Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#31547 - 11/10/09 11:20 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
ballbreaker Offline
member


Registered: 09/04/07
Posts: 134
Loc: Toronto, Canada
I don't think Satanism easily lends itself to political philosophy/theory, i.e. a broad conception of ethics for a society. At least, those Satanists who are moral skeptics or amoralists and don't find it ethically problematic to break with social norms and (more importantly) the law when it suits them...those Satanists would be hard pressed in my opinion to give some overarching ethical framework as to what principles all members of society ought to operate on. This isn't a criticism at all...it's actually what really gives Satanism an authentic overmanesque feel.

One user...I think it was Asmedious or Octavius ...used to have an excellent signature that, to me, exemplifies the individualist/relativist ethic of the Satanist, particularly w/regards to political philosophy (although this perhaps was not the user's intent). It went something like this:

The deist prays for the winds to settle down. The Atheist complains that the storm is too harsh. The Satanist just adjusts his sails.

Ps. this post isn't directed at you, Maw , but I think your post was the last to touch on political ethics.


Edited by ballbreaker (11/10/09 11:23 PM)

Top
#31551 - 11/11/09 12:33 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: ballbreaker]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
I agree with you in that I don't think Satanism as a philosophy "dictates" a particular political structure, mostly because as an overall philosophy, it leaves much up to the particular Satanist to decide. In my case, I came to Satanism after Objectivism, so my thoughts are definitely slanted in that direction. Someone who may have come from a different angle, or of no prior angle at all and picked up a different outlook than mine, could be completely possible.

Satanism as a philosophy is incomplete. It has some ethics in there, but rather little on metaphysics or epistemology, let alone political philosophy. That fits in well with the whole "learn to do shit yourself" attitude of it.

Saying that, there are definitely political philosophies (and metaphysics and epistemology) that do NOT fit in with Satanism. Most (if not all?) collectivist philosophies wouldn't fit in with Satanism. Any metaphysical system that involved some form of divine creator wouldn't fit in with Satanism (...well, not atheistic Satanism, at any rate, for obvious reasons).

I honestly cannot think of a better political system for Satanism than capitalism, which allows the strong to gain power, and the weak to lose power. Maybe a Platonic 'Republic' of sorts (Satanic Philosopher Kings?), thought I haven't read much on that yet, so I couldn't tell you.

No matter what, I can't imagine a Satanic society being one where you can't get some form of health care. I can't imagine any society being like that, really. Even a society of assholes would have this one asshole who gives out vicadin to anyone who pays him enough.


Edited by CJB (11/11/09 12:34 AM)
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31556 - 11/11/09 07:26 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: CJB

I honestly cannot think of a better political system for Satanism than capitalism, which allows the strong to gain power, and the weak to lose power.


Capitalism is not a political system; it is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production employed for the creation of profits. It's natural political bedfellow is liberal democracy which advocates personal freedom for the individual and equality for all.

Historically, capitalism is the bastard child of Protestant Christianity. As Methodism's founder, John Wesley once famously quipped: "Religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches". U.S. industrialists and financiers in the 19th and early 20th centuries were Calvinists or Protestant sectarians, and it is striking how many of the clergymen in industrial centers were eulogizers of laisses-faire capitalism.

If reality is anything to go by, one must assume that retarded cowboys like George W Bush are "the strong" of which you speak.

.
_________________________
.


Top
#31559 - 11/11/09 10:26 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Wow Im away for a day or so and there is alot to reply to. Fun! Please consider I wrote this reply in 3 sittings as Im running to and from things today. I hope I make some sense despite all this.

MawhrinSkel:

 Quote:
I prefer my tribe to hand out benefits according to communal worth, if a tribe indeed it shall be. If a person chooses to be part of a community and pay taxes to it, performing work for it and making him/herself a member of something bigger than himself, that person earns rights. A meritocracy, if you will.


This is of course the ideal version of a state or nation. If that someow could include the ones governing the nation it would be the best alternative. I was always for meritocracy but I am unsure if it can be worked out or if it is indeed a utopic system.


 Quote:

For these reasons I don't support the current social order. It mollycoddles the useless. I don't really want to be a part of a society which condones such behaviour, but nevertheless I am.


This is kind of the problem. One is offering critque but no sollutions. Only reactions to what is - no actions to what could be. I may be wrong but personally I feel that one important aspect of offering critique is to actually present a better idea. I admire that you took every shit ob until you got yourself a good one. I was never in that position myself but keep telling people who are out of work that they should do what you did. Believe it or not jobs arent hard to find, even now when the economy is bad. However alot of people efuse to do some jos they dont like.

Funny how you speak of fascism. I am just reading up on Benito Mussolini hand his political theories. parts of them are excellent and other things not so much. Even though I doubt most satanists would like it since it is conformatist. But then again satanists tend to use the ideologies t their benefit and if they see conformism benefit themselves they probably would be proponents of it.

 Quote:
You probably have parasitic friends or family members yourself. Do you deal with them? Do you wait for them to somehow do something worthwhile? Would you rather they made themselves useful?


I wouldnt say parasitic but I have had friends that has let me down and my sollution was always to break off and find new friends. I just did it this year in fact after some people only wanted to play on their terms which I am not up to. I only gave and got nothing back.

CJB:

 Quote:
Nope, sure hasn't. Early America was probably the closest you could get with that, but any socio-political system is going to have its drawbacks. Laissez-faire capitalism would probably be about the best you could get with that, but it's a utopian system, and will likely never see the light of day.


Well, you're american so Im not surprised you value early america so high. Im not sure youre right though. Especially since your history later in the post tlks abot how ancient greece had pure democracy where everone voted. They really didnt. Dont take this personal, I dont wish to make enemies. Just saying how I see it ;\)

Laissez-faire capitalism gives rise to way more problems though since all people in power (those who gain money) will do anything it takes to stay on top and with moe money in a capitalist society the poor ones wouldnt have as much of a chance really. Not to talk about people who inherit money but has done nothing to earn it etc. Now Im not a master of political ideology but I doubt Laissez-faire capitalism is the best we can do when it comes to meritocratic systems.

 Quote:

Why wouldn't there be health care in a Satanic society? None of the doctors would come over or something? Why would there be no job security? Would all the bosses just randomly fire people, no matter what kind of job they're doing?


I was playing the devils advocate here. Im not basing this soley on what has been said in this thread but overall by satanists. I was thinking of how a society that would let the weak perish would actually look like.

Like you I wouldnt mind a society where weakness was indeed something bad but at the same time we are walking a thin line in what is considered weakness and how that should be dealt with. In some aspect there is always a moral value involved and such a thing doesnt really exist within Satanism because it is so based on indivdual thought.

And could a person be considered weak if it wasnt his fault that he was in the position he is in? If a person is born in a poor village in Africa how would that be judged and looked upon? Thats a problem with the modern world. Humans dont know only of what is in their imidiate enviroment but knows about the whole world. That way it was easier in old times when one knew, cared and fought for one village. The problem today is that we take the same kind of responsibilities with us today but the village today includes the whole world.

 Quote:
You're not imagining a society of Satanists there, you're imagining a society of assholes.


I think however that humans, if set free, always tend to walk all over other humans. Not everyone and not always but I think that there is basically two sides here. One, like political anarchists, think hmans are good deep inside. Therefore maximisation (is that a word?) of freedom would work. I however think humans wouldnt be able to deal with that kind of freedom. And even if most would there would always be other people who took advantage of the good will of others.

 Quote:

Just to clarify if this was aimed at what I said, health care and doctors would most definitely exist in the utopia. It was Thelnsane who somehow got the idea that we find health care and medicine "unSatanic."

If I misunderstood and you weren't directing your response at what I said then just ignore this and my apologies.


I do feel misunderstood though. I never said that health care wouldnt exist in a satanic society but I was questioning who, why and how the services would be performed in a society that encourages strength and says the weak shall perish? What sickness would be fought and what wouldnt? Or would all be treated if there was only enough money paid by the patient? And what would be considered weakness? And what would such a society do with the people it would consider weak? Just leave them alone to die?

Again, Im not saying that I stand on the opposite side here. I just want to spark the debate. I to wuld like to see strength being valued a whole lot more than it is today bt how would that actually work?


FriendlyS

 Quote:

As for Thelnsane's comment on capitalism, how does it go against nature? Using one's abilities to their advantage and to come out on top is exactly what capitalism allows and that is completely natural. As CJB said, you're imagining assholes, not capitalists, and not Satanists.


Laissez-faire is a good idea in theory but I dont think nature workd so that it is actually beneficial in the long run. When money means everything, because in capitalism it does there will always be people who care more about personal wealth than even the nature outside their immediate enviroment. As long as there is money to be made from cutting down the rain forest people will do that. As long as there is money to be made on cars driven by oil, people will make them etc. Of course this doesnt only have to do with enviromental topics but also relations between humans and everything else. If there is money to be made being an asshole to others, believe me people will do it (and they do).

Top
#31560 - 11/11/09 11:42 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: School Bully]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Originally Posted By: School Bully
[quote=CJB]
Capitalism is not a political system; it is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production employed for the creation of profits. It's natural political bedfellow is liberal democracy which advocates personal freedom for the individual and equality for all.


Free market capitalism advocates personal freedom and equality. By its very nature that is what it demands. You can't have a free market in a nation that is told what it must do or buy or anything. There is some wiggle room in how the political structure is set up, but to advocate free market capitalism necessarily involves advocating all those other liberties.

 Quote:

Historically, capitalism is the bastard child of Protestant Christianity. As Methodism's founder, John Wesley once famously quipped: "Religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches". U.S. industrialists and financiers in the 19th and early 20th centuries were Calvinists or Protestant sectarians, and it is striking how many of the clergymen in industrial centers were eulogizers of laisses-faire capitalism.


So what if it is? Think of all the other ideas thought up by Christians, or Muslims, or any other sort of theist. If we are to not bother with any of them, what would we be left with?

 Quote:

If reality is anything to go by, one must assume that retarded cowboys like George W Bush are "the strong" of which you speak.


Not counting the fact that GW wasn't the president of a country with free market capitalism...let's look at the facts. He was President of a powerful country for eight years. He commanded the largest military during that time. He actually got himself elected to this position not once, but twice. Prior to that, he was governor of a large (in more than once sense of the word) state.
Damn.
Even though I really don't like the guy, I would have to say that he was a powerful guy. If you equate "strength" with "one who has power," than yeah, I'd say GW was a strong guy.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31561 - 11/11/09 12:12 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: TheInsane]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane

Well, you're american so Im not surprised you value early america so high. Im not sure youre right though. Especially since your history later in the post tlks abot how ancient greece had pure democracy where everone voted. They really didnt. Dont take this personal, I dont wish to make enemies. Just saying how I see it ;\)


OK, not everyone in Greece, just the citizens. My bad. There is a big difference between saying "everyone" and saying "the citizens," especially in ancient Greece. The premise remains the same though. Now 51% of the citizens could enslave the other 49%.

 Quote:
Laissez-faire capitalism gives rise to way more problems though since all people in power (those who gain money) will do anything it takes to stay on top and with moe money in a capitalist society the poor ones wouldnt have as much of a chance really. Not to talk about people who inherit money but has done nothing to earn it etc. Now Im not a master of political ideology but I doubt Laissez-faire capitalism is the best we can do when it comes to meritocratic systems.


And in a free market, the poor have the ability with some hard work to become rich, and the rich have the ability with some shoddy work to become poor. People who inherit money, if they were deserving of the money, would put it to good use. If they were bad with it, they would spend it all on frivolous things, therefore enriching other people. The idea that the rich will stay rich even though they don't deserve it is antithesis to the free market.

 Quote:

I was playing the devils advocate here. Im not basing this soley on what has been said in this thread but overall by satanists. I was thinking of how a society that would let the weak perish would actually look like.


That depends on (as you say) how you define weakness. Unable to care for oneself would be a good start, I would think. Being able to care for oneself can still mean many things, but the end result is the same. If you care for yourself by working hard so you can buy time from your doctor, there you go. If you care for yourself by marrying someone who does that, there you go. If you care by fucking the doctor for your healthcare, there you go! The only truly weak person in this situation is one who is so lazy that he cannot bring himself to do anything for whatever it is he needs.

 Quote:
I think however that humans, if set free, always tend to walk all over other humans. Not everyone and not always but I think that there is basically two sides here. One, like political anarchists, think hmans are good deep inside. Therefore maximisation (is that a word?) of freedom would work. I however think humans wouldnt be able to deal with that kind of freedom. And even if most would there would always be other people who took advantage of the good will of others.


So what? To be clear: I'm not an anarchist. Maximisation of liberty within certain clear boundaries (As long as it doesn't physically hurt anybody, you can do whatever you want).

You're right: in a land with no laws, some humans would take advantage of other humans, sometimes to violent ends. Guess what? We live in a world filled with laws designed to coddle humans from cradle to grave, and we STILL have humans who take advantage of other humans, sometimes to violent ends.

 Quote:

Laissez-faire is a good idea in theory but I dont think nature workd so that it is actually beneficial in the long run.


A good idea in theory but bad in practice is a fallacy. If it is bad in practice, than there is something wrong with the theory.

 Quote:

When money means everything, because in capitalism it does there will always be people who care more about personal wealth than even the nature outside their immediate enviroment. As long as there is money to be made from cutting down the rain forest people will do that. As long as there is money to be made on cars driven by oil, people will make them etc. Of course this doesnt only have to do with enviromental topics but also relations between humans and everything else. If there is money to be made being an asshole to others, believe me people will do it (and they do).


Capitalism doesn't mean that money is the highest value. If that were the case, in such a soceity you would live naked in the street on top of a pile of money.
Yeah, you'll have people that care more about their wealth than the environment. You'll also have people that care a lot about the environment, and they would do something about it.

You don't like cutting down the rain forest? Find an alternative. You don't like gasoline-guzzling cars? Find an alternative. You don't like coal burning power plants? Find an alternative. You want your alternative to work? Make sure that it's cheaper or of higher quality than the bad alternative.

You're not a scientist and don't know how to make this crap? Make money however it is you can, and hire a scientist. Make a group, a foundation, and solicit wealthy people to donate to your cause of hiring scientists to make a car driven off of water or air or vegetable oil or horse shit or whatever.

Also, there IS money to be made being an asshole. There's money to be made being a nice guy! There's money to be made where you don't have to be either! There's money to be made serving others (waiter), serving everyone in your country (military), or being the master (CEO).

You see capitalism as a way for people to make money no matter what. I see capitalism as a way for people to create value.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31562 - 11/11/09 01:41 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
CJB

 Quote:
OK, not everyone in Greece, just the citizens. My bad.


Ever looked up who the citizens were in ancient greece? Now I realize wikipedia isnt the most trustworthy but I will use it here to demonstrate my point. It is in every good book on ancient greece or on the history of democracy as well though:

All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the Assembly, which set the laws of the city-state. However, the Athenian citizenship was only for males born from a father who was citizen and who had been doing their "military service" between 18 and 20 years old; this exclude women, slaves, foreigners (μετοίκος / metoikos) and males under 20 years old. Of the 250,000 inhabitants only some 30,000 on average were citizens. Of those 30,000 perhaps 5,000 might regularly attend one or more meetings of the popular Assembly. Most of the officers and magistrates of Athenian government were allotted; only the generals (strategoi) and a few other officers were elected.[2]

 Quote:
And in a free market, the poor have the ability with some hard work to become rich, and the rich have the ability with some shoddy work to become poor. People who inherit money, if they were deserving of the money, would put it to good use. If they were bad with it, they would spend it all on frivolous things, therefore enriching other people. The idea that the rich will stay rich even though they don't deserve it is antithesis to the free market.


Wouldnt you say this is very utopian though. Sure, in theory it works well but in practice not so much because with added economic resources one can easily stay on top even if ones abilities really arent great (as in the case of someone who inherited alot of money). I wouldnt say this system gives everyone a fair chance to do what they want with their lives. Heck, if someone was born into very nasty conditions that person would probably be more concerned to find bread and water for the day and just surviving rather than actually ever get a chance to move up any kind of social/societal ladder.

 Quote:
That depends on (as you say) how you define weakness. Unable to care for oneself would be a good start, I would think. . .

. . .The only truly weak person in this situation is one who is so lazy that he cannot bring himself to do anything for whatever it is he needs.


I would agree. This is not something good in a person and shouldnt be encouraged. What would a satanic society do with such people though?

 Quote:

So what? To be clear: I'm not an anarchist. Maximisation of liberty within certain clear boundaries (As long as it doesn't physically hurt anybody, you can do whatever you want).

You're right: in a land with no laws, some humans would take advantage of other humans, sometimes to violent ends. Guess what? We live in a world filled with laws designed to coddle humans from cradle to grave, and we STILL have humans who take advantage of other humans, sometimes to violent ends.


Most definately. My point was just that giving people more liberty would increase this behaviour. I think Laissez-faire capitalism does that as well allthough of course it more often takes the form of large companies not caring about the enviroment for example. Or maybe for workers wages and work times. To me giing humans in general alot of freedom will probably lead to more good than bad. I'd rather have more restrictions in a society and have it more secure (maybe with an added police force, cameras etc to take a few relevant topics at least in my country). Or on a global scale, put restrictions n companies so that the cant do even half of what they do today just to earn money. Because even if we consume their products and think its good for us in the now it eventually leads to overconsumption and damage to our enviroment.

 Quote:

A good idea in theory but bad in practice is a fallacy. If it is bad in practice, than there is something wrong with the theory.


Of course. Its just a saying to say something is "good in theory". I thought that was clear.

 Quote:
Capitalism doesn't mean that money is the highest value. If that were the case, in such a soceity you would live naked in the street on top of a pile of money.


Well if we're gonna dumb the discussion down to this kind of reasoning I would say its impossible where I live because people would freeze to death :P

 Quote:
You don't like cutting down the rain forest? Find an alternative. You don't like gasoline-guzzling cars? Find an alternative. You don't like coal burning power plants? Find an alternative. You want your alternative to work? Make sure that it's cheaper or of higher quality than the bad alternative.


Well there is no reason to cut down the rain forest at all except money. There is no reason cars are still using oil. Alternatives have existed for years and years. However, powerful economic forces has done everything in their power to protect their business and keep earning money.

Why would we allow destruction of nature, the fundamental reason we are even here, for the so called rights of anyone to make money off of destroying it? I mean what kind of logic is that? Above you write about maximisation of liberty "as it doesn't physically hurt anybody, you can do whatever you want". What makes it ok to actually damage the envorment that also damages the health of other people? Is it only physically hurting as in hitting someone that is to be regarded the rule here?

 Quote:


Also, there IS money to be made being an asshole. There's money to be made being a nice guy! There's money to be made where you don't have to be either! There's money to be made serving others (waiter), serving everyone in your country (military), or being the master (CEO).


Why would one want a political system that allows for people to earn money if they are bad? I really dont get it. Shouldnt a society strive to only give the goo people their due and let the bad ones go under (however that would work out I dont know)?

Why do you want such a political system? I think it totally ass backwards myself.

Top
#31564 - 11/11/09 02:54 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: TheInsane]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane

I do feel misunderstood though. I never said that health care wouldnt exist in a satanic society but I was questioning who, why and how the services would be performed in a society that encourages strength and says the weak shall perish? What sickness would be fought and what wouldnt? Or would all be treated if there was only enough money paid by the patient? And what would be considered weakness? And what would such a society do with the people it would consider weak? Just leave them alone to die?


Alright, I guess I misunderstood because you made it seem like you thought a Satanic society wouldn't have doctors. The services would obviously be performed by doctors. They would be trained to do it and then would charge accordingly for treating those who need it and can pay it. The weak would be those who are unable to support themselves and therefore cannot afford to see a doctor or pay for the treatment.

As for the "why" I'm not quite sure what you mean by this but if you are asking why one would provide the service, this is easy. A doctor would provide the service because people would need it, they would be willing to pay for it because if they didn't they would most likely die, and really, its a profession that will always be around because people will always get sick and hurt so it is a smart career choice. If you mean "why" as in why would people want this service and pay for it, then obviously they would pay for it because it would help them survive.

As for the "how it would be performed," it would be done like it is now. People would go to the doctor, pay for the service of being diagnosed, and then pay for the treatment. The only difference is that it would only be given to those who bother to work enough in order to be able to afford it.

 Quote:

Laissez-faire is a good idea in theory but I dont think nature workd so that it is actually beneficial in the long run. When money means everything, because in capitalism it does there will always be people who care more about personal wealth than even the nature outside their immediate enviroment.


I think CJB answered this well but I'll throw in my ideas too. Laissez-faire capitalism allows people the freedom to do whatever they want. If they want to dedicate their extra time to helping the environment, then great. If they can make money from this and do it full time, better. Just because people CAN make money from being assholes to others, doesn't really mean that they automatically will become assholes. It's a possibility that comes with the freedom to do what you want and make money however you can but it doesn't mean it will happen.

 Quote:

I think however that humans, if set free, always tend to walk all over other humans.


This might be true in the current state of things, but even without all the freedoms that would come with a laissez-faire society, people already do this, so why not at least give everybody the freedom to do what they want and have a shot at being on top if they work hard.

Now, if we are talking about a Satanic utopia with laissez-faire capitalism, people wouldn't be such assholes just to get on top. If there were a Satanic utopia, then people would follow Satanic philosophy, stopping such asshole behaviour. People would be given all of the freedom they want to do whatever they wish as long is it doesn't impose on other peoples' rights.

Top
#31566 - 11/11/09 04:15 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: TheInsane]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
CJB
(Greece stuff)


The point remains the same. The citizens (yes, a select few of the total population) could, by simple 51% majority fuck over the other 49%. The point is not to say that Greece was a shining example of pure democracy, but that pure democracy sucks.


 Quote:
Wouldnt you say this is very utopian though.


Yes. It is an ideal. We may never get to an ideal society, whether it be communism or capitalism, theistic or atheistic, Christian or Muslim or Satanist. None of these ideals will ever be fully realized because the people in these societies will have other ideas. Someone in communism may cling to personal property, someone in capitalism may want for everyone to involuntarily pool their money to save the rainforest.
The beautiful thing about my utopian dream is that anyone can voluntarily do anything with anyone else who voluntarily does it. Save the rainforest? Sure, go ahead. I would even donate money to you if I thought your moethods were sound. You can even start a hippie communist camp up in the mountains if you want, no sweat off of my back.

 Quote:

I would agree. This is not something good in a person and shouldnt be encouraged. What would a satanic society do with such people though?


Let them die?

 Quote:

Most definately. My point was just that giving people more liberty would increase this behaviour. I think Laissez-faire capitalism does that as well allthough of course it more often takes the form of large companies not caring about the enviroment for example. Or maybe for workers wages and work times. To me giing humans in general alot of freedom will probably lead to more good than bad. I'd rather have more restrictions in a society and have it more secure (maybe with an added police force, cameras etc to take a few relevant topics at least in my country). Or on a global scale, put restrictions n companies so that the cant do even half of what they do today just to earn money. Because even if we consume their products and think its good for us in the now it eventually leads to overconsumption and damage to our enviroment.


Than stop buying from them! Lead a campaign to show people their evil ways, endorse companies that provide an alternative. THAT'S the way a free market would work.
What would those restrictions be, by the way? Could you perhaps bundle them all up and say "Don't do stuff that will hurt another person and their property?" Most good laws do something to that effect. If you need a camera to catch someone that otherwise leaves no damage behind, than what's the point of that law?

 Quote:
Well there is no reason to cut down the rain forest at all except money.


What, the money fucking grows on rain forest trees? Why do people cut down the rain forest? Seriously, I'm really not sure, and not too inclined to look it up. Is it for farmland? Paper mills? In order to make money off of it, some product must be made. What is the product(s)?

 Quote:
There is no reason cars are still using oil. Alternatives have existed for years and years. However, powerful economic forces has done everything in their power to protect their business and keep earning money.


You're right. Oil is cheaper than most alternatives are right now. Some of the alternatives actually use more energy to make than they output. Some alternatives require rather expensive platinum components. In order for an alternative fuel to be viable, it needs to be more cost-efficient than oil. Maybe when peak oil finally happens and we start running out of oil and the prices skyrocket, those platinum components will be cheaper and more viable. Maybe if something else is found that is already more cost-efficient than oil, we'll use that. Unfortunately, none of the alternatives that I know about are like that. If you know of an alternative, do tell.

 Quote:
Why would we allow destruction of nature, the fundamental reason we are even here, for the so called rights of anyone to make money off of destroying it? I mean what kind of logic is that? Above you write about maximisation of liberty "as it doesn't physically hurt anybody, you can do whatever you want". What makes it ok to actually damage the envorment that also damages the health of other people? Is it only physically hurting as in hitting someone that is to be regarded the rule here?


For one, I think you're overstating the actual damage to the environment that humans do, but that would probably be better discussed elsewhere.
Our method of survival is to change our environment to better suit us. Are you going to bitch at beavers for changing their environment to better suit them as well?

 Quote:
Why would one want a political system that allows for people to earn money if they are bad? I really dont get it. Shouldnt a society strive to only give the goo people their due and let the bad ones go under (however that would work out I dont know)?

Why do you want such a political system? I think it totally ass backwards myself.


Who are you to define good and bad? Is being an asshole something so vile that one deserves not to live because of it? Whose standards of good and bad should we ascribe to? Yours? Someone else's? In "my" political system, each person is left up to themselves to decide what is good and bad, and every other person judges them on their own values. People in my political system that were bad in your eyes...well, you can campaign against them. Corporation X is dumping acid into the reservoir? Tell people about them. Let everyone know. I can almost guarantee enough people will hate the acid dumping enough that they will quit buying X products due to that behavior. Now, because we don't have a government that will bail them out, Corp X fails. The good guys one.

Idealistic? Yes. Utopian? Probably. Naive? Perhaps. I like to dream of a dream world while living in the real world, sue me.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31579 - 11/12/09 12:40 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Im guessing we wont come to a mutual agreement here since we have such different opinions. To me I dont understand how one can value personal freedom as a political system above, for example like in this thread, the destruction of our enviroment. I cant understand how a moral thought of personal liberty could ever be more worth than living in a healthy and sound enviroment. To me thats a totally backwards way of though.

Im not saying the west and democracy is to blame alltogether though. There are of course non-democratic countries that couldnt care about the enviroment either and also doesnt have the same personal liberties (China for example).


It seems like a debate on the destruction of the rainforests are useless. Somehow CJB defends every mans right to actually cut it down but he himself (assuming you are male) doesnt know the effects it has on the enviroment. How can we keep the debate up if you dont know what the debate is about? If you wish to keep discussing that particlar topic I would like you to first read something about it. At this time the only thing you do is to raise the moral value of personal liberty among everything else. I think responsibility for the world we live in is by far more important than individuals personal coice. We all know, and I think we can agree on that, that human beings really arent of the best kind.

 Quote:
You're right. Oil is cheaper than most alternatives are right now. Some of the alternatives actually use more energy to make than they output.


See car companies have in the past bought plans and blueprints for "better cars" from developers and then hid them because they were afraid of the competition and didnt want to change the market. They actuallys pent money and effort and time so that people wouldnt even know of an alternative. How this can be ok is beyond me. There are better alternatives that are also cheaper - especially if they actually started to produce them in large numbers. I should for example put pressure on the companies to, during a few years, phase out the old cars and replace them with new ones. Didnt California have such a program?

 Quote:

Our method of survival is to change our environment to better suit us. Are you going to bitch at beavers for changing their environment to better suit them as well?


I dont mind changing the enviroment to suit us but the thing is we only look at it short-term. Long term we're destroying it. Ever compared the air in the city compared to the countryside? A vast difference in favor of the countryside of course. This was super obvious when I for example traveled through England this past summer. I love London and all but man the air there compared to this small village outside of Wigan - it was like night and day.

 Quote:
Who are you to define good and bad? Is being an asshole something so vile that one deserves not to live because of it? Whose standards of good and bad should we ascribe to? Yours? Someone else's? In "my" political system, each person is left up to themselves to decide what is good and bad, and every other person judges them on their own values.


Well, I would have liked if people adhered to my personal values - at least on a global political scale ;\) . I think the free thought idea is a nice one I really do but to have a government who has no values in the actual actions of the people is just a weird thought to me. That the freedom for anyone to do anything (apparently for as long as it doesnt first hand hur somebody) is not just the main value but almost the only value? How come you acually position personal liberty over every other value there is? Why is that the most important value? And who made it so?


I hope you dont take things to personal and get to worked up. I love to debate and I love to debate this right here. Just thought you all should know that since a few of the replies seems to be very emotional \:\)


Edited by TheInsane (11/12/09 12:41 AM)

Top
#31581 - 11/12/09 01:04 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: TheInsane]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
"I think responsibility for the world we live in is by far more important than individuals personal choice."

This is the big ass difference......

Most Satanists feel person choice trumps everything including rain forest, pandas, and other people.

"How come you acually position personal liberty over every other value there is?"

Come on, most of us are Satanists. Our personal liberty is everything. Even Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death".

If you can't understand why personal liberty is so important and part of a Satanist nature, maybe you are in the wrong place?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#31582 - 11/12/09 01:49 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: TheInsane]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
You're right, we probably won't come to an agreement. I do feel like making one quick more quick point: the most free countries on an individual levels are also typically the more responsible ones when it comes to the environment. Does America fuck around with the environment? A bit. We also do have laws that protect the environment, some of them I actually even agree with! Do some corporations go down to South America and cut down the rainforest? Maybe, but I would peg that more on the South Americans than on the U.S. Americans.

Eventually, I might get around to making a thread about environmentalism. Or you could, and tell us some stuff we don't know, if you care to.

Now, for the other bit...why do I hold liberty as a higher value than anything else? Because I like doing stuff, and don't like being told otherwise! I also think that more liberty leads to more innovation, longer life spans, a generally increase in quality of life, etc. Without liberty, those things lessen. I value liberty because it allows pretty much everything else I value to come into being. Individual liberty allows you to fight and argue for, say...saving the environment!
Damn, I'm getting back to this now...
In an unfree country, if the rulers decide to make the environment a priority, than your major goals would be met, and you could slave away a happy person (...yeah, that is a bit mean. Oh well). If the country doesn't give a shit (see: China) than your goals wouldn't be met. And you couldn't bitch about it. Or you would be killed.

Also, to me, I think the government should be completely amoral. Not immoral or moral, just amoral. They should have an objective set of laws, and stay out of everything else. If a government has the power to legislate morality in your favor, when your party loses power, the people you don't agree with will legislate their morality. When the government has a monopoly on legalized force initialization (as well it shoud have!), than they shouldn't be in the business of making decisions of individual morality.

Oh, and I will get very worked up over it, and indeed very emotional! But I won't take it personal (unless you call my mother a whore or something, but so far you haven't done that). We could argue all day and night over crap like this, and I still wouldn't feel bad about going out for a pint with you afterwards.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31591 - 11/12/09 11:31 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Morgan:

 Quote:
Most Satanists feel person choice trumps everything including rain forest, pandas, and other people. . .

. . .If you can't understand why personal liberty is so important and part of a Satanist nature, maybe you are in the wrong place?


I know Im not in the wrong place. I know very well what satanists thinks and feels in alot of cases. I came here to debate because I know that my views do differ abit from the usual person who is into the LHP stuff. One of the things about Satanism you know, individuality ;\)

CJB:

On the subject of what countries do what in regards to enviromentalism I cant answer or debate it. Its to big of a subject and Im not well read on it at all. What I know is that just 50 years ao almost no-one knew or cared about enviromental issues. I tink that the reason the western world are at the forefront of enviromentalism is not because of capitalism but because of education.

I also think about how equal liberty for all seems to be so important in an elitist ideology that Satanism often is. Why is personal liberty for all so important when the ideology actually talks about the knowing ruling the unknowing etc? The way I always saw it was that the fit should rule the ones that werent fit for the job. This sounds harsh but its not necessarilly a master/slave relationship. Its every man in the best place for that individual. Of course it would have to be regulated so that the classes werent static (well in my dream world) etc. The main trick here is to have a system that doesnt let people unfit into power positions as they can today (more often in terms of corporations perhaps). For this to work there would have to be a major restructure in who could rule a nation for example to really find the one most fit for the job - not just the one who can step over the most amount of bodies to the top.

I think humanity at large, the herd of humans needs to be regulated because we are, despite our intellect, quite stupid and short sighted - especiall in a group enviroment. With all the technology we have achieved many amazing things but we never thought to much about how the future is effected. I think this actually goes hand in hand with Satanism that also claims the herd to be stupid. Satanism also stands for a few governing the many etc. The in-equality of all is pretty basic really.

And I think way to many people that are into LaVeyan Satanism overlook two important factors. Some of the most important in his philosophy. Personally I moved beyond LaVeyan Satanism long ago because it simply isnt very deep but there are some of the foundation I think is important to my thinking even today and something I see alot of other satanaist celebrate (but often also not live up to).

#1 is responsibility for the responsible. I think alot of todays freedoms of both individuals and corporations is way to un-responsible. Liberty for libertys sake isnt good if responsibility for ones actions are not taken. We have discussed enviromentalism and this is a grand example. Corporations have the freedom to actually pollute the world (as weird as that is) but they dont have to take responsibility for it. Actually, this is getting better and restrictions are put on companies but in general people take way less responsibility that they actually should.

#2 Is stupidity. Sure a thing might feel good short-term but the satanist should also strive for wisdom and with wisdom comes the ability to actually plan ahead. Isnt it pretty stupid to pollute the air we breathe just so we for the immediate moment can get faster from point A to point B? All of this was of course based in lack of knowledge in the beginning on what kind of effect cars for example had on nature (not just the enviroment but also on humans).

I remember an article written by a satanist (cant remember who or from where) that discussed how Satanism doesnt stand for just doing what a person want at the moment. Whims were frowned upon and I think this type of short sightedness that a whim is is often something negatie since it doesnt take into consideration the actual results. To me the end always justifies the means.

 Quote:
Also, to me, I think the government should be completely amoral. Not immoral or moral, just amoral. They should have an objective set of laws, and stay out of everything else. If a government has the power to legislate morality in your favor, when your party loses power, the people you don't agree with will legislate their morality. When the government has a monopoly on legalized force initialization (as well it shoud have!), than they shouldn't be in the business of making decisions of individual morality.


But laws are actually moral judgments on what a society thinks is right and wrong. A government has to stand by these and is therefore automatically proponents of a specific type of moral values. Then of course all other things that are ok'ed by the law will change with time and even if there is no government trying to dictate what is right and wrong there will for sure be other forces that do. Media is a great example of that.

 Quote:
Oh, and I will get very worked up over it, and indeed very emotional! But I won't take it personal (unless you call my mother a whore or something, but so far you haven't done that). We could argue all day and night over crap like this, and I still wouldn't feel bad about going out for a pint with you afterwards.


Good! Emotions are good. Just wanted to make sure because people I have discussed with in the past has ended up taking it personal and therefore my arguments have been either twisted and turned or they have just disregarded them. Therefore the debate has flaundered since there is no ground for the debate other than pointless slander.

I'd be happy to buy you a pint sometime though ;\)

Top
#31595 - 11/12/09 03:54 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: TheInsane]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Quote:
What I know is that just 50 years ao almost no-one knew or cared about enviromental issues. I tink that the reason the western world are at the forefront of enviromentalism is not because of capitalism but because of education.


First, thanks to the advancement of technology, which is in part thanks to economic liberalization that allows more people to have the time to put their minds to pursuits other than working to survive, we are now able to be more educated. I'm not going to say "If it weren't for capitalism, and capitalism alone, we wouldn't have the technology we have today," but I will say that the capitalist system (in its various forms) were certainly a part of it.

And in fifty years we've discovered enough through intelligent discourse and experimentation to determine what we need to do to ensure the survival of the planet? Certain people get up in arms about how the world is going to die when they not only don't have all the facts, but certain facts they rely on aren't correct. For example, HERE .
As another example of how much we still have to learn, think about this: In the 60s or 70s (I don't remember which), everyone was concerned about global cooling. As time went on, the position was reversed, and we were worried about global warming. Now we're discovering that (surprise!) it's cooling in some places, warming in other places, getting storms in some places, being calm in other places...now it's climate change! And predicting exactly what climate change will bring, why...that's like trying to predict the weather! We just don't know what will happen.
It's almost like the Earth is constantly changing temperatures and weather patterns!

 Quote:
Why is personal liberty for all so important when the ideology actually talks about the knowing ruling the unknowing etc?


Well, for me personally, I want the best of the best in charge. I want the person best suited to be president to be the president. I want the person best suited to be my representative to be my representative. The best person to be CEO of Wal-Mart to hold that position. Etc. and etc. all the way down to: I want the best pizza delivery guy to be my pizza delivery guy.

What system would allow this to happen? One in which a person is free enough to reach the heights of his abilities, and one in which a person who reaches beyond those heights is brought down to something more suitable to his abilities. This benefits everyone, for obvious reason, but it also benefits me (which is most important to me!) because now I have a person who is the best pizza delivery guy, and he delivers to my door! (...I do have a pretty goddamn good pizza delivery guy, now that I think about it...)

And you're right: unfettered freedom to do whatever is bad! Action without consequence is a shitty thing to have! That's why I like capitalism! You make a bad decision, you're stuck with it. Nobody to bail you out. Nobody to stop you from making a stupid decision, and nobody to save you from yourself after you make it.

And if a corporation pumps toxic waste into the ground, than yes, under capitalism they would be responsible for it! If they were just destroying their property, that would be one thing, but more often than not, it would affect other people and their properties. That's when you get to sue the pants off of them, make them spend a lot of money to clean it up, and then spend money for reparations to you and others.

And...isn't it strange how even with all of our terribly disastrous polluting ways, the life expectancy of a person today is still so much higher than back when there was little to no pollution? Oh, I think it went down a little bit recently, but if I recall right that was due more to fast food (hehe, pollution of the body) than carbon emissions.

Laws are objective moral judgments vice subjective moral judgments. Bu "objective" I mean that a vast vast majority of people would agree that these would be good laws. Do not murder. Do not steal. Do not commit forgery. Do not commit fraud. Do not damage someone else's shit. Nearly everybody would agree that these are pretty decent laws.

Do not abort a fetus. Do not practice witchcraft. Do not smoke in public. Do not use a vehicle that gets 8 MPG highway. These are all subjective laws, based on a person's point of view of what is rigth and wrong.

If someone wants to argue that "murder" should be acceptable social behavior, or theft, or anything else in the "objetive" list, than people would want to avoid them. And rightly so! However, if someone argues that "abortion" should be acceptable, even the people who are against abortion recognize that person's right to that opinion. (Well, except for those radical Christian fucks. And then they prove their own stupidity by murdering the abortion people.)

Unless there is definitive, objective proof that unless we do A, than the Earth will fall apart in a single heave, than there shouldn't be a law saying we should do "A". There is proof that if someone murders person A, than person A's life is no longer, and that really sucks for person A. If someone steals person A's TV, than person A no longer has a TV, and that sucks for person A (unless he didn't want his TV, in which case he doesn't have to press charges or whatnot).

And, by they way, I'll take Guinness.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31597 - 11/12/09 04:43 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Sure, capitalism has had a finger in the advancements of technology as has other movements and ideas. But this is useless do discuss because we have no proof on how it would have been without *insert movement here*. It will just be a lot of "what ifs" and none would be able to really make a great point. Philosophy, technology, mathematics has risen and fallen into oblivion several times during mankinds civilized existence. I think its inherent in human nature to make this kind of progress. What system allows for it the most to happen is probably impossible to say.

On the subject of global warming there is of course a chance that it isnt caused by humans but most experts think thats the case and since I have no knowledge in their field I do trust their judgment. Unrelated to the warming of the earth its clear that nature does not like the pollution we release. A woman said in a paper once that she hadnt seen a perfectly healthy tree in the city in about 40-50 years for example. There was also this teacher a friend of mine had that used his bicycle to get to school. He was also wearing some kind of inhalation mask because of the pollution. He was of course ridiculed by the students. Then he showed them the filter in his mask and how much crap was stuck in it and they all went silent because they knew they in turn had breathed in all that junk.

 Quote:
What system would allow this to happen? One in which a person is free enough to reach the heights of his abilities, and one in which a person who reaches beyond those heights is brought down to something more suitable to his abilities.


Of course! I dont think capitalism is the ideal for this though.

 Quote:
That's why I like capitalism! You make a bad decision, you're stuck with it. Nobody to bail you out. Nobody to stop you from making a stupid decision, and nobody to save you from yourself after you make it.


But you can get away with it. With alot of money you get away with making bad decision after bad decision if you know where to spend the money. Now of course I have no cure but to praise capitalism as a saviour like system isnt something Im ready to do because of the fallacies. As I said before it sounds fine in theory but the big thing is that it doesnt work like that in real life.

 Quote:
And if a corporation pumps toxic waste into the ground, than yes, under capitalism they would be responsible for it! If they were just destroying their property, that would be one thing, but more often than not, it would affect other people and their properties.


Well it depends on what happens of course. I traveled through Des Moines, Iowa in 2001 while on vacation. What I remember going pst the city was the huge factories and the thick black smoke. I bet that they arent held responsible for the pollution they do. In fact today I bet the reidents fight to keep them there because of the economic situation. And 50 years ago Englishmen dumped their toilet leftovers in the sea. Just pipes straight out into the water. But in those times I gess one could blame people because they didnt know what it could actually cause.

 Quote:

And...isn't it strange how even with all of our terribly disastrous polluting ways, the life expectancy of a person today is still so much higher than back when there was little to no pollution? Oh, I think it went down a little bit recently, but if I recall right that was due more to fast food (hehe, pollution of the body) than carbon emissions.


Well I wasnt talking about humans in general. We live longer because of better food, better living conditions etc. I was mainly talking about the nature around us. However taing a deep breath in a big city compared to in the countryside is a huge difference and indeed one feels more alive when breathing fresh air. We really dont know what the pollution has for effec on our bodies. It could be why certain diseases spread etc. But I wont go into that since I dont know anything about it. In generl I think humans live longer in spite of the pollution though.

 Quote:

Laws are objective moral judgments vice subjective moral judgments. Bu "objective" I mean that a vast vast majority of people would agree that these would be good laws.


This is the problem though, where do you draw the line? What about speed limits on the roads for example. Would those even exist. They cant be said to be objective judgments. And different times also have different things they find natural. And it can differ alot from country to country or regiion to region.

Something that surprised me was a radio show I heard on children during the viking ages in Sweden. They considered the life of an infant to start the first time it drank its mothers milk. Conservatives today regard even the smallest sign of any kind of life inside a woman as a human life worth saving. Some probably go as far as to say not to give yourself a wank because the seed is supposed to give spawn children not be wasted. And then the most common, at least where I am, that a fetus can be aborted in the period of 1 - 17 weeks. After that it is considered a human life and the mother to be cant abort it or she breaks the law.

The abort question is actually a good one here. If "killing is forbidden" is a law spawned from what you like to call objective nature wha about bortion (that you dont consider to be an objective moral)? When does the child become a child and when is abortion murder of an actual person and thus forbidden by law?

 Quote:
And, by they way, I'll take Guinness.


Good choice! I was into these dark more bread tasting beers for a while. Now I mostly drink lighter stuff. Depends on my mood really \:\)

Top
Page 3 of 4 <1234>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.037 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.