Sittin' On a Bar Stool...

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 15, 2008, 06:50:

a little bump to get to the "active" page...

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Feb 15, 2008, 07:39:

Finland was only imperfectly Christianised. This yearning for the elemental; stones, storm and virgin pine forests, may be a pagan race memory coming to the fore.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 15, 2008, 09:19:

if the yearning for forests, storms and stones is pagan, I shudder to think what my desire for warm breezes, swaying palm tress, and swaying latina hips denotes. is there a description that's a notch or two below pagan in the scheme of things?

I spent the afternoon of my boat sale on a bar stool, holding forth on the swayings being denied me, as my vessel faded in the distance....

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

msaucey says on Feb 15, 2008, 09:33:

Sorry Desi, I'm quite POSITIVE any conversation I've had at a Barstool had nothing philosophical about it, more anamotical...... hee-hee-hee....

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

msaucey says on Feb 15, 2008, 11:38:

I have had quite a few people tell me there life story at a barstool, but they tended to be a bit on the drunk side.... but, somehow or other this happens quite frequently to me... Heck, even the nurse was telling me her life story and I was just there for a TB shot!....

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 12:21:

Desi - I dont have an enlightening barstool experience, but I have something similar. Back in my younger and more aggressive days, my ex bf and I got a "wild hair" and as we traveled on airplanes - he would randomly start up conversations with people. After a short introduction and it seemed the person was somewhat comfortable with him he would ask " So, can I ask you an important question that both my girlfriend and I are curious about and have been asking as many people as possible". As always the person would say "sure". Then we would ask
"What is the meaning of life?" jajajajja
The response was amazing! everytime, the person would become very flustered and nervous and would not have any answer. I recall one woman saying " Why would you ask that? People just don't talk about those kinds of things" and of course my ex bf would say "why not, why would you live your life trying to figure out what it is all about and why we are all here and not have a discussion with other people about it?" jajaja

We never attempted this social experiment at a bar (I think we were underage anyways) - but I wonder if we might have had better answers to our question if the person had a little "spirit" in them. jajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

msaucey says on Feb 15, 2008, 12:31:

that's a great story CG....

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

houstongal says on Feb 15, 2008, 13:10:

lol Roci....2 cups of air

"It is now official: there's no place on earth where you will not find a Peruvian band." David Sedaris

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 13:22:

Jajaja, yes Roc - I was travelling overseas at age 17 and up ;)...Guess a person can get a bit bored, in addition to learning NOT to take your shoes off or you will exit barefoot or in slippers jajaja
I like the swiss cheese explanations jajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 15, 2008, 14:09:

I'm not sure I have an answer to the meaning of life question, but I do think I know what the purpose of life should be, and I really believe it. Personal happiness.

Very simple, nothing that would impress the intellectuals. But it works for me.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 14:21:

Pod: jaja- I am quite sure that the answer is in every instance subjective and different for everyone. Amazing no one could ever answer. At age 17 - my answer was "To be the best you can be and do the best that you can do!"....I swear I did not steal that from the Armed Forces slogan either (hey! maybe they overheard me jajaja).

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 14:32:

Pod: "Personal happiness"
Could not resist (sorry) - so with that being said, can we conclude that people who are pleasantly miserable should just be "happy" with misery ;)
jajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 15, 2008, 14:41:

I'm fascinated at how similar pod's philosophy is, to my own. when forced into barroom discussions, I explain my own philosophy/religious belief in this way. 3 simple rules.
1. be happy every chance you get.
2. never intentionally harm another person.
3. help others, every chance you get.

any religion and/or philosophy that has more than these three rules, I want no part of. why complicate something that should be VERY simple?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 15, 2008, 15:13:

Kalder....we never really welcomed Christianity in Finland. As a token of it, the English Bishop Henry got his head chopped off on the ice of the lake Köyliö after a short verbal exchange with a local peasant, Lalli, when he first arrived to Finland on a mission to christianize the pagan tribes of Finland,. They've raised a staue to his memory in Köyliö...no, not Henry's, but Lalli's :)

Yes, I thought about this thing with the four elements; as something stable and unchangeable in our lives, not as a pagan symbol but just as something to hold on.

Roci, "philosophical" as in tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure most people have had "philosophical exchanges" in a barroom situation. First comes philosophy, after a few more drinks it's anatomy.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

houstongal says on Feb 15, 2008, 15:18:

"First comes philosophy, after a few more drinks it's anatomy." Good one Desi!

"It is now official: there's no place on earth where you will not find a Peruvian band." David Sedaris

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 15, 2008, 17:22:

I pretty much agree slguy, obviously, but a bit of further explanation, as we might vary on #3.

I do help others sometimes, I suppose because it gives me personal satisfaction. Not at all altruistic. I think it should be very clear that helping others is a voluntary thing, not a duty. As soon as someone suggests I 'owe' them something, I'm outta there.

The concept of altruism (not just helping others but sacrificing something you value for others) is pure evil IMHO. I think it's pretty ironic that it's a central concept of most religions and also of communism/socialism.

(I would have thought the similarities between the religion and communism would be more widely recognized by now, but I guess most people can't get past the simplistic 'communists are atheists' idea.)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 15, 2008, 17:33:

I agree completely, pod. the quickest way to see me hit the door is to suggest that I "owe" anyone. I'm not certain that there isn't some reason beyond simple self-gratification for helping out....but if there is, I'm not capable of the argument for justification...

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 15, 2008, 19:17:

Kalder: The elements
To know
To do
To dare
To be silent....

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 14:24:

You guys are weird.
Altruism is one of the superior virtues that make people truly great, removed from the ordinary, run-of-the mill egotists.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:24:

Desi: jajaja...not sure what or who you are talking about. jajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:28:

Pod and Sail, who believe the personal happiness is the meaning of life.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:47:

Desi: Got ya jajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:48:

somebody's gotta believe in it- why not us? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:49:

Today I was having a conversation with a close friend.

I was saying how happiness is about finding your true essence and exercicing control over our inner universe (the outer is a reflection of the inner) but also becoming aware of the intangible threads that connect us with other human beings (and other beings in general). I feel that it is my duty to help other human beings and if I am not fulfilling that duty my life loses meaning. I feel that giving=hapiness.

My friend then told me there is nothing special about helping people, if an old lady fell down in front of him he would pick her up. I said yes, but you wait until she falls, why don't you go seek out those who are in need of help now instead of waiting for them to fall down in front of you?

He told me I'm a wide eyed idealist.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 15:57:

I guess I just prefer to think that I help because I choose to, NOT because i have a duty to. does that make a difference?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:00:

Well it is obviously a choice and you could choose to live without helping others... but that wouldn't be much of my life IMHO. I misused the word duty.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:03:

See, there's a significant difference between "the true meaning of life" and "personal happiness". (This is classical barroom stuff....)
I believe the Gringos have been duped by the wording in the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident........life, liberty and pursue of happiness. Life, liberty fine, pursue of happiness no. Yes, we pursue personal happiness every day of our lives, but it should not be the GOAL, not the meaning of life, beccause by this we bring down everything on a personal, individualistic level, and societies en large do NOT profit from this kind of thinking. It rips apart the fabric of society bringing more unhappiness than any other singular thing that I know that is deemed having a high and lasting moral value.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:09:

I remember distinctly, the first paper i wrote in college that I got an A for. In philosophy 101. "Who's really a "good man" and how's he defined?"

1. Good ole Joe next door. Works at the Ford plant. Always there to lend a hand or a tool. Family man par excellence.

2. Cranky ole Abe. Never has a nice word to say to anyone. but- he owns a business that he created himself, and has 70 employees- all of them supporting their families from their earnings.

Who's the "good man"? My argument was, and is- both of them. equally.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Colombiche says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:13:

I beg to differ Desi.

For me "happiness" is ephimeral... like sparks that come and go. We can't always be happy because we are going to encounter pain, disease and aging in our path. Contentment, on the other hand, comes from true detachment and acceptance of the transient nature of life. I had a friend who was dying of cancer and right until the last minute, she was a peaceful content soul inhabiting a disease ravaged body.

I don't know if life has a meaning. Life is a constant evolution. What had meaning yesterday might have no meaning today.

No me den trago extranjero, que es caro y no sabe a bueno.... (Rafael Godoy)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:18:

Which part of my comment did you not agree with, *biche? Of course, I was talking about "happiness" as something non tangible. However, most people set a price tag on theirs. Therefore, the discrepancy.

SL, define "good". Do you mean like "good" as an individual or useful for the community? They are not the same thing, not for me.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:19:

ya see, Des, we differ fundamentally on the role of government in the lives of it's constituents. You see government as, I dunno, a force unto itself, a tool of good.

I want government to provide for national defense, keep the roads in good repair, and sometimes redistribute wealth to the degree that public schools fulfill a basic role in society without imposing pilosophical leanings on the students. Only these things.

I assume Hegel appeals.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:21:

"SL, define "good". Do you mean like "good" as an individual or useful for the community? They are not the same thing, not for me."

My point exactly. I'm not sure intent plays any meaningful role in goodness. Or in evil, for that matter.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:36:

As I have stated before, I'm politically uneducated. I don't see the government as something removed from my sphere of influence, but as something as a conglomerate of individuals who reprent the interest of the majority of people in this country. They don't impose philosophical leanings on us, but decide over how our economy is going to look like in the next year or so....I have never, ever been persuaded by anybody in a position of authority to think this way or that. I've never even heard anybody been persuaded into any specific line of thinking in Sweden. Perhaps in Soviet Russia, but it's so totally far removed from our way of thinking as it could possibly be.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:38:

When I mentioned leanings in public schools, des, I was thinking more about El Payaso's latest proclamations that socialism will henceforth be taught in all schools....etc.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 16:55:

I think it's a GREAT idea to teach socialism in schools. Most Latinamericans or gringos don't have THE SLIGHTEST idea what socialism is all about. They start blabbering about communism and Castro and Lenin and get all in a knot when you ask them what are the basic differences between commmunism and social democracy etc....should be REQUIRED READING in every school in the continent of the Americas so that we could have a meaningful dialogue with people who actually studied socialism in school (like you did, slguy)

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:01:

I agree that all students should have exposure to all kinds of government/political systems. I was objecting to teaching that ANY of them are the ONLY one.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:04:

Okidoki, we agree there. But that was not the issue, right?

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:10:

we started off with an issue? ;)

I think maybe I got sidetracked from inherent "good/evil", no?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:16:

Nah, no issue.
Just ramblings....good/evil is fine as an issue. Some people keep on debating the whole night on something much, much less...

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:18:

I'll need a drink/barstool for THAT lengthy a debate, I'm afraid! jajajajajjaa

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:32:

I guess i'm just shallow, but all my barstool coversations are either about sports or snafutty. If i ever had an existencial one, it sure didn't linger ;)

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:42:

Ohh... I just supposed this is what everybody else did too...
I have been sittin' up many a luminous summer night until the sun is up discussing existencial issues...
Sports? Can be discussed in two short sentences. Sports? What sports? Nah, I don't think so.
What was the other one?

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:46:

Desi, sports coversations may be short, but there are soooo many of them and you can bet on them. The other one is.....

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:53:

yes?

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:55:

Let's just say it is the reason most gringos go to colombia. Or most men do anything for that matter ;)

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:57:

ok, ok. I'll give her the opening for her possum foto. the other dearly beloved subject for male barstool philosophy is guess what? C H U C H A, des! jajajajajjajajaja

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:57:

???? This?

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 17:58:

But I do have to agree with des. sports bullshit bores me silly.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:03:

Sheeeet...
I'm getting to be too predictable...

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:04:

jajajajajajajajjajajajajjajajajjajajajajjajajajaja

God I love lobbing those meatballs.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:10:

Is that chucha sporting a mohawk?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:11:

"Is that chucha sporting a mohawk?"

jajajajajjajajajajjaa

semi.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:13:

I'm off..g'night guys

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 18:13:

nite des!

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 16, 2008, 19:07:

desi you start off with the assumption that altruism is good and that no one could possibly dispute it, but I sure as hell do.

I am an individualist as well, I don't think the individual should be subordinate to some nebulous concept like 'society', 'the state', 'the fatherland', 'god' or anything else.

When you put altruism and collectivism (opposite of individualism) together, you get people believing that there's nothing wrong with sacrificing the rights of indiviuals for the good of 'society'. or 'the fatherland'.

And before you know it, you have Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

An example (not real but just to make the point):

Suppose to save the lives of 10 (or 100, 100 ,1,000,000) people ONE innocent person had to be killed.

I say it's absolutely immoral to kill one person to save ANY number of others.

A collectivist would say, 'well, if we measure the value of the lives saved, add them up and subtract the value of the life lost, society is better off killing the one person, so it's moral'.

That's the very briefest coles notes version, and it's a hypothetical example, but it is exactly what happens in real life in collectivist political systems (communism, socialism, fascism, any totalitarian politcal system).

The difference between the various collectivist systems is only a matter of degree.

So, no, social democracies like sweden aren't exactly annilhilating people for 'the common good', but they have established the moral principle for doing so, and it only takes one nutcase leader to take the concept to the extreme (Castro, Chavez) and it can happen, as history has shown.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 16, 2008, 20:08:

does altruism necessarily infer a societal obligation, pod? I'd have to ponder that a bit. Can't it be a freestanding concept?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 04:10:

"Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and central to many religious traditions. In English, this idea was often described as the Golden rule of ethics. Some newer philosophies such as egoism have criticized the concept, with philosophers arguing that there is no moral obligation to help others.

Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty and duty. Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward, while duty focuses on a moral obligation towards a specific individual (for example, God, a king), a specific organization (for example, a government), or an abstract concept (for example, patriotism etc). Some individuals may feel both altruism and duty, while others may not. Pure altruism is giving without regard to reward or the benefits of recognition"( Wiki)

I think your answer is right there, slguy. "Altruism can be distinguished from a feeling of loyalty or duty".

Altruism is NOT the same thing as moral obligation. They may be closely related, but not necessarily the same. Altruism is a central value in almost all religions, including buddhism, but it's not compatible with the examples cited by podborski (totalitarian terror governments of Pol Pot etc. that's just a propagandist tool to demerit collectivism as a human virtue).

No, countries like Sweden with strong social democratic traditions (if not always leading the country) there is no established moral principle of colectivism. Social democracy is NOT totalitarian; it allows you all the liberty of conscience you could wish for. Many people of these northern countries have along history of social coperation even before the word "socialism" was invented; it was needed for the survival of the community and individual. We could not afford to have too many lone rangers, but needed the manpower to harness the plow, the hunt the bear, the protect our women and children from wild animals.

Social co-operation is a trait that has been inbred in our genes from the first dawn of humankind. Without a great muscular power, size, body armour, claws, fangs etc. the human species would have perished if they had not learned how to live in groups and co-operate for protection. The larger brain gave us the language and also enough sense to help each other.

There's room for both individualists and team players in our modern societies. Sometimes it's good to be both, given the right circumstances.

Altruism as an ethical stance can only produce good, it cannot be harnessed to produce evil. Why? Because the whole essence of altruism (to think about others before yourself) is individual and personal. It has NEVER been taking away other people's individual liberties for the benefit of the majority. That's political propaganda and manipulation.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 04:34:

http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=692

If you want to know which way you lean as an individual egotist or altruist, take the test

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 17, 2008, 04:45:

that's an excellent definition of altruism desi, I don't dispute it at all, but it's missing the crucial concept of sacrifice. And it is certainly true that about 99% of the world's population believes altruism is a virtue. I'm one of the 1% who do not. (and I would call myself an 'egoist', but not an 'egotist', there's a difference).

Why is sacrifice crucial? Well, for example, if I have more food than I can possibly eat, then of course it is no problem for me to give the excess away. Is that some great moral virtue? I don't think so. I gave up nothing.

But if I had only enough food for myself, and I decided to give some of it away to a starving child, and maybe I suffer, become ill or die myself, THAT is what most people call a virtuous act, something to be praised.

People who risk/sacrifice their lives to rescue others are always regarded as heroes.

Now, while I might (who knows until it happens) risk/sacrifice my life for close friends or family, I sure wouldn't do it for a total stranger.

And by that I don't mean I would ignore a person I saw in trouble. Sure I'd do what I could, call police, intervene IF I believed I wouldn't lose my life or be seriously injured.

What I would not do, is take a serious risk to my life to save a total stranger. I think that's an irrational and even immoral act, because I would be sacrificing something I value highly (my own life) for something that I value less (the life of someone I don't even know).

Once the concept of sacrifice (which means giving up a higher value for a lower one) is accepted as moral, it is used by dictators to justify their atrocities.

You say: "(altruism) has NEVER been taking away other people's individual liberties for the benefit of the majority. That's political propaganda and manipulation."

Sorry, but that's just not true. Why were Nazi's willing to go to war? To sacrifice themselves for 'the fatherland'. For Russians it was 'the motherland'. For many religious people it is 'god' or 'allah' or whatever.

I'm not saying that every altruist is evil, or has plans to commit genocide. I am saying that the concept of altruism, that sacrificing your rights/life for some supposedly higher value like 'society' or the 'common good' is an evil concept that can be and has been used to justify most of the worst atrocities in history.

(and yes, I am fully aware that 99% of the world thinks I am nuts)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 04:57:

No, perhaps not nuts, or perhaps yes, but not alone, I think you and Rubito studied in the same school.

Where I categorically disagree with you is the motivation of the individual soldiers supporting Hitler or any charismatic but evil leader. That is not altruism; it's mass hysteria, duty, obligation, nationalistic and patriotic frenzy. The soldier went to war for Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles not for a personal sacrifice. The altruist is the solder, seeing a wounded comrade risks his own life to rescue him.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 17, 2008, 05:18:

the soldiers were willing to sacrifice their lives for Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles, because everyone, schoolteachers, parents, priests, told them it was a noble and honourable thing to die for their country.

One of the most evil and dangerous ideas ever.

Yes, the soldiers think they are doing the right thing. Their leaders know the real truth (although some may be truly insane).

The point is, the idea that sacrificing yourself for something/somebody else is moral provides the intellectual justification for war mongers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 17, 2008, 05:20:

yup Rubito and I agree on many major points, but not on everything : )

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 06:39:

At that time of history everybody was taught that, it was the legacy of romantic nationalism in Europe. God, Family and Fatherland.....but it was not fuelled by any altruistic motivations. Honor and duty, yes, to help or even sacrifice something valuable for somebody else have always been individual actions. I don't see the direct connection there. Patriotism, politics, philosophical tendencies of the time period explain the apparent altruistic sacrifice of the soldier, but I don't see it as beeing altruistic in the core.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Portena says on Feb 17, 2008, 16:37:

"I believe the Gringos have been duped by the wording in the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self-evident........life, liberty and pursue of happiness."

Desi,

I've always thought of "the pursuit of happiness" as the founding father's term for self-actualization (along the lines of Maslow's theory of self-actualization (see Wikipedia)).
Of course, the more anti-social types can twist that to mean their right to pursue whatever they want despite the negative, perhaps even tragic consequences for others (as in ENRON).

Self-actualization and Maslow's Hierarchy (Wikipedia)
The term was later used by Abraham Maslow in his article, A Theory of Human Motivation. Maslow explicitly defines self-actualization to be “the desire for self-fulfillment, namely the tendency for him [the individual] to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.��? [2] Maslow used the term self actualization to describe a desire, not a driving force, that could lead to realizing one’s capabilities. Maslow did not feel that self actualization determined one’s life; rather, he felt that it gave the individual a desire, or motivation to achieve budding ambitions. [3] Maslow’s usage of the term is now popular in modern psychology when discussing personality from the humanistic approach.

A basic definition from a typical college text book defines self actualization according to Maslow simply as “the full realization of one’s potential��? without any mention of antiquated Goldstein. [4]

A more explicit definition of self actualization according to Maslow is “intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately of what is the organism itself…self actualization is growth-motivated rather than deficiency-motivated.��? [5] This explanation emphasizes the fact that self actualization can not normally be reached until other lower order necessities of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are satisfied. While Goldstein defined self actualization as a driving force, Maslow uses the term to describe personal growth that takes place once lower order needs have been met.

People that have reached self actualization are characterized by certain behaviors. Common traits amongst people that have reached self actualization are as follows: [6]

They embrace reality and facts rather than denying truth.
They are spontaneous.
They are interested in solving problems which may include personal problems or the emotional conflicts of others.
They are accepting of themselves and others and lack prejudice.
For Goldstein it was a motive and for Maslow it was a level of development; for both, however, roughly the same kinds of qualities were expressed: independence, autonomy, a tendency to form few but deep friendships, a ‘philosophical’ sense of humor, a tendency to resist outside pressures and a general transcendence of the environment rather than a simple ‘coping’ with it. [7]


This would be in sync with Catgirl's comment:

At age 17 - my answer was "To be the best you can be and do the best that you can do!"....I swear it did not steal that from the Armed Forces slogan either (hey! maybe they overheard me jajaja).

Whereas the selfish and blind pursuit of happiness might not benefit others, it seems to me that self-actualization would in the sense that self-actualized types would be more invested or interested in facilitating the personal growth and welfare of others.

Prophesy is a good line of business, but it is full of risks ~ Mark Twain

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 17, 2008, 21:29:

Yes, portena, it would make sense to think that perhaps the wording would be different if it had been written more recently. I never actually thought that "pursuit of happiness" would mean "self-actualization" but rather some nebulous term for economic progress.

There's an element of contemporaneous thinking in the prevalent society that is more accentuated in USA than anywhere else that I've been; I detect it in the talk and behaviour patterns of my USA-raised relatives (nieces, nephews etc.) of instant gratification, it's me and me wants it now and no excuses. (I had a visit recently...became bored of having to drive around all the time because she needed a cola light, he needed something else...while a local girls would've just said what the heck, I'll drink water or orange juice instead....), So, it's these little things, the unwillingness to wait, to time it, to adapt to circumstances....plan things ahead. No matter, however, it was just a bit of cultural contrasts.

There's an element of eagle-eyed individualism in the North American society that I find borderline obnoxious; when you focus so totally in satisfying your own needs that you become blind and deaf to everything else around you. Would that find a place in Maslow's pyramid as well? Perhaps not at the top?

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 07:39:

but desi, as a good altruist you should have taken great joy in sacrificing your time and energy to fulfill the wishes of others! : )

A true individualist would not ask nor expect someone else to cater to their needs, that's pretty much the opposite of what indivisualism stands for wouldn't you say?

The idea of individualisn is that each person looks after themselves (and their dependants of course), period.

As opposed to hedonism or egotism where one believes oneself to be the center of the universe, and that everything should be handed to you on a platter.

I agree though, there are lots of those people around. More in the USA? Maybe, probably, but I think the rest of the world won't be far behind, unfortunately.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 08:05:

ok, ok.

I think that individually, most of us have a moral obligation to be of help, if/when the opportunity presents itself. NOT a societal obligation, mind you. Only a moral obligation, led by an internal moral compass.

pod, say what you will, but I have my doubts that you never feel compelled to help if/when that choice is presented you by your own compass, NOT by outside influences. I've seen too much heart in your posts to believe that you are capable of disregarding the chance to be of help- as long as no one gets a chance to light you up about it, later ;) or ever expects it of you in the future, based on one moment of weakness. jajajajajajaja

I want NO part of ANY society that demands any form of societal altruism of it's citizens. DO NOT tell me that I am obligated by anything except my own internal compass to do anything about the ills of society, nor to try and alter what is, and always will be, the simple fact that people have different lots in life, economically, educationally, and in almost every other manner conceivable. To try to level the playing field for everyone is exactly equal to eliminating incentives to persons of merit to achieve their respective potentials - and we all have seen the net effect of eliminating incentives to achievement.

I feel no compulsion to waste my energy trying to talk a drunk into rehab, or a hungry guy who is unemployed into getting a job, unless that drunk/hungry guy is my "family". BUT- there are children in west africa and brasil that have meals every day now, because my credit card gets charged monthly for providing them basic foodstuffs, when their parent(s) seem incapable of doing so. The kids are my Achilles heels, when it comes to altruism, I guess. ;)

So- does this make me a cold bastard who has a soft spot for kids? Or a softy who's got a cold spot for laziness, and doesn't see 'society" as the cure for anything?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 10:13:

Poddie, I never said I was an altruist. I just ADMIRE that quality in OTHER people.:))) I 'm too egoistic, too stingy, too busy, too poor and too distracted to be an altruist. I took the test, however, and my score wasn't as bad as I thought.

I've had a feeling during all this excahange that we all talk about different things. Talking to a druggie trying to direct him/her towards a better and more rewarding lifestyle is not altruism, it's a waste of time ... (Unless the druggie is somebody close to you, in which case it becomes a moral obligation and a labour of love).

Driving too spoiled, higly individualistic ("I only smoke this brand and you can only buy it there.....I want to have some snacks, but I don't want those from that store, I want the other brand that is sold in another store 15 km. from here..." you guys gas is a almost two bucks a LITRE, tell you what you guys tank the car, I'll lend you the car and buy you guys a map....oh, I can't read all these weird Swedish names...ok, plan number two, we go to this mall that is nearby and we buy all the stuff you need, but we are not going to drive to the other end of town for every little thing..." I could only come to a conclusion that these young people were extremely occupied in pursuing their own personal happiness.

Altruism? It's something bigger than that. It's lending a hand in a moment of crisis, listening to a friend crying at your shoulder when something has shattered his/her world, even if we were planning to have a nice quiet evening in front of a tv and watch...what is that you gringos can't miss? Superbowl? Without expecting any reward for it.

It's diving into a river into a crashed car, pulling a child out, endangering your own life trying to save somebody else's. It's sharing your meal with a beggar, taking care of a sick friend (even when you don't really have the time for that) things like that. Some people find that altruistic side in themselves only at the moment of danger and crisis. But it's ALWAYS an individual act of reaching out with no thought for your own comfort.

I find it admirable. Perhaps it's just stupid.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 10:43:

Ahh Desi, my kind of post. Thanks. I've had plenty of philosophical/religious conversations at the bar sitting on a bar stools or in booths. In fact, I wrote many of my theology and philosophy papers drunk off my ass in pubs while on the road for work. Some how, in my drunken stupor, I was able to gain some clarity on ultimate issues. Yes, indeed, in the spirit of drunken medieval monks, I did the same.

Now, I've met women who after talking to me either thought I was boring - because they couldn't understand a word I was saying - or extremely interesting, and they wanted to jump my bones, even company executives I worked with during the day at happy hour. Didn't know what that was all about. Perhaps as the night went on, they wanted me to shut up and move on to the next level of the enounter. I didn't. Maybe that was the problem.

What people think is taboo to talk about, such a religion and philosophy, usually makes for great conversations at the bar. And yes, I feel that "connections" are made between strangers during these conversations. It's almost as if you've known them from some other place in time. Then you part ways. C'est la vie.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 10:57:

On the definition of happiness:

I don't think happiness is as ephemeral as suggested. In fact, it's quite simple and tangible. On this I invoke Voltaire's Candide. In the end, after traveling all around the world searching for the greatest possible thing, happiness, it amounts to just enjoying and living a simple life.

Our struggle as people is basically a struggle to keeps things simple. But we're complicated beings and thus complicate our lives with a ton of crap. We make far too much drama for ourselves and therapists make a ton of money telling people to keep things simple.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 11:17:

Plato, as the choice of my avatar indicates, I just love a good tale. I like to hear it, I like to tell it.

I believe happiness is a mirage. We only find it when it's not there any longer. In the end we settle for the lesser bliss: the contentment of a simple life.
Cheers,
Desi (wearing the face of Sheherezade, the storyteller)

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 11:47:

I've never found Ayn Rand worth my time. She has totally misfigured the concept of altruism in her works and her pathos leaves an unpleasant taste in your mouth....just like you just tasted some kind of poisonous fruit....

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 12:11:

Ok, in that case I don't have a slightest idea what altruism is all about. I thought I did, but obviously I don't. Because we are NOT talking about the same thing at all here.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 12:33:

Roc: Very well put ...I especially liked these statements

"1.) Reality exists as an objective absolute—
facts are facts, independent of man's
feelings, wishes, hopes or fears."

and

"This was America's implicit code moral code,
but it had not been formulated explicitly.
This was a flaw in her intellectual armor,
which is now destroying her. America and
capitalism are perishing for lack of a moral
base."

Nice to know there are still people out there that would help a little old lady across the street ;)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 12:36:

BTW: Roc: Have you ever read Thomas Paine "The Age of Reason" ?
OR..."Making Sense of it all..Pascal and the Meaning of Life" Thomas V. Morris?

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:18:

Desi: It's been a while since I have visited this thread. I took the test and at the end the author is definitely attempting to collect data (possibly for research/paper). Some of the questions appear life experienced based, depending on how much poverty you have been exposed to and experienced in your lifetime. I think I'd like to see the parameters used to define the test as "scientific" (unless I read incorrectly) Was much shorter than I expected too.
Either way, interesting exercise Desi ;) thanks

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:23:

Roc: About slygy, I am quite sure of it, jajaja. ...Actually I am sure he'd go against the grain just to show you he can jajaja

What's even worse is when your own immediate bretheren attempt to alter your actions for self serving manipualtive reasons. You have to nip that in the bud too. I guess it starts with yourself.

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

houstongal says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:37:

I'm going to add fuel to the fire with this:

Altruism: an accident of nature?

Bees, bats, ravens and humans often help one another. But usually there’s a hidden agenda.

Bernd Heinrich, PhD, was hiking through the woods in Maine when he happened upon a group of ravens feasting on a dead moose. They were making quite a ruckus, recalls Heinrich, a biology professor at the University of Vermont. In fact, the birds used a loud call that Heinrich had never heard before, a call that seemed to attract even more ravens to the area. Their behavior puzzled the researcher.

“Ecological theory would tell you that a food bonanza would be defended and not shared,� he says.

But the birds were sharing. Some of the ravens even returned to their roost to recruit more animals, Heinrich observed. The strange behavior inspired the biologist to conduct a series of field studies, which he eventually published in the book “Ravens in Winter� (Simon and Schuster, 1989).

Heinrich’s helpful ravens are now a classic example of animal altruism, says Jeff Stevens, PhD, a psychology professor at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany. But like most examples of animal altruism, the apparently selfless act had selfish benefits.

The sharing ravens, it turned out, were juveniles who had found the moose carcass in a mature raven’s territory. By bringing other young ravens to the feast, they avoided being chased off by the territory-holding bird. For any behavior to survive natural selection, it needs to help an animal or its genetic material, he notes.

“True altruism...paying a cost to help another individual and never ever receiving any kind of benefit, is not very common,� Stevens says. “It wouldn’t make much sense biologically for that to happen.�

Help a brother out

More commonly, when an animal assists another, there is a hidden reward for the helper, says Nigel Barber, PhD, a Maine-based psychologist and author of “Kindness in a Cruel World� (Prometheus Books, 2004). Perhaps the most widespread form of altruism, he notes, is the case of a parent protecting and feeding its young. Birds will rob themselves of nutrition to regurgitate food into the gaping maws in their nest. But even if an altruistic act endangers a parent’s own life, it makes evolutionary sense to increase the likelihood one’s young will survive, Barber notes.

“They are acting in the interest of their genes, if not their own lives,� he says.

A similar principle is at play when an animal assists its siblings or cousins, says Stevens. This is the case when worker bees devote themselves to feeding the offspring of the hive’s queen, instead of trying to reproduce themselves. The bee phenomenon puzzled Charles Darwin, and may be why he sat on his theory of natural selection for more than 20 years. The answer, proposed by biologist William Hamilton in the 1960s, is that sterile worker bees are helping to further their genes because they are so closely related to the young they are helping to raise.

“Most examples of altruism do involve kin,� Stevens says.

That’s true of humans too, notes Barber. Many studies have shown that while people do help strangers, they are more likely to give money to relatives. Additionally, adopted children, on average, get a smaller share of inheritances than biological children, according to an analysis of 1,538 California estates, published in a 1992 issue of Ethology and Sociobiology (Vol. 13, No. 5, pages 495–522).

“This may support kin selection, but I think that is probably not doing justice to the complexity of the situation,� says Barber, noting that some adopted children may enter into a family as toddlers or even teens, and subsequently may not develop as close as a relationship with their parents.

Even for bats, familiarity—as well as their genetic relatedness—seems to increase the likelihood of altruistic behavior.

Primitive insurance policies

Vampire bats have a fast metabolism and a food supply that is high in protein but low in fat. That means that they must feed on the blood of cattle or other animals every 36 hours, or they die.

So it surprised biologist Gerald Wilkinson, PhD, when he discovered, in the 1980s, that female bats would share their blood with unlucky hunters, regurgitating blood into the mouths of female roost mates.

“I had observed a lot of cases of them feeding their own young, which is how they wean their young from milk to blood, but this was the first time I had seen adults feeding other adults,� notes Wilkinson, now a program director at the National Science Foundation.

In a 1984 study, published in Nature (Vol. 308, No. 1, pages 181–184), Wilkinson reported that the animals did tend to feed closely related kin. But they also would feed “friends�—unrelated bats they roosted with. The friend would return the favor later, Wilkinson reports.

As a result of the animals’ inborn tendency to share, female bats manage to live upwards of 15 years, says Wilkinson. Stingy male bats survive about half that long.

“The adaptive rationale behind all of this is sort of an insurance policy,� says Barber. “You pay in a small amount and benefit when you need it later.�

Whether the bats are aware of their sharing policy is a matter of contention. It’s possible that they are born with a useful rule: help out familiar animals. Most of the time, that rule helps propagate their genes, as most roost mates are related, says Stevens.

In fact, pure altruism may be an accident of evolution, researchers suggest. A vampire bat that feeds an unrelated roost mate is, in effect, mistaking it for a sister. A bird that adopts another animal’s chick does so because it’s compelled to feed every hungry mouth in its nest. And raven researcher Bernd Heinrich treats his dog as part of the family because the human tendency for empathy has run amok, he says.

“It’s part of our social nature to help those that we are associated with,� says Heinrich “It’s not that we evolved to love dogs, and as a side product we love our babies. It is just the opposite.�

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec06/altruism.html

"It is now official: there's no place on earth where you will not find a Peruvian band." David Sedaris

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:38:

BTW, CatGirl, Ayn Rand would NOT help the old lady cross the street. She would help the old lady half way and then let the traffic kill her off, because the old lady has outlived her usefullness and has turned into a hindrance. Make no mistake about her compromise with the humanity.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 13:57:

a little harsh in our perspective of the eminent Ms. Rand, aren't we, des? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:21:

I agree with Desi on Ayn Rand. Wish I had time to elaborate.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:25:

"Life, liberty fine, pursue of happiness no. Yes, we pursue personal happiness every day of our lives, but it should not be the GOAL, not the meaning of life, beccause by this we bring down everything on a personal, individualistic level, and societies en large do NOT profit from this kind of thinking. It rips apart the fabric of society bringing more unhappiness than any other singular thing that I know that is deemed having a high and lasting moral value."

I just reread this thread, and i'm gonna have to call BS on this, Des.

I can think of numerous examples of devotion to "society" causing untold harm. Nazi Germany, for one. If more Germans had been concerned with personal happiness by NOT being party to persecution of the jews (yea, I know, this assumes that the vast majority of Germans were at least uncomfortable with the plight of European jewry, but I believe it to be true) and had followed their own internal compasses, it's possible the Holocaust would have been at least minimalized, if not averted entirely. By your logic, the German people rightfully ignored their personal happiness for the betterment of society- and look where THAT got us.

In our own US society, I would argue VEHEMENTLY that most of the technological advances bestowed upon the world by the US in the 20th century were gifts originating in the pursuit of persoanl happiness. Think Bill Gates accomplished what he did because of altruism? Henry Ford? Thomas Edison? Ted Turner? All men of great accomplishment in their respective fields, who contributed mightily to society's betterment - but to a man, began their endeavors driven not by altruism, but by the need to accomplish and feed their own huge egos. From my perspective, none of them tore apart the fabric of society in their pursuits...on the contrary, they all made lasting, positive contributions to not only the US, but to the world. And BTW- all of them, later in life, used their vast personal wealth for what you would, I hope, deem altruistic endeavors.

I just don't buy that pursuing personal happiness is a pox on society as a whole. Sorry.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:27:

Ayn Rand - atheist. Period. Will not deal with it.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:44:

All right. TIME out! Any discussion about the Germans in WWII must include Immanuel Kant and his ethical system, namely the categorical imperative, not Ayn Rand's.

If acted upon correctly, one is altruistic if you perform your duty for the good without ulterior motives. The Nazis thought they were doing exactly that and they were wrong. Case in point: Adolf Eichmann. Hannah Arendt observed and wrote about his trial during the Nuremburg Trials. In her book she quoted Eichmann having said that he was doing his "duty" according to the Kantian philosophy.

For example, do you feel good when you help and old lady cross the street? I do. According to Kant, you shouldn't. It was your duty to help the lady and the act has moral worth without you having ulterior motives .

The problem? We're human and can't help but have some kind of motive, even for the best intentions. So, altruism in the pure sense, depending how you define it, and if divorces from human motive, does not exist.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:45:

Benedict - anti-condom activist. Won't consider it.

;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

MaFe says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:45:

SL, while living in Germany, I came across many (I went to to school there) and many felt that the Germans HAD to go along with Nazi Germany,
With everything else you wrote; I agree.

"All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsions, habit, reason, passion, desire. "-Aristotle

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:50:

I wasn't going on about Rand, nor Kant, my friend, as much as i was about Desi's position that subjugating oneself to society's goals is worthwhile. While my example of Nazi Germany is extreme, maybe, I stand by my point. ANYTHING that seeks to replace individual morality for the sake of the good of "society" reeks, to my way of thinking- and is VERY dangerous to that society it purports to help.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:56:

"Subjugating oneself to society's goals is worthwhile." That' a Kantian position. You disagree with it. I do too.

However, you come into the problem of man being a social animal ( Aristotle). How do you account for that?

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:56:

MaFe- I don't doubt you for a moment. I think I mentioned that I believe that most germans were at least in disagreement with the Nazi's treatment of the jews. But my point still stands. If more of the German people who were disgusted by the mistreatment of the jews had stepped forward, had followed their moral compasses, maybe much suffering could have been averted.

There is something in the german psyche that draws those folks to sheeplike actions, at various periods of history. They are but one case of my DEEP disagreement with Desi's thesis that society is more important than the pursuit of personal happiness.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:57:

Man is social animal . . . . .Slguy . . .please account for that.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:59:

Or can man live on a island alone? Can't disregard Desi's position all together. Society is important. Come on now. Let's have it.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 14:59:

Is it not possible to be a social being, without falling prey to Kantian subjugation?

BTW, Plato- i was yanking your chain about Benedict. Been too long without your contributions around here, to let the opportunity slide by. ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:01:

Benedict - I know. Jajajajaja! I go ala natural my friend. When was the last time you did the same? (Jajaja.)

Forget Kant. You can't dismiss Desi's claim on society being important for the inidividual.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:04:

I would never discount the value of society, in general. But when I start being told that society's general well-being is more important than an individual's, much less that the pursuit of personal happiness is antithetical to the good of society- I gotta object.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:12:

O.k. - First off: I don't invest in the rubber industry like many of the dudes here.

Second, you wrote:

"general well-being is more important than an individual's, much less that the pursuit of personal happiness is antithetical to the good of society- I gotta object."

The pursuit of one's well being, if if doesn't undermine other people, is good. If, for example Desi meant the pursuit of one's well-being undermines the well-being of others, then how could one say that society is good? That's a socialist argument and a good one too.

To my first proposition, "the pursuit of one's well being, if if doesn't undermine other people, is good", well , we strive for that. That's the ideal in fact. In economics, we call this pareto efficiency where one person can get ahead without screwing the rest. Is that the case in America? Yes. For some, and maybe Desi, then people tend to look at what's best for society in general. In America, we call this welfare economics ( welfare meaning well- being of all people). Now we get into good ole' subject of politics on the liberal and conservative view of economics!

Slguy, tell me, should there be equal distribution of resources in the society? Come on now - we're talking about well-being and altruism.



Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:19:

If you go by Adam Smith, then let the invisible hand (market forces of supply and demand) decide. Greed is good in fact. He was the first one to say that, not Gecko from the movie “WALL STREET." Michael Douglas quoted Adam Smith (Jajajaja)!

If you go by Vilfredo Pareto, then you cannot screw people if you want to be better off by undermining their interests.

Slguy, you’re a businessman. Is it any wonder why you disagree with Desi so much on this point?

Let me ask you another question? Do you like paying taxes for the good of society? If you do, then you're altruistic - but to what extent? Rich folks hate paying taxes. They find all kinds of loopholes. They call the lower classes lazy and what not. "Why don't they get job and pay for the own health insurance!" they say.

We live in a great country and yet we have people who are uninsured? Canada has a national healthcare, so do some countries in Europe. This is government's way of thinking that the good of society comes before the individual.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:26:

an equal distribution of resources? you know better, Plato. no such animal exists, for any period of time. It's not in the nature of human beings, nor in societies, for that matter, for there to be a equal disposition of wealth or resources. Not in a place I'd want to live, anyway.

Do I think that our healthcare system, and it's uneven distribution of care, to be a source of deep shame in this country? Without question.

Do I believe that this country has an obligation to enforce it's laws without regard to race, creed, etc? absolutely.

But do I think that the mere ability to breathe entitles one to anything more than minimal subsistence absent ambition and energy? nope

Opportunities abound in this country. It's a tribute to our way of life than with sufficient ambition and diligence, almost anyone can succeed materially. I see no reason to reward lack of ambition, much less laziness, with material redistribution.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:27:

Slguy, just edited my prior post. Please re-read.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:36:

over the years I have heard many people dismiss Ayn Rand in exactly the same way desi did, misrepresenting what she says, thinks or would have done.

Just makes me more sure she is right when no one ever wants to debate what she actually said/believed in.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:48:

most debates never come to any conclusion, as this one won't (but that's ok, it's still enjoyable to exercise the old brain once in a while), mainly because people refuse to define their terms, or they mash so many examples of fuzzy logic in one paragraph it's impossible to even know which faulty logical error to start with.

And then there are those who don't even believe in logic, or reason, and think emotions are more trustworthy.

So, for example, Ayn Rand believed in reason, as opposed to faith or emotion. Now what she meant was that in making arguments, decisions, learning new things, one should use reason.

In other words, trust science over tarot card readers or 'gut' feelings. Pretty horrendous idea huh?!

What her detractors say is that she was a cold heartless bitch, who didn't believe one should have or express emotion.

It's such an obvious misrepresentation of her views, one has to really wonder about the intellectual honesty of her detractors.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:54:

Plato, maybe I'm full of mierda, but I like to think I'd disagree with desi on this point if I dug ditches for a living. My profession - or some would say lack thereof ;) - has little to do with my philosophy in these matters.

Yea- I'm not a huge fan of paying taxes. I frankly don't know anyone who is. But- I have no problem with the goverment providing for the national defense, or keeping the roadways functional, or even providing an umbrella of healthcare for all citizens (please note CITIZENS, emphasis on legal, tax-paying citizens) and some other stuff that despite it's inefficiencies, only the government can really do.

But- I also think this country, in many ways, is a testament to private roles in public life. This country is FULL of stuff that wouldn't exist in other places, absent government in those other places- because those other countries tend to believe that it is government's role to provide. say - all museums (we have a shitpot full of EXCELLENT private museums), public parks (ditto), symphonies, etc. Public life, much like nature, hates a vacuum. Tons of things happen here that would NEVER happen in other countries absent government paying the tab- precisely because our form of government encourages (yea, yea, thru tax breaks, so maybe they ARE subsidized, in an indirect manner, sometimes) private involvement in acts of public good. In this way the vacuum gets filled, without this OBLIGATORY altruism we've been yappin' about.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:55:

going back to your comment slguy, absolutely I will help old ladies cross the road. But if one walks out in front of a bus I am not going to give my life up to save hers.

The difference between the two examples is enormous.

To help someone in need requires no sacrifice, to give up your life is the biggest sacrifice possible.

It's the latter idea, that true sacrifice is noble, a duty even, that Kant and Hegel promoted and that lead to the rise of the Nazis.

The German people in the 30's were highly educated, perhaps the most educated on earth, and I believe it was that very fact that allowed Hitler to rise to power, as the average german had been well taught the philosophies of kant and hegel in university, and they believed it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 15:58:

pod- one neeeds to read her to detract from her meaningfully, I think. ;)

Atlas Shrugged was a thing that I found in my father's belongings after his death, when I was a mere 10 year old sunfish captain. ;) Maybe the best thing he left me, now that I think about it......

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:13:

I can't tell you how many times I have come across something, slguy, that made me shake my head in wonder thinking, 'holy shit, that's EXACTLY what Ayn Rand said would happen if they did that'.

And the fact that she said it in 1945 is all the more impressive.

I hate to think what my life would have been like without discovering Atlas Shrugged, seriously. I think I would have instinctively believed a lot of the same things, but I wouldn't have been able to think nearly as clearly or to make a rational argument. I'd probably have a whole mish mash of contradictory ideas, like most people.

But one idea in particular gives me great satisfaction: The idea that I don't depend on anyone else, and that my life is my own.

I love pointing out to socialists in debates that their utopia depends on people like me agreeing to their terms (like I should work like a dog and hand over my earnings to them), whereas my utopia only requires that I be left alone.

So in the long run, they can't possibly win without my acceptance of their ideas, which, needless to say, is never going to happen.

On the contrary, I need nothing from them (or anyone) to realize my 'utopia'..

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:20:

Well, things got a bit fired up

HG: "Bees, bats, ravens and humans often help one another. But usually there’s a hidden agenda"

HG -Quite a statement using the term "hidden agenda". jaja
I dont see these creatures exhibit behavior that oppresses expression of each others own true nature, respectively.
Again, I will have to review your references....I have some doubts on your statement. Not clear what you put there to back up your statement, - they are pieces of a puzzle I'll have to put together later. I am sure once I look at all the facts your statement will make sense.

Although some people's Human Nature often is based soley on hidden agendas and manipulation, as they present themselves as trying to be helpful or a totally different person all together:) with their sole intent to use others as bait, another animal characteristic. Usually you see that primal act when insecurity kicks in or the feeling of threat the person will not get what they want ....To feel loved. ...Again, something that starts with yourself.

Desi: I am not familiar enough with Ayn Rand's philosophies, I only Liked some of the content Roci pasted up. I would have to read her material, first. If it is very subjective, I probably will take it with a grain of salt.

Ayn Rand would push a little old lady over whilst 1/2 way across the street?, almost pointless. That's cruelty....again I would need to read her literature.

Either way, we do live in a very Co dependent vs Cut throat existence. One thrives on the other, they help them get where they need to go many times. Balance is needed at some point.

I prefer to take each individual and situation at a time and help the HELPLESS not the HOPELESS

Use me once....for your benefit and harm me....last time. I try to learn quickly and move on to supportive people. SIFT AND SORT

Purr

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:28:

not fired up CG, just having a nice, calm, rational debate.

HG's comment makes a good point.

If I feel good about helping a child or an old lady, is that altruistic? In the strictest sense of the word I say it is not. It's perfectly consistent with 'rational self interest', doing things that promote your own weel being or feelings of well being.

(note to Desi: Ayn Rand was very clear, very explicit, that she believed in "rational self interest", meaning that one can and should do what is truly in their own self interest, WITHOUT EVER HARMING ANOTHER PERSON.

Most of her intellectually dishonest detractors choose to omit the latter part, as it doesn't make her out to be the ogre they like to portray her as.)

(sorry, I don't mean that to sound like I'm calling you dishonest desi, I meant those to be two separate thoughts, but it's true lots of people accuse Rand of believing that everyone should walk over everyone else, which is absolutely the opposite of what she believed)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:45:

Pod:...Ooops...maybe I need to use different wording next time;)

How about "passsionate" or "engaging"

Actually, HG's statement was a good point. But the references I need to check - they are pieced ;). By the time I am done looking at it all, we will be at comment #200. I prefer to take on my own opinion after reviewing facts jajaja

Psst - Pod your comment does not reflect the way I meant my message to be taken.(?) No offense intended.
The post was about bar stool stories jajaja....look at how it evolved

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 16:59:

Pod: BTW if your statement is correct, and again I still need to read the references

"meaning that one can and should do what is truly in their own self interest, WITHOUT EVER HARMING ANOTHER PERSON"

This is quite a contraversial statement. Especially when the term "without ever" harming another person. that's a difficult one.

Many times we help others, and we end up actually harming them or others connected to them without even knowing it. Sometimes intent to help IS harmful. You almost need to know all the facts and again - it's subjective on what is harm and what is not.

I would prefer the term AVOID AT ALL POSSIBLE COST HARMING OTHERS.
Ok ...now I will get back to reading HG's good comment and references ;)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

houstongal says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:01:

Hey, I don't take credit for my comment.....comes straight from the American Psychological Association's monthly magazine. See the link.

"It is now official: there's no place on earth where you will not find a Peruvian band." David Sedaris

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:03:

Thanks HG...I saw it. Just lots o' info jajajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:08:

Pod: BTW - ever heard of the statement

An It Harm None, Do What Thou Wilt" ? jajajaja - very Crowley, eh

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:08:

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:25:

I might have to look into that crowley guy, never heard of him, but I like that quote

As for 'do no harm', of course one might accidentally harm someone, the world is not perfect, judgements are fallible, but then one would be expected to pay damages, if not voluntarily then that's why we have courts.

The point is, just because one believes it is only natural, right and moral to act in your own self interest (it is basic human nature after all, people would not have survived long if they didn't act this way), it does NOT mean you can infringe on anyone else's rights.

Nor does it mean you need to be anti social, or that you don't believe in being part of a society.

Anyone who has read the history of communes, or who has visited a communist country, quickly sees how anti-social those arrangements are, where people all eye their neighbours with envy and suspicion.

I think a society of individualists would be much more pleasant, no one feeling that they deserve a part of their neighbour's wealth just because he has more than you do.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:26:

do they have chucha in communes?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:28:

somebody's gotta speak for elmo in his absence, don't they?

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:28:

do you wanna let Desi answer that?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:29:

damn. like desi, I'm becoming predictable, too.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:38:

you know how they say 'every great musician eventually turns to jazz' ?

well I guess every PBH thread eventually turns to 'chucha'.

now's time for desi to post her ugly little critter picture : )

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 17:49:

Pod: Aleister Crowley...More turn of the Century...UK... I think you might figure it out when you see jaja

From my sources...Ayn Rand was closer to 1910- 1920, "What doesnt kill you willl only make you stonger" jajaja (my interperation)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:00:

really, that was just my attempt at flushing Des out.....didn't seem to work.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

msaucey says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:04:

LOL.... slguy, she's not biting your bait.... But, back to your question about chucha......

The trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. - CS Lewis

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:34:

Desi, once again - a great thread. I love these discussions.

O.k. . . . we're back to chucha? How did that happen?

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:48:

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 18:50:

Ayn Rand:

"Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others." According to Rand, the individual "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Protagoras (470 BC to 420 BC - Ancient Greece) : "Man is the measure of all things."

Sorry, but Rand wasn't original. A relativist all the same and "The Song remains the Same" (Led Zeppelin). This stuff maybe new to you guys, but this line of thinking has been around for ages. Lots of problems with Rand. Plato and Aristotle called it "sophistry".

Wait a minute! I understand she wrote nice novels.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:02:

Rand gave lots of credit to 'the three A's" : Aristotle, Aquinas and Adam Smith

Still have yet to see one actual critique of something Rand actually said...and after all these years I am not holding my breath for it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:14:

Aquinas? AQUINAS? Pod, you’re kidding me, right?

Here were the big three for her:

Aristotle
Kant
Nietzsche

Pod, I don’t need to rebut her statements. As far as I’m concerned, her matephysics are all wrong. If you want to debate Rand’s metaphysics, let me know and we’ll start another thread.

Metaphysics, the starting point of all philosophy, is where one can gain a clear insight into a person’s thinking. Aristotle reasoned that a God existed; Kant believed in the good and a categorical imperative which was transcedent; Nietzsche, well, he was an athiest as was Rand – even hostile towards religion. Now you tell me that she followed Aquinas? The Saint Thomas Aquinas? Wow! This is getting good. How?


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:17:

Roc,

I refer you to my response to Pod - Rand's metaphysics - that's the message. Her idea of human nature, ethics, once again - comes from metaphysics.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:21:

Ok boys...now I must read Rand.....(please dont tell me she has philospohies on c***a)

Wilst Pod goes out and read the rantings of Mr Crowley jajaja

Thanks

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:21:

I would like to know how Rand followed Aquinas. I mean - really! Another collosal contradiction here! I'm ready discuss Aquinas' Summa and her metaphysics. You guys are up for that?


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:25:

If my sources are correct and Rand does have the flavor of "What doesnt kill you only makes you stronger" I will probably like it

Ever see the Fifth Element - When the arch villian yells it out? (dont recall the name) Priceless, loved the saying ever since.

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:30:

An Aristotelian, Ayn Rand was an outstanding logician. I’ve used here student’s textbook to teach logic in fact. I credit her with many good things concerning the thinking process, but her metaphysics makes for a for dark view of humanity - very Darwinian in a sense. I don’t see how I can be understood to attack the messenger and not he message when a philosopher’s metaphysics IS the message. Unless you guys understand this, what message do you want me to comment on? In fact, by not understanding why I disagree with her metaphysics, what use is there in arguing with you guys about this?

Do you want to go ahead with this?

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:32:

BTW
on my comment
"Wilst Pod goes out and read the rantings of Mr Crowley"

Crowley's philosphies are closer to ch**ca, maybe Pod will like it

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

houstongal says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:34:

Well considering Pod mentioned in another post that it's been a while since he's last had sex....

"It is now official: there's no place on earth where you will not find a Peruvian band." David Sedaris

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:35:

Pod, please explain how Rand followed Aquinas. Was it that he was considered (to some) and analytical philosopher? For the life of me, I can't imagine in what way or how.


Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:38:

HG: Maybe he need a little sexual majick in his life ;)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:39:

Majick? CG are you a witch?

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:49:

Plato: You are now a frog - presto

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:50:

jajajaja.....you are funny now Plato

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:51:

I was asking a serious question. I guess you're not a witch.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:54:

Plato: No I do not practice Wicca, I am not a witch.

I have read many, many books...does not make me a witch ;)

If the site goes down..I did not cast a spell

jaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:56:

Plato: Are you a witch?...jajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 19:59:

Only fair, you asked first ;)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 20:04:

Plato: FYI - some people can get a bit superstitous....I've read books on carpentry - but I am not a carpenter either. Just an unusual question. You seemed to have knowledge on the topic yourself, huh ;)...Puurr

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 20:45:

Plato: it's 2:30 am here as I got engrossed in reading the wikipedia article about Rand, I hadn't looked it up before and it's been many years since I read anything of/about her. Lots of good stuff there.

I thought since you posted it maybe you had read it?

Anyway, first, I recall now I misquoted Rand slightly, I was going by memory of a comment I heard her make (on tape) more than 20 years ago, and now I am thinking her three 'A's were : Aristotle, Aquinas and Ayn. Modest she was not.

I am not an Aquinas scholar, but the wiki link you posted makes it clear she agreed with only SOME of his ideas. Just because someone admires a philosopher does not mean one has to then agree with 100% of their ideas, wouldn't you say?

Any basic reading of Rand's non fiction work (or the same wiki article) makes it undeniably clear that Kant was not any kind of source of her ideas, unless I suppose you could say she just believed the exact opposite of what Kant believed.

Nietzsche was also merely a philospher that had some ideas she agreed with, some she did not.

Here's the wiki paragraph:

Rand was greatly influenced by Aristotle, found early inspiration in Nietzsche, and was vociferously opposed to some of the views of Kant. She also claimed intellectual kinship with John Locke, who conceptualized the ideas that individuals "own themselves," have a right to the products of their own labor, and have natural rights to life, liberty, and property,[29] and more generally with the philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. She occasionally reported her approval of specific philosophical positions, including some of Baruch Spinoza and St. Thomas Aquinas. She also respected the 20th-century American rationalist Brand Blanshard, who, like Rand, believed that "there has been no period in the past two thousand years when [both reason and rationality] have undergone a bombardment so varied, so competent, so massive and sustained as in the last half-century."[30]

I would love to debate Rand's metaphysics with you, but I have to say, your representation of her metaphysics will undoubtedly be as inaccurate as your description of her influences, so forgive me if I decide not to waste my time.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 21:02:

Pod: as you noted above
"the Age of Reason"....Thomas Paine, interesting read - from a book. vs internet ;)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 18, 2008, 21:16:

CG, I tried reading a lot of the books mentioned there, Kant, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Spinoza (the worst I thought), etc. Just found it too bloody painful.

I think I tried Paine, but really don't recall...it's the kind of book I would have read back in the day.

I did enjoy Aristotle though, but more so Descartes (I think therefore I am), maybe because it was so short!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 21:21:

I understand. Not quite the lightest reading.

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 18, 2008, 21:33:

Wow....
that was a lot of text....68 new answers and they are NOT one-liners....I have no time to read into al this right now; it'll have to wait until I get back from work.

BTW most people I work with pay their taxes without complaining. But then again, they're not rich. It's only our celebs and sport stars and capitalist enterpreuners who transfer their assets to some off-shore tax paradise so that they don't have to contribute.( It's our working class that takes care of the sick, the elderly and the handicapped, provides accessible health care for everybody, cost-free education and equal opportunities for all.)

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 18, 2008, 22:13:

I know this is not philisophical...but it could be said at a barstool. Time for my milkath..nite.....curl up ...Puurr

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 18, 2008, 22:22:

"It's only our celebs and sport stars and capitalist enterpreuners who transfer their assets to some off-shore tax paradise so that they don't have to contribute"

Exactly how many celebs can there BE in Finland, Des? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 19, 2008, 04:19:

Pod wrote:

"I would love to debate Rand's metaphysics with you, but I have to say, your representation of her metaphysics will undoubtedly be as inaccurate as your description of her influences, so forgive me if I decide not to waste my time."

That is quite the insult and facile way to dismiss my point on her view of human nature. As I suspected.

Laying down the guantlet then run away, with all the information available and verifiable on the internet - not to mention books and articles that can be cited? Don't worry Pod, I'll be back with an exposition on Rand's metaphysics. You're not getting off easy with this.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 19, 2008, 05:10:

CG, it was just question. Nothing about being superstition or what you read. If I can be everything from what I read, I would have no personal identity.

Yes, I know a lot about Wicca. A good Aussie friend of mine is a Wiccan (or witch). They believe in majick and potions. We discuss ultimate issues and viewpoints. Wicca, I understand, comes from a pgan wisdom tradition.

No, I'm not a witch - I'm Catholic.

Regards,

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 05:23:

Plato: Thanks, check with your Wiccan friend, you will find that Crowley considers what he did as "High Magik" or "Ceromonial Magik" and in his own arrogant way he would probably balk at the idea of being called Wiccan (boy was he a peice of work). I was exposed to Rosicrucianism in my childhood - this is where my knowledge comes from :)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 19, 2008, 05:34:

SL. I have been living in Sweden for the last 20 years, but it makes no difference. Our internationally recognized artists and sports people such like the Swedish tennis stars Borg and Wilander, Finnish formula racers like Häkkinen and Räikkönen, for example, contribute nothing in the way of taxes. The more you have the less you are willing to share with others. I have zero respect for them.

It's not unusual that monied Swedes transfer their accounts to Monaco and buy a second home in the French Riviera. There are a few Swedish companies that move quite a bit money and there's also old money here.

(Of course, needless to say, it's all VERY VERY modest compared with USA)

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 05:45:

Roc

"combination of sources for a personal belief system as long as it does not infringe on anyone else, being able to expand one's thinking by questioning everything, having the ability to abandon previously accepted thoughts because they were imposed at an early age, to move ahead and leave old beliefs behind and to remain passionate about what you continue to hold on to will win my utmost respect every time"

I very much like this statement - well put, I can say I feel privileged to have been raised like this from inception :)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 05:51:

Looks like rain is coming my way too BTW....

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 19, 2008, 05:53:

Roc,

Philosophy IS life. What do you think philosophy is about then?

So, I'm "slightly" open-minded? This is the first time ever anyone has told me this. I'm the guy that has witches for friends. I don't judge the person, just their positions. I still hold my charge against Rand as a relativist and supported it with Protagoras. I don't see what's wrong here unless you're not as familiar with the history of philosophy as I am.

You wrote:

"My bottom line is a combination of sources for a personal belief system as long as it does not infringe on anyone else, being able to expand one's thinking by questioning everything, having the ability to abandon previously accepted thoughts because they were imposed at an early age, to move ahead and leave old beliefs behind and to remain passionate about what you continue to hold on to will win my utmost respect every time. No one is wrong, just a little insulted."

I accept your position, but do not necessarily agree with all of it. There is right and wrong. Period. When no one is wrong, this means the everyone is right or at least indifferent. Does that make sense? So, according to you, being right is relative to the person - in other words, subjective. Morality, then, is evaluated according to the subject, which is what I said about Rand and what is certainly true about Protagoras.

There are certain things that are "inherently wrong". The Nazis? They weren't wrong? Hmm?

Pod maybe right. It may not be worth wasting time on this. To much rehashing the basics. And here I am wanting to discuss her metaphysics - the pinnacle of philosophy. But I am intrigued. Rand has many passionate followers.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 05:58:

Plato: You know, having witches for friends does not make one open minded - sorry. I know many closed minded Pagans. But then again I handglide jajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 19, 2008, 06:01:

CG,

Roc, said I was slightly opened- minded, meaning that I was mostly a closed-minded Catholic. New York City is the Mecca of such rich diversity of thought. Thus I have many friends of many faiths, creeds, and philosophical traditions. I find they know what levels to debate on or discuss things and don't turn tail and run when called out on the carpet after dismissing my point in such cavalier manner .

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 19, 2008, 06:05:

By the way, I supported my charge against Rand. Apparently it went over their heads, how convenient.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 06:05:

Plato:I think you might need to clarify with him what he meant when he made that statement
...I cannot assume what he implied exactly :)

But your comment suggested to me that since you had witches for friends - you are open minded. I dont consider that a prerequisite. Correct me if I misinterpreted your comment ')

Puurr

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 19, 2008, 06:13:

You're right CG, but that was in reference to Roc's implicit statement about me being "mostly" closed minded. I grant you that closed-minded Catholics most probably don't associate with the diversity of friends I do. The Catholic Chruch burned St. Joan of Arc at the stake thinking she was a witch and who knows how many others. Recall what happened at Salem Massachusetts. But then again, I find many relativists to be far more closed -minded since they don't realize that they too judge from some kind of standard. Heavens forbid you steal from them or kill their family, or that they have to pay taxes proportionate to their incomes in order to help the marginalized in society.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 06:15:

Plato I wish you a great day....got a Cat Burglar climbing over my balcony....jajaja - gotta go

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 19, 2008, 06:16:

Gotta go too - take care CG.

Regards,

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 19, 2008, 06:46:

ooops.was late,I was tired. forgive my relocating you last nite, des. I was yanking your chain about the celebs- you couldn't tell? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 19, 2008, 08:17:

Plato, sorry didn;t mean to be insulting, I was tired late last night and am tired in general of people who misrepresent Rand or don't even bother to read her.

I'm really busy now but hope to have time to debate more later tonight.

Roci's right, there's not much point debating on the web, but i find it entertaining anyway, not that I expect or care to convince anyone of anything.

When I get a moment I want to talk about Desi's point about taxes, there's lots of angles to that discussion.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 19, 2008, 08:25:

Pod and Roc,

Bueno pues, le echamos tierrita a este tema.

Sorry about my quip on Rand writing novels. She was a brilliant thinker and I'll leave it at that.

Regards,

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 19, 2008, 08:45:

SLguy, I knew that you were yanking my chain but I felt compelled to answer anyway....it happens.

About Rand, I've only read her first novel, "We the Living" and then just bits and pieces of her work. A bright woman, a good novelist but not my cup of tea. About different schools of philosphy; I'm not clearly in favour of any particular school, I believe that all the classical philosophers, Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Sarte have ideas I can agree with and also disagree with. Metaphysics and epistemology needs to be read with great concentration .

As I mentioned earlier, I cannot place individuals before the society because the society for me is just a conglomeration of individuals. I mean that it's nothing outside the individual sphere, not an independent entity that orders us around or sets rules, duties or obligations on us. We do that all by ourselves and call the sum of our own demands on other pepole social obligation, which of course does not really exist at all, only as a reflexion of the individual patterns of conduct and thought. Thus, there is NO polarization of individual vs. society, only perceived moral and societal duties, which are mainly just something that people have "kind of" agreed upon, tacitly.

Now that we have that covered, we could discuss the noble obligation :)) of paying taxes, why, how, when and who.
I hope Hillary raises the taxes once she's installed as your next pressie and implements a general health care insurance that covers all people living in your great country. You can afford it.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 19, 2008, 09:37:

There're plenty of ways to provide universal health coverage in our country that don't necessarily include a significant tax hike. Without a doubt, it is morally reprehensible that a country as wealthy as ours lacks the political will to solve this problem.

If the lawmakers somewhere found the balls to fix some of what ails our healthcare system (tort reform, obscene malpractice insurance costs, etc etc etc.), a major tax hike would be completely unnecessary.

I'll give you an example of something I've advocated for years- but no one would ever listen. If Americans were told by their insurers "listen - review your hospital bill. if they misbilled you, let us know- and we'll rebate you half the savings". NO ONE here who has insurance ever looks at the bills, to see how badly the insurance company is getting hosed. I learned this the hard way. One of my sons was born when there was a lapse in our insurance coverage (don't get me started on the reasons for that! jajaja) - so I paid cash for his birth. It was only 30 hours between when we arrived at the hospital,and when all of us went home. The bill? $9,200.00. Natrual childbirth- not even anesthetic. I talked to several people about this bill, and finally wound up with the hospital administrator. Bottom line? Bill reduced to 4,300 - more than 50%. Had it not been cash out of MY pocket, I likely would never have glanced at the bill - only forwarded it on to the insurance company. There simply is NO excuse for this behavior, in my book. Everyone loves to hate insurance companies, including myself - so it's pretty easy to forget that they aren't the only villains in this scenario.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 13:12:

Desi- like the sheild you are using as an Avatar..;)

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 13:30:

I also agree with whomever or whoever et al that commented on lengthy debates on the board of this nature.
The following comment is NOT directed at any "one" person, it is general.- Please do not take offense - OK?...But

A plethora of pasted peices of massive info as the result of plugging a few words into a search engine. the conversation/debate can lose substance that way.

Granted, YES, sometimes it is necessary to prove points and a search engine pasting is needed. maybe mindfulness of providing where to go for the reference (link or book), make a quick summary, OR simply edit the massive paste of someone else's research or rantings...your rantings are always welcome jajaja.

OR for pete's sake pull something you actually know outta your own head! jajaja.

Ok - I'm done stick a fork in me - .....OOooch! that hurt Slygy! stop it!

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 19, 2008, 15:17:

Interesting. I don't SEE any long-winded cut/paste posts. wonder why? ;)

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 19, 2008, 17:02:

Taxes. Where do I start...

The biggest problem that the 'left' has, IMO, is that they just don't understand basic human nature, or if they do they think it can be changed.

People are selfish by nature, which grows out of necessity.

So desi you think raising taxes is the answer to all kinds of social problems, yet you already wrote about what happens when people believe they have paid enough taxes: they stop paying!

Believe it or not, it is not easy to make money. If governments keep increasing taxes the incentive to be productive diminishes to the point that people either 1) evade paying taxes or 2) avoid paying taxes (easy: move to Lichtenstein or 3) stop working so hard as the rewards are not worth the effort.

Taxing the wealthy to distribute wealth to the poor is effectively punishing the productive person and rewarding the unproductive person.

However, if you want, go ahead and tax me to death.

I believe in 'if you can't beat them, join them'. I'd quite happily stop working so hard. I'd love to learn to surf, maybe write a book. You'll find me on a beach somewhere just waiting for some rich sucker to distribute his wealth to me. You need my address where to send the cheques?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 18:16:

Desi: I have read through the whole thread and I think this does look like a conversation from sitting on a bar stool - after a few pints. jajaja

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Feb 19, 2008, 18:55:

Cg.. have you anything else to say here?
jaj
lee su email?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

CatGirl says on Feb 19, 2008, 19:22:

No - ee tu?

Love and Time: the only two things that cannot be bought, but only spent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 19, 2008, 21:32:

Pds,
the selfishness of people also varies in degree. My personal experience is that it also increases with the wealth; it's the poor and the humble that don't mind sharing a bowl of sancocho with you while the rich and the proud demand to be paid just to walk in their shadow. I don't think it's always a good idea for people to have more than what they need.(I know it sounds very harsh....and does not apply to everybody either).

I don't mind individually wealthy people, however. If you worked hard and honestly, paid your employees fair wages and treated them right, paid your taxes and were a role model for your community you're not necessarily a bad person.
Cheers

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 20, 2008, 03:29:

I don't disagree with you desi, I know lots of rich people and lots of poor people and I tend to like the poor ones better (although I hang out with the middle).

The problem is, by trying to redistribute wealth in a way you think is fairer, you destroy all incentive, which causes far more problems than having a few rich twerps leading useless lives.

And by the way, the wealthy almost always give their money to charity in the end...you know, Gates, Buffett, Getty, etc. They can't take it with them.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 20, 2008, 05:37:

Taxes are not a big deal. Really. The problem here is that the middle-class always gets screwed paying more than they should. We still have this problem with the marriage penalty tax. So, I’m not crying for the rich. They put their money in offshore accounts and evade paying taxes like crazy. The poor, well, make below the poverty line and don’t pay taxes. In fact, they get the opposite of taxes – subsidies. I refer you to the old EIC – Earned Income Tax Credit for poor families.

It’s a well-known economic concept that incentives are diminished if the rich are taxed heavily. But then again, it’s also one of the pillars of supply side economics. If the rich aren’t taxed heavily, then they invest in capital and hire more workers. Does that really work especially with technological gains and outsourcing abroad? The economic equation changed since Ronald Reagan. That argument doesn't have as much force as it once did before globalization of business took off. So, although incentives diminish, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the rich would create more business in the United States if they weren’t taxed as much.

The rich also have the incentive to be pack rats and invest elsewhere outside the US in developing countries like so many posters here. Where are the gains for the poor in the United States? My boss has a big international portfolio. Why? There is considerable incentive to invest in these places because they are on the up rise. Labor productivity and growth in these countries is increasing and there is less corporate taxation and, I argue, sometimes even none.

The problem in the United States? Establishing equilibrium between the social benefits for ALL citizens and the costs to society that the poor place upon us if not tended to. One way or another, taxpayers pay – especially the middle class – not so much the rich. Slguy said he didn’t mind paying for public services. Imagine the cost of public services increasing because the poor continue to utilize the emergency rooms in hospitals? How about crime rates going up in affluent neighborhoods? The point is, there’s lots more to the argument than taking as given that incentives for the rich are diminished if their taxes go up.

The problem with establishing equilibrium? Ideology as reflected in partisan politics. Period. Do you know that there is more structural unemployment in the United States because many of our jobs have been shipped off to India and elsewhere? I mean, let’s not look at things in a vacuum ladies and gentlemen. Taxation is a social policy tool tied to many things in the economy. The problem is in the powerful interest and lobby groups that pressure our public representatives from establishing some form of equitable tax policy – especially for the middle class. Boo hoo for the rich! Of course they want others to subsidize them from paying their fair share (in the spirit of self interest). Listen, they can all move to Colombia as far as I‘m concerned. I’m sure many of their investments are outside of the U.S. so why bitch about taxes and why stay in the US? Because property rights are guaranteed here - that's why. Look at what happened to the American oil companies in Venezuela? Chavez did a number on them. Does anyone want to invest in Venezuela right now? Hmm? Slugy? Or anyone else? Very few countries can match the security of property rights as in the U.S. In fact, our constituion was based on property rights. This was one of the cornerstones of John Locke's theory. China is just starting to get a clue on property rights and look at what's happening to their economy.

Are the rich charitable? Yes. Are they philanthropists? Maybe. Buffet offered to bail out our economy on Wall Street for a price. Is this true philanthropy or is it - once again – self-interest - a way to make money and write off taxes at the same time?

Charity is all about retaining money by writing off taxes through charitable donations. Many of them give charitable donations to Africa like Bill Gates and others. What’s the proportion of their donations to American poor verses abroad? Once again, I don’t cry for the rich. They know how to take care of themselves.

I’ll stop here.

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 20, 2008, 07:56:

I'm no crying for the rich either. I'm saying taxes are ineffectual, and both you and desi gave reasons why: the rich can move.

The left sees ever higher taxes as some kind of panacea that solves all problems. As usual they assume nothing changes as tax rates go up.

The only way to create equal distribution of wealth is to make everyone poor, which is what has happened in every truly socialist/communist country.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Man Tequila says on Feb 20, 2008, 08:11:

Got in here late. Rather than discuss the many things here, let me only say:

1. I have had many philosophical discussions from the bottom of a beer glass.
2. I think altruism is a mark of civilization, and I often disagree with Ayn Rand.
3. Countries without a middle class tend to be in pretty deep doo-doo.
4. Happiness is important, but transient and not a substitute for deeper understanding.
5. I think Desi probably hits Ctrl-C on her computer to post a picture of chucha here.

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 20, 2008, 08:59:

Pod, let’s narrow this down.

(1) The rich can move because they can shelter their money outside of the US.
(2) Are taxes effective? You say no because the rich have economic mobility. I say yes and provided an argument about property rights in the United States (plus I get pissed if they’re raised on me). I’ll add our stock market system where everyone in the world likes to participate. Although those who have economic mobility can avoid some or most US taxation, they like to have a foothold in the United States.

Pod, I’m a middle class guy and prefer not to pay as much as I do to “the Man", but I see the need for social programs. If, as a society, we don’t take care of our poor, then we’re going to pay for it in other ways in the form of negative externalities or through direct personal costs if the destitute commit crimes in order to survive. After all, the poor have self –interests too – survival.

Take for example the marginalized people in Venezuela and why they supported Chavez all this time. The other side of the argument supporting these poor folks is that the middle class and rich just didn’t give a crap about these people. They wallowed in their own self interest. Now the Venezuelans have a big friggin’ problem - both the poor and the middle class. For the poor, food is scarce and crime is rising; for the middle class, well, they’re moving out. I just got word that my niece is moving to Australia. Florida is now getting more Venezuelan immigrants.

Please note that I don’t agree with the abuse of the social programs so I like time limits as former President Clinton did with TANF.



Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 20, 2008, 09:52:

That was a cool video. huskie!

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Feb 20, 2008, 13:24:

Plato, I would like to see poverty eliminated, I just think having government attempt to do it is the most inefficient, even hopeless, way to do it.

As in most things, private charity works better than public (gov't run).

Part of my motivation to see the end of poverty is because I have empathy for less fortunate people, but as you point out, it's also in my own self interest to not have a bunch of angry, desperate, starving people hanging around outside my mansion or watching me drive a big Rolls Royce.

Capitalism creates the most wealth for everyone, almost no one disputes that anymore. I think it's the best system to end poverty.

What some people (not me) dislike is the inequality that capitalism brings.

I don't care if some people are ridiculously rich, it doesn't hurt me, I am not full of envy, and in fact they are generally productive people that have made the world a better place.

But just because some people are full of envy they would prefer to install a system that ensures everyone be poor.

Crazy.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 20, 2008, 13:58:

Pod wrote:

"As in most things, private charity works better than public (gov't run)."

Agreed. The non-profit sector has worked wonders. They address those "fall threw the cracks" issues that government ought to, but does not, address effectively and efficiently.

"Capitalism creates the most wealth for everyone, almost no one disputes that anymore. I think it's the best system to end poverty."

I agree, but I believe that government should step in at times when there are market failures. Pod, I'm a Keynesian; are you a a follower of Adam smith, Milton Friedman, etc. you know " the market corrects itself and solves all problems?"


"What some people (not me) dislike is the inequality that capitalism brings."

There will always some inequality in any system. The more there is government control, the less freedom we have to self actualize ourselves on our own merits. I think we may agree on how terrible are the excesses of capitalism. For example, you need government antitrust laws to prevent monopolies. Imagine a few firms controlling prices of commodities. Is this in the spirit of Capitalism or is it a market failure? Perhaps people who dislike capitalism do so because they focus on it's failures and not its benefits.


"I don't care if some people are ridiculously rich, it doesn't hurt me, I am not full of envy, and in fact they are generally productive people that have made the world a better place."

Rich people are extremely productive. So am I. So are you. We're talking about greedy people - not envy. For example, there are rich people that want social security (Jajajaja!) because they rightfully earned yet spend a lifetime trying to beat the government out of taxes through savvy tax lawyers, offshore accounts, and so forth ( jajajaja!). The world is about them, screw every one else.

"But just because some people are full of envy they would prefer to install a system that ensures everyone be poor."

If that system is the kind that Hugo Chavez is trying to install, then you're right. I read recently that Germany almost went bankrupt with their nationalized healthcare in 2003 because costs were rising and their government couldn't keep up with it. You see, people say things like " well country X has nationalized healthcare, social security, yada, yada, yada." It's a good concept yet you have to look under the hood of the car sometimes and find out how things work.

The US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is near or at 14 trillion and we don't have national healthcare. Now that's ridiculous isn't it?


Regards,

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 20, 2008, 14:14:

From the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) - A comparison countries by Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Notice the US is 13.4 trillion at about 300 million population ( or slightly less).

Compare with other countries, especially with those that have nationalized healthcare . It would be nice to know their tax structure. For example, what is the tax structure in Finland? Does a family pay 20%, 30%, 50%, effective tax rate to gain nationalized programs such as health care?

In France, I understand the university system is public but you have to have high scores. The same in England. Are these capitalist countries?

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/4/37867909.pdf

Regards,

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Feb 20, 2008, 17:36:

"For example, you need government antitrust laws to prevent monopolies. Imagine a few firms controlling prices of commodities."

A few companies DO control the price of commodities internationally. 7, to be exact. Try buying corn today to ship to Colombia, You can't do it. AMD, Cargill, etc control everything in commodities now- not just the futures market, but all the loading ports upriver, all the freight carriers- all of it.

I know this how? Because six months ago I could have made a killing sending corn to Colombia - but there was none available, and no barges/ships avaiable to carry it.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 20, 2008, 19:51:

See! You need government to help you make a killing Slguy! How dare those companies control the price of corn!!! Damn!

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 20, 2008, 19:54:

Anyhow, what started as a bar stool conversation, turned into a discussion on philosophy, taxes, political economics, and finally Slguy getting beat out of making some mula. ( A little testoterone was throne in their too. Jajaja!) What a ride but worthwhile!

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Plato says on Feb 20, 2008, 20:33:

Desi,

Here’s my last entry on this topic before I take a break from the board.

I’ve argued that society’s interests must be taken into account as well as individual interest, but not to the detriment of the poor. Perhaps you feel that society’s interest comes before the individual but I will not get into that. Anyhow, here’s the deal: in free market system, we strive, with the help of government, to establish economic efficiency, also referred to as Pareto efficiency. What this means is that there is some way to make someone better off without hurting someone else. If someone else is hurt in the process, then there is economic inefficiency. So, that’s it. I would rather have a capitalist system where we have a combination of market solutions and social programs to help the poor. I don’t mind paying taxes to achieve this goal but I do mind waste and inefficient program administration. My family came from Colombia to the USA in the 1960s and worked hard in factories. Thus I learned my worked ethic from my parents. But I also recognize that not all people have the same opportunities or know-how on how to progress in life. A little push is a good thing, but it shouldn’t be a lifestyle like it was for many before 1996. As I mentioned previously, former President Bill Clinton put term limits on the welfare program (5 years) and forced recipients to go to work. We have many economic problems here as you know, but I have faith in our government and the capitalist system in solving, or at least improving greatly, economic inefficiencies that undermine the poor in the United States.

Regards,

Plato

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those [liberals] who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.--Dante Alighieri, (1265-1321)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Feb 21, 2008, 22:21:

I like art. Nice messages too. Thanks.

Plato, it's not that I place the needs of the society higher than individual needs; they're intertwined and hard to separate, because, as I have stated before, I think that the society is WE, the individuals. As such, the needs of the society vary widely from one conglomeration of individuals to another; say for an example, to speak in familiar terms; the loggers and forest workers around Kiruna in Swedish Lapland have different needs than the socialites ad bohemians of fashionable Söder quarters of Stockholm.

It may well be that I do not trust individuals to make always the best choices for the community as a whole; thus the need of democratically elected representatives of the people to do that job. Every form of government and political system has problems and drawbacks, yet a government is better than no government and the nightmere scenario of having huge corporations running the world is only kept at bay by strong, legitimate governments representing the people.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.