing more than property rights.
You can have it all then. What are you going to do with it?
Capitalism and State capitalism is about nothing more than the protection of that property.
State capitalism is a contradiction in terms, my friend.
One person lives in a mansion, half a mile away another lives in squalor. Is that equality?
No. Just like the fact that whatever the first person did to justify their value to others is not equal to whatever the second person did to justify their value to others.
Is that beneficial to humankind, the majority of which is way below the poverty line.
Are you suggesting that I owe something to the majority? On what do you base that obligation.
You talk of currency as being able to purchase the goods you need. Wrong. Catalonia, 1936/7, money was worthless. People helped each other, people traded, people were free.
Then don't use currency. It's not a requirement.
Another redundancy is your reliance on THE MIND. Sorry, but most of the worlds workers are illiterate.
Now you know why the majority of the world is poor.
They are not selling mind, they are selling their time, their bodies, their labour, at the expense of all else.
Now you know why their price is so cheap.
Humans are biologically wired to live and breed and work together.
Certainly.
If the first man to invent the club had wanted to charge for the privelege of using that club, we would not exist now. If the man who discovered the ability to make fire had said nope, sorry, figure it out for yourself, again, ouir evolution would be an awful lot different to what it is now.
Certainly.
These men gave away their discoveries for the greater profit OF THE COMMUNITY, tribe, commune, pack, whatever you cal it.
And did they do that on their terms or yours?
You cannot dress that co-operation up as 'trade', as a mere exchange of goods. It's comappssion , its the anthropoligically hard wired need to perpetuate the development of the species
If compassion is hard-wired, what are you so afraid of?
The more you wrangle and bluster, the more you drown.
About man's confines: Can not society as it is be viewed as a confine of the environment that man adapts to, and will not this free action then be politically irrelevant to this debate, as it applies to all people all of the time regardless of societal structure?
Why do you think I once told you that all of civilization at the macro level is described by anarchism and capitalism?
About paradoxes: They can indeed exist, and do in many mnay cases. Whether they ultimately, beyond human perception, exists, is another matter.
We disagree about this, but have been over it before.
Definition of capitalism: You have a very specific and somewhat peculiar definition and presentation of capitalism. I dont see why you should call it capitalism really, as your definition is wildly different from definitions most people would accept or use about it.
Not really.
But fair enough. Be aware that it's no wonder you get a lot of flak for talking about "capitalism" if the pursuit of happiness is what you really mean. Capitalism is a word holding a different meaning for most, indeed oxford would have capitalism mean "an economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by the owners of capital." Few draw the direct link between that and human pursuit of happiness.
You need only to ask yourself: "what is capital" to arrive at my definition.
Furthermore I see no need for "capitalism" in order for a man to define his standard of happiness. It doesn't hinder it, but neither is it necessary. I choose my own standards of happiness to a large extent, and I do not live under "capitalism" as you describe it.
If you live only for your own happiness and ask no man to live for you, you are a capitalist in my book. I don't think you'd fit this description.
"when no price is exchanged for the working of minds, the minds will eventually stop working": In other words, human creativity is impossible without a pay-check?
If by "pay-check" you mean currency or money, no. If by "pay-check" you mean a standard of value appreciated by the receiver, yes.
For many artists, for instance, money seems like a handy bonus more than anything. Humans have a drive for creativity, payment or no.
YES!!!!!!!!! Now, ask yourself where that drive for creativity comes from. Does it come from you? Does it come from "the public"? Does it come from "the people"? Does it come from "society"? No!!!!! It comes from the creators morality. His desires. His needs. His wants. His mind.
This is where I cannot agree with the economic "rational actor" in full, because it really doesn't explain human behaviour, it just instrumentalizes it. The rational actor can describe an efficient way of getting something, but does not at all explain why that something is worth getting.
See my original post to explain why that something is worth getting.
As for your "capitalist" beliefs at the end (Which also I see no need to attach the capitalism label to), I dont directly disagree with them. But, I see them as anti-social, selfish and narrow-minded if not supplemented with a belief of doing for others what you would have them do to you, about caring for the well-being of others, to have some social responsibility and generally carwe about your surroundings.
You see them as most people see them. They destroy the chains you've used to bind men together. You've basically said what so many here say out of fear: "but what about sharing", "but what about cooperation", "but what about caring". What I've said eliminates none of that. You can still share. You can still cooperate. You can still care. What you mean is "but what about stealing", "but what about enslavement", "but what about guilt". And to that I can only say:
You cannot steal my mind.
You cannot enslave my body.
You cannot make me feel guilty for living.
Your presentation here generally totally disregards the social elements if human nature and action. And by doing so, ignores a large chunk of human reality , knowledge and purpose. The freedom you seem to champion, to me seems hollow, lonely and not worth it.
How does it "disregard the social elements"??? Men can still cooperate. Men can still exchange. Men can still love and share and help. It simply says that men should do those things for themselves, not for some vague entity.
I'll address your concerns about power in my post about violence.
Just wondering which is REALLY the ideal? I was watching a nice little German film the other night, Goodbye Lenin, which was about an East German boy whose mother went into a coma after suffering a heart attack. While she was in the coma, the wall came down and the whole world changed for them. When she awoke the doctor advised him not to give her too many shocks as it could trigger a fatal attack. So he had to pretend nothing had changed. In one incident she met some West Germans and saw some West German cars and he had to explain how the West Germans had fled to the East cos of their immoral capitalist ways and the East Germans were accepting West German 'refugees' into their homes and she was saying 'we must do everything we can to help', lol. Ok well enough rambling but it just made me wonder what exactly IS so fucking great about the way we're living these days?
you said it yourself. the way WE'RE living. you can easily live in democracy as a communist. share your food and money with those who are in need. that is the basics. it's government that messes up everything. but as you said; it's an ideal. and we won't achieve an ideal on earth.
If you live only for your own happiness and ask no man to live for you, you are a capitalist in my book. I don't think you'd fit this description."
As I said, your definition of capitalism is much wider and includes alot of things people usually dont tie in with capitalism. And no, I probably dont fit a capitalist description.
You see them as most people see them. They destroy the chains you've used to bind men together. You've basically said what so many here say out of fear: "but what about sharing", "but what about cooperation", "but what about caring". What I've said eliminates none of that. You can still share. You can still cooperate. You can still care. What you mean is "but what about stealing", "but what about enslavement", "but what about guilt". And to that I can only say:
You cannot steal my mind.
You cannot enslave my body.
You cannot make me feel guilty for living.
I say what I say coz I dont trust any revolution, specifically one that has no room, concept or explanation for power, where it fits or who has it. Besides from a wish that it be irrelevant. Get off your demagogic horse. I am not enslaving you.
How does it "disregard the social elements"??? Men can still cooperate. Men can still exchange. Men can still love and share and help. It simply says that men should do those things for themselves, not for some vague entity.
Yet you leave it completely outside your society and never lets it have anything to do with how we act, why and so forth. In your case man can still be all that, but you leave it no importance or worthy of mention. That men should act pro-socially for their own sakes is fine enough, but also a very selfish centred view. Do you do good deeds merely for the good feeling it gives you? People should perhaps not be "forced" into such relations, but they are regardless through socialization, family, being raised and so forth.
I get your point that we shouldn't have a "moral police" directing our every action, but that is neither what I am proposing or advocating.
I just dont readily agree with a theory that disregards human social interaction, cooperation and organization and merely view it as an optional extra in an "every man for himself" society.
But yes, I am all ears as to where power fits.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
As I stated earlier, I'm not saying "get behind me".
I am not enslaving you.
The instant any man tells me to work for his purpose instead of my own and is willing to back his words with violence is the instant that man becomes a slavedriver.
Yet you leave it completely outside your society and never lets it have anything to do with how we act, why and so forth. In your case man can still be all that, but you leave it no importance or worthy of mention.
No mention??? The essence of what I'm talking about is exchange. How does one exchange without the social element?
I just dont readily agree with a theory that disregards human social interaction, cooperation and organization
Stop thinking that it disregards it. It does not. Human social interaction, cooperation and organization are intrisic to human existence. But not as intrisic as the concept of self.
I'd like to see you realistically justify the "isn't he rich off the backs of the poor" statement. Microsoft pays well. Microsoft overpays for most of the companies they buy. Microsoft has a good record of keeping jobs in the US. His goods are not a necessity so no one is forced to buy his product.
Take a look at Pearl Jam. If they had worked and found a way to deal with fame they could have continued to be a relevant, popular and high selling band. This would have employed more people and given the band the ability to earn more money and give more to charity. The band decides they can't put up with the fame and would rather not do all the good that they could with the fame. I'll use your question here, "So how much "good" does Pearl Jam have to do to make up for their bullshit?"
This sitting in judgement gets old so quick. Gates does more charity work than you or I ever will, and gives more to charity than you or I ever will. He does more wealth distribution than you or I ever will. He has contributed more to paying for your and mine old age or social security than you or I ever will.
First of all Bill Gates gets most of the money he 'contributes to social security' etc. back through his ownership of Microsoft...tax money has gone from 50 percent to the people/50 percent to corps in the 50s and 60s to 10 percent to the people/90 percent to the corps now (mostly Bill Clinton's fault). Additionally Microsoft requires people to work 80-90-100 hour work weeks which does little to contributing to the betterment of the social fabric of our country. Finally Pearl Jam are similar to microsoft on the levels of power/donation at a smaller scale. The members of the band have, however done things like actually build houses for other people, donate ticket proceeds to charity (this tour), fought corporate corruption (ticketmaster), and actually had a mathmetician figure out how much CO2 they used on a tour and bought an equal amount of rainforest in south america to make up for it. Bill Gates on the other hand has made his living selling microchips, processers, and software packaged not in America, for very cheap. I'm sure you could find similar issues with PJ, but to hail Bill Gates as some sort of humanitarian when his business model has been at the forefront of pushing unfettered corporate capitalism to its most greedy heights is wrong in my opinion.
Read Paulo Freire (1970) Pedagogy of the Opressed and you can see a pretty powerful argument against the rich "doing charity to maintain their power/privilege/interests". It's a quick read too.
First of all Bill Gates gets most of the money he 'contributes to social security' etc. back through his ownership of Microsoft...tax money has gone from 50 percent to the people/50 percent to corps in the 50s and 60s to 10 percent to the people/90 percent to the corps now (mostly Bill Clinton's fault). Additionally Microsoft requires people to work 80-90-100 hour work weeks which does little to contributing to the betterment of the social fabric of our country. Finally Pearl Jam are similar to microsoft on the levels of power/donation at a smaller scale. The members of the band have, however done things like actually build houses for other people, donate ticket proceeds to charity (this tour), fought corporate corruption (ticketmaster), and actually had a mathmetician figure out how much CO2 they used on a tour and bought an equal amount of rainforest in south america to make up for it. Bill Gates on the other hand has made his living selling microchips, processers, and software packaged not in America, for very cheap. I'm sure you could find similar issues with PJ, but to hail Bill Gates as some sort of humanitarian when his business model has been at the forefront of pushing unfettered corporate capitalism to its most greedy heights is wrong in my opinion.
Read Paulo Freire (1970) Pedagogy of the Opressed and you can see a pretty powerful argument against the rich "doing charity to maintain their power/privilege/interests". It's a quick read too.
I wasn't knocking Pearl Jam. Yes, they donate to charity but so does Gates. It could be said that Pearl Jam explotes a much poorer demographic in selling their goods than Microsoft does. That Pearl Jam truly does make it's money on the backs of the poor. Pearl Jam had the opportunity to be more successful, provide more jobs and they chose not to. Not because they thought roviding jobs was wrong but for selfish (but understandable) reasons. But that's nitpicking and doesn't help the arguement for either side.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I wasn't knocking Pearl Jam. Yes, they donate to charity but so does Gates. It could be said that Pearl Jam explotes a much poorer demographic in selling their goods than Microsoft does. That Pearl Jam truly does make it's money on the backs of the poor. Pearl Jam had the opportunity to be more successful, provide more jobs and they chose not to. Not because they thought roviding jobs was wrong but for selfish (but understandable) reasons. But that's nitpicking and doesn't help the arguement for either side.
Someday I hope to be making my money off of the backs of the mentally ill and their loved ones. That's because they will hopefully hear and understand my vision. And if I'm as blessed as I feel I am, they will find some comfort in what I have to offer. They will relate to what I've seen and experienced.
Hopefully, I'll stick to my heart's vision and continue on that path, rather than switch to a wealthier market of the self-actualising--those in the business world, looking to become wealthier. I realise that the self-actualising are generally more financially stable and I might be able to make more money there.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Someday I hope to be making my money off of the backs of the mentally ill and their loved ones. That's because they will hopefully hear and understand my vision. And if I'm as blessed as I feel I am, they will find some comfort in what I have to offer. They will relate to what I've seen and experienced.
Hopefully, I'll stick to my heart's vision and continue on that path, rather than switch to a wealthier market of the self-actualising--those in the business world, looking to become wealthier. I realise that the self-actualising are generally more financially stable and I might be able to make more money there.
I don't have any problem with this, in fact I think it commendable. I'm so selfish that I know that there are some income related and career decisions that I will not make until my son is finished school. I take a stupid amount of pride in trying to provide a great childhood and growth experience for my kid. I try to off-set some of the guilt through charitable donation and some volunteer work, but realize it would be so much more fulfilling doing something more worth while on a full-time basis even if the income is a quarter of what I get now.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Bill Gates on the other hand has made his living selling microchips, processers, and software packaged not in America, for very cheap. I'm sure you could find similar issues with PJ, but to hail Bill Gates as some sort of humanitarian when his business model has been at the forefront of pushing unfettered corporate capitalism to its most greedy heights is wrong in my opinion.
Gates doesn't sell microchips or processors. Microsoft is a software company. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. Most of the company is in the US. Most of the software engineers are in the US. They've opened development centers in India and China, have distibution and manufacturing facilities in Ireland, have operations in europe, far east, south america, etc... since they're a global company. They certainly have contributed to their local communities. Thanks to Microsoft new community parks exist here, Microsoft employees sit on boards of many charitable organizations, they coach little league baseball and soccer. They are active in politics. They buy goods and services, build homes, work in food banks. Ex-employees have gone on to start other companies which in turn employ more people. Globally, Gates has contributed more to malaria research, aids research and education than most countries do. And he's about to leave MSFT to persue his foundation's efforts full time. So maybe you need to shake off your losing attitude and shoot for some success in life so that you can also be happy for others' successes.
Read Paulo Freire (1970) Pedagogy of the Opressed and you can see a pretty powerful argument against the rich "doing charity to maintain their power/privilege/interests". It's a quick read too.
I'll try to pick it up, but the premise seems completely wrong-headed to me. "Fuck the rich and their money. We don't want any of it. We'd rather starve, die of aids, and live in squalor." Brilliant.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I don't have any problem with this, in fact I think it commendable. I'm so selfish that I know that there are some income related and career decisions that I will not make until my son is finished school. I take a stupid amount of pride in trying to provide a great childhood and growth experience for my kid. I try to off-set some of the guilt through charitable donation and some volunteer work, but realize it would be so much more fulfilling doing something more worth while on a full-time basis even if the income is a quarter of what I get now.
I'm happy to see there are people who care about themselves and their families. It sounds like you've got your priorities right.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I don't have any problem with this, in fact I think it commendable. I'm so selfish that I know that there are some income related and career decisions that I will not make until my son is finished school. I take a stupid amount of pride in trying to provide a great childhood and growth experience for my kid. I try to off-set some of the guilt through charitable donation and some volunteer work, but realize it would be so much more fulfilling doing something more worth while on a full-time basis even if the income is a quarter of what I get now.
I was just trying to make a point about the PJ vision and that they speak to certain lower socio-economic groups in a highly valid way. I wasn't as much trying to look all selfless. Everyone has their own idea of what success is, based on our personalities, so it's truly "to each their own". My daughter is a directory assistance operator for survival purposes, and she and her boyfriend are literally training themselves as fire-twirlers, because they plan to become buskers, and to travel the globe entertaining. Seriously.
I love that my kids are not materialistic and that they are humanitarian. It's up to us to follow what is right for us, whether it's making lots of money, or not. Oh, and I plan to make lots of money, too.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Every man is free to use force. You have fists. You have guns. Nature gave them to you with the idea that someday you'd need them. Nature was right. Just like any action, force extends from a man’s purpose which extends from a man’s morality. There are two moralities that define the use of force: the morality of reason (defensive force) and the morality of denial (aggressive force).
Aggressive force is man's physical means of denial. Just as a man may shut off his mind in an effort to deny reality, a man may attack reality in an effort to destroy it.
As I stated earlier, a man who points a loaded gun at you seeks to replace your mind with his gun. He is saying to you: "You will not think and act. I will think and you will act". But that man does not realize that he cannot think for you nor can his gun.
The men of threats count on the following: your fear. They typically desire that you fear the man with the gun.....they fail if you fear nothing. That leaves them with two choices: drop the gun or become a man of violence.
Each man that uses aggressive force shares the same morality specific to his action. However, each has a unique or semi-unique purpose. A rapist may hold you at gunpoint in an attempt to erase your will not to have sex with him. A robber may hold you at gunpoint in attempt to erase your right to your property. A terrorist may hold you at gunpoint in an attempt to erase your ability to live freely.
The greatest number of these men are employed by the government. Every lawmaker, every policeman, every soldier....each man holds a gun because he's willing to inflict pain or death on a human being that will not meet his terms. Until theirs are objective codes of defensive force that dictate the operation of each lawmaker, policeman and soldier, each one who kills is an aggressor.
A government that forces a man to abide by the standards of "the public" rather than his own attempts to negate the will of the very same "public" they refer to. For nearly every person on this board who has used the term "the public" or "society", I'm here to tell you something:
I am part of "the public" and the "society" you refer to. And I am not suicidal.
When you tell me to do something "for the people" at gunpoint, do you not understand I am one of those people? What you're saying is that I have myself at gunpoint. And, as I said, I'm not suicidal.
There are two ways to defend yourself in the face of an aggressor: you may reason with him or you may attack him yourself. The former is a tricky proposition: the very fact that a man tells you that his gun can think for you means that this is not a man that is likely reasoned with. The latter is a dangerous path: defensive violence can quickly turn into the very thing it was meant to reject.
Defensive force is a form of justice. It is a response to the statement: “your mind or your life”. Since one cannot exist without the other, one uses one’s mind to choose the only viable option: the defense of life via the use of the mind. While aggressive force is based on the rejection of reason, defensive force is based on the acceptance of reason.
The purpose of defensive force is the rejection of aggression, not the death of the aggressor. If the defense of your life absolutely requires the death of another, you are just in killing him. However, if only the absolution of your fear requires the death of another, you are a murderer.
I own a gun. Why? To defend myself in the situation where my choice is simple: my life or my mind. My gun is not a tool of fear. It has no purpose in the face of another. It has only the purpose to defend my life, in and only in the event that it is necessary.
Power is the measure of a man’s influence on his purpose, or more simply stated as the measure of his ability relative to his desire. A good farmer who wishes to eat has a significant amount of power over his desire. A woman who defines her perception of her body based on only her standards has a significant amount of power of those who want her to define her perception of her body on their standards.
Power gets a bad rep, for the most part. We all know the saying: power corrupts. While those who espouse it typically have their hearts in the right place, they don’t understand that the corruption happened before the power. The brings us to the important difference between man’s power over his environment and man’s power over other men.
When man deals with his environment, man deals with objective truth. A man must deal with his environment honestly. A man cannot connive water out of a desert. He must find a river. Similarly, when men deal with other men they hold power by accepting reality: reality about Self and Other. A man who seeks to achieve power by the use of guns ignores the will of Others and has little power indeed. The death of Other or the simple refusal of Other destroys the power. Similarly, the man who seeks power by the use of lies ignores the fact that a lie reduces his power: he becomes a slave to his own invented reality and the perception of another to it.
True power over men is achieved by respect. Respect is achieved by merit. Respect binds men to each other over long spans of time and through differences of opinion and purpose.
All forms of power are a two part equation. The first part is the actions of one, the second part is the sanction of the other. This teaches us an important lesson. Those who hold power based on lies or guns only achieve that power when we sanction it. Unlike the power of respect (or the power of love that I won’t really touch on here), the power of guns and lies require your sanction to go against your reason. When a politician tells you that he will do a good job simply because his opponent will not, his power is dependent on your erroneous belief of his flawed logic. When a gunman tells you that his gun will replace your mind, his power is dependent on your erroneous fear of his proposition. When a poster here insults you instead of addressing your argument, his power is dependent on your erroneous lack of indifference to his insults. When a businessman tells you this his product will fulfill your emotional needs, his power is dependant on your erroneous belief in his words. When a priest tells you to sacrifice your life to your death, his power is dependant on your erroneous abdication of reason.
The world I see is the world as it is: a world where power is checked by those whose sanction is required for it. The only difference between that world and the world we experience is the recognition by all of us that our rightful power over men lies in the same place as our power over Nature: in our minds. Rightful power is a power achieved by and sanctioned by reason.
Some people, including many objectivists, would reject my definition. They believe in the right of government to maintain a monopoly on force in order to protect the “Rights” of the people. They fear a monopoly of power being concentrated by corporations, so their solution is to monopolize power within another corporation.
It is not my responsibility to protect your rights, not is it your responsibility to protect mine. It is our responsibility to respect each other’s rights.
So what do we do to protect ourselves from power-seeking corporations? The same way we protect ourselves from power seeking mystics. Reject their presuppositions. Reject their products. Reject their force. Do so as individuals. Do so as groups. But do so as people united in purpose rather than people united in fear or confusion.
Some people, including many objectivists, would reject my definition. They believe in the right of government to maintain a monopoly on force in order to protect the “Rights” of the people. They fear a monopoly of power being concentrated by corporations, so their solution is to monopolize power within another corporation.
in a democracy the people have the power. when a democracy is truly representative of the people it keeps the interests of the few wealthy elite in check to allow more policy making directed towards benefitting the masses.
It is not my responsibility to protect your rights, not is it your responsibility to protect mine. It is our responsibility to respect each other’s rights.
It is the responsibility of everyone in a democracy to remain vigilant and protect the rights so many have fought for throughout the years...to keep our rights from being taken out from under us by private investors with the wealth and resources to buy our publically elected representatives, control our media and launch huge PR campaigns filled with 1/2 truths and lies about how good this will all work out for the world. The playing field is far from equal so protection is needed.
So what do we do to protect ourselves from power-seeking corporations? The same way we protect ourselves from power seeking mystics. Reject their presuppositions. Reject their products. Reject their force. Do so as individuals. Do so as groups. But do so as people united in purpose rather than people united in fear or confusion.
Questions?
The people suffering most from the effects of these corporations do not buy these products, they have no visable alternatives, and most of those who do buy these products hear nothing about the ramifications of the production of their cheaply produced goods because the media has already been purchased.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
in a democracy the people have the power. when a democracy is truly representative of the people it keeps the interests of the few wealthy elite in check to allow more policy making directed towards benefitting the masses.
In your democracy, you abdicate your power to go against the majority. The very definition of democracy tells you everything you need to know about your power within it: conform, convince, or leave. And you told me once how that power is maintained:
It is the responsibility of everyone in a democracy to remain vigilant and protect the rights so many have fought for throughout the years...
How is that my responsibility? What inherent responsibility do I have to protect anyone's rights but my own?
to keep our rights from being taken out from under us by private investors with the wealth and resources to buy our publically elected representatives, control our media and launch huge PR campaigns filled with 1/2 truths and lies about how good this will all work out for the world.
But that's what the majority want.
The playing field is far from equal so protection is needed.
But you don't demand equality. You only demand majority.
The people suffering most from the effects of these corporations do not buy these products, they have no visable alternatives, and most of those who do buy these products hear nothing about the ramifications of the production of their cheaply produced goods because the media has already been purchased.
First....a corporation or government has no right to invade a nation, destroy its resources, and leave. Unless of course that nation grants the corporation the right to do so. Regardless, pollution is a form of aggressive force and can certainly be met by a just defense.
Second...the media has no obligation to tell you anything. It is not the responsbility of the media to report to you everything that happens in this world. If you value an objective, holistic media, pay for it or start it. This nation, as a whole, consistently rejects objective, holistic media. They want the media, be it Fox News or Alternet to give them conclusions, not facts, hype, not substance, emotion, not reason.
Finally, if you buy a product you sanction that product and the man that produces it. Do not abdicate your responsibility and then complain when another does the same.
I'll try to pick it up, but the premise seems completely wrong-headed to me. "Fuck the rich and their money. We don't want any of it. We'd rather starve, die of aids, and live in squalor." Brilliant.
That's the exact opposite premise of the book. Basically it talks about how through 'charity' the rich decide what's good for the poor while maintaining their current level of prestige and power. This has failed time and again because the rich have no idea what the poor need because they don't listen to the poor. For example, poor people don't need little league fields, and movie theaters, they would rather have homes, schools, and health care. The best chapter of the book is the 3rd where Freire actually poses a method for achieving a truly democratic society where the needs and values of many are considered...it's quite interesting.
In your democracy, you abdicate your power to go against the majority. The very definition of democracy tells you everything you need to know about your power within it: conform, convince, or leave. And you told me once how that power is maintained:
How is that my responsibility? What inherent responsibility do I have to protect anyone's rights but my own?
But that's what the majority want.
But you don't demand equality. You only demand majority.
First....a corporation or government has no right to invade a nation, destroy its resources, and leave. Unless of course that nation grants the corporation the right to do so. Regardless, pollution is a form of aggressive force and can certainly be met by a just defense.
Second...the media has no obligation to tell you anything. It is not the responsbility of the media to report to you everything that happens in this world. If you value an objective, holistic media, pay for it or start it. This nation, as a whole, consistently rejects objective, holistic media. They want the media, be it Fox News or Alternet to give them conclusions, not facts, hype, not substance, emotion, not reason.
Finally, if you buy a product you sanction that product and the man that produces it. Do not abdicate your responsibility and then complain when another does the same.
In a true democracy the people will decide what works for them as opposed to the current disaster of the few wealthy elite deciding for them. I demand equal representation from our elected officials...no group of people will ever unanimously agree on anything...so the polices in put in place should reflect the needs of the majority of citizens.
Why do you think the majority reject objective media?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
In a true democracy the people will decide what works for them as opposed to the current disaster of the few wealthy elite deciding for them. I demand equal representation from our elected officials...no group of people will ever unanimously agree on anything...so the polices in put in place should reflect the needs of the majority of citizens.
While I certainly agree that our current system is not a true democracy, I reject your "utopia". What works for you probably isn't what works for me. You demand "equal representation". That's fine. But I demand no representation. You demand "policies that reflect the needs of the majority". That's fine. But I demand no policies.
I say to you: knock yourself out. Get some equal representation. Get some policies. Just don't ask me to participate in that which I don't want.
You say to me: watch out for those fairies.
Why do you think the majority reject objective media?
No, I'm not questioning the fact that they do, I was wanting to know why you think the reason for it is.
Oh..sorry about that. I misunderstood your question.
It's a good question. I'll give you my opinion, but it's just that...my opinion.
To value an objective media, one would likely have to value reason, right? Who needs objective facts if one has no desire to reach objective conclusions? Most people don't want to reason: they want to be told what conclusion they should reach. Enter "news analysis". Enter "insta-polls". Enter the speeches of politicians and talking heads that are so transparent that only a person who already believes the conclusion could accept them.
Most people don't want to hear about the reality that creates terrorism. Most people simply want to hear that terrorists are evil. Most people don't want to hear about their liability in globalization. Most people simply want to hear that corporations are "out of control". Most people don't want to think about the fundamental nature of reality. Most people would rather hear that there is no fundamental nature of reality.
Our culture is creating people who don't care because we're teaching them that they shouldn't care or that there's nothing to care about. The media is largely the extension of our current educational priorities and political climate: conclusions first, facts second.
This post addresses the philosophy of both communism and socialism, and puts both under the umbrella of “communism”. The careful reader will recognize that, in practice, communism and socialism have some very notable differences.
Communism is an economic system that holds as its highest standard the needs of men. A man’s need, within most of these systems, is defined by a desire directly related to a man’s survival. Communism prescribes that all men within a society serve the needs of their neighbors, based on their own abilities.
A man within a communistic system has only one fundamental right: to need, creating one fundamental obligation: to serve. He has no fundamental right to live, since his life itself cannot intrinsically serve another’s need. There’s a reason that Marx did not say “From each according to his life, to each according to his need”. Similarly, a man has no right to his own freedom because his inherent obligation to others negates both his will and his choice, the fundamental elements of freedom.
Unfortunately, communists exist in the same objective reality that I described in my earlier post. When I said, “a man cannot contradict reality by his own perception of it,” I aim those words directly at anyone who believes that a need can create a reality. Hunger does not create food. Loneliness cannot create friendship. Orders cannot create freedom. Lust cannot create love. Greed cannot create money.
The needs within a communistic system are met by ability. Ability is man’s capacity for achievement. Achievement presupposes purpose. Purpose presupposes will. Will presupposes choice. Within a capitalistic system, there is no disconnect between a mans choice and his will, a man’s will and his purpose, a man’s purpose and his ability, a man’s ability and his achievement unless the man is unreasonable, meaning his perception is inconsistent with reality. In a communistic system, there can be no connection between a man’s choice and his will. He has no choice, therefore he can have no will. There can be no connection between man’s will and his purpose. He has no will. There can be no connection between a man’s purpose and his achievement: neither is his. The only purpose is the purpose of the commune. The only achievement is measured by the standard of everyone’s need but he who serves it.
How can a system that denies a man’s choice and denies a man’s will make any sense when men obviously have both individual choice and individual wills? Well, I’ll give you a little hint on how to spot a true communist. If Joe McCarthy would have known this, life would have been a lot easier for a lot of his victims. Furthermore, he might have been a little surprised at how close he was to that which he despised. A communist’s view of reality is most threatened by the biggest truth he cannot accept: that each man has a mind of his own and the contents of it are owned only by that man. When a man tells you that the mind is superfluous, communism is his desired end, even if he doesn’t realize it. When a man tells you that the mind is “collective”, communism is his desired end, even if he doesn’t realize it. When a man tells you that “perception is reality”, communism is his desired end, even if he doesn’t realize it. If capitalism is the system of the mind, communism is the system of the anti-mind. And here’s why:
A need has two operative halves: a desire and a fulfillment. No man really needs something that cannot be possibly fulfilled. Hunger presupposes the possibility of food. Love presupposes the possibility of a soul mate (or something like that). Self-esteem presupposes the possibility of achievement. This is not to say that need cannot exist without actually being fulfilled. Obviously many Africans are hungry and go without food. But we all know and they all know that food exists and their hunger says they want it.
Communism’s ultimate failure is created by the erroneous assumption that need creates fulfillment, rather than being subject to it. Rather than accepting the reality that fulfillment is created by the mind, communism expects the needs of some to dictate the abilities of others. How? Somehow! Why? Because we say so! Such a thing, unfortunately, is impossible. Your hunger cannot teach you (or anyone else) how to grow food. Only your mind can grow your food. But communism tells you to ignore your mind, and it seeks to destroy your knowledge of your own reason.
Communism tells you that you are not an end to yourself. You are a means to an end: the fulfillment of another’s need. Each man’s actions belong to everyone but himself. Fulfilling your own needs and desires becomes evil. Fulfilling everyone else’s needs and desires becomes enlightened.
The communist tells me – “you have no right to private property”. Fine, I say. Property is not my end. He can have it all. Now what? How can “the public” own the means of production when they can’t own the knowledge that created it?
The communist tells me – “you need security”. Exactly, I say. The biggest threat to me is the state that enforces the subjective law of another’s “need” with their guns.
The communist tells me – “people before profit”. Precisely, I say. Profit is the payment to people for the product of their minds. The rejection of profit is a rejection of the mind, the rejection of people.
I am not a communist. Here’s what I believe:
-This world is an objective place. I cannot affect that world based on my needs, my whims, or my desires. I can only affect that world based on my thoughts and the actions that stem from them.
-My mind is my greatest gift. I love my life and I desire to live it. My mind is my only means to do so. The man who tells me to ignore my mind tells me to die.
- I am a human being and I am free. You have no ability to force me to think for you. You have no right to force me to act for your happiness at the cost of my own.
- You are a human being and you are free. I have no ability to force you to think for me. I have no right to force you to act for my happiness at the cost of your own.
you said it yourself. the way WE'RE living. you can easily live in democracy as a communist. share your food and money with those who are in need. that is the basics. it's government that messes up everything. but as you said; it's an ideal. and we won't achieve an ideal on earth.
Well that is true. I dunno what definition my ideals come under but I'd just like to know when did it all become about money? And soon it will be plastic - our 'worth' will be something we can't even see, just a number our banks will give us. I just don't value things that way and I just think money and greed are ALL that is wrong with the world today. But I need a certain amount of money to LEGALLY live the way I want to - the earth doesn't belong to us anymore, we have to BUY our patches of land where we want to live, we don't just have a RIGHT to live unless it's in a tent where nobody can see you. We can't even just build - there are people to tell us where and what we can build and certain laws that must be upheld. I got caught up in the capitalist bullshit and I'm buying my way out of it for the past couple of years - can't get there quick enough.
But I disagree on your last point - we CAN achieve an ideal on earth, maybe not as a whole, but certainly as individuals
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
As I stated earlier, I'm not saying "get behind me".
Marginal difference, really. Both cases is telling people what to think and/or do. Whether it is getting behind you or getting away from you doesn't do much difference.
No mention??? The essence of what I'm talking about is exchange. How does one exchange without the social element?
Stop thinking that it disregards it. It does not. Human social interaction, cooperation and organization are intrisic to human existence. But not as intrisic as the concept of self.
Yet, as I said, the consideration of interaction never enters your theory apart from economic exchange. You have little or no considerations of what happens when you have many people all pursuing their will, and how they will conflict, create new power constellations, and in the end reproduce class differences, especially without any mediating structures of redistribution. You talk of human interaction, but you don't really deal with it in your theory, you just put it aside. As for self coming before social interaction, I am not sure it is really relevant to put a sharp divide there, as all humans are from birth onwards engaged in social interactions continously, making it hard to see where the difference goes between faculties born with you, and faculties learned and raised by people around you. Hence, your individualist focus falls through for me as insufficient as a complete perspective.
I won't quote the whole force thing, but again make a few comments to it here:
First of all, to you a state is a state. Which is really preposterous. A working democracy does not have the same effect on its citizens as a totalitarian dictatorship. You always start from worst case scenario when it comes to these states. State power can for sure be abused, and is in many cases. But there is a difference of degrees here.
As for the entire gun-to-head analogy favoured by anarchists, fair enough, but I dont see how it really applies to the society where i live. Sorry. Few guns to head and threats of violence to my person here. As for police and soldiers, you really reduce them to non-thinking brutes. Where-as I know that many of them have a conviction to help people, and keep them safe from eachother, aka the monopoly of violence. I find it interesting that you that focus so much on cooperation the moment we talk of private capitalism, fail to see it in regards to a state. In essence, just because something is instilled in you other than you choosing it consciously (which goes for most of your upbringing at least and much more), doesn't mean it is gun-to-head force. Influence, persuasion and facilitating does not equal gunpoint, although they can certainly hold power and make you do one thing over another. Perhaps stop you from doing things you'd like in your mind, but you choose not to because of what others might think for example.
Furthermore, if you view the power wielded by the state as being automatically gun-to-head, then what is the power of a monopoly corporation that have cornered a market (and not necessarily through fair competition) equal to? You put to sharp a distinction between power and state power. The state may have the monopoly on physical violence, sure. But it does not have the monopoly on power, and it is not the sole structure that limit people's freedoms. People limit people's freedoms just as much. Corporations can limit them. Power groups outside of state structure can limit them. I dont necessarily disagree with your analysis of power either, but I think you focus too much of just one aspect of it.
The Weberian power term, which is pretty close to what you say actually, namely that power is the ability for one person or entity to make others act according to his will, even if the others dont necessarily want to. State is not the only powerwielding structure in society. Employers, capitalists, family, traditionally the head of the family and so on. The picture is a lot more complex
Some people, including many objectivists, would reject my definition. They believe in the right of government to maintain a monopoly on force in order to protect the “Rights” of the people. They fear a monopoly of power being concentrated by corporations, so their solution is to monopolize power within another corporation.
The difference between the corporations is that the democratic state is for and by the people, and can be influenced by the people. The other corporation can listen to people, but can just as well choose not to, and people can do nothing about it. I'm a democrat to the bone, so my answer to that would be democracy, really.
It is not my responsibility to protect your rights, not is it your responsibility to protect mine. It is our responsibility to respect each other’s rights.
All of the above, I'd say. It is my responsibility to protect your rights and well-being, and you should in return try to protect mine in the name of reciprocity (although I'd protect yours anyway), and we both have the responsibility to respect each others rights. Dont see the big difference between the two either.
So what do we do to protect ourselves from power-seeking corporations? The same way we protect ourselves from power seeking mystics. Reject their presuppositions. Reject their products. Reject their force. Do so as individuals. Do so as groups. But do so as people united in purpose rather than people united in fear or confusion.
Precisely. Totally agree. But that shouldn't be the only course of action.
I'll come back and comment on communism later.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
There's a difference in saying "get behind me" and "get out of my way". Most people here are saying the former, I'm saying the latter.
But I don't care what my neighbour thinks of my opinion. If he's a communist, he does care about mine. I'll touch on this in my write up.
I don't care if I live in an "anarchist society". If I cared about that, I'd form one.
Then the latter should not participate.
Capitalism, at its root, is an economic system based on man's one and only active human Right: his freedom. A man's freedom is his ability to act and think within the confines of his environment. That environment includes time, the universe, the Earth itself, the elements of his geographical location, the other living beings around him, the other humans in and outside his "society", and every other entity within the reach of his hands and of his mind. Every piece of man's environment is an objective entity: it is what it is. A tree is a tree, a rock is a rock, an atom is an atom, gravity is gravity, and a man is a man. Furthermore, an entity cannot be contradictory. Something cannot be "what it is" and "not what it is" at the same time. While men can find different subjective meanings in trees, rocks, atoms, gravity, and men, no man can affect the objective reality of those things based on his perception of them. A man who wants to build a house cannot wish away the tree standing in his desired spot. A man who seeks to build a plane cannot make gravity weaker by simply wanting it to be for his craft to fly. A man who wishes to fill his stomach cannot make a tomato grow from nothing simply based on his need. In short, a man cannot contradict reality by his own perception of it. If man perceives reality in a manner consistent with its nature, he is correct. Otherwise, he is wrong.
Man thinks in his objective environment based on the perceptions he has of that environment combined with the ability of his mind. Man has five senses by which he perceives the world around him: sight, touch, taste, hearing and smell. Those senses feed his mind by acting as inputs into his brain. Unlike most of his living brethren, a man's brain does not rely on instinct to guide his action. A man's brain has the ability to process those inputs and combine them with other inputs and faculties such as memory, emotion, intelligence and logic. In short, man has the ability to decide based largely on his own process of thought. Furthermore, one man cannot think for another. A man's brain is his own. While he may affect the mind of others through his actions, he cannot affect the minds of others through his thoughts. Just as one man cannot see for another, one man cannot think for another. Each man's brain is his basic arbiter of survival. You are not a cheetah: you will have much difficulty running down your prey. You are not a gopher: you will have much difficulty burrowing for your food. You are not a shark: you cannot breathe underwater. You are not a bird: you cannot fly.
You are a man: you must think to survive. Your mind is nature's gift specific to your species. If you wish to run down your prey, create fire and run them off a cliff. If you wish to burrow for your food, invent a shovel. If you wish to breathe underwater, build an air tank. If you wish to fly, invent a plane.
Man acts within his objective environment based on the thoughts produced from his mental exploration of that environment. A man's thoughts create purpose: the desire to build shelter, the desire to find food, the desire to do whatever. A man's purpose is whatever his mind chooses. A man may chop down a tree to build a house. Another man may plant a tree because he finds them beautiful.
A man's purpose presupposes a morality. A morality is a man's code of values. It dictates what a man finds to be important or unimportant. A man's morality, therefore, dictates what he will seek out with his mind and his actions.
Each man is an end unto himself. His minds and actions are his own. No man can own another since no man can think or act as another. Each man must think and act for himself since no man can escape the identity of Self.
Capitalism accepts all of the above as self-evident truths and makes the following assumption: the basic morality of all men is a desire for happiness. Happiness is the emotion that stems from achievement of purpose. A man whose purpose was to build a house is happy when he lives there.
As a construction, capitalism first allows man the freedom to define his own standards for happiness and rejects the concept that another man can define his happiness.
Secondly, capitalism assumes that a man will likely need other men to achieve that happiness but rejects any inherent obligation of those others to that man. Men work together based on shared purpose. When your happiness and my happiness share similar means, we may cooperate willingly. However, your happiness is not my end nor is my happiness your end.
Capitalism therefore relies heavily on the concept of free exchange. In our complex economies, this exchange largely takes the form of money. Money is simply a standard that extends from the value one man finds in the efforts of another. You may work for your own happiness for free but in order for another to work for your happiness you must provide them something of value if your happiness means very little too them. Enter currency.
The desire for money is not what capitalism is about. Capitalism is about the desire for happiness. A man who will sacrifice his happiness for his money is not a capitalist. He is a materialist. Money is not the end of capitalism. Money is the secondary means of capitalism, the primary being the purposes and subsequent labor of men.
Profit is the price you pay for a man's mind. When you purchase another man's product, you're making a fundamental statement with your action: I am not able or willing to do this myself. The only reason, therefore, you have the product is because you were willing to pay for that man's mind or that man's effort to produce it. He did not think or act for you. He did so for himself. He owes you nothing and he may charge whatever price he deems fit, leaving you with the option to buy or not to buy. Profit is a large (but not necessary) piece of any capitalist model. A capitalistic system without profit, while possible, is not sustainable. Why? Because when no price is exchanged for the working of minds, the minds will eventually stop working. A capitalistic system that rejects the value of the mind will eventually get exactly what it asks for: worthless minds.
I am a capitalist. Here's what I believe:
- This world is an amazing place. It provides us with the resources we need to live and the means to achieve our comfort.
- My mind is my greatest gift. I love my life and I desire to live it. My mind is my only means to do so.
- I am a human being and I am free. You have no ability to force me to think for you. You have no right to force me to act for your happiness at the cost of my own.
- You are a human being and you are free. I have no ability to force you to think for me. I have no right to force you to act for my happiness at the cost of your own.
- My happiness is my highest standard of living. When I am happy, I am living as I should. When I am not happy, I'm living how I should not.
- I do not owe the products of my labor to anyone but myself. I work for me, not for you. My thoughts do not belong to "society". My actions do not belong to "the public". They belong to me. If you want them you have two choices: exchange me something I value for them or steal them by force. You're free to do either. But if you choose to steal them, do not tell me that it is not stealing and, more importantly, do not tell yourself it is not stealing.
Questions?
Every action you take or don't take affects somebody else whether you accept or deny that.
You can say how we are all free to make certain decisions and all that but some of us just aren't born with that freedom or we get ourselves into other circumstances before we realise the benefits. And others are the controllers - they may not even realise the control they're having.
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I certainly believe that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I certainly believe that our actions affect others. Does this negate anything I said?
You say that "some of us just aren't born with that freedom". I disagree. You are born with a mind and a body, just like I was. Each man is born into unique circumstances because each man is born unqiue, but each man is born with the basic freedom to think and act because each man is born with control of his own mind and his body.
Freedom is not a guarantee of success. Certainly we get ourselves into "other circumstances" before we realize the benefits or costs. Should others suffer because of our miscalculation? Does our error create an obligation for anyone else? If you stop eating, I will not die. Similarly, if I stop thinking, why should you?
What you are is an isolationist. Live by the statements you make above, the line of the species that derives from you, that line will die.
Simply, Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production. Ownership by the minority, and ran for the exclusive, explicit financial profit of that minority. To hell with the rest.
To even begin to use the hundred and fifty year old (long ago proven redundant) argument of 'Capitalism is the principle of Individual Rights' to confuse the original question is ludicrous, and somewhat bizarre. You culeld your information from capitalism.org, amongst other places. YOu fail to be able to speak from the heart, which shows how little you believe in your own (appropriated) 'theories'
If you base happiness on the pursuit of money, again, good luck with that. As you shown in your comments regarding the hungry in Africa, your system rules out the possibility of you sharing, or even wanting others to lead what you call a "comfortable, happy life."
Apply your theory to the world, the real world, not the one in which you live in the woods, in isolation, then you wil see how Capitalism does not work. Dres it up in fancy, blundering rhetoric all you want, but you have failed to show or prove anything in support of what Capitalism is, and how it benefits society.
The individual rights you aspire to are nothing more than property rights. Capitalism and State capitalism is about nothing more than the protection of that property.
One person lives in a mansion, half a mile away another lives in squalor. Is that equality? Is that beneficial to humankind, the majority of which is way below the poverty line.
You talk of currency as being able to purchase the goods you need. Wrong. Catalonia, 1936/7, money was worthless. People helped each other, people traded, people were free.
Another redundancy is your reliance on THE MIND. Sorry, but most of the worlds workers are illiterate. They are not selling mind, they are selling their time, their bodies, their labour, at the expense of all else.
Humans are biologically wired to live and breed and work together. If the first man to invent the club had wanted to charge for the privelege of using that club, we would not exist now. If the man who discovered the ability to make fire had said nope, sorry, figure it out for yourself, again, ouir evolution would be an awful lot different to what it is now. These men gave away their discoveries for the greater profit OF THE COMMUNITY, tribe, commune, pack, whatever you cal it.
You cannot dress that co-operation up as 'trade', as a mere exchange of goods. It's comappssion , its the anthropoligically hard wired need to perpetuate the development of the species
The more you wrangle and bluster, the more you drown.
are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider
god-fearing and pious: Aristotle
Viva Zapatista!
We've been over a lot of this before. Your view of reality, objectivism and uncontradictoriness of objects in the world. Again, my point is not that we can make things happen by only thinking them. But we integrate objects into our world in many potential different ways, which only share the physical existence at the core. But I won't harp on that too much. Here are my criticisms, points, call them what you willl, in response to this:
About man's confines: Can not society as it is be viewed as a confine of the environment that man adapts to, and will not this free action then be politically irrelevant to this debate, as it applies to all people all of the time regardless of societal structure?
About paradoxes: They can indeed exist, and do in many mnay cases. Whether they ultimately, beyond human perception, exists, is another matter.
Definition of capitalism: You have a very specific and somewhat peculiar definition and presentation of capitalism. I dont see why you should call it capitalism really, as your definition is wildly different from definitions most people would accept or use about it. But fair enough. Be aware that it's no wonder you get a lot of flak for talking about "capitalism" if the pursuit of happiness is what you really mean. Capitalism is a word holding a different meaning for most, indeed oxford would have capitalism mean "an economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by the owners of capital." Few draw the direct link between that and human pursuit of happiness.
Furthermore I see no need for "capitalism" in order for a man to define his standard of happiness. It doesn't hinder it, but neither is it necessary. I choose my own standards of happiness to a large extent, and I do not live under "capitalism" as you describe it.
Free exchange: Here-in is my major concern about your vision, namely that the exchanges must be free for them to work. I have asked you before where power fits in your theories, and it basically seems that they don't. How will you keep the exchanges free? How will you avoid people becoming dependant on a certain exchange, and hence un-free in the exchange? How will wealth not accumulate (and without state, also mean power in that money buys guns) to a degree where it grants the capitalist power over others? Which then can and most likely will be abused?
"when no price is exchanged for the working of minds, the minds will eventually stop working": In other words, human creativity is impossible without a pay-check? Surely you can't mean that. Most creative behaviour by humans are not directed at profit for profit's sakes. For many artists, for instance, money seems like a handy bonus more than anything. Humans have a drive for creativity, payment or no. This is where I cannot agree with the economic "rational actor" in full, because it really doesn't explain human behaviour, it just instrumentalizes it. The rational actor can describe an efficient way of getting something, but does not at all explain why that something is worth getting.
As for your "capitalist" beliefs at the end (Which also I see no need to attach the capitalism label to), I dont directly disagree with them. But, I see them as anti-social, selfish and narrow-minded if not supplemented with a belief of doing for others what you would have them do to you, about caring for the well-being of others, to have some social responsibility and generally carwe about your surroundings.
Your presentation here generally totally disregards the social elements if human nature and action. And by doing so, ignores a large chunk of human reality , knowledge and purpose. The freedom you seem to champion, to me seems hollow, lonely and not worth it.
Well written, ffg, but realize that none of what you put forward here holds any absolute undeniable truth, nor perspectives that cannot as justifiably be viewed completely different. But also note, the points which I didn't adress here, is because I somewhat agreed or at least didn't directly disagree with them, so I agree with some of what you said.
Can't wait for your communism diatribe, in which I will agree to much I think. I dont deny the benefits of capitalism, but it is short-sighted not also acknowledging the drawbacks and problems. Same goes for communism really.
(edit) please respond in paragraphs. Not one-liners.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It's not my opinion. It's reality.
Why?
How?
Ok. Then I grant you and everyone else on this board ownership of the means of production. Go use it. Fix it when it breaks. Operate it as well as the man who invented it.
Yet every single person in a capitalistic structure owns something. Otherwise they wouldn't be there.
Very thoughtful.
My heart cannot speak. It only beats.
I don't. I base happiness on my standard of happiness. My standard of happiness is my comfort, my ability to run my business, my ability to pay my employees, my ability to enjoy good foods, my ability to listen to Pearl Jam, my ability to spend time with my friends, my ability to see my family. A lot of that requires the effort of others and therefore requires that I give them something of value. But why would I be happy with a pile of money?
"My system" allows you to share anything you wish to share. What you mean is that "my system" rules out your right to steal something from me and call it sharing.
"My system" allows anyone to live a comfortable, happy life. What you mean is that "my system" rules out your right to sacrifice my comfort and my happiness to yours.
I apply my theory every day.
Ok. If you don't like capitalism, don't be a capitalist.
You can have it all then. What are you going to do with it?
State capitalism is a contradiction in terms, my friend.
No. Just like the fact that whatever the first person did to justify their value to others is not equal to whatever the second person did to justify their value to others.
Are you suggesting that I owe something to the majority? On what do you base that obligation.
Then don't use currency. It's not a requirement.
Now you know why the majority of the world is poor.
Now you know why their price is so cheap.
Certainly.
Certainly.
And did they do that on their terms or yours?
If compassion is hard-wired, what are you so afraid of?
I'm quite comfortable, thanks.
Why do you think I once told you that all of civilization at the macro level is described by anarchism and capitalism?
We disagree about this, but have been over it before.
Not really.
You need only to ask yourself: "what is capital" to arrive at my definition.
If you live only for your own happiness and ask no man to live for you, you are a capitalist in my book. I don't think you'd fit this description.
If by "pay-check" you mean currency or money, no. If by "pay-check" you mean a standard of value appreciated by the receiver, yes.
YES!!!!!!!!! Now, ask yourself where that drive for creativity comes from. Does it come from you? Does it come from "the public"? Does it come from "the people"? Does it come from "society"? No!!!!! It comes from the creators morality. His desires. His needs. His wants. His mind.
See my original post to explain why that something is worth getting.
You see them as most people see them. They destroy the chains you've used to bind men together. You've basically said what so many here say out of fear: "but what about sharing", "but what about cooperation", "but what about caring". What I've said eliminates none of that. You can still share. You can still cooperate. You can still care. What you mean is "but what about stealing", "but what about enslavement", "but what about guilt". And to that I can only say:
You cannot steal my mind.
You cannot enslave my body.
You cannot make me feel guilty for living.
How does it "disregard the social elements"??? Men can still cooperate. Men can still exchange. Men can still love and share and help. It simply says that men should do those things for themselves, not for some vague entity.
I'll address your concerns about power in my post about violence.
you said it yourself. the way WE'RE living. you can easily live in democracy as a communist. share your food and money with those who are in need. that is the basics. it's government that messes up everything. but as you said; it's an ideal. and we won't achieve an ideal on earth.
I say what I say coz I dont trust any revolution, specifically one that has no room, concept or explanation for power, where it fits or who has it. Besides from a wish that it be irrelevant. Get off your demagogic horse. I am not enslaving you.
Yet you leave it completely outside your society and never lets it have anything to do with how we act, why and so forth. In your case man can still be all that, but you leave it no importance or worthy of mention. That men should act pro-socially for their own sakes is fine enough, but also a very selfish centred view. Do you do good deeds merely for the good feeling it gives you? People should perhaps not be "forced" into such relations, but they are regardless through socialization, family, being raised and so forth.
I get your point that we shouldn't have a "moral police" directing our every action, but that is neither what I am proposing or advocating.
I just dont readily agree with a theory that disregards human social interaction, cooperation and organization and merely view it as an optional extra in an "every man for himself" society.
But yes, I am all ears as to where power fits.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
As I stated earlier, I'm not saying "get behind me".
The instant any man tells me to work for his purpose instead of my own and is willing to back his words with violence is the instant that man becomes a slavedriver.
No mention??? The essence of what I'm talking about is exchange. How does one exchange without the social element?
Stop thinking that it disregards it. It does not. Human social interaction, cooperation and organization are intrisic to human existence. But not as intrisic as the concept of self.
First of all Bill Gates gets most of the money he 'contributes to social security' etc. back through his ownership of Microsoft...tax money has gone from 50 percent to the people/50 percent to corps in the 50s and 60s to 10 percent to the people/90 percent to the corps now (mostly Bill Clinton's fault). Additionally Microsoft requires people to work 80-90-100 hour work weeks which does little to contributing to the betterment of the social fabric of our country. Finally Pearl Jam are similar to microsoft on the levels of power/donation at a smaller scale. The members of the band have, however done things like actually build houses for other people, donate ticket proceeds to charity (this tour), fought corporate corruption (ticketmaster), and actually had a mathmetician figure out how much CO2 they used on a tour and bought an equal amount of rainforest in south america to make up for it. Bill Gates on the other hand has made his living selling microchips, processers, and software packaged not in America, for very cheap. I'm sure you could find similar issues with PJ, but to hail Bill Gates as some sort of humanitarian when his business model has been at the forefront of pushing unfettered corporate capitalism to its most greedy heights is wrong in my opinion.
Read Paulo Freire (1970) Pedagogy of the Opressed and you can see a pretty powerful argument against the rich "doing charity to maintain their power/privilege/interests". It's a quick read too.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Hopefully, I'll stick to my heart's vision and continue on that path, rather than switch to a wealthier market of the self-actualising--those in the business world, looking to become wealthier. I realise that the self-actualising are generally more financially stable and I might be able to make more money there.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Gates doesn't sell microchips or processors. Microsoft is a software company. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. Most of the company is in the US. Most of the software engineers are in the US. They've opened development centers in India and China, have distibution and manufacturing facilities in Ireland, have operations in europe, far east, south america, etc... since they're a global company. They certainly have contributed to their local communities. Thanks to Microsoft new community parks exist here, Microsoft employees sit on boards of many charitable organizations, they coach little league baseball and soccer. They are active in politics. They buy goods and services, build homes, work in food banks. Ex-employees have gone on to start other companies which in turn employ more people. Globally, Gates has contributed more to malaria research, aids research and education than most countries do. And he's about to leave MSFT to persue his foundation's efforts full time. So maybe you need to shake off your losing attitude and shoot for some success in life so that you can also be happy for others' successes.
I'll try to pick it up, but the premise seems completely wrong-headed to me. "Fuck the rich and their money. We don't want any of it. We'd rather starve, die of aids, and live in squalor." Brilliant.
I'm happy to see there are people who care about themselves and their families. It sounds like you've got your priorities right.
I love that my kids are not materialistic and that they are humanitarian. It's up to us to follow what is right for us, whether it's making lots of money, or not. Oh, and I plan to make lots of money, too.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Aggressive force is man's physical means of denial. Just as a man may shut off his mind in an effort to deny reality, a man may attack reality in an effort to destroy it.
As I stated earlier, a man who points a loaded gun at you seeks to replace your mind with his gun. He is saying to you: "You will not think and act. I will think and you will act". But that man does not realize that he cannot think for you nor can his gun.
The men of threats count on the following: your fear. They typically desire that you fear the man with the gun.....they fail if you fear nothing. That leaves them with two choices: drop the gun or become a man of violence.
Each man that uses aggressive force shares the same morality specific to his action. However, each has a unique or semi-unique purpose. A rapist may hold you at gunpoint in an attempt to erase your will not to have sex with him. A robber may hold you at gunpoint in attempt to erase your right to your property. A terrorist may hold you at gunpoint in an attempt to erase your ability to live freely.
The greatest number of these men are employed by the government. Every lawmaker, every policeman, every soldier....each man holds a gun because he's willing to inflict pain or death on a human being that will not meet his terms. Until theirs are objective codes of defensive force that dictate the operation of each lawmaker, policeman and soldier, each one who kills is an aggressor.
A government that forces a man to abide by the standards of "the public" rather than his own attempts to negate the will of the very same "public" they refer to. For nearly every person on this board who has used the term "the public" or "society", I'm here to tell you something:
I am part of "the public" and the "society" you refer to. And I am not suicidal.
When you tell me to do something "for the people" at gunpoint, do you not understand I am one of those people? What you're saying is that I have myself at gunpoint. And, as I said, I'm not suicidal.
There are two ways to defend yourself in the face of an aggressor: you may reason with him or you may attack him yourself. The former is a tricky proposition: the very fact that a man tells you that his gun can think for you means that this is not a man that is likely reasoned with. The latter is a dangerous path: defensive violence can quickly turn into the very thing it was meant to reject.
Defensive force is a form of justice. It is a response to the statement: “your mind or your life”. Since one cannot exist without the other, one uses one’s mind to choose the only viable option: the defense of life via the use of the mind. While aggressive force is based on the rejection of reason, defensive force is based on the acceptance of reason.
The purpose of defensive force is the rejection of aggression, not the death of the aggressor. If the defense of your life absolutely requires the death of another, you are just in killing him. However, if only the absolution of your fear requires the death of another, you are a murderer.
I own a gun. Why? To defend myself in the situation where my choice is simple: my life or my mind. My gun is not a tool of fear. It has no purpose in the face of another. It has only the purpose to defend my life, in and only in the event that it is necessary.
Power is the measure of a man’s influence on his purpose, or more simply stated as the measure of his ability relative to his desire. A good farmer who wishes to eat has a significant amount of power over his desire. A woman who defines her perception of her body based on only her standards has a significant amount of power of those who want her to define her perception of her body on their standards.
Power gets a bad rep, for the most part. We all know the saying: power corrupts. While those who espouse it typically have their hearts in the right place, they don’t understand that the corruption happened before the power. The brings us to the important difference between man’s power over his environment and man’s power over other men.
When man deals with his environment, man deals with objective truth. A man must deal with his environment honestly. A man cannot connive water out of a desert. He must find a river. Similarly, when men deal with other men they hold power by accepting reality: reality about Self and Other. A man who seeks to achieve power by the use of guns ignores the will of Others and has little power indeed. The death of Other or the simple refusal of Other destroys the power. Similarly, the man who seeks power by the use of lies ignores the fact that a lie reduces his power: he becomes a slave to his own invented reality and the perception of another to it.
True power over men is achieved by respect. Respect is achieved by merit. Respect binds men to each other over long spans of time and through differences of opinion and purpose.
All forms of power are a two part equation. The first part is the actions of one, the second part is the sanction of the other. This teaches us an important lesson. Those who hold power based on lies or guns only achieve that power when we sanction it. Unlike the power of respect (or the power of love that I won’t really touch on here), the power of guns and lies require your sanction to go against your reason. When a politician tells you that he will do a good job simply because his opponent will not, his power is dependent on your erroneous belief of his flawed logic. When a gunman tells you that his gun will replace your mind, his power is dependent on your erroneous fear of his proposition. When a poster here insults you instead of addressing your argument, his power is dependent on your erroneous lack of indifference to his insults. When a businessman tells you this his product will fulfill your emotional needs, his power is dependant on your erroneous belief in his words. When a priest tells you to sacrifice your life to your death, his power is dependant on your erroneous abdication of reason.
The world I see is the world as it is: a world where power is checked by those whose sanction is required for it. The only difference between that world and the world we experience is the recognition by all of us that our rightful power over men lies in the same place as our power over Nature: in our minds. Rightful power is a power achieved by and sanctioned by reason.
Some people, including many objectivists, would reject my definition. They believe in the right of government to maintain a monopoly on force in order to protect the “Rights” of the people. They fear a monopoly of power being concentrated by corporations, so their solution is to monopolize power within another corporation.
It is not my responsibility to protect your rights, not is it your responsibility to protect mine. It is our responsibility to respect each other’s rights.
So what do we do to protect ourselves from power-seeking corporations? The same way we protect ourselves from power seeking mystics. Reject their presuppositions. Reject their products. Reject their force. Do so as individuals. Do so as groups. But do so as people united in purpose rather than people united in fear or confusion.
Questions?
in a democracy the people have the power. when a democracy is truly representative of the people it keeps the interests of the few wealthy elite in check to allow more policy making directed towards benefitting the masses.
It is the responsibility of everyone in a democracy to remain vigilant and protect the rights so many have fought for throughout the years...to keep our rights from being taken out from under us by private investors with the wealth and resources to buy our publically elected representatives, control our media and launch huge PR campaigns filled with 1/2 truths and lies about how good this will all work out for the world. The playing field is far from equal so protection is needed.
The people suffering most from the effects of these corporations do not buy these products, they have no visable alternatives, and most of those who do buy these products hear nothing about the ramifications of the production of their cheaply produced goods because the media has already been purchased.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
In your democracy, you abdicate your power to go against the majority. The very definition of democracy tells you everything you need to know about your power within it: conform, convince, or leave. And you told me once how that power is maintained:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=3071231&postcount=106
How is that my responsibility? What inherent responsibility do I have to protect anyone's rights but my own?
But that's what the majority want.
But you don't demand equality. You only demand majority.
First....a corporation or government has no right to invade a nation, destroy its resources, and leave. Unless of course that nation grants the corporation the right to do so. Regardless, pollution is a form of aggressive force and can certainly be met by a just defense.
Second...the media has no obligation to tell you anything. It is not the responsbility of the media to report to you everything that happens in this world. If you value an objective, holistic media, pay for it or start it. This nation, as a whole, consistently rejects objective, holistic media. They want the media, be it Fox News or Alternet to give them conclusions, not facts, hype, not substance, emotion, not reason.
Finally, if you buy a product you sanction that product and the man that produces it. Do not abdicate your responsibility and then complain when another does the same.
That's the exact opposite premise of the book. Basically it talks about how through 'charity' the rich decide what's good for the poor while maintaining their current level of prestige and power. This has failed time and again because the rich have no idea what the poor need because they don't listen to the poor. For example, poor people don't need little league fields, and movie theaters, they would rather have homes, schools, and health care. The best chapter of the book is the 3rd where Freire actually poses a method for achieving a truly democratic society where the needs and values of many are considered...it's quite interesting.
In a true democracy the people will decide what works for them as opposed to the current disaster of the few wealthy elite deciding for them. I demand equal representation from our elected officials...no group of people will ever unanimously agree on anything...so the polices in put in place should reflect the needs of the majority of citizens.
Why do you think the majority reject objective media?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
While I certainly agree that our current system is not a true democracy, I reject your "utopia". What works for you probably isn't what works for me. You demand "equal representation". That's fine. But I demand no representation. You demand "policies that reflect the needs of the majority". That's fine. But I demand no policies.
I say to you: knock yourself out. Get some equal representation. Get some policies. Just don't ask me to participate in that which I don't want.
You say to me: watch out for those fairies.
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/may06ranker.pdf
No, I'm not questioning the fact that they do, I was wanting to know why you think the reason for it is.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh..sorry about that. I misunderstood your question.
It's a good question. I'll give you my opinion, but it's just that...my opinion.
To value an objective media, one would likely have to value reason, right? Who needs objective facts if one has no desire to reach objective conclusions? Most people don't want to reason: they want to be told what conclusion they should reach. Enter "news analysis". Enter "insta-polls". Enter the speeches of politicians and talking heads that are so transparent that only a person who already believes the conclusion could accept them.
Most people don't want to hear about the reality that creates terrorism. Most people simply want to hear that terrorists are evil. Most people don't want to hear about their liability in globalization. Most people simply want to hear that corporations are "out of control". Most people don't want to think about the fundamental nature of reality. Most people would rather hear that there is no fundamental nature of reality.
Our culture is creating people who don't care because we're teaching them that they shouldn't care or that there's nothing to care about. The media is largely the extension of our current educational priorities and political climate: conclusions first, facts second.
Communism is an economic system that holds as its highest standard the needs of men. A man’s need, within most of these systems, is defined by a desire directly related to a man’s survival. Communism prescribes that all men within a society serve the needs of their neighbors, based on their own abilities.
A man within a communistic system has only one fundamental right: to need, creating one fundamental obligation: to serve. He has no fundamental right to live, since his life itself cannot intrinsically serve another’s need. There’s a reason that Marx did not say “From each according to his life, to each according to his need”. Similarly, a man has no right to his own freedom because his inherent obligation to others negates both his will and his choice, the fundamental elements of freedom.
Unfortunately, communists exist in the same objective reality that I described in my earlier post. When I said, “a man cannot contradict reality by his own perception of it,” I aim those words directly at anyone who believes that a need can create a reality. Hunger does not create food. Loneliness cannot create friendship. Orders cannot create freedom. Lust cannot create love. Greed cannot create money.
The needs within a communistic system are met by ability. Ability is man’s capacity for achievement. Achievement presupposes purpose. Purpose presupposes will. Will presupposes choice. Within a capitalistic system, there is no disconnect between a mans choice and his will, a man’s will and his purpose, a man’s purpose and his ability, a man’s ability and his achievement unless the man is unreasonable, meaning his perception is inconsistent with reality. In a communistic system, there can be no connection between a man’s choice and his will. He has no choice, therefore he can have no will. There can be no connection between man’s will and his purpose. He has no will. There can be no connection between a man’s purpose and his achievement: neither is his. The only purpose is the purpose of the commune. The only achievement is measured by the standard of everyone’s need but he who serves it.
How can a system that denies a man’s choice and denies a man’s will make any sense when men obviously have both individual choice and individual wills? Well, I’ll give you a little hint on how to spot a true communist. If Joe McCarthy would have known this, life would have been a lot easier for a lot of his victims. Furthermore, he might have been a little surprised at how close he was to that which he despised. A communist’s view of reality is most threatened by the biggest truth he cannot accept: that each man has a mind of his own and the contents of it are owned only by that man. When a man tells you that the mind is superfluous, communism is his desired end, even if he doesn’t realize it. When a man tells you that the mind is “collective”, communism is his desired end, even if he doesn’t realize it. When a man tells you that “perception is reality”, communism is his desired end, even if he doesn’t realize it. If capitalism is the system of the mind, communism is the system of the anti-mind. And here’s why:
A need has two operative halves: a desire and a fulfillment. No man really needs something that cannot be possibly fulfilled. Hunger presupposes the possibility of food. Love presupposes the possibility of a soul mate (or something like that). Self-esteem presupposes the possibility of achievement. This is not to say that need cannot exist without actually being fulfilled. Obviously many Africans are hungry and go without food. But we all know and they all know that food exists and their hunger says they want it.
Communism’s ultimate failure is created by the erroneous assumption that need creates fulfillment, rather than being subject to it. Rather than accepting the reality that fulfillment is created by the mind, communism expects the needs of some to dictate the abilities of others. How? Somehow! Why? Because we say so! Such a thing, unfortunately, is impossible. Your hunger cannot teach you (or anyone else) how to grow food. Only your mind can grow your food. But communism tells you to ignore your mind, and it seeks to destroy your knowledge of your own reason.
Communism tells you that you are not an end to yourself. You are a means to an end: the fulfillment of another’s need. Each man’s actions belong to everyone but himself. Fulfilling your own needs and desires becomes evil. Fulfilling everyone else’s needs and desires becomes enlightened.
The communist tells me – “you have no right to private property”. Fine, I say. Property is not my end. He can have it all. Now what? How can “the public” own the means of production when they can’t own the knowledge that created it?
The communist tells me – “you need security”. Exactly, I say. The biggest threat to me is the state that enforces the subjective law of another’s “need” with their guns.
The communist tells me – “people before profit”. Precisely, I say. Profit is the payment to people for the product of their minds. The rejection of profit is a rejection of the mind, the rejection of people.
I am not a communist. Here’s what I believe:
-This world is an objective place. I cannot affect that world based on my needs, my whims, or my desires. I can only affect that world based on my thoughts and the actions that stem from them.
-My mind is my greatest gift. I love my life and I desire to live it. My mind is my only means to do so. The man who tells me to ignore my mind tells me to die.
- I am a human being and I am free. You have no ability to force me to think for you. You have no right to force me to act for your happiness at the cost of my own.
- You are a human being and you are free. I have no ability to force you to think for me. I have no right to force you to act for my happiness at the cost of your own.
Questions?
But I disagree on your last point - we CAN achieve an ideal on earth, maybe not as a whole, but certainly as individuals
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Yet, as I said, the consideration of interaction never enters your theory apart from economic exchange. You have little or no considerations of what happens when you have many people all pursuing their will, and how they will conflict, create new power constellations, and in the end reproduce class differences, especially without any mediating structures of redistribution. You talk of human interaction, but you don't really deal with it in your theory, you just put it aside. As for self coming before social interaction, I am not sure it is really relevant to put a sharp divide there, as all humans are from birth onwards engaged in social interactions continously, making it hard to see where the difference goes between faculties born with you, and faculties learned and raised by people around you. Hence, your individualist focus falls through for me as insufficient as a complete perspective.
I won't quote the whole force thing, but again make a few comments to it here:
First of all, to you a state is a state. Which is really preposterous. A working democracy does not have the same effect on its citizens as a totalitarian dictatorship. You always start from worst case scenario when it comes to these states. State power can for sure be abused, and is in many cases. But there is a difference of degrees here.
As for the entire gun-to-head analogy favoured by anarchists, fair enough, but I dont see how it really applies to the society where i live. Sorry. Few guns to head and threats of violence to my person here. As for police and soldiers, you really reduce them to non-thinking brutes. Where-as I know that many of them have a conviction to help people, and keep them safe from eachother, aka the monopoly of violence. I find it interesting that you that focus so much on cooperation the moment we talk of private capitalism, fail to see it in regards to a state. In essence, just because something is instilled in you other than you choosing it consciously (which goes for most of your upbringing at least and much more), doesn't mean it is gun-to-head force. Influence, persuasion and facilitating does not equal gunpoint, although they can certainly hold power and make you do one thing over another. Perhaps stop you from doing things you'd like in your mind, but you choose not to because of what others might think for example.
Furthermore, if you view the power wielded by the state as being automatically gun-to-head, then what is the power of a monopoly corporation that have cornered a market (and not necessarily through fair competition) equal to? You put to sharp a distinction between power and state power. The state may have the monopoly on physical violence, sure. But it does not have the monopoly on power, and it is not the sole structure that limit people's freedoms. People limit people's freedoms just as much. Corporations can limit them. Power groups outside of state structure can limit them. I dont necessarily disagree with your analysis of power either, but I think you focus too much of just one aspect of it.
The Weberian power term, which is pretty close to what you say actually, namely that power is the ability for one person or entity to make others act according to his will, even if the others dont necessarily want to. State is not the only powerwielding structure in society. Employers, capitalists, family, traditionally the head of the family and so on. The picture is a lot more complex
And I'll quote the final statements here: The difference between the corporations is that the democratic state is for and by the people, and can be influenced by the people. The other corporation can listen to people, but can just as well choose not to, and people can do nothing about it. I'm a democrat to the bone, so my answer to that would be democracy, really.
All of the above, I'd say. It is my responsibility to protect your rights and well-being, and you should in return try to protect mine in the name of reciprocity (although I'd protect yours anyway), and we both have the responsibility to respect each others rights. Dont see the big difference between the two either.
Precisely. Totally agree. But that shouldn't be the only course of action.
I'll come back and comment on communism later.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965