Leaderboard

There's a great deal of truth to this. Being born into a dictatorship poses a bit of conundrum for everyone under its influence, from the highest to the lowest. Generally, dictatorships lack the institutions of justice and liberty of which we in Western nations take for granted. Corruption is often the norm, institutionalized from the highest to the lowest. Vendettas are common. Machiavellian politics would likely result in usurpers overthrowing any leader appearing weak and sympathetic to liberal reforms. Stability is the primary objective for any nation with a history of violent factional or tribal conflict. What to do if one were an enlightened man born to rule such a nation? If it were me, I would do everything possible to secure my own preservation. A loyal ally among the security forces, one willing to accept the ideological changes, would be absolutely necessary. And it wouldn't hurt to have a backup plan for living in exile. 2. As an sort of philosopher-king, I would need to do a great deal of philosophizing in the language of both the higher and lower economic classes. Routine public addresses would be more effective than one three hour long "I am John Galt" speech, public addresses that relate to conditions specific to the nation. I would also need to allow the freedom for public rebuttal. 3. I would begin with a drastic reform of stripping the oligarchs of their monopolistic powers to privatization. I would need to know just how backward this hypothetical nation is in order to know how to proceed. Perhaps the nation has industrial capability, maybe better than any other nation. If so, it would be easier to liberalize institutions. If it were a nation of primitive savages, the process of allowing market forces to "do their magic" would be hindered by the fact that there would be very little wealth to take to market. Privatization brings enemies from all levels. Many Brits from the coal miners union have never forgiven Margret Thatcher. 4. The most difficult task of transitioning from absolute rule to rule of law is to institutionalize reason, purpose, and self-esteem. It would take generations of educational reform to reverse the effects of a church or state monopolized school system, and it would be made clear that that school system would not be public forever. On this point, there will be the old and unreconstructed who will always tell their children and grandchildren how much better it was under the old regime. I wouldn't expect my "revolution" to be successful beyond my life, but if my works and words survive me in the memories of others, it could be the genesis of something to come. I might be "air-brushed" out of my nation's history books, but I would die satisfied knowing I tried.

He would be assassinated or overthrown immediately for this. Dictators never rule alone. There's always a powerful oligarchy lurking in the background.

This question seems good at first, but it is actually simple and straightforward to answer. If a person wants to reason through the world, and even uses logic well, it may seem that a good argument would persuade them. But this only works with like-minded thinkers. A Marxist simply does not reason the way you are I do, thanks to their materialist foundation. Furthermore, it isn't surprising if a Marxist grew into it on emotional grounds, so their whole foundation may rest on how they felt about capitalism. To alter that foundation, you need to engage their emotions enough so that they question their core beliefs. This is non-rational persuasion, not far from how psychology counselors work. A Marxist has a false sense of self-esteem is the point. You can offer a little respect to such a mindset depending on their personal contradictions and their interest to resolve contradictions. All you know is that a dedicated Marxist probably wants real self-esteem. Like a religious person, their dedication is a hole they want to fill. It's not a big deal as far as persuasion is concerned, the big deal is what the Marxist plans to do or their personal issues. If you want to persuade someone, you want them on your side. If you want them on your side, helping them out of their personal suffering is probably the most important step. A lot of the time, yes. This is a misreading of Laika making it clear how Marxism can tear you apart between self and Marxism. Basically, a lot of Laika's quotation marks are ironic uses of words.

. On sensation for Kant: KANT'S THEORY OF FORM --Robert Pippin (1984) On sensation and perception: KANT'S INTUITIONISM --Lorne Falkenstein (1995) On sensation, perception, and definition: Follow Index of Werner Pluhar's translation (1996) of CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. On definition, see especially A727-32 B755-60.

A lot of good stuff in there. I respect Paul Graham, even though like so many in the valley he's into many of the practical aspects of objectivism, but not so much the theoretical. I don't believe much in schools anymore, and the popularity contest is just another reminder of that. I think it's a huge waste of time. People should learn real skills instead. Do they learn about cash flow in shcools? Balance sheets? Income statements? No. How to evaluate the value of a business? No. How to build a business? No. How to do accounting? No. Do they learn what attributes to look for in a potential spouse? What are the attributes that suggest that a person will be successful later? How can you make yourself an attractive partner? No. How to set life-goals and achieve them? No. How to make yourself happy and successful? No. I talked with one kid. He was learning how the trees were procreating. Others are learning about religions. He didn't learn how he could succeed genetically, but how the trees were doing it. Maybe the whole school system is dated. It was invented hundreds of years ago, and have now come to dominate childhood for most people all over the world. I know I regret wasting so many years doing something so useless. The best years of learning and fun wasted.

Interstellar hit it pretty close, to me anyway. I actively avoided the science-y boo-hooers before and afterward, so that I could more easily suspend my disbelief. Taking the premises as true, the movie was excellent.