Page all of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#30911 - 10/28/09 05:44 PM Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
A quick introduction as this is my first post on here. I did not feel the need to post in the new member section because really, I've been a Satanist for almost a year, have known this forum for longer and have studied the LHP for quite a few years, I just didn't make an account until recently and did not feel the need to waste anybody's time with a useless thread about how I'm "new" to this. On to my real post:

After re-reading The Satanic Bible and The essay on the nature of government found in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness, I have come across a dilemma regarding military service which I cannot seem to solve on my own. I state that this is a dilemma both in Satanism and Objectivism since Ayn Rand was obviously a large influence on LaVey and both his Satanic philosophy and Objectivist philosophy share the same basic principle of self-preservation and morality being based on the achievment of one's goals. The dilemma I find stems from this principle of self-preservation (which I completely agree with as I consider myself both an Objectivist and Satanist) and the rejection of altruism (which I again agree with). Now for the dilemma:

As Ayn Rand clearly states, the only role the government should play is to protect the rights of the minority, being the
individual. She proposes this be done in three ways, a) the protection of individuals from criminals through the police
force,b) the protection of individuals from outsiders who wish to violate the individuals' rights through the military force,and c) through the use of law courts to settle disputes objectively. I'll be leaving the police out of this problem,
although I think this applies to that as well and I will leave out the law courts because they have nothing to do with this. Now, I have to agree that the military is a necessary force because without it, we fall victim to any government with a military who wishes to victimize and violate the rights of anyone who isn't protected and if left to fend for ourselves as individuals against a large military force, we would most probably fail based on sheer manpower alone. Here comes the problem of the need for military and at the same time self-preservation and the rejection of altruistic behaviour. While I respect what the military does for us greatly, I still can't help but feel that since these people risk their lives to protect our rights as individuals, this seems to me that it is, in essence, an altruistic behaviour. Why would one choose to protect their country and individuals that they do not know over protecting themselves by not being part of such an organization? Really, this does not seem to be a Satanic choice in that it puts one in harms way and goes against self-preservation, the highest law. From an Objectivist stand-point, this seems to go against working towards your own goals and holding your life as the most valuable thing one has. So the dilemma I see is: do Satanism and Objectivism require the existence of altruistic persons for protection of their rights?

I do not in any way intend to offend anybody as I already stated that I have much respect for the military, I am simply looking for opinions to see if I misunderstood anything or if I'm just looking at it in the wrong way.

I would appreciate input from everyone but look forward to a reply from Fist if he sees this for the obvious reason.

Thank you in advance.

Top
#30914 - 10/28/09 08:29 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
I guess the best way to explain how being in the military doesn't promote a dilemma or whatever would be to explain why I am in the military, specifically the Navy.

First: I actually do like my country. In the U.S., we have quite a bit of freedom that other countries don't enjoy. I guess...in a crude manner, it's my way of saying "thanks" to the country that gave me what it does (or rather, allows me to be what I want to be). That's a pretty abstract way of thinking, and definitely not the totality of why I volunteered, but it does have a place in my reasoning.

Second: I get quite a bit of money for doing what I do. It's not some grotesquely large amount, but it is enough for me to live quite comfortably and (with the addition of re-enlistment bonuses) to get pretty much whatever I want. In the early days, I had to watch what I spent, because money went quick, but now that I'm a higher rank and don't have a wife or kid, I make more than enough to support myself and give into a lot of whims.

Third: In addition to the pay, there's other advantages. Medical and dental, as crappy as they are, are free for me (perhaps that's why they're so crappy). I don't do much with medical so there's not much comparison (Other than free motrin, free immunizations, free checkups, and if something really bad happens...free vicadin), but I have quite a bit of experience with the dental portion of it. Think of all the expenses you've had to pay for checkups, cleanings, fillings, root canals, implants. I get all that for free. The problem with that is that the waiting list is probably a bit longer and the quality isn't the same as a private corporation, but for the most part I've been willing to sacrifice a bit of quality for expense.

Also, there's the college. I'm not just talking about the G.I. Bill, which is impressive enough as it is. (especially the new post-9/11 G.I. Bill). I haven't stepped foot inside of a college, but I already have quite a bit of college credits that I received for going to the Navy's technical schools. The Navy bends over backwards to get you as much college credits as you can, and then they offer free or reduced price courses you can take through various colleges.

Fourth: To use a cliche, I wanted to see the world. And I have. I've been all over Europe, seen as much of the middle east as I ever want to, and got to go out at midnight in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean and look at the stars. People just don't realize how fucking many stars there are...for that experience alone I would trade a month of menial duties (...which, come to think of it, I kinda did...)

I also happen to like the job I do, which was troubleshooting and strike warfare (re: Tomahawk) wargames while I was stationed out to sea, and now that I'm on shore duty, I'm an instructor.

I could list more benefits and such, but I think it's pretty evident that you can quite easily be a selfish egocentric bastard and still be in the military. If you like it, you can make it a career and go far. For other shades of like and dislike, you can just treat it like any other job.

Granted, it is a bit more strict than working at McDonald's. But how many McDonald's employees do you know can say that they visited 24 ports in Europe in a six month period with no travel cost just to do their job?

As well, since you've read at least a bit of Ayn Rand, I'd direct you to "Philosphy: Who Needs It", in the first chapter.
It's addressed to a graduating class of cadets at West Point.

 Quote:

You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service -- it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30915 - 10/28/09 08:48 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
Ankhhape Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 07/28/09
Posts: 99
CJB,

Thanks to You. I have nothing but respect for our servicemen, my oldest brother being a Vietnam vet, our Father a Korean War vet. Just wanted to shout out to you.

I would like to hear Dr. Aquino's comment on this if possible.

A


Edited by Ankhhape (10/28/09 08:50 PM)

Top
#30916 - 10/28/09 08:58 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: Ankhhape]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
CJB:

Well said.

I spent 20 years in the military and not once did I consider it "altruistic." I got as much out of it as I ever put in, in travel, benefits, training, and experiences that have lasted me a lifetime... not to mention malaria, bad knees, bad hips and a few othe negatives.

It wasn't altruistic for me. It was a career choice that allowed me to "give back" something for a country that I also like very much, and even moreso after having seen a hell of a lot of the rest of the world.

Editing: The term that seemed to just pop into my ming was "benignly mercenary," as I enlisted during Vietnam when it was far from a popular choice. But then, after my enlistment was up, I reenlisted and stayed in and enjoyed the benefits that increased with rank.



Top
#30919 - 10/28/09 10:02 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
 Quote:


In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue.


Sounds like a justification of terrorism to me. So perhaps it should be quoted to half-baked ARI Zionists.

In fact, in order to be logically consistent, one would have to assume that Rosenbaum would be a staunch advocate of American isolationism and would recoil in horror at the suggestion that the US should interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan, take out Saddam Hussein or materially support Israel's right to exist.

.

.

Top
#30922 - 10/28/09 11:07 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: School Bully]
Ankhhape Offline
Banned
pledge


Registered: 07/28/09
Posts: 99
 Originally Posted By: School Bully
 Quote:


In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue.


Sounds like a justification of terrorism to me.
Isn't there a difference between offense & defense?

Top
#30923 - 10/28/09 11:42 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: Ankhhape]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
To CJB and Jake:

Thanks for the input, I was unaware that both of you serve(d) in the military so the two of you are exactly the people I wanted to hear from. And I'm glad I did because I knew I was missing something with this. As I said in my first post, I have nothing against the military and the reason I actually started thinking about this problem is because I one day want to join the military, regardless of whether or not I could find the connection to that and Satanism. I was just curious as to whether or not one could be made because I was personally unable to make it and now I see that there is one.

In response to CJB's points specifically:
1. With this point, I should add that I am actually Canadian (I recently moved to Peru) so I am well aware of the freedoms given by our two countries, especially now that I live away from there. This is also one of my reasons why I wish to join the military in the future, I just still don't see it as much of an objective one but still a good one.

2. Money was always the one way I thought of justifying it as an Objectivist decision with the idea that Rand gives of in a society based on free trade, there are positions that are needed to be filled and people that are willing to fill said positions for a bargained price meaning one is willing to pay an amount for the service and another is willing to provide the service for that amount. My only problem with this is the question, "is the money worth risking your life which should be more important as a Satanist and Objectivist?" However, I can agree that money is necessary to live both types of lives and I guess one doesn't join the military expecting to be a sacrifice but rather to protect the country, it's people, and be an honoured survivor.

3. I hadn't really considered this because as a Canadian, I already get (or got) government sponsored health care (except for unnecessary dental) but I can see how this benefits one as well. College is also much cheaper compared to those in the U.S. and the government gives a lot of loans and help so I again hadn't considered this in my ideas.

4. Simply, I have to agree that this sounds quite nice.

As far as Philosophy: Who Needs It, I have yet to read that but I can say I agree with that quote and had not looked at it that way. Thanks for that redirect, I'll be sure to read that soon and your whole response was great and appreciated.

To School Bully:
This is definitely not terrorism if done in a defensive manner. Rand states that the only time one has the right to use physical violence is in protection and retaliation against those who initiate it first. This is exactly what the military does and it is justifiable that the military has such a right because at least in Canada and the U.S. this right is also given to the individual.

Top
#30924 - 10/28/09 11:49 PM 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:


In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue.


Sounds like a justification of terrorism to me. So perhaps it should be quoted to half-baked ARI Zionists.

In fact, in order to be logically consistent, one would have to assume that Rosenbaum would be a staunch advocate of American isolationism and would recoil in horror at the suggestion that the US should interfere in the affairs of Afghanistan, take out Saddam Hussein or materially support Israel's right to exist.
.


To be a terrorist can mean different things at different times. Some of the revolutionaries could be considered terrorists. During the Civil War, the Yankees burned down quite a bit of civilian property in the South the hasten the end of the war. The U.S. bombed two populated areas with nukes in WWII (granted the targets were military, but the collateral damage was quite high for civilians). These are all actions that, based on some definitions of terrorism (you know, strike terror into the hearts of your enemies to make them accede to your demands, possibly throwing in "with disregard to who gets hurt"), would be terrorist attacks. Unlike my present leadership, I do not discount terrorism as a tactic. The "Global War on Terror" is bullshit, in other words.
Again, to paraphrase one of those crazy Randroids, we shouldn't be fighting a war on terrorism, on a tactic. That's stupid. We should be fighting a war on, well, the bastards using the tactic. Whether you use the terms "Islamic Fundamentalist," "Jihadist," "Islamic Totalitarian," or just "Motherfucking Bastards that Need to Die," the people that should be dying shouldn't be killed because they're terrorists. They should be killed because, well, they're assholes who killed completely innocent people with no provocation, and they're prepared to do it again and again.

Should I admire them for their determination? Not when their determination is based on the false promise of an incredibly retarded religion (and I truly hope that I have no need to be politically correct here at all). They've based their decisions on an outdated religion that tells them that females are property, genies grant wishes, and if they blow themselves up to take out some people that never did anything to them because someone said it was a holy war, they'd go to paradise and get to fuck seventy virgins.

They've refused to evolve, and when they see how the rest of the world has evolved ahead of them, they call it evil. If these pricks had stayed in their sand castles and never came out except to attack each other based on who should have been declared the Super-High Prophet Guy a millenia ago, I would have no problem with them. When they come out and attack people that would have just left them the hell alone, than I have a problem with it. When they came close to killing a good friend of mine, I had a problem with it.

I have no problem with every Muslim. Hell, I've known a couple that were very decent people who thought the terrorist attacks were terrible. Only the Muslims who have already decided to be slaves to their ideology...yeah, they can all die.

Is willingness to do anything to not be a slave, including terrorism, a virtue? I think so. I would say outright terrorism would be a last resort (think "V for Vendetta"), but I would cross out no tactic that guaranteed my freedom and the freedom of those I cherish.

Willingness to attack people innocent of any imagined crime against you because you are a slave to ideals that aren't even yours is not virtue. It's not even ignorance. It's stupidity. And, if I dare say so, it's evil.

Furthermore...the rulers of Afghanistan (the Taliban, at the time) attacked us, therefore we were completely in our rights to attack them. Iraq? I would've let them settle their own mess, but I don't think it's unethical to try to kill a murderous dictator. I do think it's stupid to try to impose a system antithetical to the people that live there, though. Let them figure their own problems out, just with the warning that if the next ruling class tries to attack us, we'll blow them up. Again.

In defense of Israel, it is the freest (and most secular) country in that entire region. An individual wishing to support them would be well within their rights. I don't think the U.S. should support them like we do, but hey, I don't make foreign policy, either.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30925 - 10/29/09 12:17 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Canada has a military?
(Just kidding...one of my favorite ports was Halifax, Nova Scotia, where once we went onboard a Canadian ship and chilled out with their crew. Those bastards get alcohol on their ships...)

Also, if you're not willing to risk your life for your country and some cash, then don't join the military. I do like my job, but I am by no means a recruiter (for either my military, or any other military). It takes a certain kind of person to be able to unaltruistically be in the military, especially in the army, and it is by no means a bad reflection on you (or anyone else) if you don't want to join the military because you don't want to take that risk. I joined the Navy partially because I didn't want to be on the front lines. Physically, I'm rather weak (especially compared to your average Marine), and I'd really rather not deal with all the rest that comes from being on the front lines.
Some people love it! They love the squad tactics, the brotherhood, the feel of a rifle as it projects a bullet into someone's skull at fifty yards. It's just not for me, and it may not be for you.
I don't mind the rigid atmosphere inherent in the military. While my specific job requires me to think, when I'm not doing that specific job, it doesn't require a lot of thinking. There's ways around that (quite against my will, I've become rather good at sudoku, thanks to long watches in the middle of the night, among other things), but the not being required to critically think all the time doesn't bother me either. The trade-off there is in my favor. I also had to clean a passagesway for twice a day for thirty minutes a piece. And there are so many boring and stupid qualifications you have to go through. And I had to go through various drills that taxed energy, time, patience, willpower...

The military is by no means a dream job. There are downsides to it, like there are to about anything. But, if you don't mind it, or think the trade is an acceptable one, than it is a nice job.

I don't know if the Canadian military has shorter waiting lists than the Canadian civilian health care system, but that might be another benefit there. If you're interested in that, you could ask a servicemember from your country about other benefist.
As a bit of advice, I wouldn't ask a recruiter that. If they're anything like our recruiters, they wouldn't be averse to stretching the truth a bit (though they may shy from an outright lie).

Speaking of benignly mercenary...
 Originally Posted By: Milton Friedman

"In the course of his [General Westmoreland's] testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I [Milton Friedman] stopped him and said, 'General, would you rather command an army of slaves?' He drew himself up and said, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.' I replied, 'I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.' But I went on to say, 'If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.' That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries."
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30926 - 10/29/09 12:28 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
School Bully Offline
member


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


Rand states that the only time one has the right to use physical violence is in protection and retaliation against those who initiate it first.



Timothy James McVeigh

"I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco). From the formation of such units as the FBI's Hostage Rescue and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the 80s, culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens."

Timothy McVeigh hated the American administration more than Osama Bin Laden. But McVeigh was not going to make excuses. Instead, he quoted the Supreme Court, that the US government is a mighty and energetic mentor "for better or worse, it is teaching the entire nation with its example". So McVeigh in bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, was just copying the actions of the US government towards its fellow citizens.


.

Top
#30928 - 10/29/09 01:49 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Like I said, I am willing to fight for my country, the freedoms, and the money doesn't hurt, I just wasn't able to rationalize it into a Satanic view. It's just been something I've always wanted to do, but found altruistic. Now having said (or rather typed) out my ideas, bounced them off others, and gotten input from those who are more informed about this topic, I can see I was wrong, or more correctly, confused. An idea that also just occurred to me after typing this reply is, if I've always wanted to be in the military and I've always been a Satanist, there must have logically been something more to the altruistic view I always held so I am quite glad that I took the time to start this thread.

A quick note to School Bully: Although I began this thread more to discuss the reasons a Satanist would have to join the military, not to justify the use of physical force by the military or anyone, I will still take the time to read the full article you posted when I am not so tired and will get back to you because well, a good discussion is a good discussion and I will not pass even though it isn't the one I intended to have.

Thanks again for the input.

Top
#30930 - 10/29/09 02:20 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: School Bully]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Friendly- Exactly. If it's something you want to do for your own sake, than it's not exactly altruistic. Sure, the results may be altruistic, from a point of view, but...well, if I really liked cooking soup, and spent time at the homeless shelter just so I could cook more soup, then so what? The only person whose opinion ultimately matters to you is your own...even if everybody here were rabidly anti-military and said that joining the military was altrustic (or unsatanic, or really just about anything you may see as negative) but you really had a desire to be in the military...than you should go for it.

Bully - Not going to get too much deeper into an argument here, mostly because that'd be hijacking the thread a bit...but another point of Objectivism is being rational. It only really works if applied by rational individuals. If you go about rationalizing any slight against you as an excuse to blow up a building, well...you're gonna probably end up blowing up a building.
Just from the fact that he would say that his only viable option was to blow up a random building that ended up having no effect on anything really, except maybe the opposite of what he wanted...well, that should show you how rational he really was.
I guess what I'm saying is that you can use a quote like that for a reason or a rationalization. If you're really looking for a rationalization, than it doesn't matter really what the intent or message of the quote really was.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30935 - 10/29/09 07:27 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne


CJB:-

McVeigh's rationale or whether McVeigh chose the correct course of action is beside the point. Whether it was courage or stupidity that drove him depends on your point of view. What does not depend on your point of view is that McVeigh chose his actions because personally he was unwilling to live as the conquered slave of a domestic enemy. Thus, according to Rosenbaum's morality, this makes McVeigh enormously virtuous.

.
_________________________
.


Top
#30984 - 10/30/09 12:46 PM 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


CJB:-

McVeigh's rationale or whether McVeigh chose the correct course of action is beside the point. Whether it was courage or stupidity that drove him depends on your point of view. What does not depend on your point of view is that McVeigh chose his actions because personally he was unwilling to live as the conquered slave of a domestic enemy. Thus, according to Rosenbaum's morality, this makes McVeigh enormously virtuous.


There's a difference between behaving rationally and rationalizing (not to mention just being stupid). But, let us for the sake of argument say that Timmy wasn't a gullible, off-his-rocker, stupid twit, and not only did he believe his freedom was under attack, but it actually was.
If that were the case, we could also go a little bit further and say he did seek redress, and was denied it. He did try official channels, and found them useless. We will go so far as to say he led a massive nationwide campaign to rid the country of whatever it was that bugged him (maybe like Alex Jones, maybe like someone who actually didn't believe every stupid conspiracy theory out there).
After all that, would it have been justified? In this imaginary world where the people in that building were actually maliciously taking away his freedom and refused to even listen to his concerns, than yeah. He would have been virtuous.

However, you can't take one small snippet of a larger philosophy (and not even one of the philosophy's axioms), whether you agree with the philosophy or not, and take that out of context with the rest of the philosophy.

(Warning, Star Wars comparisons ahead!)

About the only time you can really do that in a philosophy is if it's an axiomatic statement of the philosophy. If you don't agree with the philosopher Yoda because you don't believe in a dualistic nature of the force, that's one thing. Or if you can take that axiom and show how Yoda screwed up later on down the line, that's a good thing to do. However, if you see Yoda's belief in a different part of his philosophy like, say, that truth is subjective, than you can't just say "Well, that gives me a right to lie whenever I want to according to Yoda!" because that's inconsistent with the overall philosophy of the Jedi as a whole.

I don't agree with everything Objectivism has to offer. Otherwise, I'd be an Objectivist and not a Satanist. I do however, think that quite a bit of it is true and relevant, and so I quoted Rand to that effect.

I don't agree with Thomas Aquinas about quite a bit, but I still feel that it doesn't violate either his philosophy or mine by quoting him when he says "By nature, all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments." Now, even though I don't agree with his metaphysics, I wouldn't use this quote to rationalize something that goes against the rest of Aquinas's philosophy and say that Aquinas told me I could do it.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#30999 - 10/30/09 08:07 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
School Bully Offline
member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 142
Loc: Melbourne
To make a stubborn mule go forwards you gotta push it backwards. To defy authority is to express individualism, to have an identity and mind separate from the ruling power. So I'm sure Mother Alissa would argue that McVeigh was guilty of collectivist action. The devil is sent to test us. God sent me. Guilt is always interesting. It is something to be created. Ask any fatty who is desperately trying to diet what they feel after eating that donut. Just ask any teenage girl why she sticks her fingers down her throat after dinner. FriendlyS is feeling guilty about being a well-paid slave. He is looking for a loophole to assuage his conscience. Just because FriendlyS is an Objectivist Satanist means diddly to his C.O. Being in the military is about following orders. Would that bother anyone not an Objectivist Satanist? It is said that those who have no feelings of guilt are always guilty of wrong-doing. Does a randroid feel guilty if he gives to charity or helps a little old lady to cross the street? Maybe he can feel such shame he vows to make amends. Maybe this is the place where McVeigh found his motivation.


.


Top
#31012 - 10/31/09 01:43 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: School Bully]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
I'm not responding to the article you posted because I think it has been properly answered by previous posts.

Defying authority is not the same thing as expressing individualism. Authority, if acting rationally, is needed to keep order and individualism can still be expressed under a rational authority because it would not oppress its citizens. Objectivism is strictly against anarchy because of the chaos that would ensue. If Objectivism did support anarchy, then it would state that a military force is unnecessary and I would not have had a reason for my first post. It is because of the fact that Objectivism clearly states why the military is necessary that I thought of my first post because many times, it would seem that the military requires sacrifice. This idea was proven wrong by the other posts as one does not go in to be a sacrifice and does get a lot in return from being a member of the military.

Secondly, I would never (and would never have, even before posting this) feel guilty about joining the military in the future. I too believe that the military is necessary to ensure freedom, even if it did seem altruistic to me at first to serve in it and I would be proud to serve, regardless of the questions I had. I would also like to add that this was merely about serving in the military, not about what the military does as it clearly acts Objectively. I did not start this thread because I thought the military was useless or because I thought those in the military were mindless slaves.

Top
#31037 - 10/31/09 12:24 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Getting a little back on subject here...

One of the main reasons I don't consider myself a strict Objectivist anymore is because it's so dogmatic. After reading Rand, etc., and interpereting it for myself, I found that there were things that I didn't quite agree with. Looking it up on the internet, it seems that people that dare question aspects of Objectivism are pretty much called heretical. To believe in the possibility (not even to believe, but just believe in the possibility) of "supernatural" forces (various forms of ESP, for example) is enough to get you mocked, ridiculed, and kicked out. Even if you were to rationally explain that while there's little evidence for the existance, there isn't evidence against, either, therefore it is a possibility...

I guess what I'm saying is that even if your philosophy of choice told you that it was wrong to do something you wanted to do and liked doing, that doesn't mean that it's wrong for you. If Ayn Rand or Anton LaVey or whoever said "anybody that joins the military is a slave!" that wouldn't have changed my mind as far as being in the Navy goes. I actually do enjoy this job, and I enjoy it a hell of a lot more than I would being in a cubicle.
THAT would be like slavery to me.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31043 - 10/31/09 02:16 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
[quote=MawhrinSkel]
 Quote:
I think most soldiers I've ever known have fought exclusively for the soldiers around them. They don't give a rat's ass about the political implications of their actions, simply because they don't have any use for it. They have a job to do, and would prefer to do it efficiently, with as little risk of pointlessly risking their lives as possible.


My "rock" was my squadron and the need not to let it or my commander down when they placed their trust in me to get a job done. Some clown barking orders and micromanaging my every effort? Didn't need 'em. I was only told "this is what the problem is. Figure it out and fix it. There was no way I was going to fail. It was my job to see that I didn't.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#31047 - 10/31/09 03:38 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Well I consider myself both because I find that much of what Anton LaVey and Ayn Rand wrote were really similar and I tend to find that Ayn Rand covered a larger subject area so in subjects that don't really pertain to Satanism and therefore are not really covered by LaVey (such as the military), I can tend to turn to Rand's philosophy and usually agree. Not that I always do agree because in the end, I'll do what I want, as you said. However, I don't find that Objectivism really calls those who disagree heretical, more than they simply say they are illogical. I have seen interviews of Rand with preachers and she does not seem the least bit disrespectful, she just points out where they are being illogical. As for the supernatural, I think she said it best when told that there is no evidence against it. "One will never be asked to prove a negative." And in no other subject but religion or the supernatural, will one be called on to believe in something that has absolutely no evidence of existing. I could go on but this is not a discussion that should be had on this thread.

However, I do agree with your second paragraph completely. No matter what Rand or LaVey said, I would still support the military and would feel no guilt if I were to ever join it as long as it defends the principles for which I stand. The idea that School Bully has that I'm trying to ease my feelings of guilt for thinking about military service holds no truth because I would feel no guilt even if it went against my accepted philosophy because I will not change my ideas to fit the philosophy I agree with the most. The idea I had with this thread was really just to see if Satanism and Objectivism could support military service, not to convince me of if I should or shouldn't agree with military service because I already have my thoughts on that regardless of what is said on here.

Top
#31409 - 11/08/09 08:38 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Note: I havent read though every post on here but thought I should add my two cents in any case.

 Originally Posted By: FriendlyS
Why would one choose to protect their country and individuals that they do not know over protecting themselves by not being part of such an organization? Really, this does not seem to be a Satanic choice in that it puts one in harms way and goes against self-preservation, the highest law.


I dont think self-preservation really is the highest law. Im not sure if objectivism clearly states that but that should be beside the point really. I think there are at least one more force often more powerful than this and that is preservation of the genes. Parents will do anything for their children and most would die if that would make sure their children thrived. I am not a father but I want to be eventually and Im sure I would rather choose death for myself rather than watch my child die.

The second point is what Nietzsche would call will to power. That is essentially the thought that people do put self-preservation on the line for the ambition to reach the highest possible level in life. In Nietzsches case this was a way to descibe every process in the universe which of course mean some forces to be active and others reactive depending on who's will to power was the strongest (will here of course means nothing like the human will).

I think alot of people fight for their country to make sure its a safe place for their family and close ones and even to make the country itself bloom. As I see it, and as any satanist probably sees it if he/she has given some thought about it, is that egoism doesnt mean that one can never do things that the masses gain from.

I think altruism in essence is impossible because people never ever act so that it is "harmful to themselves but benefits others". While something may be harmful to the body it probably isnt to the mind. If someone really does something he or she doesnt recieve any gain from at all (physical or mental) it is probably regarded as slavery not altruism because to act like that one really has to be forced to do so.

So I actually see egoism as what drives every human and other animal forward in alot of cases and I think this might also be why we can sacrifice ourselves to save out offspring. We dont want to live with the knowledge that we killed off our own children or made heir lives a living hell. And the "I" in ourselves actually continue on with our children in one way or another. Our children are a part of us and its only natural to care for them.

And of course in Satanism we have the thought of treating others as they treat you and if one likes the country one lives in and it has given positives to the individual then one should give something back.

Top
#31414 - 11/08/09 01:37 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
As for humans, we are far less predictable. We can decide we'll sacrifice ourselves for someone whose genetic makeup isn't even remotely like ours. This is unheard of in nature. In humans, it is often praised. Among Satanists, I guess it could be interpreted in any number of ways.


Well, it isnt really unheard of in nature though. Parents in the animal kingdom do protect "weak offspring" as well. Sometimes occationally and sometimes as a rule of thumb - or actually they protect every offspring not just the "strong". It even happens that some animals take care of other animals offpring. Though that is probably pretty rare but it does happen. Humans are not the exemption that confirms the rule.


 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
The whole "Do unto others as they do unto you" is something I've always had a hard time with. The problem with it is that if we live our lives according to it we are sorely disappointed when someone doesn't adhere to it.


Well, this as well as the christian equivalent of course have maor flaws and I wouldnt ever live my life according to either of them. But then again Im not a satanist and Im not a christian either. My big problem with Satanism is also reflected in the "do unto others as they do unto you" namely that it most often is a reactive way of life. For me the only escape was to break free of labels which has benefitted my thinking greatly. Of course thats a personal choice and a personal need but I always feel like Im caged once I try to put a label on what I am and what I stand for.

More related to the topic on hand it would indeed be stupid not only for an individual to only live by "do unto others as they do unto you" but also for a whole country to act like this. There are way more reflections and strategies that needs to be emplyed than just to answer back with the same thing. It really is a choice of being stupid and only react or at least try to do something smart about it.

But then again I doubt most Satanists actually take the "do unto others as they do nto you" as something to always live by. Taken to an extreme you really cant live like that as it would mean you could never take the initiative for anything.

 Originally Posted By: MawhrinSkel
Being grateful and loyal to your country is something I have mixed feelings about. I have every reason to be grateful to a country that has taken care of me since birth, on the face of it. However, I don't like being beholden to anything or anyone, so if I was pressed, I'd say I fought because I had said I would.


Well the relation of country contra individual is of course a tough one. The bond is closer than anyone thinks but many people dont feel it because its there at all times. Its like when there is dust in the corners. If you leave it there suddenly you dont notice it.

The thing is, you dont like to be beholden to anyone but your country, I assume, is beholden to you at all times pretty much. And if it isnt your strive should be to change that. If everything is good one should fight for the country that does give the individual these benefits. I think in alot of ways, moreso today than ever perhaps, out country provides so much for us that we dont think of. I can only speak of my country but if I get sick I can get good health care that wont cost alot at all, if I loose my job we have an institution to help me find a new one and I get a certain % of my former sallary while Im looking for a new job etc. The safety net is everywhere and the country will so often serve my basic needs that it should be worth fighting for.


Now I may look like a hypocrite because I never did any military training. When I had the chance I actually had a choice and I choose not to. At the time I didnt care alot for it but as I mature I can say I wish I had tried it out like most men do (and more and more women by each passing day).


Edited by TheInsane (11/08/09 01:38 PM)

Top
#31416 - 11/08/09 03:13 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
As a short intrusion, I more or less follow the golden rule to an extent...basically, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you...up until they shit on you, then fuck 'em up."

If I make an acquaintance, I'll be nice and kind to them, and will continue to do so until the point where they do something bad. If they ignore me, I just shrug and ignore them. If they do worse, than I'll retaliate in kind.

Expecting people to return kindness with kindness typically works nine times out of ten, especially for strangers. For the most part, if kindness isn't returned, the other person just ignores you. In that off chance that someone is shitty to you, well, yeah, your kindness was wasted, but if nothing else you come out of the other side knowing more than you came in with. "I treated Bob with kindness and respect. Bob was then a dick to me. Fuck Bob if he ever comes to me asking for a favor."

As for self-preservation being the highest law or whatever, as you pointed out, that's not always the case. The most basic, primal value one has is ones own life. If you do not value your life, than you can't really value much of anything. Part of valuing your own life will lead you to self-preservation, however, there are things (like your children, other relatives, friends, or even abstracts such as your ideals) that you may value more than your life.

There is neither anything wrong nor right with that. It simply is. If your value of your own life is so small that you would sacrifice yourself for someone you don't know or for an ideal you don't believe in, than your sense of life, and your sense of self-preservation, are rather low. If you sacrifice your life for something you value more than your own life, than it's not really a sacrifice, but a trade. If you value your life higher than anything else in this world, than (logically) self-preservation would be your highest sense.

I don't think I would get along well with someone who didn't have anything they would die for, but that's not to say that they don't have their own right to live like that.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31417 - 11/08/09 03:14 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Good answer and I agree with alot of the points you make. I dont want a society to breed leeches and dont want a socitey that not only helps but in alot of ways even encourages weakness.

However, I dont know if there is any one single society to this day (and I may be wrong here, I am no historian) that acually had a system where everyone was allowed to rise to the level they were capable of. Today we may help the weak, in many cases without any good reason ater years of them feeding off the system. However in other societies you are born into a certain area of life that you cant get out of which of course is also an approach that isnt something to strive for.

What democratic societies have brought to the table are the ability to actually rise against the tide or against where you came from and be something more. This is a big simplification of course but you know what I mean. And Im not saying democracy is the big savior or anything like that. I actually find the basic premise of democracy quite idiotic. Whoever came up with that the most popular idea should rule (judged of course by the masses who arent know for making the best descicions) instead of the best working idea.

And to be honest even if strength should be encourged I wouldnt want to live in a society with no health care or no job-security where everything would be about just surviving and getting to the top. I mean satanists usually talk about true human nature and as I see it what made humanity so dominant was the ability to strengthen not just the individual but also the community in one way or another. If we were left exclusively to ourselves we would probably not thrive at all. In this case I feel some satanists can only exist and actually gain from their ideology if there is a society they can be individual towards. Because if their values would be set as guidelines for all of society not only that society but also the indivdual satanist would eventually end up in a very bad position. But then again some satanists acknowledge this and tells us like it is. Its not about building a society it is about using it.

And along comes another point. How many satanists actually live by their own word? If you get sick do you go to the hospital? I bet you do, or pop a pill to make the ache go away. Its not so hard to speak for an ideology that encourages strength and debates that we should not support weakness when the one saying it still has full access to all the help he or she can get from society.

Im sorry if I sound like I dismiss all satanists and Satanism in general. I really dont but this was always something I gave alot of thought.

And a final point. lot of satanists I met were liberal or capitalist in their political orientation but I, as a person who likes to wear green when it comes to politics, sees how this sucks the life out of the earth. While communism is bad in their extreme I think capitalism is equally bad but in a whole different direction. Communism tries to make everyone the same without much individual distinction. Capitalism, at least intheory, provides tools for the individual to thrive but does so at the cost of nature itself which in the end makes not just others but also the actual individual feel worse. What was it Anton LaVey wrote? Only sick animals have filthy homes (not an exact quote)!!!


CJB

Good post! I agree with it wholly.


Edited by TheInsane (11/08/09 03:17 PM)

Top
#31418 - 11/08/09 04:01 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3118
 Quote:
So the dilemma I see is: do Satanism and Objectivism require the existence of altruistic persons for protection of their rights?

Does an already well-established religion need altruistic persons to spread the(ir) word in an already familiar place?

Satanism and objectivism can, might, have the ability to,.. be views of life. Man has it's rights, and if they are not officially written down then they are the unspoken words which a healthy human follows to maintain a certain degree of dignity/civilisation.

 Quote:
While I respect what the military does for us greatly, I still can't help but feel that since these people risk their lives to protect our rights as individuals, this seems to me that it is, in essence, an altruistic behaviour. Why would one choose to protect their country and individuals that they do not know over protecting themselves by not being part of such an organization?

When joining the army it is common to say you are "protecting your own country". In a war you are actually fighting for an ideology or for people who you "believe" in or you came to respect/rely on( like your squad members as Jake said). During a war you are fighting for YOUR life (or others as mentioned in previous sentence for this reasons), when the trigger is being pulled and a few dozens of bullets are passing next to your ears you are (next to carrying out missions) fighting for your life.

The fact in military is that if you actually choose to join is to defend the things you believe in. A lousy military would be one who has got nothing to loose or has nothing to belief in.
Well not entirely lousy, he or she would still be good cannonfood to keep the good-ones alive.

To defend what you believe in can be seen as a form of self-preservation. If someone believes in the power of money and therefor joins, fine; if someone does it to defend his personal honour, fine; even if someone does it because he/she thinks it is fun, fine. The only thing that matters is the view someone is carrying.


"do unto others as they do unto you"
Fuck the rule as long as I'm not bothered. But I guess it depends on the view, situation and personal reference system of honour, dignity and morals.


Edited by Dimitri (11/08/09 04:08 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#31448 - 11/09/09 11:11 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I can see how my post may have been hard to decipher. I did answer your post but also took examples of satanists in general (mostly meaning the LaVeyan kind).

I am just curious to see how the people who advocate strength and think the weak shall perish would actually build their society. And if no society is to be built upon these values why complain about the one that exists if there is no thought of remodeling it?
And what would be considered "strong" or "weak"? A highly subjective way to value a person except if its just about survival but I think mankind is way past the point of having to judge on the basis of survival. Especially in most of the civilised world.

The thing is, if one complains about society and the leeches it creates and/or feeds how can one justify him/herself doing the same thing? That is feeding on this same society and using the advantages it gives the individual even though he/she is against it (and those who leech on it)?

Top
#31450 - 11/09/09 01:50 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
To CJB:
For preservation being the highest law, I didn't mean it as the ultimate law. Of course there are other things that one would probably be willing to die for. There are certainly some family members I would die for and as I said before I would be willing to die for my country unless of course I begin to disagree with what the country is doing or why they have gone to war. But I do believe that self-preservation is the highest law in the sense that one should work to keep themselves alive and should value their life more than a random person's life or even the lives of a random collection of people. Therefore, when one does make the decision to die for someone or something, that someone or something is incredibly important and worthy of your life.

To MawhrinSkel:
I can agree with your points because from what you are saying about your government's system, it seems to be similar to the one in Canada. Many benefits are offered to everyone including free health care, welfare, and different types of employment insurance. Most often, those who take advantage of this are the leeches who instead of finding a new job are happy with getting a cheque for 60% of their old salary for doing absolutely nothing all day. And why would they bother to get another job if they don't have to pay to go see a doctor and if the government gives them housing? I have known people who have taken advantage of the system just because they can and these types of people are the ones who should not be given the help.

On the other hand, there are times when these things are useful for those who are contributing members of society but have been fucked around a little and need a helping hand in order to more easily get back into the game, so to speak. As I have known abusers of the system, I have also known those who, because of some bad luck, have needed the help of the government, have gotten it, and used it to move forward and continue on with their lives. These are the kinds of people whom the system is in place for and should remain in place for. After working hard and paying taxes, one should be entitled to a little bit of help from the government when having problems if they do not take advantage of the help that is offered and only use it for as long as they really need it.

So, I do agree that these leeches should be done away with, but the system itself can be useful and should be there to help those who contribute to it regularly and need a helping hand once in a while in order to continue being contributing citizens.

As for, "A physically weak person isn't necessarily weak. Neither is a dumb person. Nor an insane one. Most people have a degree of worth. Play to their strengths, and they can be useful. However, you can't draw power from a plant which refuses to run."
I couldn't agree with that more. A weak person is one who needs everything to be handed to them and is not willing to work for their own survival. Humans did not evolve and survive by purely being the physically strongest. An example of this is how our canines got smaller rather than larger as we evolved. Not to say that physical strength isn't needed because we obviously didn't survive and evolve purely by outsmarting every other living thing. For survival, both are needed and a pack or tribe as you say is perfect for bringing together those who want to survive and contribute and using all of their strengths, be they mental or physical. Those who do not wish to contribute to the tribe but merely take from it in order to survive are the ones who should be left alone and removed.

Top
#31456 - 11/09/09 04:02 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

However, I dont know if there is any one single society to this day (and I may be wrong here, I am no historian) that acually had a system where everyone was allowed to rise to the level they were capable of.


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.

 Quote:

What democratic societies have brought to the table are the ability to actually rise against the tide or against where you came from and be something more. This is a big simplification of course but you know what I mean. And Im not saying democracy is the big savior or anything like that. I actually find the basic premise of democracy quite idiotic. Whoever came up with that the most popular idea should rule (judged of course by the masses who arent know for making the best descicions) instead of the best working idea.


Well, there are different kinds of democracies, as well. The U.S. is a constitutional republic, which means that the government is (theoretically) limited in what it can do, and the people have their popularity contests. Ancient Greeks had pure democracy, where everybody could vote on everything, majority rule. At least now most democracies don't let 51% enslave the other 49%, although the poor or working class masses exert a much larger amount of control over the upper class than they should.

 Quote:

And to be honest even if strength should be encourged I wouldnt want to live in a society with no health care or no job-security where everything would be about just surviving and getting to the top. I mean satanists usually talk about true human nature and as I see it what made humanity so dominant was the ability to strengthen not just the individual but also the community in one way or another. If we were left exclusively to ourselves we would probably not thrive at all. In this case I feel some satanists can only exist and actually gain from their ideology if there is a society they can be individual towards. Because if their values would be set as guidelines for all of society not only that society but also the indivdual satanist would eventually end up in a very bad position. But then again some satanists acknowledge this and tells us like it is. Its not about building a society it is about using it.


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?

You're not imagining a society of Satanists there, you're imagining a society of assholes. I would be more than happy to pay you wages every week if the work you did for me was good.

Being a bit harsh here, but if you got rid of all the free shit that people can get when they go to the doctors, and people had to pay for everything, then the overall cost for stuff would go down, and would benefit everybody except for the dirt poor people. And these are people that don't even have friends or family willing to help them out. And even those types of people might get some help from charities or churches, or begging for change on the side of the road. If they can't even expend that kind of effort, then fuck 'em.

 Quote:

And along comes another point. How many satanists actually live by their own word? If you get sick do you go to the hospital? I bet you do, or pop a pill to make the ache go away. Its not so hard to speak for an ideology that encourages strength and debates that we should not support weakness when the one saying it still has full access to all the help he or she can get from society.


Huh-what? Did I miss the sacred oath-taking, where I swore to Beelzebub that no longer would I pay for anything, but make everything for myself and do everything for myself? By that logic, going to Wal-Mart (or any grocery store...or any store!) is hypocritical. I guess that does explain why I jerk off so often, though.


 Quote:

And a final point. lot of satanists I met were liberal or capitalist in their political orientation but I, as a person who likes to wear green when it comes to politics, sees how this sucks the life out of the earth. While communism is bad in their extreme I think capitalism is equally bad but in a whole different direction. Communism tries to make everyone the same without much individual distinction. Capitalism, at least intheory, provides tools for the individual to thrive but does so at the cost of nature itself which in the end makes not just others but also the actual individual feel worse. What was it Anton LaVey wrote? Only sick animals have filthy homes (not an exact quote)!!!


Oh, the many ways I can make fun of green people...that would take an entirely different topic. Might work on that eventually.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31470 - 11/09/09 05:55 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
I would have to join you and CJB if you were to ever make such a society. The only thing I would have to say should be free is emergency life-saving health care. But only if one were unable to afford it. And they should eventually pay for it. So more like a health care loan I guess.

And I have to admit, I didn't really read all of Thelnsane's response before but after CJB's response, I took the time. Why the hell would nothing like health care exist? Doctors would still need work and people would still be willing to pay someone to cure them. It's called a service and it would exist in a completely capitalistic and Satanic society. Doctors have to make money too right? And why would a Satanist refuse treatment? How does not doing anything about an illness fit in with survival? I'm sure that if any animal had the knowledge about illness and drugs that humans do, they would use it to their advantage.

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.

Top
#31491 - 11/09/09 07:34 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Just to jump in here a moment....

What? like Satanists can't be in the medical field?
Satanists can't be Doctors or Nurses or Techs?

Do you realize that there are Satanists who are in the medical field on this board, and if shit happens, you will need us to stitch up your sorry ass in your little utopia.

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



Top
#31502 - 11/09/09 11:04 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: Morgan]
FriendlyS Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/05/09
Posts: 39
Loc: Toronto, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Just to jump in here a moment....

Do you realize that there are Satanists who are in the medical field on this board, and if shit happens, you will need us to stitch up your sorry ass in your little utopia.

Morgan


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.

Top
#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
#31598 - 11/12/09 05:14 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: TheInsane]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
 Quote:
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.


And I have researched it a bit. A lot of the key people advocating environmental controls based on carbon emissions only use the research that actually helps their cause. Any research that contradicts what they want implemented is ignored by them!
Now, I'm not saying that humans don't comtribute to climate change. I'm pretty sure we do, in our own small way. But what we contribute is so miniscule compared to everything else that's thrown into the mix.

Whenever you listen to the "experts," you have to consider what it is they're expert at. Al Gore isn't an expert at global warming, he's an expert at pushing his own agenda and making money. Apparently the best way to achieve those two goals is to lie.

I'll get to the rest of it later, but right now there might be a tornado and death and destruction and a couple of horsemen of the apocalypse outside...and there's no way I'm gonna miss that.
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#31610 - 11/13/09 12:16 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: CJB]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Well, Im not familiar with Al Gores fight for a better enviroment or wht his motives are. For me hes just the colourless guy that lost and american election. I wasnt talking of any one expert but rather a combination of people. And gradually people wo denied human impact on the global warming have also changed their minds.

Im not sure how much more we can have of this discussion though. We seem to start repeating ourselves. If there are new angles Im in for it but otherwise it might be wise to move on to something new. And lets face it we're both terribly off-topic in this thread ;\)

Top
#31711 - 11/14/09 11:29 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: TheInsane]
CJB Offline
member


Registered: 10/12/09
Posts: 125
Loc: Virginia Beach, VA
Hmm, a couple of days and a hell of a northeaster later (it had been quite a while since I had to eat sandwiches for dinner)...and I find myself at a loss as to what I was going to say anyway. And yes, we've definitely chased bunny trails bad enough throughout to have ended up quite a bit far off-topic. Perhaps some other time...
_________________________
~~CJ
"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"
-Ayn Rand

Top
#80066 - 08/31/13 11:23 AM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: Jake999]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6681
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
I was only told "this is what the problem is. Figure it out and fix it." There was no way I was going to fail. It was my job to see that I didn't.


My son goes off to Army boot-camp right after graduation this coming year. I've often been asked how I feel about that in the context of my own world view, in addition to being a parent.


Opinionated people tell me I should be worried, concerned and even fearful for my son's life. That I should be disappointed in his White Knight ideologies. It makes me laugh. I know my kid, he's doing all of this for selfish reasons to include the last several years physical training for preparedness. It even landed him a job at his local gym, they offered he didn't apply but he did apply himself. I suppose some parents shelf their kids like fragile eggs and it doesn't seem to matter to them how many they drop and the chickens come home to roost. If my world view plays a role in any of his decisions it would be my parenting methods. Can't say I'm disappointed, concerned or fearful for him or the way he turned out.

From an Objectivist stance, I'd say Military Service as voluntary is not in flux with Objectivism. If say, my son was drafted, that's where the rubber meets the road. My son is pursuing his own dream. This kid has had an unwavering desire to be in the army since he was 6, and its manifesting into a reality. He's already signed up. He just has to finish High School.

The quote above from Jake999, stuck out to me as one of the many reasons he has offered.

He's a do-er. When he sets his mind to a task, he'll not get off it until he figures it out and finds resolve. He relishes in a challenge. Especially one that challenges his physical limitations.

Objectivism is a philosophy. As such it doesn't provide answers, its a way, not 'the' way of seeking them.

Service implies servitude, unless you were born with a Trust Fund. We are all peddling our goods and services.

Plus, Military Service in the U.S. is in short bouts. Not much different than taking on a job for a few years then changing it when you get tired of it. Changing careers can be a bit challenging, especially if your skill-set is specialized. It often keeps people in dead-end jobs for longer periods than desired.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#80071 - 08/31/13 03:19 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: SIN3]
Zerophopia Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/11/13
Posts: 80
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
From an Objectivist stance


 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Objectivism is a philosophy. As such it doesn't provide answers, its a way, not 'the' way of seeking them.


Funny, I never took you as a fan of Rand. Ayn, not Paul, LOL.

Even I could stick Aristotle and Machiavelli in a blender and get a better mix than that chick. I don't do it simply because I detest the rationalism that is all things Aristotle. Although Machiavelli is rather "cool," as the kids say these days. Or not. #winning

JK
_________________________
Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. -Bruce Lee

Top
#80076 - 08/31/13 04:39 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military service [Re: FriendlyS]
Baelish Offline
lurker


Registered: 07/09/13
Posts: 4
Loc: New York
I'd say military service is in conflict with neither Objectivism nor a LaVeyan view of Satanism. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might join the military, and only the most deluded would do it out of "ask not what your country can do for you..."

The most obvious reasons to join would be the health benefits, cheaper college tuition, and stable employment in the event of a major downturn. I'm sure reasons like these are why most soldiers in today's America, without any impending foreign attack, actually join even if they'll publicly mention some feel-good "I'm defending my liberties" garbage. From a Satanic perspective there's no trouble here. You could, however, quibble and say that it's leeching off the public from an Objectivist point of view. It could equally be argued, though, that since per Rand's philosophy the military is one of the few justified roles of government, this is little different from a private enterprise offering these benefits to their employees. It's using self-interest to preserve the state; a state which, if we're talking about America, is something Objectivists tend to see as unique and better than much of the world.

There are also cases like the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and 9/11, as well as the height of the Cold War. In these situations, many people saw the cultural institutions they take for granted and benefit from as at risk, and did legitimately join to defend them. If you actually believe this is the best course of action, it's perfectly in-line with rational self-interest. No reasonable Satanist or Objectivist would begrudge you for it.


Edited by Baelish (08/31/13 04:48 PM)
_________________________
Ros: "And what do you want?"
Littlefinger: "Oh, everything, my dear. Everything there is."

Top
#80083 - 08/31/13 06:27 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: Zerophopia]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6681
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
Funny, I never took you as a fan of Rand. Ayn, not Paul, LOL.

Even I could stick Aristotle and Machiavelli in a blender and get a better mix than that chick. I don't do it simply because I detest the rationalism that is all things Aristotle. Although Machiavelli is rather "cool," as the kids say these days. Or not. #winning

JK


Can't say I'm a fan really. It does't mean I can't form an opinion having read her. I read a lot of shit, and most of it is shit. The topic caught my eye in lieu of recent projections thrown at me because my kid is joining the Army.


Edit to add clarity: I am not an Objectivist. The statement you quoted was more or less a vantage point. Like speaking from another man's shoes.


Edited by SIN3 (08/31/13 06:28 PM)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#80085 - 08/31/13 06:49 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: SIN3]
Kemble Offline
member


Registered: 01/24/13
Posts: 139
Rand's ideas may reflect a great starting point in terms of personal liberty but often reality forces different compromises. As far as I understand the Satanic position, self-sacrifice is OK if you can't live with the opposite scenario. For example the issue if given the choice of either dying or having your wife, kids, or comrades killed. If you can absolutely not stand seeing the others dying bearable to continue living, self-sacrifice is justified. I know, "Satanists are their own gods." But often gods have the choice of assigning a heirarchy of values to the people and objects within their experience that can become higher than their own bodily existence. If that doesn't jibe many benefits from military service can justify a selfish choice for service anyway.
Top
#80117 - 09/01/13 07:27 PM Re: Satanic & Objectivist dilemma of military serv [Re: Kemble]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6681
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
As far as I understand the Satanic position, self-sacrifice is OK if you can't live with the opposite scenario. For example the issue if given the choice of either dying or having your wife, kids, or comrades killed. If you can absolutely not stand seeing the others dying bearable to continue living, self-sacrifice is justified rationalized. I know, "Satanists are their own gods." But often gods have the choice of assigning a heirarchy of values to the people and objects within their experience that can become higher than their own bodily existence.


Reminds me of the Question posed on This Thread

 Quote:
As an aside directly related, I wonder if anyone could summarize The Devil's Advocate as a mythic type of Satanism. And how Kevin Lomax is both the Satanic everyman while also being the Buddha.

Watch it again, and play the two washroom scenes back to back. Sweet trip.


Give it a whirl.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page all of 4 1234>


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

Generated in 0.079 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 67 queries. Zlib compression disabled.