What is the point of trying to convince people that they don't have free will?
"Persuading people" only matters if there is free will.
Otherwise the words coming out of your mouth are the equivalent of "fnarg beesh bads kushs f4q3g09wefui093gj2h40g5jpw5j51v[908[13995fc=-38m6b]194nb9b9v8uybv,"
Ayn Rand gave a highly original treatment of how reality and man's nature give rise to the concept of ethics, and gave a description of a code of ethics designed for people living on Earth.
Ethics are NOT by definition artificial. The *is-ought* gap refers to the problem of "how does *what is* determine what I *ought* to do", or another way: "What, in reality, gives rise to ethics".
Ayn Rand showed how to bridge the is-ought gap decades ago, which is one of her most startlingly original ideas.
The original purpose of the government was to protect you - the individual. The most radical idea in the Constitution was the idea that you, the individual, mattered.
Today, the government has gone from "protector" of individual rights, to "infringer" of individual rights. It is a culture of thuggery whose modus operandi is "Can I get away with it?"
The only way to get business out of government is to get government out of business, i.e. to return the government to it's sole function of protecting you - the individual.
That's like saying: Microsoft could never have brought so much value into people's lives without already having brought so much value into people's lives.
Microsoft cannot (and never could) force anyone to do anything against their will
Many people get great value from MS products, and businesses make billions using MS products - who are you to say there is something wrong with that?
Your attitude of hatred of Microsoft's success is not uncommon.
But consider this: millions of people like Microsoft products. Businesses make billions using Microsoft products. Microsoft makes products that are of enormous value to many people.
There are plenty of people, like myself, who are very familiar with many different operating systems, yet choose, and are happy with, Microsoft products (Ok the Ribbon interface in Office 2007 pissed me off for awhile, but I still CHOSE to purchase the software, because I like their Office software that much.)
This is an example of "If I controlled the world" type of thinking. Perfect for burgeoning bureaucrats, or aspiring dictators.
It is actually a pretty weak attempt, actually. Many MUCH more enthusiastic power brokers have made much more interesting and grandiose attempts to control the world to make it better
Unfortunately, trying to control everything at the point of a gun has always led to disaster. People need to be free to deal with each other voluntarily, dealing with each other peacefully with dollars, instead of guns.
Microsoft does not have any "undue influence". They are successful because people want to buy their products. In fact, businesses make billions using Microsoft products.
If you were capable of creating a better value proposition than Microsoft, they could not stop you.
But if people prefer Microsoft, that is not up to you or the government to attempt to destroy.
Also - Microsoft has every right to exist, which is an extension of each of our rights to contract and deal with eachother voluntarily.
The do not exist to "serve the people", they exist because of the focus and desire of the employees to create things, and earn profit doing it. There is nothing to "give back" because they did not take anything from anybody. They *trade* with people - the people who buy their products get the value of using the products, while Microsoft gets the the value paid by the buyer. It is a win-win situation, and if it weren't, nobody is forced to do it.
And how does your life belong to the group, in any way shape or form, a part of socialism?
In Socialism, most of what you have, create, or produce belongs to the group (the collective). You are a serf - a servant - existing for the sake of the group. You are not a free individual, living life for your own sake.
Communism is the complete abolition of private property, i.e. complete socialization.
Fascism is similar, except the state (government) leaves a pretense of private ownership, while the actual, de facto, ownership belongs to the state and those who control the state (bureaucrats).
In all cases, the only justification for your existence is as a sacrificial animal for others.
I do agree that those who are attending the Tea Parties but turned a blind eye to previous GOP adminstrations' spending have some hypocrisy to work out
However, there are also plenty of people who never liked the spending (like me). I actually did participate in activist events back then, but they were usually small, peaceful (like the Tea Parties) made little impact, and were often overshadowed by other nearby protests: gigantic throngs of the unshowered screaming and waving "Free Mumia" signs.
You do not need "studies" to beg the government to allow you to have the freedom to choose how your children are educated.
I want the freedom to choose my childrens' education because they are my children, not the governments. It is not up to the government to decide what and how they think.
Right now I am forced at gunpoint to pay for government schooling - but I should not have to.
Regarding the "millions of parents unable to send their children to school", that is first of all a specious argument, since the government has a coercive monopoly on the education system. In a free system, there could be all kinds of education you could purchase, from Wal-Mart levels to 5th Avenue levels. Having competition would increase choice, reduce cost, and improve quality - just as it does in the most free elements of society (e.g. technology and retail)
More fundamentally - just because someone needs something does not mean they have a claim on my life to provide it to them
It is not my purpose in my life to serve the needs of others, and you and your "gang" (the public, the majority, the tribe) have no right to force me into such servitude.
Having your life belong to the group (community, tribe, race), is the hallmark of collectivism, which is the basis for Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
On the other hand, owning your own life, being free to exercise your judgment freely and self-responsibly (respecting others equal rights) is the hallmark of Capitalism, and was an end-product of the Enlightenment.
Capitalism is the only system consistent with a morality in which your life is an end in itself (which is true for all life).
Of course the CRA is not the sole cause (I indicated 3 of many in my post), and the borrows had some blame, and the lenders had some blame.
The lenders should have suffered humiliation and bankruptcy, but, just as in previous savings and loan scandals of the past, the government didn't allow that.
Given that the government has a track record of bailing out companies that make mistakes, absorbing (and encouraging) risk, promoting home ownership, and steadfastly eliminating the need for personal responsibility in so many aspects of life, it is naive to think (as is commonly reported), that this is a problem of "lack of regulation".
Slashdot Mirror
while this in no way invalidates climate change models
Be careful, get too far ahead of orthodoxy and you will be judged a heretic.
However, you seem to be moving comfortably with the tide. Oh that comfortable groupy flow.
Even if you have free will, you have no way of knowing whether you are rational or not.
Doesn't that statement contradict itself? How can you reason about something (as you seem to be doing in your post) without, in fact, being rational?
That story, even if true, is never the whole truth..
Doesn't that statement also contradict itself? Isn't it a "whole truth" kind of a statement?
We are model makers. We make models of the world.
Then couldn't your model of "we are model makers" be wrong? In which case, we really aren't "model makers" at all?
I wish you had been predetermined not write such an annoying post. :)
What is the point of trying to convince people that they don't have free will?
"Persuading people" only matters if there is free will.
Otherwise the words coming out of your mouth are the equivalent of "fnarg beesh bads kushs f4q3g09wefui093gj2h40g5jpw5j51v[908[13995fc=-38m6b]194nb9b9v8uybv,"
Ayn Rand gave a highly original treatment of how reality and man's nature give rise to the concept of ethics, and gave a description of a code of ethics designed for people living on Earth.
Ethics are NOT by definition artificial. The *is-ought* gap refers to the problem of "how does *what is* determine what I *ought* to do", or another way: "What, in reality, gives rise to ethics".
Ayn Rand showed how to bridge the is-ought gap decades ago, which is one of her most startlingly original ideas.
The original purpose of the government was to protect you - the individual. The most radical idea in the Constitution was the idea that you, the individual, mattered.
Today, the government has gone from "protector" of individual rights, to "infringer" of individual rights. It is a culture of thuggery whose modus operandi is "Can I get away with it?"
The only way to get business out of government is to get government out of business, i.e. to return the government to it's sole function of protecting you - the individual.
That is why we need the separation of State and Economics, just as we have the separation of Church and State.
The only way to avoid the purchasing of government favoritism is to eliminate the power of the government to grant favors.
That's like saying: Microsoft could never have brought so much value into people's lives without already having brought so much value into people's lives.
Microsoft cannot (and never could) force anyone to do anything against their will
Many people get great value from MS products, and businesses make billions using MS products - who are you to say there is something wrong with that?
Your attitude of hatred of Microsoft's success is not uncommon.
But consider this: millions of people like Microsoft products. Businesses make billions using Microsoft products. Microsoft makes products that are of enormous value to many people.
There are plenty of people, like myself, who are very familiar with many different operating systems, yet choose, and are happy with, Microsoft products (Ok the Ribbon interface in Office 2007 pissed me off for awhile, but I still CHOSE to purchase the software, because I like their Office software that much.)
The _____ need to go
Now fill in the blank:
blacks
whites
immigrants
unions
rich
poor
people I disagree with
See how much fun you could have if you just go a little further with the "Give ME the gun and I'll make everything right" attitude?
This is an example of "If I controlled the world" type of thinking. Perfect for burgeoning bureaucrats, or aspiring dictators.
It is actually a pretty weak attempt, actually. Many MUCH more enthusiastic power brokers have made much more interesting and grandiose attempts to control the world to make it better
Unfortunately, trying to control everything at the point of a gun has always led to disaster. People need to be free to deal with each other voluntarily, dealing with each other peacefully with dollars, instead of guns.
Microsoft does not have any "undue influence". They are successful because people want to buy their products. In fact, businesses make billions using Microsoft products.
If you were capable of creating a better value proposition than Microsoft, they could not stop you.
But if people prefer Microsoft, that is not up to you or the government to attempt to destroy.
Also - Microsoft has every right to exist, which is an extension of each of our rights to contract and deal with eachother voluntarily.
The do not exist to "serve the people", they exist because of the focus and desire of the employees to create things, and earn profit doing it. There is nothing to "give back" because they did not take anything from anybody. They *trade* with people - the people who buy their products get the value of using the products, while Microsoft gets the the value paid by the buyer. It is a win-win situation, and if it weren't, nobody is forced to do it.
Hell... We might still be shaving ourselves with straight razors had not Gillette made that contract to supply US Army
Hell... We might still walking everywhere if the Roman's had not made so many chariots.
And how does your life belong to the group, in any way shape or form, a part of socialism?
In Socialism, most of what you have, create, or produce belongs to the group (the collective). You are a serf - a servant - existing for the sake of the group. You are not a free individual, living life for your own sake.
Communism is the complete abolition of private property, i.e. complete socialization.
Fascism is similar, except the state (government) leaves a pretense of private ownership, while the actual, de facto, ownership belongs to the state and those who control the state (bureaucrats).
In all cases, the only justification for your existence is as a sacrificial animal for others.
You are free to help whomever you wish, however you wish.
You have no right to enslave others, forcing them to do whatever you consider to be "the good"
Sounds like a la-dee-da way of saying: "stfu and give me your money"
If you wanted fair you shouldn't have joined a society.
I don't want fair, I want to be free. I want my individual rights protected, as was intended by the founders of this country.
If you want to form gangs and take other people's things, you shouldn't have joined a society
I do agree that those who are attending the Tea Parties but turned a blind eye to previous GOP adminstrations' spending have some hypocrisy to work out
However, there are also plenty of people who never liked the spending (like me). I actually did participate in activist events back then, but they were usually small, peaceful (like the Tea Parties) made little impact, and were often overshadowed by other nearby protests: gigantic throngs of the unshowered screaming and waving "Free Mumia" signs.
You do not need "studies" to beg the government to allow you to have the freedom to choose how your children are educated.
I want the freedom to choose my childrens' education because they are my children, not the governments. It is not up to the government to decide what and how they think.
Right now I am forced at gunpoint to pay for government schooling - but I should not have to.
Regarding the "millions of parents unable to send their children to school", that is first of all a specious argument, since the government has a coercive monopoly on the education system. In a free system, there could be all kinds of education you could purchase, from Wal-Mart levels to 5th Avenue levels. Having competition would increase choice, reduce cost, and improve quality - just as it does in the most free elements of society (e.g. technology and retail)
More fundamentally - just because someone needs something does not mean they have a claim on my life to provide it to them
It is not my purpose in my life to serve the needs of others, and you and your "gang" (the public, the majority, the tribe) have no right to force me into such servitude.
Having your life belong to the group (community, tribe, race), is the hallmark of collectivism, which is the basis for Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
On the other hand, owning your own life, being free to exercise your judgment freely and self-responsibly (respecting others equal rights) is the hallmark of Capitalism, and was an end-product of the Enlightenment.
Capitalism is the only system consistent with a morality in which your life is an end in itself (which is true for all life).
Those countries are not fully Communist. Not sure what that has to do with Conservatism (I am not one.)
People paying taxes for things they don't want, need, or use is nothing new.
Of course the CRA is not the sole cause (I indicated 3 of many in my post), and the borrows had some blame, and the lenders had some blame.
The lenders should have suffered humiliation and bankruptcy, but, just as in previous savings and loan scandals of the past, the government didn't allow that.
Given that the government has a track record of bailing out companies that make mistakes, absorbing (and encouraging) risk, promoting home ownership, and steadfastly eliminating the need for personal responsibility in so many aspects of life, it is naive to think (as is commonly reported), that this is a problem of "lack of regulation".
Unfortunately for Libertarians, they come in many stripes and you can't really even define them.
Some are anarchists, some are minarchists. There really is no ethical underpinning that I am aware of
However if you want to read the best and most influential defense of individualism and Capitalism, you should check out the works of Ayn Rand.