Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

MisterSwig last won the day on January 29

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About MisterSwig

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Politics

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Chat Nick
    MisterSwig
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive

Recent Profile Visitors

3429 profile views
  1. Watch this video of Chicago PD addressing the charges against Jussie Smollett. Note how the speaker accuses Jussie of damaging Chicago's reputation, and says nothing about the actor's real victims: MAGA Trump supporters. For weeks he accused his political rivals of the assault. Yet the policeman wholly evaded this issue and acted as if Jussie was some blight on Chicago. Nobody cares that this happened in Chicago. That's not the point at all. Also, he says Jussie perpetrated the hoax over dissatisfaction with his salary. So not only is this about Chicago over MAGA, it's about salary over racism. These political cops in Chicago are ridiculous, and they will get skewered by the political right. https://youtu.be/jILC_DP520E
  2. MisterSwig

    The Trolley Problem

    Right, but I'm trying to establish a non-assumptive standard. Dreadrock is claiming that at some point the society's value itself rivals his own child's. So how do you calculate that value? How do you know when killing the plurality would destroy the value which is society? I'm suggesting that you can't know this through mere assumption or arbitrary assertion. Perhaps you yourself don't like society much and would slaughter billions to save your child, because you wouldn't want to live knowing you let your child die. Or maybe you value society so highly that you would kill your child for a mere couple, because the number two is greater than one. Even this choice depends on the particular context and personal values. Ultimately what I think it boils down to is whether you choose family or society. Which one is the greater value to you? If you had to completely destroy one, which one would it be?
  3. I'm going to pitch a Socialist Control Act idea and spread it around social media and chat rooms. It's inspired by historical laws against communism, such as the Communist Control Act of 1954. My purpose is to contribute to the reaction against socialism, both the globalist and nationalist varieties, and to promote capitalism. The focus therefore will be defending individual rights, particularly property rights, and calling for a ban on advocating socialism on the public streets and in government institutions. I'm not interested in debating whether this violates free speech rights. Been there, done that. But if you're sympathetic to my idea, I'd appreciate suggestions for clarifying the message and drafting succinct sentences to drop into various online forums. Thanks.
  4. MisterSwig

    Reblogged:Thank You, Dr. Williams

    It's not a wake-up call. It's a declaration of war. The time for talk is over. We need a Socialist Control Act. Our predecessors had the right idea when they passed the Communist Control Act. We have no obligation to tolerate anti-rights activists in the public and in the government.
  5. MisterSwig

    The Trolley Problem

    I think there is a critical problem here. You cannot possibly assess the value of the million without knowing whether their deaths would result in the collapse of the rest of society. For example, among the million might be a set of individuals necessary to stop an extinction-level threat in the future. You have to assume that society can continue to your satisfaction despite the loss of the million. And if you arbitrarily make that assumption, why not slaughter a billion? Or a trillion? After all, they're just numbers now. It's not actually the number that's relevant. It's the effect on society in relation to your life. And I don't think you could possibly calculate that effect, especially not in the seconds you would have to make a decision at the lever. If he were raised to be rational, he would not accept unearned guilt. He's not the one who killed a million people.
  6. MisterSwig

    The Trolley Problem

    Are you saying the nominal value of 1 million human traders might surpass the value of your child, and that's why you'd let your child die? If you're comfortable slaughtering 999,999 people, why not 1 million?
  7. MisterSwig

    The Trolley Problem

    Exactly. In real life there is always a context. In addition to the environmental context, there is also the personal. Who are you, and who are the children? What if I'm a spy in cold war Soviet Union and I'm trying to escape with a secret that will topple the communist network in Eastern Europe? I think I'm mowing down the kids. But if I'm a regular old fart coming back from the hospital in my home town, I'll probably go off the cliff. Context matters. Moral choice fantasies have absolutely no meaning outside a serious context. All you're doing is creating dogma.
  8. MisterSwig

    National Borders

    Look it up where? Who has stats on successful smugglings? If we go by "inadmissables" who were caught at the border last year, the vast majority of them tried to cross between ports (396,579), not at them (124,511). https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
  9. MisterSwig

    Portrait Generator

    They just released a photo of the Trump supporter who beat up Jussie Smollett.
  10. The idea of the Collective Unconscious is very mystical. It is this supernatural thing of which we are aware only through manifestations of archetypes. Basically it's like a god dispensing knowledge through personal revelations, but we can't prove its existence, because we are unconscious of it. This orientation toward fantasy is further evidenced by Jung's focus on religious and mythological stories, versus his lack of writing about his actual clinical practice with real people and their issues. Reading through my Oxford Companion To The Mind (1987), I note that Jung made a very distinct appeal to the supernatural late in his career: "In a late work, Answer to Job (1952), he pictures Job appealing to God against God, and concludes that any split in the moral nature of man must be referred back to a split in the Godhead ... in a letter he wrote subsequently about the book he said, 'I had to wrench myself free of God, so to speak, in order to find that unity in myself which God seeks through man. It is rather like that vision of Symeon, the Theologian, who sought God in vain everywhere in the world, until God rose like a little sun in his own heart.'" And in his memoirs he admits to not only feeling apart from this world, but disconnected from his very self. "The more uncertain I have felt about myself, the more there has grown up in me a feeling of kinship with all things. In fact, it seems to me as if that alienation which so long separated me from the world has become transferred into my own inner world, and has revealed to me an unexpected unfamiliarity with myself." Poor guy. After all that work and thought, even his own person was a mysterious stranger. In the end, all he had left was the feeling of being a thing among things.
  11. The current debate over free speech on the Internet offers us a prime example of how different strands of collectivists play ping-pong with each other. It begins with a serve of the ball. For example, companies like Twitter or Facebook or Google convince people that their social media sites are "communities." They say this in their TOS and use it to justify forming "community standards" of behavior. And when prominent people start suffering from demonetization or deplatforming because of their speech, the users send a sharp volley back to the server. They accept the notion of "social media as community," but follow the premise to its collectivist conclusion: social media is public space. This game continues back and forth until both sides settle on a compromise: an Internet Bill of Rights. Of course such a Bill of Rights is based on the false premise that social media is a community, when in reality it's only media. If you watch prominent Internet talk show hosts like Joe Rogan or Dave Rubin, you'll see them struggle to integrate free speech with property rights, because they still hold the collectivist principle. They see humans as primarily members of a group, instead of primarily as individuals. And so any form of media is primarily group-owned, communal property. The concept of "community" has been thus pilfered and abused by collectivists. Its genus used to be actual people. People living together. Now it includes products. People and their online products together. This is a contradiction. And since it cannot exist, people evade the fact that they don't actually live on the Internet together. They must evade or compartmentalize this fact in order to accept "social media as community" and continue playing collectivist ping-pong. Unfortunately for us individualists, it's a game that increasingly opposes individual rights until the most skillful collectivist wins. If we can't convince them to stop playing the game, we are doomed.
  12. MisterSwig

    Abortion Rights and Parental Obligations

    Others have already pointed out a couple philosophical issues with the "boat ride principle." Additionally, I simply don't think it works as an analogy for abortion. During abortion a woman isn't ordering or forcing the fetus off her body/boat. Indeed, this is not an option for the mother. The fetus cannot understand or act on such a demand. To make the boat ride analogy more relevant, the unwanted passenger should be a newborn baby or perhaps a comatose patient, not a conscious, healthy adult. Then the scenario could be seen as appropriately ridiculous. The "vital dependence" idea does not work with the boat ride, because it relies on a context in which the passenger is absolutely helpless, and under normal circumstances this would never be the case. Not only could the passenger plead his case for staying aboard, he could also physically fight the captain for control of the boat. This is a far cry from the actual vital dependence of a fetus in the womb of its mother.
  13. MisterSwig

    National Borders

    This is backwards. First you need philosophical clarity regarding national borders, then you can apply that knowledge to practical problems related to the war on drugs or the welfare state. I agree in principle, and, look, we didn't even have to solve the drug war first. Though we might disagree on what qualifies as "a very real threat to individual rights." For example, you don't mention anti-individual rights ideologies, like socialism. Binswanger has argued against controlling for political ideology at the border. I disagree and have debated the point at length on the "Immigration Restrictions" thread. http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/31452-immigration-restrictions/
  14. MisterSwig

    Abortion Rights and Parental Obligations

    What do you mean by "control"? Without a fetus labor would neither begin nor end. And supposing the fetus could control the mother's involuntary contractions, would that mean it has a right to the mother's body?
  15. MisterSwig

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    So what do you do when the reasonable action goes against the dictates of the tribe? What if your tribe demands that you be sacrificed to the rain god in order to end the drought?
×