It seems to me that anybody who is conditioned can neither know, in the sense of having experienced, whether is is possible, first, or what it is like to be unconditioned assuming such a thing is possible. I can say, however, having devoted some time and energy in this direction, that there is a "call" out there from souls past present and doubtless future, who are weird in weird ways. I refer, of course, to mystics and religious saints, prophets, some strange psychiatrists and the like who seem to imply there is a hidden higher reality, an experience that transcends duality. Speaking along the lines described more via psychoanalysis, I would refer to the matter of the unconscious and it's effect on and as motivation. We are unconscious of what we feel and our hidden feelings affect our beliefs and actions.
One can theoretically postulate, therefore, that he who, via analysis, discovers what he really feels back to it's irrational and traumatic roots, may experience, with the ending of personal pain in the form of self hate, a profound personal transformation.
As I mentioned many times, he who dies to everything he was taught to believe is left only with what can't be taken away. That which can't be lost is the real self, the mire encrusted gem, no?
I will write one for you if you write one for me. You already said I made blanket statements without argument. I already showed where one example you suggested was in fact not so. Please give me the actual examples.
I came into this argument with the predetermined notion that I was left with the last time I argued this matter and that is that libertarians are people who are intellectually facile and physically weak. The banded together to make laws of personal property so those who are physically strong couldn't eat their cake. They wanted a market based on cunning of mind rather than a market of strength. They are just self centered people who know how to get what they want. As you can see I have not presented that preconception previously, here, with any similarity being tangentially remote.
hs: "So when I make a point about a real world example showing the difference between collectivism and individualism you can simply dismiss it by saying the example doesn't give any insight into the debate without even saying why it doesn't? But then you expect me go into detail over why your wrong? Come on lets try to apply the standards equally ok?"
M: Look, you are trying to create a false argument here. You are claiming the superiority of one example of something putatively called collectivism, North Korea, with something similarly called individualistic, South Korea. This is to assume that my claim of an inherent duty to the welfare of the group that falls to all human beings will inevitably lead to a state like North Korea. If all collectivism is evil then I am not talking about collectivism at all. We know that among the Kung such evil as exists in the North AND the South do not exist. Arguing
hs: If you think north korea does not represent a collectivist state then explain... give some kind of evidence other then just saying it isn't. North Korea is well known for its collectivism, anything that even remotely suggests the individual is important is not allowed there. Even musicians must only play music deemed not to support individualism, which rules out almost all western music, even classical stuff like Beetoven.
M: Is it clear that it makes no difference to me. I said the natural state of man is to look to the welfare of the group. That is not happening in North Korea, so whatever name you want to give it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
hs: Whether or not the leaders of north korea actually care about its citizens is besides the point. The point is that their government represents what happens when the collectivist mentality is dominant and the individual is looked down upon. It leads to some type of authoritarian person in charge of the collective, since as I've said many times the collective can not lead itself.
M: What is good for the group can only be reached by consensus and buy in.
hs: In regards to the drunks, you are saying that just because we have to make choices for those who can't do it themselves (children, or someone impaired) then its ok to make choices for all the rest of the rational adults.
M: No I am not. I only showed you that an absolute prescription that the individual is always free to make their own choices leads to immoral absurdity and is never allowed in pure form and should not be. I am saying that a group will make rational decisions for those of its members who cannot as a function of nurture.
hs: It doesn't work that way, rational adults can choose for themselves. The fact that you infer that we should choose for everyone simply because we choose for the irrational is what I am disagreeing with.
M: I made no such inference and, therefore, we have no such dispute. It is you who are making inference.
M: Look, you are trying to create a false argument here. You are claiming the superiority of one example of something putatively called collectivism, North Korea, with something similarly called individualistic, South Korea. This is to assume that my claim of an inherent duty to the welfare of the group that falls to all human beings will inevitably lead to a state like North Korea. If all collectivism is evil then I am not talking about collectivism at all. We know that among the Kung such evil as exists in the North AND the South do not exist. Arguing
hs: If you think north korea does not represent a collectivist state then explain... give some kind of evidence other then just saying it isn't. North Korea is well known for its collectivism, anything that even remotely suggests the individual is important is not allowed there. Even musicians must only play music deemed not to support individualism, which rules out almost all western music, even classical stuff like Beetoven.
M: Is it clear that it makes no difference to me. I said the natural state of man is to look to the welfare of the group. That is not happening in North Korea, so whatever name you want to give it has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
hs: Whether or not the leaders of north korea actually care about its citizens is besides the point. The point is that their government represents what happens when the collectivist mentality is dominant and the individual is looked down upon. It leads to some type of authoritarian person in charge of the collective, since as I've said many times the collective can not lead itself.
M: What is good for the group can only be reached by consensus and buy in.
hs: In regards to the drunks, you are saying that just because we have to make choices for those who can't do it themselves (children, or someone impaired) then its ok to make choices for all the rest of the rational adults.
M: No I am not. I only showed you that an absolute prescription that the individual is always free to make their own choices leads to immoral absurdity and is never allowed in pure form and should not be. I am saying that a group will make rational decisions for those of its members who cannot as a function of nurture.
hs: It doesn't work that way, rational adults can choose for themselves. The fact that you infer that we should choose for everyone simply because we choose for the irrational is what I am disagreeing with.
M: I made no such inference and, therefore, we have no such dispute. It is you who are making inference.
Can you take this out of theory and give me an example where the welfare of the group requires that the group kill some of its members? Give me an example where you would act differently than I as you imagine me to be?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The welfare of the group NEVER requires that any mass numbers of its members be killed. The perception of the welfare of the group by individuals who delude themselves into believing that they operate for the "greater good" is what leads to the murdering. Examples of that are rampant: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc.
V: "Actually the natural state of man is primitive tribalism. Small extended families of hunter-gatherer humans living in a constant state of war with other small extended families of humans over territory and resources."
-----------
Sounds like if we made that a group of the various WE's that compose the confused personal I you spoke of the result would be capitalism. The warfare continues, but "no ganging up". Heheh
-----------
Sounds like if we made that a group of the various WE's that compose the confused personal I you spoke of the result would be capitalism. The warfare continues, but "no ganging up". Heheh
V: The welfare of the group NEVER requires that any mass numbers of its members be killed.
M: How exciting. You mean there will be something less than a mass number I will be allowed to destroy? Just how many would that be?
And, of course, if I stay within the numbers you allow me, then you will have no fear, right since I will be looking out for the welfare of the rest, no?, since it is me who looks to the welfare of the group, right?
M: How exciting. You mean there will be something less than a mass number I will be allowed to destroy? Just how many would that be?
And, of course, if I stay within the numbers you allow me, then you will have no fear, right since I will be looking out for the welfare of the rest, no?, since it is me who looks to the welfare of the group, right?
Do you at least recognize that North Korea is a collectivist state, and suffers from the problem both Vic and I were alluding to earlier about who gets to decide for the collective? If you can understand why the welfare of the North Koreans is not actually being looked out for (despite the fact that it is the main purpose of such a collectivist government) then you will understand why I am oppossed to colletivism in its modern form (whatever you want to call it, a ducks a duck). It does make a difference because it is at the heart of the problem with trying to apply a collectivist structure where the individual has no inherent rights in today's societies.
Back to the Kung are we? Cool I like thinking about them. You imply they are a good example of collectivism (or whatever we're calling it now) but there are several problems that make it a poor example for modern societies. First they do not deny individuals inherent rights as modern collectivist governments do. Each individual is equal in the group and gets a say in what goes on, almost like form of democracy, which is at odds with modern forms of collectivism where the individual is not trusted and subject to force. Since they are constantly on the move wherever nature leads them, it is of no advantage to have a lot of material possessions. Also they have no need for property or institutions to handle property claims etc. These things explain why they have no figure of authority or leaders because they don't need one, based on their lifestyle each individual is their own leader. This is completely different compared to modern agrarian and industrial societies where property rights are very important and leaders are necessary to mange things. This can be seen in other hunter-gatherer societies where the land they live on is very plentiful and they only stay in one place allowing them gather possessions and where a structure of authority is likely to occur.
I disagree that the kung are proof that the natural state of man is to look out for the welfare of the group, well kind of, let me explain. Mans first and foremost instinct is to look out for himself. He uses his intelligence and ability to reason to determine that he can look out for himself best if he is a member of a group where they all agree to look out for each other. So its true that man desires to look out for the group, but only because in doing so he looks out for himself. If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it.
Interpreting the kung as proof that the welfare of the group matters more than the individual and is justification for a collectivist modern state is a mistake, that I claim leads to things like North Korea's oppresive government. This is because in modern times its a lot harder for the group to determine whats best. For the kung it was determined by consensus among each individual, which is what I believe modern democracies and libertarianism try to replicate. But modern communist states don't allow each individual to decide because of the fear that it will somehow hurt the collective. So the problem is who decides for the collective, if not all the individuals that comprise it? As you say consensus must be reached but how can that happen if individuals are denied their inherent right to choose for themselves? We know from history and present day cases who ultimately endes up deciding and why it never turns out to be in the best interest of the group. Just because the best interst of the group is not acheived, you want to just up and say it no longer meets your definition of collectivism? So what do we call it now when individuals are forcibly denied their inherent rights in the name of the greater good of the 'group'?
Wow I'm shocked!:Q I had it all wrong didn't I? I had this crazy notion you started this thread with a predetermined conclusion about libertarianism that you were pretending to 'discover' through your thought provoking questions. Obviously that was not the case, as you clearly have pointed out. Please accept my humble apology.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
People usually mistake their own shortcomings for those of society and then want to fix society because they don't know how to fix themselves.
What is libertarianism? Libertarianism is the opposite. It is about the individual taking responsibility for and fixing themselves before they impose themselves on fixing society.
What is libertarianism? Libertarianism is the opposite. It is about the individual taking responsibility for and fixing themselves before they impose themselves on fixing society.
hs: Do you at least recognize that North Korea is a collectivist state, and suffers from the problem both Vic and I were alluding to earlier about who gets to decide for the collective?
M: Of course. I just don't see it as collectivism. It is actually quite the opposite. A few against the many hiding behind the many in name.
hs: If you can understand why the welfare of the North Koreans is not actually being looked out for (despite the fact that it is the main purpose of such a collectivist government) then you will understand why I am oppossed to colletivism in its modern form (whatever you want to call it, a ducks a duck). It does make a difference because it is at the heart of the problem with trying to apply a collectivist structure where the individual has no inherent rights in today's societies.
M: I do not accept that the main purpose of the North Korean government is to serve the collective, sorry. The issue, naturally is the lack of individual rights whether they be taken by the group in the name of the group or in the name of the individual. The real issue, I think, is consensus and how to get real rational buy in and what to do if that fails.
hs: Back to the Kung are we? Cool I like thinking about them. You imply they are a good example of collectivism (or whatever we're calling it now) but there are several problems that make it a poor example for modern societies. First they do not deny individuals inherent rights as modern collectivist governments do. Each individual is equal in the group and gets a say in what goes on, almost like form of democracy, which is at odds with modern forms of collectivism where the individual is not trusted and subject to force.
M: Or where individuals in an Individualistic society whose function is vital to the fabric of that society but are not 'paid' by the meat producers commensurate to their contribution and worth, ie, where markets are invented by only certain individuals for their sole benefit, ie, where only some values are valued.
hs: Since they are constantly on the move wherever nature leads them, it is of no advantage to have a lot of material possessions. Also they have no need for property or institutions to handle property claims etc. These things explain why they have no figure of authority or leaders because they don't need one, based on their lifestyle each individual is their own leader. This is completely different compared to modern agrarian and industrial societies where property rights are very important and leaders are necessary to mange things.
M: Why? Who says property rights are very important? Parasites who want to horde from the general society? Why do millions of years of social evolution suddenly go out the window when we start growing plants? How did this sick need to have more than others commence. When did the mighty skills evolution gave the human brain suddenly become personal? Everything you've got evolved to preserve the group. We have nothing but out debt.
hs: This can be seen in other hunter-gatherer societies where the land they live on is very plentiful and they only stay in one place allowing them gather possessions and where a structure of authority is likely to occur.
M: It occurs where weasel egos gang up to seize power.
I disagree that the kung are proof that the natural state of man is to look out for the welfare of the group, well kind of, let me explain. Mans first and foremost instinct is to look out for himself. He uses his intelligence and ability to reason to determine that he can look out for himself best if he is a member of a group where they all agree to look out for each other. So its true that man desires to look out for the group, but only because in doing so he looks out for himself. If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it.
M: Tell that to the soldier who jumps on a grenade or those baboons who killed the leopard.
hs: Interpreting the kung as proof that the welfare of the group matters more than the individual and is justification for a collectivist modern state is a mistake, that I claim leads to things like North Korea's oppresive government. This is because in modern times its a lot harder for the group to determine whats best. For the kung it was determined by consensus among each individual, which is what I believe modern democracies and libertarianism try to replicate. But modern communist states don't allow each individual to decide because of the fear that it will somehow hurt the collective. So the problem is who decides for the collective, if not all the individuals that comprise it? As you say consensus must be reached but how can that happen if individuals are denied their inherent right to choose for themselves? We know from history and present day cases who ultimately endes up deciding and why it never turns out to be in the best interest of the group. Just because the best interst of the group is not acheived, you want to just up and say it no longer meets your definition of collectivism? So what do we call it now when individuals are forcibly denied their inherent rights in the name of the greater good of the 'group'?
M: I call it the same thing as Capitalism, another kind of cult of ego, the illusion that one is any more capable of justly governing ones self any more than others. Nobody wants to pay their debts or exercise self control.
And there is no excuse for why we do not seek consensus in our modern would. Have we not moved somewhat in that direction here?
By the way thanks for the well argued and expressive post.
M: Of course. I just don't see it as collectivism. It is actually quite the opposite. A few against the many hiding behind the many in name.
hs: If you can understand why the welfare of the North Koreans is not actually being looked out for (despite the fact that it is the main purpose of such a collectivist government) then you will understand why I am oppossed to colletivism in its modern form (whatever you want to call it, a ducks a duck). It does make a difference because it is at the heart of the problem with trying to apply a collectivist structure where the individual has no inherent rights in today's societies.
M: I do not accept that the main purpose of the North Korean government is to serve the collective, sorry. The issue, naturally is the lack of individual rights whether they be taken by the group in the name of the group or in the name of the individual. The real issue, I think, is consensus and how to get real rational buy in and what to do if that fails.
hs: Back to the Kung are we? Cool I like thinking about them. You imply they are a good example of collectivism (or whatever we're calling it now) but there are several problems that make it a poor example for modern societies. First they do not deny individuals inherent rights as modern collectivist governments do. Each individual is equal in the group and gets a say in what goes on, almost like form of democracy, which is at odds with modern forms of collectivism where the individual is not trusted and subject to force.
M: Or where individuals in an Individualistic society whose function is vital to the fabric of that society but are not 'paid' by the meat producers commensurate to their contribution and worth, ie, where markets are invented by only certain individuals for their sole benefit, ie, where only some values are valued.
hs: Since they are constantly on the move wherever nature leads them, it is of no advantage to have a lot of material possessions. Also they have no need for property or institutions to handle property claims etc. These things explain why they have no figure of authority or leaders because they don't need one, based on their lifestyle each individual is their own leader. This is completely different compared to modern agrarian and industrial societies where property rights are very important and leaders are necessary to mange things.
M: Why? Who says property rights are very important? Parasites who want to horde from the general society? Why do millions of years of social evolution suddenly go out the window when we start growing plants? How did this sick need to have more than others commence. When did the mighty skills evolution gave the human brain suddenly become personal? Everything you've got evolved to preserve the group. We have nothing but out debt.
hs: This can be seen in other hunter-gatherer societies where the land they live on is very plentiful and they only stay in one place allowing them gather possessions and where a structure of authority is likely to occur.
M: It occurs where weasel egos gang up to seize power.
I disagree that the kung are proof that the natural state of man is to look out for the welfare of the group, well kind of, let me explain. Mans first and foremost instinct is to look out for himself. He uses his intelligence and ability to reason to determine that he can look out for himself best if he is a member of a group where they all agree to look out for each other. So its true that man desires to look out for the group, but only because in doing so he looks out for himself. If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it.
M: Tell that to the soldier who jumps on a grenade or those baboons who killed the leopard.
hs: Interpreting the kung as proof that the welfare of the group matters more than the individual and is justification for a collectivist modern state is a mistake, that I claim leads to things like North Korea's oppresive government. This is because in modern times its a lot harder for the group to determine whats best. For the kung it was determined by consensus among each individual, which is what I believe modern democracies and libertarianism try to replicate. But modern communist states don't allow each individual to decide because of the fear that it will somehow hurt the collective. So the problem is who decides for the collective, if not all the individuals that comprise it? As you say consensus must be reached but how can that happen if individuals are denied their inherent right to choose for themselves? We know from history and present day cases who ultimately endes up deciding and why it never turns out to be in the best interest of the group. Just because the best interst of the group is not acheived, you want to just up and say it no longer meets your definition of collectivism? So what do we call it now when individuals are forcibly denied their inherent rights in the name of the greater good of the 'group'?
M: I call it the same thing as Capitalism, another kind of cult of ego, the illusion that one is any more capable of justly governing ones self any more than others. Nobody wants to pay their debts or exercise self control.
And there is no excuse for why we do not seek consensus in our modern would. Have we not moved somewhat in that direction here?
By the way thanks for the well argued and expressive post.
hs: Wow I'm shocked! I had it all wrong didn't I? I had this crazy notion you started this thread with a predetermined conclusion about libertarianism that you were pretending to 'discover' through your thought provoking questions. Obviously that was not the case, as you clearly have pointed out. Please accept my humble apology.
M: Hehe, I get an icky feeling you are being sarcastic. As I think I made perfectly clear previously, the predetermined notion I came into the argument with never appeared and has not been expressed as a part of my argument here, a testament to the fact that I had no prejudgment guiding my questions, questions instead generated solely from the content of replies I got here. In other words I did not and have not lead the discussion in the direction of any preconceptions but came to new conclusions fresh.
Edit:
Hehe, I am doing these one at a time so this post was made before I read this:
V: "Don't apologize too soon, 90% of Moonie's posts are sarcasm."
or
hs: "Hehe a few of mine are too."
And no sarcasm here from me. I wouldn't dream of such a thing.
M: Hehe, I get an icky feeling you are being sarcastic. As I think I made perfectly clear previously, the predetermined notion I came into the argument with never appeared and has not been expressed as a part of my argument here, a testament to the fact that I had no prejudgment guiding my questions, questions instead generated solely from the content of replies I got here. In other words I did not and have not lead the discussion in the direction of any preconceptions but came to new conclusions fresh.
Edit:
Hehe, I am doing these one at a time so this post was made before I read this:
V: "Don't apologize too soon, 90% of Moonie's posts are sarcasm."
or
hs: "Hehe a few of mine are too."
And no sarcasm here from me. I wouldn't dream of such a thing.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
I think the word libetarian is still quite differant than the political party of the same name. But they have one thing in common, and that is a lack of faith in centralized government. I tend to think a form of localized socialism independant of any overgrown government could possibly be exactly what we need. This makes me a libetarian by the definition of the word, but I am not a free market capitalist like the political party. It's a philosophy that probably isn't very popular, or one we could just walk into without massive casualties, I know. Therefore I tend to side with the Libetrian Party by default. We shouldn't have others tell us what to do, especially a cabal elected by roughly 30% of the nation that shows up to vote. Which is the way it is now, whether the Democrats or Republicans are in power, they are almost never elected by a true majority of the people, as most don't vote.
/sorry for the rant, i just got out of bed.
/sorry for the rant, i just got out of bed.
They aren't supposed to be, it's not a democracy. It's a Consititutional Federal Republic. The forefathers had no faith in democracy, saying things such as;
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -Thomas Jefferson
Just look at San Fransisco voting on a handgun ban, that's the majority trying to take away the rights of the minority. But it won't work if the system still functions properly, because it is unconstitutional.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
I completely agree, and you're right. I was just trying to communicate that voting is an illusion. Even if democracy broke loose those in control would just tweak the economy and the military till we voted "responsibly."
I hope you didn't get the impression that I'd rather a Democracy. Coulden't be further from the truth. I like my inalienable rights, thanks.
So how do you propose we reach consensus? I say the best way is to let every individual have their say, a la the Kung. You disagree? What if the consensus reached is something you don't particularly like? It seems thats what I see in collectivists, they say they want consensus, but all they really want is to have their consensus imposed on everyone.
If markets are free then real value will be placed on things which people actually believe have value. You can't force someone to think something is valuable though just because you want it to. And how are free markets invented? I see them as natural and logical extensions of mans behaviour when he trades one thing for another. The only inventions are when some person decides they don't like the market and seek to control it and assign artificial value until it fits their perception of whats right.
We all say they are important by the way we interact with each other and function. Do you let anyone just barge into your house and start doing as they please as if it were their house? I know its a straw man, sorry. How about your physical self, do you let a stranger tell you what to do and try and control your actions? If you live in a permanent spot it is only natural to gain possessions of things like food, clothing, and other necessities to survive. Once men stopped being dependant on the flow of ature to survive like nomadic hunter-gatheres, it was up to their preparation to survive. Food stockpiles, water, things like that became important. These things are what led to modern society where many more people can survive off the same amount of land that would only support far less hunter-gatherers. Then theres the process of specialization and how certain individuals have skills better suited to certain tasks, that vary with value according to the needs of the group.
I would appreciate it if you would actually give some elaboration and details on this point. Do you understand what I'm trying to say at least with regards to the different types of hunter-gatherer structured societies based on the environment they live in?
Why do we honor such soldiers that do brave and selfless acts with medals and appreciation? It is because they are the exception to the rule, going beyond just looking out for themselves. If that were the natural state of man it would be no big thing, but we all know it's rare for someone to be truly selfless. We want others to be selfless because it implies they will look out for us rather than themselves.
You'l write one for me if I write one for you right?
hs: Do you at least recognize that North Korea is a collectivist state, and suffers from the problem both Vic and I were alluding to earlier about who gets to decide for the collective?
M: Of course. I just don't see it as collectivism. It is actually quite the opposite. A few against the many hiding behind the many in name.
hs: If you can understand why the welfare of the North Koreans is not actually being looked out for (despite the fact that it is the main purpose of such a collectivist government) then you will understand why I am oppossed to colletivism in its modern form (whatever you want to call it, a ducks a duck). It does make a difference because it is at the heart of the problem with trying to apply a collectivist structure where the individual has no inherent rights in today's societies.
M: I do not accept that the main purpose of the North Korean government is to serve the collective, sorry. The issue, naturally is the lack of individual rights whether they be taken by the group in the name of the group or in the name of the individual. The real issue, I think, is consensus and how to get real rational buy in and what to do if that fails.
--------------
hs: So how do you propose we reach consensus? I say the best way is to let every individual have their say, a la the Kung. You disagree? What if the consensus reached is something you don't particularly like? It seems thats what I see in collectivists, they say they want consensus, but all they really want is to have their consensus imposed on everyone.
M: The thing about consensus is that everybody does buy in so imposition does not arise as a question. I see consensus as the spontaneous result of communal living where human survival is at stake. We are speaking here of people who have not been poisoned by illusions of the importance of their own ego. Where a organically functioning process of consensus building has been functioning properly for milenia the society contains all sorts of genius exponents that know how to make it work. This is how the elderly in a consensus society earn their keep as physically more or less disabled members.
-----------------
hs: Back to the Kung are we? Cool I like thinking about them. You imply they are a good example of collectivism (or whatever we're calling it now) but there are several problems that make it a poor example for modern societies. First they do not deny individuals inherent rights as modern collectivist governments do. Each individual is equal in the group and gets a say in what goes on, almost like form of democracy, which is at odds with modern forms of collectivism where the individual is not trusted and subject to force.
M: Or where individuals in an Individualistic society whose function is vital to the fabric of that society but are not 'paid' by the meat producers commensurate to their contribution and worth, ie, where markets are invented by only certain individuals for their sole benefit, ie, where only some values are valued.
-------------------------
hs: If markets are free then real value will be placed on things which people actually believe have value. You can't force someone to think something is valuable though just because you want it to. And how are free markets invented? I see them as natural and logical extensions of mans behaviour when he trades one thing for another. The only inventions are when some person decides they don't like the market and seek to control it and assign artificial value until it fits their perception of whats right.
M: Man does not live by things alone. We pay nothing for what is of priceless value nor do we value all that which is priceless. The market you worship is all about artificial value. The market exists only is society and must be structured in such a way that it pays dues to the whole. It is a complex barter system that replaces a more primitive structure of unremunerated contribution by all for all and must take up that slack as a replacement. Women and children and the shaman and old all got meat. If you create a market where only meats are sold those who produce no meat will die. Capitalism is a way to kill those whose product is not commoditized.
--------------------------------------
hs: Since they are constantly on the move wherever nature leads them, it is of no advantage to have a lot of material possessions. Also they have no need for property or institutions to handle property claims etc. These things explain why they have no figure of authority or leaders because they don't need one, based on their lifestyle each individual is their own leader. This is completely different compared to modern agrarian and industrial societies where property rights are very important and leaders are necessary to mange things.
M: Why? Who says property rights are very important? Parasites who want to horde from the general society? Why do millions of years of social evolution suddenly go out the window when we start growing plants? How did this sick need to have more than others commence. When did the mighty skills evolution gave the human brain suddenly become personal? Everything you've got evolved to preserve the group. We have nothing but out debt. And think about my argument about meat. The market replaces in a sick way what used to be organic. A substitute that does not substitute is no proper substitute at all.
------------------------
hs: We all say they are important by the way we interact with each other and function. Do you let anyone just barge into your house and start doing as they please as if it were their house? I know its a straw man, sorry. How about your physical self, do you let a stranger tell you what to do and try and control your actions? If you live in a permanent spot it is only natural to gain possessions of things like food, clothing, and other necessities to survive. Once men stopped being dependant on the flow of ature to survive like nomadic hunter-gatheres, it was up to their preparation to survive. Food stockpiles, water, things like that became important. These things are what led to modern society where many more people can survive off the same amount of land that would only support far less hunter-gatherers. Then theres the process of specialization and how certain individuals have skills better suited to certain tasks, that vary with value according to the needs of the group.
M: We have been over all this now I think. Everybody should have a house. I do and chose to live there instead of my neighbors. If I have all the meat should others tell me to share. Of course they shouldn't any more than I wouldn't share. Why would I want to keep all the meat. It wasn't up to individuals to survive when they developed more advanced ways of living. It was up to them to adapt the advances to the benefit of the whole. No skills are of any value without other people. All our skills are the gift of human social evolution. The complexity of our brains are there for social interaction. Even our capacity to think comes from communication with other people. Remember your debt and the source of your illusion of a separate self. You could have no illusion of separateness without a group.
-------------------------------
-----------------------------
hs: This can be seen in other hunter-gatherer societies where the land they live on is very plentiful and they only stay in one place allowing them gather possessions and where a structure of authority is likely to occur.
M: It occurs where weasel egos gang up to seize power.[/quote]
hs: I would appreciate it if you would actually give some elaboration and details on this point. Do you understand what I'm trying to say at least with regards to the different types of hunter-gatherer structured societies based on the environment they live in?
M: As I said, the market is a complex replacement of communal barter and sharing. It is a sick substitute because it does not do what it was intended for as replacement. It is infected with the disease of acquisition at the expense of others who are not playing the same game but provide vital support and infrastructure without which the market could not exist. The whole thrust and purpose of human evolution is to insure the group survives. But we have created an artificiality in which people only look our for themselves. They compete with and exclude other members who by the nature of their social function perform other duties. 'A nation divided against itself shall not stand.'
------------------------------
hs:I disagree that the kung are proof that the natural state of man is to look out for the welfare of the group, well kind of, let me explain. Mans first and foremost instinct is to look out for himself. He uses his intelligence and ability to reason to determine that he can look out for himself best if he is a member of a group where they all agree to look out for each other. So its true that man desires to look out for the group, but only because in doing so he looks out for himself. If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it.
M: Tell that to the soldier who jumps on a grenade or those baboons who killed the leopard.[/quote]
hs: Why do we honor such soldiers that do brave and selfless acts with medals and appreciation? It is because they are the exception to the rule, going beyond just looking out for themselves. If that were the natural state of man it would be no big thing, but we all know it's rare for someone to be truly selfless. We want others to be selfless because it implies they will look out for us rather than themselves.
M: What is rare, fortunately, are situations in which self survival is waved in favor of the group. If the king were demanding each family to provide a human sacrifice we would see it all the time. And the artificial nature of human life today means you only see real humans when the chips are down. You were also being quite naive when you made this statement: "If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it." This is utter rubbish. If you look, for example, at the ten rings of Zen that depict man's spiritual evolution you will see the Buddha in the tenth ring in the market place dolling out his infinite compassion and love. Remember what the Beatles said? "The love you take is equal to the love you make."
-----------------------
--------------
hs: Interpreting the kung as proof that the welfare of the group matters more than the individual and is justification for a collectivist modern state is a mistake, that I claim leads to things like North Korea's oppresive government. This is because in modern times its a lot harder for the group to determine whats best. For the kung it was determined by consensus among each individual, which is what I believe modern democracies and libertarianism try to replicate. But modern communist states don't allow each individual to decide because of the fear that it will somehow hurt the collective. So the problem is who decides for the collective, if not all the individuals that comprise it? As you say consensus must be reached but how can that happen if individuals are denied their inherent right to choose for themselves? We know from history and present day cases who ultimately endes up deciding and why it never turns out to be in the best interest of the group. Just because the best interst of the group is not acheived, you want to just up and say it no longer meets your definition of collectivism? So what do we call it now when individuals are forcibly denied their inherent rights in the name of the greater good of the 'group'?
M: I call it the same thing as Capitalism, another kind of cult of ego, the illusion that one is any more capable of justly governing ones self any more than others. Nobody wants to pay their debts or exercise self control.
M: And there is no excuse for why we do not seek consensus in our modern would. Have we not moved somewhat in that direction here?
By the way thanks for the well argued and expressive post.
-----------------------
hs: You'l write one for me if I write one for you right?
M: Yup. I want to add to my thesis the lessons of game theory. Cooperation is the winning strategy where self interest only looks like it is. Also, competition is disguised hostility and creates a society filled with violence. That violence is paid for by innocent children every day. It is an endless cycle where monsters create more monsters. All relatively deeply non-violent societies are marked by high levels of cooperation.
M: Of course. I just don't see it as collectivism. It is actually quite the opposite. A few against the many hiding behind the many in name.
hs: If you can understand why the welfare of the North Koreans is not actually being looked out for (despite the fact that it is the main purpose of such a collectivist government) then you will understand why I am oppossed to colletivism in its modern form (whatever you want to call it, a ducks a duck). It does make a difference because it is at the heart of the problem with trying to apply a collectivist structure where the individual has no inherent rights in today's societies.
M: I do not accept that the main purpose of the North Korean government is to serve the collective, sorry. The issue, naturally is the lack of individual rights whether they be taken by the group in the name of the group or in the name of the individual. The real issue, I think, is consensus and how to get real rational buy in and what to do if that fails.
--------------
hs: So how do you propose we reach consensus? I say the best way is to let every individual have their say, a la the Kung. You disagree? What if the consensus reached is something you don't particularly like? It seems thats what I see in collectivists, they say they want consensus, but all they really want is to have their consensus imposed on everyone.
M: The thing about consensus is that everybody does buy in so imposition does not arise as a question. I see consensus as the spontaneous result of communal living where human survival is at stake. We are speaking here of people who have not been poisoned by illusions of the importance of their own ego. Where a organically functioning process of consensus building has been functioning properly for milenia the society contains all sorts of genius exponents that know how to make it work. This is how the elderly in a consensus society earn their keep as physically more or less disabled members.
-----------------
hs: Back to the Kung are we? Cool I like thinking about them. You imply they are a good example of collectivism (or whatever we're calling it now) but there are several problems that make it a poor example for modern societies. First they do not deny individuals inherent rights as modern collectivist governments do. Each individual is equal in the group and gets a say in what goes on, almost like form of democracy, which is at odds with modern forms of collectivism where the individual is not trusted and subject to force.
M: Or where individuals in an Individualistic society whose function is vital to the fabric of that society but are not 'paid' by the meat producers commensurate to their contribution and worth, ie, where markets are invented by only certain individuals for their sole benefit, ie, where only some values are valued.
-------------------------
hs: If markets are free then real value will be placed on things which people actually believe have value. You can't force someone to think something is valuable though just because you want it to. And how are free markets invented? I see them as natural and logical extensions of mans behaviour when he trades one thing for another. The only inventions are when some person decides they don't like the market and seek to control it and assign artificial value until it fits their perception of whats right.
M: Man does not live by things alone. We pay nothing for what is of priceless value nor do we value all that which is priceless. The market you worship is all about artificial value. The market exists only is society and must be structured in such a way that it pays dues to the whole. It is a complex barter system that replaces a more primitive structure of unremunerated contribution by all for all and must take up that slack as a replacement. Women and children and the shaman and old all got meat. If you create a market where only meats are sold those who produce no meat will die. Capitalism is a way to kill those whose product is not commoditized.
--------------------------------------
hs: Since they are constantly on the move wherever nature leads them, it is of no advantage to have a lot of material possessions. Also they have no need for property or institutions to handle property claims etc. These things explain why they have no figure of authority or leaders because they don't need one, based on their lifestyle each individual is their own leader. This is completely different compared to modern agrarian and industrial societies where property rights are very important and leaders are necessary to mange things.
M: Why? Who says property rights are very important? Parasites who want to horde from the general society? Why do millions of years of social evolution suddenly go out the window when we start growing plants? How did this sick need to have more than others commence. When did the mighty skills evolution gave the human brain suddenly become personal? Everything you've got evolved to preserve the group. We have nothing but out debt. And think about my argument about meat. The market replaces in a sick way what used to be organic. A substitute that does not substitute is no proper substitute at all.
------------------------
hs: We all say they are important by the way we interact with each other and function. Do you let anyone just barge into your house and start doing as they please as if it were their house? I know its a straw man, sorry. How about your physical self, do you let a stranger tell you what to do and try and control your actions? If you live in a permanent spot it is only natural to gain possessions of things like food, clothing, and other necessities to survive. Once men stopped being dependant on the flow of ature to survive like nomadic hunter-gatheres, it was up to their preparation to survive. Food stockpiles, water, things like that became important. These things are what led to modern society where many more people can survive off the same amount of land that would only support far less hunter-gatherers. Then theres the process of specialization and how certain individuals have skills better suited to certain tasks, that vary with value according to the needs of the group.
M: We have been over all this now I think. Everybody should have a house. I do and chose to live there instead of my neighbors. If I have all the meat should others tell me to share. Of course they shouldn't any more than I wouldn't share. Why would I want to keep all the meat. It wasn't up to individuals to survive when they developed more advanced ways of living. It was up to them to adapt the advances to the benefit of the whole. No skills are of any value without other people. All our skills are the gift of human social evolution. The complexity of our brains are there for social interaction. Even our capacity to think comes from communication with other people. Remember your debt and the source of your illusion of a separate self. You could have no illusion of separateness without a group.
-------------------------------
-----------------------------
hs: This can be seen in other hunter-gatherer societies where the land they live on is very plentiful and they only stay in one place allowing them gather possessions and where a structure of authority is likely to occur.
M: It occurs where weasel egos gang up to seize power.[/quote]
hs: I would appreciate it if you would actually give some elaboration and details on this point. Do you understand what I'm trying to say at least with regards to the different types of hunter-gatherer structured societies based on the environment they live in?
M: As I said, the market is a complex replacement of communal barter and sharing. It is a sick substitute because it does not do what it was intended for as replacement. It is infected with the disease of acquisition at the expense of others who are not playing the same game but provide vital support and infrastructure without which the market could not exist. The whole thrust and purpose of human evolution is to insure the group survives. But we have created an artificiality in which people only look our for themselves. They compete with and exclude other members who by the nature of their social function perform other duties. 'A nation divided against itself shall not stand.'
------------------------------
hs:I disagree that the kung are proof that the natural state of man is to look out for the welfare of the group, well kind of, let me explain. Mans first and foremost instinct is to look out for himself. He uses his intelligence and ability to reason to determine that he can look out for himself best if he is a member of a group where they all agree to look out for each other. So its true that man desires to look out for the group, but only because in doing so he looks out for himself. If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it.
M: Tell that to the soldier who jumps on a grenade or those baboons who killed the leopard.[/quote]
hs: Why do we honor such soldiers that do brave and selfless acts with medals and appreciation? It is because they are the exception to the rule, going beyond just looking out for themselves. If that were the natural state of man it would be no big thing, but we all know it's rare for someone to be truly selfless. We want others to be selfless because it implies they will look out for us rather than themselves.
M: What is rare, fortunately, are situations in which self survival is waved in favor of the group. If the king were demanding each family to provide a human sacrifice we would see it all the time.
And the artificial nature of human life today means you only see real humans when the chips are down. You were also being quite naive when you made this statement: "If the group were of no benefit to him, or a harm to him, he would naturally seek to leave it." This is utter rubbish. If you look, for example, at the ten rings of Zen that depict man's spiritual evolution you will see the Buddha in the tenth ring in the market place dolling out his infinite compassion and love. Remember what the Beatles said? "The love you take is equal to the love you make."-----------------------
--------------
hs: Interpreting the kung as proof that the welfare of the group matters more than the individual and is justification for a collectivist modern state is a mistake, that I claim leads to things like North Korea's oppresive government. This is because in modern times its a lot harder for the group to determine whats best. For the kung it was determined by consensus among each individual, which is what I believe modern democracies and libertarianism try to replicate. But modern communist states don't allow each individual to decide because of the fear that it will somehow hurt the collective. So the problem is who decides for the collective, if not all the individuals that comprise it? As you say consensus must be reached but how can that happen if individuals are denied their inherent right to choose for themselves? We know from history and present day cases who ultimately endes up deciding and why it never turns out to be in the best interest of the group. Just because the best interst of the group is not acheived, you want to just up and say it no longer meets your definition of collectivism? So what do we call it now when individuals are forcibly denied their inherent rights in the name of the greater good of the 'group'?
M: I call it the same thing as Capitalism, another kind of cult of ego, the illusion that one is any more capable of justly governing ones self any more than others. Nobody wants to pay their debts or exercise self control.
M: And there is no excuse for why we do not seek consensus in our modern would. Have we not moved somewhat in that direction here?
By the way thanks for the well argued and expressive post.
-----------------------
hs: You'l write one for me if I write one for you right?
M: Yup. I want to add to my thesis the lessons of game theory. Cooperation is the winning strategy where self interest only looks like it is. Also, competition is disguised hostility and creates a society filled with violence. That violence is paid for by innocent children every day. It is an endless cycle where monsters create more monsters. All relatively deeply non-violent societies are marked by high levels of cooperation.
Was there an answer in there somewhere because I don't see one? How do we reach a consensus here and now in modern times?
I don't worship the market, I just recognize that its a fact of life. You on the other hand appear to despise it, and seek to control it and force it to meet your definitions of value. What is it about trade/markets that makes you feel it is so evil? Why do you seek to control it?
The point is that in your life you recognize and practice the concept of private property, despite claims that it is of no importance. You could have no illusion of a group without your self. Again we have a fundamental disagreement here. You say the individual only exists to serve the group, I say the 'group' is an illusion, there are only individuals who work together for the benefit of each individual.
Communal bartering and sharing is just another form of a market. Again your hate for the market is evident here. I can only wonder what kind of events have occured in your life for you to have such feelings and why you seek to control how others interact and behave in the market. We also see the fundamental difference again, I think the purpose of all the advances and evolution of man is to insure the survival of the individual since the group is just an illusion.
M: Tell that to the soldier who jumps on a grenade or those baboons who killed the leopard.
hs: Why do we honor such soldiers that do brave and selfless acts with medals and appreciation? It is because they are the exception to the rule, going beyond just looking out for themselves. If that were the natural state of man it would be no big thing, but we all know it's rare for someone to be truly selfless. We want others to be selfless because it implies they will look out for us rather than themselves.
M: What is rare, fortunately, are situations in which self survival is waved in favor of the group. If the king were demanding each family to provide a human sacrifice we would see it all the time.
Perhaps, but such sacrifices would hardly be natural and free of coercion. You claim I am being naive, but it is you who needs a reality check if you truly believe man does not naturally seek to escape and avoid harm. I can think of plenty of real world examples that support my statement and what do you fall back on, the ten rings of zen? Come on. If you ever get stuck in a crappy job being mistreated by your boss and coworkers and find yourself searching the want ads maybe then you'll understand my point.
Yes and I would like to add that cooperation does not equal some authoritarian deciding whats best for everyone. We're right back at the start, how do we cooperate? Libertarianism is just an idea that answers this question. We cooperate by letting each individual choose for themselves and voluntarily interact and cooperate with others.
hs: Was there an answer in there somewhere because I don't see one? How do we reach a consensus here and now in modern times?
Yes there was an answer but your generally confused perspective blinds you to it.
M: Or where individuals in an Individualistic society whose function is vital to the fabric of that society but are not 'paid' by the meat producers commensurate to their contribution and worth, ie, where markets are invented by only certain individuals for their sole benefit, ie, where only some values are valued. Consensus, oddly enough, is reached by consensus building. Now I know you want me to tell you how to come to agreement, but if I did that I would be like you. I would be thinking about what I have to do to you to get you to agree with me. I would be thinking in terms of force and manipulation of others like you collectivists and individualists do. What you can't seem to fathom is that consensus comes naturally. It is what happens when people live communally in the face of survival pressures. Every sane person bales when the boat is sinking. No need for a vote. Consensus is what happens when the group meet the needs of its members. The individual understands organically his duty to the group. Even duty is the wrong word because there is no sense of obligation, only love. So for modern man, of course, there is doubtless no hope if your doggedness is any indication, because, since there can be no force it is up to you to see. Nobody can command you to love your fellow man.
-------------------------
hs: I don't worship the market, I just recognize that its a fact of life. You on the other hand appear to despise it, and seek to control it and force it to meet your definitions of value. What is it about trade/markets that makes you feel it is so evil? Why do you seek to control it?
M: This is what I have said---------> You accept the market as fact. You have not analyzed that assumption and where it leads---------> To the undervaluing of vital aspects of societies structure without which there can be no market. You are not a free market capitalist, you are a free loader capitalist, a parasite on the body social. You create and maintain inequality and human security and promote individual hostility. You maintain human degradation and mental illness. You do not despise these things? I think you must because this notion of me despising the market had to come from somewhere. I say again that without love there is no hope for man. Do you then expect me to hate you if you do not love. Hehe. That would be rather silly, no? Love me, you f@cking worthless piece of trash!!!! Doesn't look like a winning strategy to me.
-----------
hs: The point is that in your life you recognize and practice the concept of private property, despite claims that it is of no importance. You could have no illusion of a group without your self. Again we have a fundamental disagreement here. You say the individual only exists to serve the group, I say the 'group' is an illusion, there are only individuals who work together for the benefit of each individual.
M: Of course you can say whatever you want. What I need is pursuasive evidence that you have a case. When I go to the store I buy for all who live with me. I do not call that work and I do not get pay. And long before humans had launguage which makes possible thought that makes it possible to create and contemplate concepts like self and group, individual human effort was devoted to the group. It's how those selfish genes work. You don't matter, only your DNA. If your sister makes it the DNA is happy.
----------------------------
hs: Communal bartering and sharing is just another form of a market. Again your hate for the market is evident here. I can only wonder what kind of events have occured in your life for you to have such feelings and why you seek to control how others interact and behave in the market. We also see the fundamental difference again, I think the purpose of all the advances and evolution of man is to insure the survival of the individual since the group is just an illusion.
M: Yes I specifically said that barter is just a primitive market, but the object of barter is for the group. That is why I said that a market that does not replace a more primitive system in its vital-for-human-survival function is a sick system. I went over the reasons I assume you assume cause me to appear to you as if I hate the market. You need to brush up on 'the selfish gene'. And who knows,,,,,maybe I died to the self you call self and was reborn in relationship to the all and all. But never mind that. You laugh at Zen.
---------------
hs: Perhaps, but such sacrifices would hardly be natural and free of coercion. You claim I am being naive, but it is you who needs a reality check if you truly believe man does not naturally seek to escape and avoid harm. I can think of plenty of real world examples that support my statement and what do you fall back on, the ten rings of zen? Come on. If you ever get stuck in a crappy job being mistreated by your boss and coworkers and find yourself searching the want ads maybe then you'll understand my point.
M: Yes, I agree about coercion. I said that consensus has two components, a group, and the need for survival, that which created the evolutionary efficacy of group survival over every animal for himself. Naturally, the superior dedication of man to group does not abrogate ones individual urge to survive. And you might want to look a bit deeper into Zen before you put it down. Fortunately, when we live by consensus things like lousy jobs and bosses will be a thing of the past.
----------------------
hj: Yes and I would like to add that cooperation does not equal some authoritarian deciding whats best for everyone. We're right back at the start, how do we cooperate? Libertarianism is just an idea that answers this question. We cooperate by letting each individual choose for themselves and voluntarily interact and cooperate with others.
M: We aren't really back to the start because you never left there. We have beaten to death the notion that a group has to mean authoritarian force but your stuck on that. It's a fixation of fear, perhaps. Libertarians looks to be a form of cooperation in which the individual, via competition, looks out for himself first and foremost. That's a ticket to self destruction, I think, because, again, not all vital facets of human worth are monetized commensurate to their real value. Libertarianism, therefore, is a system that creates and maintains false values that benefit only a select few who, in turn, leach off of others.
No man can know true happiness as long as somebody else suffers. A saying
Yes there was an answer but your generally confused perspective blinds you to it.
M: Or where individuals in an Individualistic society whose function is vital to the fabric of that society but are not 'paid' by the meat producers commensurate to their contribution and worth, ie, where markets are invented by only certain individuals for their sole benefit, ie, where only some values are valued. Consensus, oddly enough, is reached by consensus building. Now I know you want me to tell you how to come to agreement, but if I did that I would be like you. I would be thinking about what I have to do to you to get you to agree with me. I would be thinking in terms of force and manipulation of others like you collectivists and individualists do. What you can't seem to fathom is that consensus comes naturally. It is what happens when people live communally in the face of survival pressures. Every sane person bales when the boat is sinking. No need for a vote. Consensus is what happens when the group meet the needs of its members. The individual understands organically his duty to the group. Even duty is the wrong word because there is no sense of obligation, only love. So for modern man, of course, there is doubtless no hope if your doggedness is any indication, because, since there can be no force it is up to you to see. Nobody can command you to love your fellow man.
-------------------------
hs: I don't worship the market, I just recognize that its a fact of life. You on the other hand appear to despise it, and seek to control it and force it to meet your definitions of value. What is it about trade/markets that makes you feel it is so evil? Why do you seek to control it?
M: This is what I have said---------> You accept the market as fact. You have not analyzed that assumption and where it leads---------> To the undervaluing of vital aspects of societies structure without which there can be no market. You are not a free market capitalist, you are a free loader capitalist, a parasite on the body social. You create and maintain inequality and human security and promote individual hostility. You maintain human degradation and mental illness. You do not despise these things? I think you must because this notion of me despising the market had to come from somewhere. I say again that without love there is no hope for man. Do you then expect me to hate you if you do not love. Hehe. That would be rather silly, no? Love me, you f@cking worthless piece of trash!!!!
Doesn't look like a winning strategy to me.-----------
hs: The point is that in your life you recognize and practice the concept of private property, despite claims that it is of no importance. You could have no illusion of a group without your self. Again we have a fundamental disagreement here. You say the individual only exists to serve the group, I say the 'group' is an illusion, there are only individuals who work together for the benefit of each individual.
M: Of course you can say whatever you want. What I need is pursuasive evidence that you have a case. When I go to the store I buy for all who live with me. I do not call that work and I do not get pay. And long before humans had launguage which makes possible thought that makes it possible to create and contemplate concepts like self and group, individual human effort was devoted to the group. It's how those selfish genes work. You don't matter, only your DNA. If your sister makes it the DNA is happy.
----------------------------
hs: Communal bartering and sharing is just another form of a market. Again your hate for the market is evident here. I can only wonder what kind of events have occured in your life for you to have such feelings and why you seek to control how others interact and behave in the market. We also see the fundamental difference again, I think the purpose of all the advances and evolution of man is to insure the survival of the individual since the group is just an illusion.
M: Yes I specifically said that barter is just a primitive market, but the object of barter is for the group. That is why I said that a market that does not replace a more primitive system in its vital-for-human-survival function is a sick system. I went over the reasons I assume you assume cause me to appear to you as if I hate the market. You need to brush up on 'the selfish gene'. And who knows,,,,,maybe I died to the self you call self and was reborn in relationship to the all and all.
But never mind that. You laugh at Zen. ---------------
hs: Perhaps, but such sacrifices would hardly be natural and free of coercion. You claim I am being naive, but it is you who needs a reality check if you truly believe man does not naturally seek to escape and avoid harm. I can think of plenty of real world examples that support my statement and what do you fall back on, the ten rings of zen? Come on. If you ever get stuck in a crappy job being mistreated by your boss and coworkers and find yourself searching the want ads maybe then you'll understand my point.
M: Yes, I agree about coercion. I said that consensus has two components, a group, and the need for survival, that which created the evolutionary efficacy of group survival over every animal for himself. Naturally, the superior dedication of man to group does not abrogate ones individual urge to survive. And you might want to look a bit deeper into Zen before you put it down.
Fortunately, when we live by consensus things like lousy jobs and bosses will be a thing of the past.----------------------
hj: Yes and I would like to add that cooperation does not equal some authoritarian deciding whats best for everyone. We're right back at the start, how do we cooperate? Libertarianism is just an idea that answers this question. We cooperate by letting each individual choose for themselves and voluntarily interact and cooperate with others.
M: We aren't really back to the start because you never left there. We have beaten to death the notion that a group has to mean authoritarian force but your stuck on that. It's a fixation of fear, perhaps. Libertarians looks to be a form of cooperation in which the individual, via competition, looks out for himself first and foremost. That's a ticket to self destruction, I think, because, again, not all vital facets of human worth are monetized commensurate to their real value. Libertarianism, therefore, is a system that creates and maintains false values that benefit only a select few who, in turn, leach off of others.
No man can know true happiness as long as somebody else suffers. A saying
Libertarians are blocked at the oral phase and anal phase; they never got through their oedipian complex. That means that they never built a strong superego. They did not accept the limits set by the father; or did not have a father, or had an absent or weak father, or a father despised by their mother. The weak superego means that the ego is not in check, and does not accept limits to its will to expand infinitely: therefore it rejects the Law. Liberty for the ego without bounds; fine alone on an island, but criminal in society. Such a man is like a predator running loose. A perfect cynical capitalist.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter