Page 6 of 7 « First<34567>
Topic Options
#37967 - 04/21/10 03:17 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
It is quite a strong statement to claim that "Top-down economic policies have certainly been shown to fail and cause more problems than does the free market in responding to problems itself". We have thousands of years and probably just as many different systems of top-down economic politics to compare to very short time of free market economics. I am not an economist so Id rather leave the discussion at that or Id make a fool out of myself ;\)

On the non-equality of humans I choose to quote Julius Evola from his work "men among the ruins" (chapter 3 "Personality, freedom, hierarchy"). These parts of the book corresponds with my view on the matter at hand:

 Quote:
Let us begin with the egalitarian premise. It is necessary to state from the outset that the "immortal principle" of equality is sheer nonsense. There is no need to comment on the inequality of human beings from a naturalistic point of view. And yet the champions of egalitarianism make equality a matter of principle, claiming that while human beings are not equal de facto, they are so de jure: they are unequal, and yet they should not be. Inequality is unfair; the merit and the superiority of the liberal idea allegedly consists of not taking it into account, overcoming it, and acknowledging the same dignity in every man. Democracy, too, shares the belief in the "fundamental equality of anything that appears to be human.". . .

. . .Concerning the first point, the notion of "many" (i.e., a multiplicity of individual beings) logically contradicts the notion of "many equals." First of all, ontologically speaking, this is due to the so-called "principle of undiscernibles," which is expressed in these terms: "A being that is absolutely identical to an-other, under every regard, would be one and the same with it." Thus, in the concept of "many" is implicit the concept of their fundamental difference: "many" beings that are equal, completely equal, would not be many, but one. To uphold the equality of the many is a contradiction in terms, unless we refer to a body of soulless mass-produced objects.

Second, the contradiction lies in the "principle of sufficient reason," which is expressed in these terms: "For every thing there must be some reason why it is one thing and not another." Now, a being that is totally equal to another would lack "sufficient reason": it would be just a meaningless duplicate.
From both perspectives, it is rationally well established that the "many" not only cannot be equal, but they also must not be equal: inequality is true de facto only because it is true de jure and it is real only because it is necessary. That which the egalitarian ideology wished to portray as a state of "justice" is in reality a state of injustice, according to a perspective that is higher and beyond the humanitarian and democratic rhetorics. In the past, Cicero and Aristotle argued along these lines. . .


. . .These references clarify what is truly a person and personal value, as op-posed to the mere individual and the mere element belonging to a mass or to a social agglomerate. The person is an individual who is differentiated through his qualities, endowed with his own face, his proper nature, and a series of at-tributes that make him who he is and distinguish him from all others—in other words, attributes that make him fundamentally unequal. The person is a man in whom the general characteristics (beginning with that very general characteristic of being human, to that of belonging to a given race, nation, gender, and social group) assume a differentiated form of expression by articulating and variously individuating themselves.

Top
#37970 - 04/21/10 04:35 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Freddy surely can't be accused of being a democrat or an egalitarian. His view is pretty aligned with mine; the State as a distillation process in which the great can climb and the rest serves as fertilizer.

D.

Top
#37974 - 04/21/10 08:02 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Ok, in regards to egalitarianism, I seemed to be referring to horizontal organizational structures as opposed to solely vertical ones. However, the fact that people are naturally unequal does not mean that a structure where individuals come together in voluntary participation is any less capable. It simply means that those capable of one role fulfill it while those capable of others fulfill those. They can be held as equals in principle not in spite of, but because they are capable of different things. Don't make your opposition to horizontal structures based on the fact we're different- anyone can oppose blanket equality, but the concept of treating people equally is in seeing that they all have abilities to potentially contribute. The fact that some people are entirely incapable of anything does not bear on the efficacy of horizontal structures because incapable individuals would be held accountable by the rest of the group, rather than allowed to pass by or reinforced as happens in vertical structures.

"We have thousands of years and probably just as many different systems of top-down economic politics to compare to very short time of free market economics. I am not an economist so Id rather leave the discussion at that or Id make a fool out of myself"

To briefly and conclusively make my point-
"Adam Smith pointed out the enormous increases in material
production that came about through the division of labor.
The example with which Smith opens The Wealth of Nations
is pin manufacturing. A lone workman could “scarce, perhaps,
with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day.” But even
225 years ago, when Smith was writing, a small pin shop,
dividing the manufacture into eighteen distinct tasks, allowed
a ten-man shop to produce 48,000 pins in a day, or 4,800 per
man." Economics for Real People, by Gene Callahan

As a Satanist I think one might prefer Free-Market Competition, where all have a generally equal opportunity to pursue success, than to support oppressive government policies that "separate the strong from the weak". Let people succeed on their own- a true meritocracy does not artificially or unnecessarily reward the successful, nor does it give them "a tree to climb above the canopy". It is indifferent and will only reward those who earn it, the exact amount they have earned, and will let the water find its own level with no biased preference. This is why fascism, communism, and all forms of statism Fail. They do not address the human potential of capitalism. That is why I say with such vigor that nothing can or has outmatched the Free Market that has only recently but quite significantly come into being. Competition is the greatest drive for economic success.

Another thing that I think Satanists overlook- the Law of Comparative Advantage- what it basically states is that even if I'm better at everything than you are, we can both still profit by working together by me doing the one thing I am best at and you doing the thing you are best at- in the end each of us individually and mutually benefits significantly more than if I tried to do everything myself. It seems that there is a pronounced disdain for the mediocre and less capable- indeed, we can work with them to be better off than alone, things don't have to be this dramatic "strong rise weak fall". In Capitalism, a rising tide lifts all boats. It's a waste of time and energy to hold disdain for those who might not succeed in a top-down economy, because if things were free, everybody would be better off individually and in total.

Economics is the study of the Consequences of Choice, and I am finding it quite relevant to Satanism and how principles are applied to reality.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37982 - 04/22/10 12:10 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Egalitarianism posits that all people are inherently of the same basic value and entitled to the same rights, treatment and opportunities.

Satanism posits stratification, might makes right, and elitism through personal achievement.

These are pretty much opposite concepts.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37985 - 04/22/10 12:32 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dan_Dread]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
I believe you are correct, Dan, and I mixed up the concept of egalitarianism with horizontal authority. Mostly because I read an article that treated them as the same thing. My fault.
However, the political system that most benefits personal achievement is a government that first ensures basic individual civil liberties.
It is here I would like to stress the difference between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Results. We must be committed to one entirely, not both, and no compromises. We must uphold the Equality of Opportunity by keeping government's hands off the Free Market. It is then that individuals can reach their full potential, whatever it is they imagine that to be.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37993 - 04/22/10 05:01 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

 Quote:
It simply means that those capable of one role fulfill it while those capable of others fulfill those. They can be held as equals in principle not in spite of, but because they are capable of different things.


I don’t disagree that different people should do different things because they are different and do not hold the same knowledge or capabilities. This is something that makes man UNEQUAL. I do not support any weeding out the strong from the weak by the State. I realize both is needed but in different places. Different people can contribute in different ways. This doesn’t make them equal though. Fascism actually supports people working with what they do best (it wants to keep the classes) but it is also for class collaboration. That mans that everyone can help each other in their own field to make the nation great.
The very foundation of democracy is that every man has an equal right and an equal say in who will rule a country. I only understand this idea if it’s explained in a way that because of this system the masses will be kept in check because they think they can wield power. I don’t think any man is capable of making good political decisions and looking how people most often vote (either out of tradition – “I always voted for X” – or out of the currently most popular idea) it is even more illogical to let them have a say in a country’s political climate. An idea shouldn’t have to be popular to be the dominating one. It should be the best possible idea for the time. I don’t think a democratic system supports this. Democracy and indeed capitalism supports popularity and whims over anything else.

 Quote:

To briefly and conclusively make my point-
"Adam Smith pointed out the enormous increases in material
production that came about through the division of labor.
The example with which Smith opens The Wealth of Nations
is pin manufacturing. A lone workman could “scarce, perhaps,
with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day.” But even
225 years ago, when Smith was writing, a small pin shop,
dividing the manufacture into eighteen distinct tasks, allowed
a ten-man shop to produce 48,000 pins in a day, or 4,800 per
man." Economics for Real People, by Gene Callahan


As I said I am no economist but since I just read the Julius Evola book that does deal with this I thought it was appropriate to answer your quote with another quote from the same book I quoted before:

The "social question" and various "political problems" are increasingly losing any higher meaning, and are being defined on the basis of the most primitive conditions of physical existence, conditions that are then made absolute and removed from any higher concern. The notion of justice is reduced to this or that system of distribution of economic goods; the notion of civilization is measured mostly by that of production; and the focus of people's attention tends to be on topics such as production, work, productivity, economic classes, salaries, private or public property, exploitation of the workers, and special-interest groups. . .

What must be questioned is not the value of this or that economic system, but the value of the economy itself. Thus, despite the fact that the antithesis between capitalism and Marxism dominates the background of recent times, it must be regarded as a pseudo-antithesis. In free-market economies, as well as in Marxist societies, the myth of production and its corollaries (e.g., standardization, monopolies, cartels, technocracy) are subject to the "hegemony" of the economy, becoming the primary factor on which the material conditions of existence are based. Both systems regard as "backward" or as "underdeveloped" those civilizations that do not amount to "civilizations based on labor and production"— namely, those civilizations that, luckily for themselves, have not yet been caught up in the feverish industrial exploitation of every natural resource, the social and productive enslavement of all human possibilities, and the exaltation of technical and industrial standards; in other words, those civilizations that still enjoy a certain space and a relative freedom. Thus, the true antithesis is not between capitalism and Marxism, but between a system in which the economy rules supreme (no matter in what form) and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities. This is the premise for a true restorative reaction, beyond "Left" and "Right," beyond capitalism's abuses and Marxist subversion. The necessary conditions are an inner detoxification, a becoming "normal" again ("normal" in the higher meaning of the term), and a renewed capability to differentiate between base and noble interests. No intervention from the outside can help; any external action at best might accompany this process.


 Quote:
Let people succeed on their own- a true meritocracy does not artificially or unnecessarily reward the successful, nor does it give them "a tree to climb above the canopy". It is indifferent and will only reward those who earn it, the exact amount they have earned, and will let the water find its own level with no biased preference. This is why fascism, communism, and all forms of statism Fail. They do not address the human potential of capitalism.


I’m all for people realizing their own potential. I’m also against rewarding someone artificially or unnecessarily as you would put it. The problem with capitalism is that it values humans in relation to the amount of profit they make. I do not believe this is an ideal situation as it only supports those things that can be profitable. Needless to say there is a huge amount of people who have inner qualities equally or more important to society than any businessman but the capitalist system does not support it because it cant profit from it economically.
Fascism didn’t fail because of lack of realization of human potential or the economic questions. Fascism failed because there was a world war and the axis nations lost.

 Quote:
Competition is the greatest drive for economic success.


What about “human success” outside of the economic field? The main problem with capitalism is that it only takes into consideration the economic profit. We have to heavily regulate it because it continuously disregards humans interests or environmental issues for example.




Edited by TheInsane (04/22/10 05:02 AM)

Top
#38003 - 04/22/10 10:59 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"The problem with capitalism is that it values humans in relation to the amount of profit they make. I do not believe this is an ideal situation as it only supports those things that can be profitable. Needless to say there is a huge amount of people who have inner qualities equally or more important to society than any businessman but the capitalist system does not support it because it cant profit from it economically."

All value is based on the subjective perception of the person who desires something. This isn't just my fanciful philosophy, this is how economics works. It is up to us to start valuing "inner qualities" if we wish to see more. Capitalism is the system most capable of changing, since anyone with money has a vote on influencing which businesses prosper and which don't. Nestle did something years ago that people thought was wrong, and it had to start being moral and change its behavior in order to earn that trust and business back. To be dissatisfied with society is ignoring that you have the power to change it.

Indeed, while you point out that Capitalism is inadequate in supporting moral value, it is the US that is the most charitable nation in the world. Walmart is the 7th greatest charitable donor in the world, and the Walden family is the #2 most charitable family in the world, right behind Bill and Linda Gates. It is the ability to effectively run a business that fulfills the basic needs of millions of people at a profit that allows charity to other organizations that also run like a business.

In addition, it is Capitalism that has allowed a significant movement in the US and worldwide to start using recycled materials more and eco-friendly products. Capitalism gets the most done because money talks.

"What about “human success” outside of the economic field? The main problem with capitalism is that it only takes into consideration the economic profit. We have to heavily regulate it because it continuously disregards humans interests or environmental issues for example."

How would you regulate it in a way that would support these "human successes"?
Did you know that the government, at least here in the US, is a greater contributor to pollution than corporations? Are you saying we should tax companies and give the money to artists or something? What constitutes a legitimate human interest worthy of stealing the population's hard-earned money?

In regards to the environment, as people were moving into cities around the late 19th to 20th century, horses were becoming a serious problem. The amount of manure was literally piling 60 feet high in vacant lots, causing insect-born illnesses in summer and horse crap streaming down streets in the winter and rainy season. Issues with traffic were increasing, and the environmental impact of that much methane being given off by a significant horse population was unknown, but large. Yet it was capitalism that invented the automobile, allowing cities to prosper without the deadly diseases, no more traffic issues from injured or dying horses, a lot less pollution from vehicles, and a more convenient way to get around.

As long as people are intelligent animals, we will have basic and sophisticated needs based on what helps us survive and what makes us happy. Capitalism is simply the system where everybody freely participates to get what they want, and every individual is free to decide how much something is worth to them. Sure, if you want to buy a guitar and aren't offering enough for me to sell it, you will miss out on something great, but it is my choice to sell it for what I think it is worth. This is just basic human interaction, Capitalism isn't guilty of anything.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38007 - 04/22/10 12:37 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

 Quote:
It is the ability to effectively run a business that fulfills the basic needs of millions of people at a profit that allows charity to other organizations that also run like a business.


The problem with capitalism is that it values work and money over everything else. It is a matter of worshipping work however meaningless it may be. People don’t work at pin-factories to fulfill their potential but because money is what matters if they want to be able to live a “worthy life” and then, if time allows, do something on the side.
And its just a plain lie to claim that businesses are here to fulfill the basic needs of millions of people. Business under capitalism creates artificial needs for millions of people and often “exploit every natural resource as well as enslave human possibilities productive and socially” in the process.

 Quote:
In addition, it is Capitalism that has allowed a significant movement in the US and worldwide to start using recycled materials more and eco-friendly products. Capitalism gets the most done because money talks.


Really? So you would seriously argue that if we indeed had a capitalist free market devoid of political intervention the marked would have an eco-friendly production? Give me a break. The market wants as much profit for the lowest production cost. They would use the most cheap way of production which unfortunately today would mean environmental as well as human disasters. It is because the market is regulated that we have eco-friendly products and it is because of that we have a minimum wage. Without it businesses would still keep on doing what they did 50 years ago. And even I some tried to go another route it would be hard for them to succeed because their production would cost much more.

 Quote:
How would you regulate it in a way that would support these "human successes"?
Did you know that the government, at least here in the US, is a greater contributor to pollution than corporations? Are you saying we should tax companies and give the money to artists or something? What constitutes a legitimate human interest worthy of stealing the population's hard-earned money?


If there was a good way to support the truly creative, like the artists, above mindless mass production I would be the first in line to support it. Quality over quantity. How it would be done I dont know but I know for sure that in my ideal society that would be regarded as of higher worth rather than sellers and bussinessmen selling us mindless trash.

And please elaborate on “how capitalism invented the car” because I find it to be a totally ridiculous notion based on historical revisionism.


Edited by TheInsane (04/22/10 12:39 PM)

Top
#38024 - 04/23/10 12:54 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"If there was a good way to support the truly creative, like the artists, above mindless mass production I would be the first in line to support it. Quality over quantity. How it would be done I dont know but I know for sure that in my ideal society that would be regarded as of higher worth rather than sellers and bussinessmen selling us mindless trash."

If people want to buy more of one thing and less of another, that is up to them. You have no idea what you're talking about but say that in "your ideal society" those things would be more valued. Have you ever been to a museum? They're great, you should go. Paintings can sell for a lot. Yet admission to museums is pretty inexpensive. What are you complaining about? That more people aren't like you? Be a Satanist and stop giving a fuck.

"And please elaborate on “how capitalism invented the car” because I find it to be a totally ridiculous notion based on historical revisionism."
Are you trying to not understand? Here's the simplified version.
A dude made a car. It took forever and was too expensive because he did it an expensive way. Then, he started doing it a different way as mentioned previously about the division of labor, and people bought this crazy contraption because it obviously worked better than the way they used to do things. If it wasn't worth it, no one would have bought it. That's Capitalism.

"Really? So you would seriously argue that if we indeed had a capitalist free market devoid of political intervention the marked would have an eco-friendly production? Give me a break."

Technically what we have is Corporatism, which works against these goals. But anyway, who cares whether we are more or less eco-friendly? I do not hold the continuation of the world or the human race as an inherently valuable thing. If people care enough to change their lifestyle to aid the earth, that's great. But there's nothing wrong if they don't want to spend their money that way. They will take the consequences either way, and either way, there is a lot of evidence that Climate Change is much ado about nothing. The world is getting hotter with or without us. Eco-friendly measures, however, are a different thing, as there are notable effects of pollution in cities and such, but again, these changes are up to the people to pay for.

"And its just a plain lie to claim that businesses are here to fulfill the basic needs of millions of people. Business under capitalism creates artificial needs for millions of people and often “exploit every natural resource as well as enslave human possibilities productive and socially” in the process."

If businesses didn't fulfill people's needs they wouldn't stay in business. What needs are "created" by businesses that people don't all ready have or are voluntarily willing to accept? You sound like someone who's mad that people shop at Wal-Mart.

It is government assisted business that exploits people. An unaided business would not be able to. And it is always because government is trying to help by reaching into the market and screwing things up.

As a Satanist, wouldn't you be ok with the weak killing themselves off and the rest inheriting the earth? Why do you care if the majority is too stupid to help itself?
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38027 - 04/23/10 06:20 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

 Quote:
If people want to buy more of one thing and less of another, that is up to them. You have no idea what you're talking about but say that in "your ideal society" those things would be more valued. Have you ever been to a museum? They're great, you should go. Paintings can sell for a lot. Yet admission to museums is pretty inexpensive.


I work in one of the worlds largest and most influential museums in the world so I get to go every week thank you. It is indeed inexpensive to go since the admission is free.

See you only think of things and value things in regards to money and that’s my problem and that is what I have a problem with. I think society should shift focus away from the all importance of the new god called money. The new god everyone obeys in from of.

 Quote:
Are you trying to not understand? Here's the simplified version.
A dude made a car. It took forever and was too expensive because he did it an expensive way. Then, he started doing it a different way as mentioned previously about the division of labor, and people bought this crazy contraption because it obviously worked better than the way they used to do things. If it wasn't worth it, no one would have bought it. That's Capitalism.


You didn’t once say how capitalism invented the car as you claimed a couple of posts back. You merely explained how it was introduced to the market. And what you don’t seem to understand is that even communities with less focus on the capital would look for ways to make it easier to build and cheaper to make (because just because we have capital doesn’t mean we're capitalist you see).

 Quote:
But anyway, who cares whether we are more or less eco-friendly? I do not hold the continuation of the world or the human race as an inherently valuable thing. If people care enough to change their lifestyle to aid the earth, that's great. But there's nothing wrong if they don't want to spend their money that way. They will take the consequences either way, and either way, there is a lot of evidence that Climate Change is much ado about nothing. The world is getting hotter with or without us. Eco-friendly measures, however, are a different thing, as there are notable effects of pollution in cities and such, but again, these changes are up to the people to pay for.


Just because one is a Satanist doesn’t mean one have any morals. I know you claim to not have and I think it is ridiculous because you obviously have (if anything you’ve shown it in this thread). However I do care about our environment. It is important to me. I live in one of the largest cities on earth atm and the pollution is pretty bad and you notice it as soon as you walk down one of the high streets just when you breathe. I plan to start a family and I want the world t be a better place for my children that it was for me.

It’s also funny how you in the other thread goes on and on about needing to prove thing when most science agrees that the climate change is to a large part caused by humans. Even so you decide to go against this majority of scientists. So the base you hold in science only applies when they say things you agree with?

I don’t think it’s up to the people to take action on their own. People are in general (and in groups specifically) without much action unless they see everyone else doing it. Therefore I’m all for an environmental taxation and government control to make sure changes are being made. I don’t trust people - the mass - with such a responsibility.

 Quote:
If businesses didn't fulfill people's needs they wouldn't stay in business. What needs are "created" by businesses that people don't all ready have or are voluntarily willing to accept? You sound like someone who's mad that people shop at Wal-Mart.


Do you seriously mean that we need everything that is trying to be sold? GO to your local shopping mall and then go into the first store (that isn’t a food store) and think of the products they sell. Do we really have a need for it or is it a try to create a need for it. I cant even fathom that you sit here and claim that businesses doesn’t create needs but only serve needs that are already here. Why do you think there is advertising? It is to create a need in people to buy a certain thing.

 Quote:

It is government assisted business that exploits people. An unaided business would not be able to. And it is always because government is trying to help by reaching into the market and screwing things up.


Yeah? So all the businesses who exploit non-western workers in their home countries are not included? Or businesses moving their factories to other countries that don’t have the same regulation in regards to how much pollution a certain factory releases into nature?

 Quote:

As a Satanist, wouldn't you be ok with the weak killing themselves off and the rest inheriting the earth? Why do you care if the majority is too stupid to help itself?


This is quite immature in its reasoning. I wouldn’t want the weak to kill them selves off. They are needed in a society as long as they are in the right place. And if the weak were indeed to kill themselves off there would develop a new weak population in regards to the new standards set. One can fantasize about a world of only kings but in reality we need the hierarchy if we are to live in a functioning society. Everyone can't be on the same level which is also why I am anti-egalitarian. People are not equal but most people weak or strong are needed in different layers of society.

Top
#38039 - 04/23/10 06:22 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
From your post it would seem that you live in New York City, and work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art or live in Washington and work at the Smithsonian Museums. Unless I am wrong those are the largest museums in the United States. Within these institutions there are huge amounts of artwork. Some I could see paying millions for, others I would walk on by if they were free.

That is the thing about art that makes it great in a way. It's beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No one can ever make you think an object is beautiful if you really think it sucks ass. Oh, and I have a BA in Fine Arts too.

"I think society should shift focus away from the all importance of the new god called money"

The use of money is not new. It has been used for centuries, and even in Ancient Egypt they have records of money and taxes being collected. No one is ever going to give you something for nothing. Money serves a purpose, it motivates people.

Yes, communes have people who work together for the common good, but those hippy places are usually farms, and don't really look to make their lives any different. If they need something like medicine unless they have something of value to trade or cash, they are screwed. You still need money to buy the first cow or goat or seeds to plant.

Being a Satanist, part of it mean choosing who to love, care about, or decide to waste your energy, and feeling on. If he decided not to care about the planet in the great scheme of things, he can. The climate has been screwed by the volcano big time, should we shut everything down and wait a few months to offset the effects of it?

"Therefore I’m all for an environmental taxation and government control to make sure changes are being made. I don’t trust people - the mass - with such a responsibility."

Have you read the Kyoto Protocols? I trust the government less, and they will screw you more.

People have free will, and will buy whatever junk they want because they can. Advertising just makes the packaging pretty, thus why all the 99 cent stores do so well. Maybe you don't like the little ceramic mermaid, but someone else does.

Businesses are motivated by money. If they can make a buck or save a buck they do it. If it will cost them money, forget about it. Businesses don't have a soul or a heart, they are a corporation based upon the idea of providing a service that will make them the most amount of money with the least amount of effort of cost.

All of the political systems mentioned have their good and bad points. I just happen to be fond of the relative free market, capitalistic, republic that we have here in the United States. You have the choice of what you can do, how far you can push yourself, and what kind of an empire you might want to create. Just like you can decide to take it easy, and coast under the radar dealing with under the table businesses all your life.

No one knocking on your door telling you what to do or who you have to be.

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



Top
#38052 - 04/23/10 11:17 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Morgan]
bds23 Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/04/10
Posts: 7
Loc: Texas
I tend to agree with Morgan on this question. Although, it seems that as the years march by the good ol U.S.of A. is becoming a place with less and less economic and personal freedom.

I want the freedom to earn as much comfort and luxury in life as I desire, but I do not want to see giant corporations slowly but surely taking over damn near everything.
I want to live in a neighborhood where it is safe for my wife to go jogging without needing a concealed carry permit. However, I am disturbed by the steady rising of what more and more appears to be a sort of police state.

I am a proponent of western, liberal, democracy. I find all the talk of totalitarianism and gladiator rings a bit distasteful. In my opinion the weak and simple should be given a basic, descent standard of living and where possible, some meaningful, uplifting work. I would rather contribute taxes to provide the poor with a small apartment, some food, and entertainment as opposed to them attempting to steal mine. In no way do I desire to see executions for sport or slavery of any kind.

Top
#38054 - 04/24/10 01:01 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: bds23]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
TheInsane,
Morals are values that you think everybody else should have. I do not have any such beliefs. Therefore, I have no morality.
That's different than deciding to do whatever you want, and a philosophy of doing whatever you want has implications that form the way I make decisions. But the values I base decisions on are not morals because in no way do I think everybody else should have to conform to the standards I have chosen. If you want to call "doing whatever you want" morality, that's fine, go ahead and change the meaning as you will. But I'm pretty sure anybody would say that my philosophy is definably amoral.

"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. "

"having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person."

I'm not quite immoral as defined here, either.

violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2.licentious or lascivious.


I also do not believe in any definable good or evil. So while I may like or dislike certain things, it is not because they are "right" or "wrong", and such thinking is in my view outdated and ineffective.

Everybody else has said the rest. In regards to global warming, I indeed got my information from scientists in the book SuperFreakonomics. I read your post and decided to google the name of one of the nobel prize winning climatologists it mentioned for more support when I came across this article- "Why Everything in SuperFreakonomics About Global Warming is Wrong"
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php

It is my mistake for championing the hackneyed opinions of these 2 sensationalist writers without doing my own research, and for that, I sincerely apologize. I shall take this lesson with me into the future.
It is still up to people to decide to spend their money in an eco-friendly way, and until people as a whole start valuing whatever practices you think will benefit the world, things won't change. And you continue to look at government as a cure when it rarely does anything not in it's own self-interest, most of all regarding money.

Cheers to you for working in a Museum, that's pretty awesome. I also dislike the widespread consumerism but recognize it as a product of a government that keeps the economy artificially stable, never allowing it to crash. As long as it never crashes, people will never see the consequences of their actions involving spending. But people will spend their hard-earned money however they want, and there's no way to stop a market without infringing on civil liberties. Even then, the black market rears its head. You can only live your own life and try to influence others, but you can't make decisions for them, and even if you try you will not be able to override the power of their self-interest forever.
That's why capitalism is the best system- it is one that aligns different people's self-interest and allows them to enjoy the profits. Only a government that ensures individual civil liberties and stands behind contracts is necessary, and anything more(or less) will fall in due time. The power rests with the people and one of the only laws that will never be broken is this: "People will do what they want, if they can, as long as they can".

As for this economic argument I am frustrated by the amount of MSM opinions and amateur misunderstandings of economics and politics that you present. We will walk away with whatever opinions we may have of these issues and each other, and witnesses will make their opinions. That's all that needs to be said, we'll discuss other things in other threads. Peace.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38077 - 04/24/10 03:47 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
The use of money is not new. It has been used for centuries, and even in Ancient Egypt they have records of money and taxes being collected. No one is ever going to give you something for nothing. Money serves a purpose, it motivates people.


Of course it’s not a new thing. What is somewhat new however is how money is the only thing valued in a lot of ways. And it is money that decides what is alright and what is not alright as in regards to environmental issues for example. So I am not against the use of money in itself only the deification that has happened in regards to it in so far as it rules everything and it is accepted, good or bad.

 Quote:

Being a Satanist, part of it mean choosing who to love, care about, or decide to waste your energy, and feeling on. If he decided not to care about the planet in the great scheme of things, he can. The climate has been screwed by the volcano big time, should we shut everything down and wait a few months to offset the effects of it?


Well we can’t really do much about natural disasters but we can do something about the human aspect of pollution. Did you know for example that there were blueprints for a eco-friendly car a very long time ago but the rights to those were bought by some oil company because they felt it was a risk if that was given to the car manufacturers. These are the bad things capitalism does. Just because you have money somehow means you’re allowed to do anything.
And in regards to what someone can and cant do as a Satanist (or as a human being) of course one can choose whichever path he or she chooses (unless we don’t have free will as we’ve been discussing before). This doesn’t mean that I want every person that is to have that freedom. I want a society that I like and in which I and my family can prosper and feel safe. If we were to let everyone have a go at their own will it would end in chaos.
I’m fighting for what I believe is right because I believe it’s the right path to take. I can’t nihilistically stand on the sidelines and think “Oh well he has every right to do *insert action* if he wants”. I don’t want a society where everyone has total freedom. I think it’s gone to far already. On the small scale it seems like things are getting worse in regards to crime for example (compare the 50’s to today). On the bigger scale is the people with a lot of money using it to get away with environmental pollution or hiring cheap workers in poor countries etc. I would much rather live in a clean world with more governmental control over businesses rather than what we have today.

 Quote:

People have free will, and will buy whatever junk they want because they can. Advertising just makes the packaging pretty, thus why all the 99 cent stores do so well. Maybe you don't like the little ceramic mermaid, but someone else does.


I could have written that as a reason as to why I think todays capitalism is bad ;\)

Oh and on the museum thing you’re not even close. Not even on the same continent ;\)

bds23

 Quote:
I would rather contribute taxes to provide the poor with a small apartment, some food, and entertainment as opposed to them attempting to steal mine. In no way do I desire to see executions for sport or slavery of any kind.


No one in this thread has ever said we wanted that as far as I know. I sure don’t want to execute anyone.

Doomsage680

 Quote:
Morals are values that you think everybody else should have. I do not have any such beliefs. Therefore, I have no morality.


No. Morals can be personal as well. The word comes from latin and means “proper behavior” and it can refer to personal, cultural or national values of what is right and wrong and what is proper behavior. This doesn’t mean that one has to believe in a static definition or explanation of what is right and wrong. In fact most morals in countries today consciously change over time and depending on the situation.
Amoralism is the indifference to questions of right and wrong and still in our other discussions you have defended your belief in capitalism. In the thread where it was discussed originally you also held it wrong to kill your mother. I would however agree that in large the world is amoral. I do not believe that there exists any static moral laws. Morality is in human nature and human nature is, like everything, ever changing. Therefore ones morals not only depends on where one lives or under what regime one comes from but also from ones own family and the personal experiences one is encountered with.
Since it can refer to personal values and since I have actually seen you defend some of your values here I would say that you do have your own morality system. However if you were to say “I’m a moral person” in an everyday conversation I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t agree since in everyday conversation a sentence like the one above has come to mean a specific set of morality (most often in regards to Christian values).

 Quote:
I also dislike the widespread consumerism but recognize it as a product of a government that keeps the economy artificially stable, never allowing it to crash. As long as it never crashes, people will never see the consequences of their actions involving spending. But people will spend their hard-earned money however they want, and there's no way to stop a market without infringing on civil liberties.


That’s right and I would like to infringe on civil liberties if it meant a way to stop what I consider to be bad about todays system.

 Quote:
As for this economic argument I am frustrated by the amount of MSM opinions and amateur misunderstandings of economics and politics that you present. We will walk away with whatever opinions we may have of these issues and each other, and witnesses will make their opinions. That's all that needs to be said, we'll discuss other things in other threads. Peace.


Please elaborate. It’s easy to criticize but without me knowing what specific parts you refer to I don’t have a chance to defend myself.

Top
#38084 - 04/25/10 01:09 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"Amoralism is the indifference to questions of right and wrong and still in our other discussions you have defended your belief in capitalism. In the thread where it was discussed originally you also held it wrong to kill your mother. I would however agree that in large the world is amoral. I do not believe that there exists any static moral laws. Morality is in human nature and human nature is, like everything, ever changing. Therefore ones morals not only depends on where one lives or under what regime one comes from but also from ones own family and the personal experiences one is encountered with."

Capitalism- the system where I benefit depending on how hard and how intelligently I work. Also, a system of capitalism allows me to buy what I want, and any other system will fail to uphold my long-term security.
I also am an animal evolved to care about others a little, and capitalism allows the best life for the most people- anyone benefiting benefits the whole. This sounds like a system that no only allows the most growth, but the most reward for ingenuity and adaptability- certainly a favorable thing.
But it is not a moral. There is no good or evil.

I never said killing my mother was "wrong" because "wrong" has no meaning. I said I don't want it, I won't allow it if I can help it, I won't like it, it will hurt me emotionally and in my life. This is not a moral, this is me wanting my mom to keep being my mom. Morals cloud the realistic logic-based reasons people think, speak, and do things.
If you want to say that human nature is always changing, that morals are always changing, and that morals are really just preferences, that's fine. But that's not what moral means. Moral has to do with good or evil, in which I don't believe.

Human nature is the same time and time again, that's what makes it our nature. Having my own wants and needs is not a moral.

I am indeed amoral because decisions are not made based on right or wrong. There is no such thing. You can say that I have my own definition of right and wrong, but that is you continuing to think in this restrictive paradigm. I think with reason. You can call reason good, but when it leads me to make decisions that someone would call anything but good, it loses it's applicability.

I said you had an
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
Page 6 of 7 « First<34567>


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

Generated in 0.035 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.