gags
-
Posts
1755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by gags
-
-
Have any of you watched the sickening hearings regarding oil company profits that are now being held by the Senate?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051109/ap_on_bi_ge/congress_oil
The oil co. managers aren't doing much of a job defending themselves. I would give my left arm to see one of the oil execs stand up and flip the bird to these clowns in the Senate.
-
I agree that part of this problem is the result of poor governance but that seems to be only one side of the coin. Racism ingrained in the French psyche plays a very important role in the marginalization of an entire segment of their population. Suppose all socialist initiatives were abandoned today, these people would still be denied employment based on such irrational motives as race, ethnicity, or religion simply because the native French just plain don't like them. They would still be incapable of leaving their ghettos and the problem would fester until some other excuse could be found to set the night ablaze. The real tragedy is that this problem appears in large part to be imposed upon them by a xenophobic population.
Doesn't the State have a responsibility to ensure that all of its citizens be afforded the same opportunity? How can a government prevent the unfair ostracization of a given demographic without encroaching on the rights of employers to choose whom they hire?
You seem to believe that racism is the cause of these riots. Whether that is the case or not, in a true capitalist society racism cannot be widespread. Does a businessman care about the race of his customers? Does he care about the race of his employees? In a competitive situation, the businessman would sell to any customer able to afford his product and hire the most qualified employee for a given job. Statism, of which there is plenty in France, gives rise to racism.
-
There's nothing fallacious about it, consciousness does imply existence. It does not imply subjectivism, in fact DesCartes said it didn't. Maybe Ayn Rand didn't use the same construction, I don't know. If not, I'd be interested to see why she thinks existence is self-evident.
What exactly does DesCartes' existence premise have to do with rejecting the Libertarian Party?
This is an important point. Consciousness implies existence in the sense that if one is conscious, you are conscious of something. However, the primary principle and the foundation of Ayn Rand's metaphysics, is that: Existence Exists. If there were no consciousness, there would still be existence. If, for example, there were no humans (possessing consciousness, of course) on Earth, the Earth would still exist whether humans we were able to perceive it or not. As JM Snow posted above, the statement "cogito, ergo sum" (translated as "I think, therefore I am" or "I am thinking, therefore I exist") takes consciousness as the primary and existence as secondary. Ayn Rand identified this is THE fundamental metaphysical error and it has disasterous consequences in philosophy.
Descartes stated the following in "Meditations on First Philosophy": "Yet I hesitate, for.... am I so dependent on body and senses that I cannot exist without these? But I was persuaded that there was nothing in all the world, that there was no heaven, no earth, that there were no minds, nor any bodies: was I not then likewise persuaded that I did not exist? Not at all; of a surety I myself did exist since I persuaded myself of something (or merely because I thought of something)...... this proposition: I am, I exist, is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or that I mentally conceive it"
This premise became the basis for Descartes' entire philosophy. It manifested itself (among other ways) in his proof of God's existence, which is essentially as follows: (1) Everything, including our ideas, has a cause. (2) We have an idea of God. (3) Nothing less than God is adequate to be the cause of our idea of God. Therefore, (4) God exists.
With consciousness as the primary, one can justify virtually anything.
How does this relate to Libertarianism? It is important because earlier you stated that the premise of the right of self-ownership is "self evident". In reply to that, I said: "But why is it self-evident that one has a right of self-ownership? Many claim it is self-evident that God, society, the state, your neighbor, or mother nature own your life. Beginning with metaphysics and proceeding through epistemology and ethics, Ayn Rand set forth the logical derrivation of the right of self-ownership. Most Libertarians with whom I have had contact lack this essential philosophical foundation." So what good are the principles of Libertarianism if they can't be morally defended or justified by Libertarians?
-
The chickens are coming home to roost in France. Years of welfare state policies created this problem and allowed it to fester. Capitalism is the solution, however, French politicians will urge their people to drink even more of the poison (socialism) that is already killing them.While I make no excuses for the rioters I must still ask if perhaps their grievances are legitimate even though their methods most certainly are not. If the root problem is--as it seems to be--endemic French racism toward immigrants which prevents these people from fully integrating themselves into society, from obtaining gainful employment and elevating their own social position then is not government intervention warranted to correct these ills? Isn't some legislation required to ensure that these slum-dwellers be granted equal footing? How would an Objectivist government rectify such a scarred social landscape? -
It's unbelievable that they have such a lack of will to stem this tide of insanity. I was watching the news last night, and some official from the French govt. was asked whether it was suitable to send in the army. He said, "Well, at some point, it might be suitable."
Nearly 300 towns in turmoil, violence spreading across Europe, and at SOME point it might be suitable? Exactly what point would that be?
It took the French nearly two weeks to decide that local governments have the authority to impose curfews on young people. If within 48 hours of the start of these riots, they had ordered out the military and declared that curfew violators would be shot on sight, perhaps this wouldn't have turned into such a mess.
Capitalism Forever: this is a very predictable response. The French have decided that they must pay off the Muslim criminals. I can hear the politicians saying "If only the welfare system were a bit more generous, we could live in peace." What they don't seem to understand is that these thugs perceive such pay-offs as a sign of weakness and they will increase their demands.
Interesting column by Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun Times:
-
I would participate as well.
-
But why is it self-evident that one has a right of self-ownership? Many claim it is self-evident that God, society, the state, your neighbor, or mother nature own your life. Beginning with metaphysics and proceeding through epistemology and ethics, Ayn Rand set forth the logical derrivation of the right of self-ownership. Most Libertarians with whom I have had contact lack this essential philosophical foundation. This results in some Libertarians advocating things like anarchy.The self-evident premise of natural rights theory is the right of self-ownership. A person owns his own body and mind. From there, property rights and a support of the free market are derived. It's very much a priori. -
Thanks Nerd.
-
Yes, that is better terminology.
-
You make some excellent points Kyle. I believe that one of our problems is the entire idea of a "War on Terrorism". How can we ever win such a war when we don't even properly identify the enemy? The current situation is like fighting a war on obesity or drug use or some other form of bad behavior. This is a war on Islamic extremism. The Islamic extremists have chosen terrorism as their primary weapon, but it certainly isn't their only weapon. Unfortunately, our leaders and our allies in Western Europe are philosophically unprepared to fight this war.
If you'd like to read a series of 3 interesting opinion pieces on the war (by Tony Blankley), they are here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...22024-9420r.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...21424-2655r.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...15221-4519r.htm
I already posted these in the Riots in Paris thread in the current events forum. Although I can't agree with everything Blankley says, they are worth your time.
-
Hi xavier. I work in Troy and also attended school in AA. What are you majoring in?
-
A perfect example of the hysteria surrounding this subject is the rash of recent news stories tying the 2005 hurricane season to man-made global warming. The fact is that meteorologists say hurricanes occur in approximately 30 year cycles and we are currently in a busy cycle. This cycle is not the result of man-made global warming, but you'd never know that after listening to the network newscasts.
-
Things appear to be getting worse, rather than improving.
900 vehicles torched in a night is pretty remarkable.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051105/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
It's interesting that the word Islam can't be found in this AP article.
-
EC, isn't there a crucial difference between simply abandoning a child, which may well result in his/her death, and puting an imperfect child in foster care or up for adoption? I can understand that some people may not be capable of raising a special needs child and therefore would choose to put that child up for adoption. However, to simply abandon the child is morally repugnant.
-
A bipartisan group of US Senators including Jack Reed (D-RI), Richard (Turban) Durbin (D-IL), Susan Collins (R-ME), Charles Grassley (R-IA) Judd Gregg(R-NH) have proposed a "windfall profits" tax on "Big Oil".
http://reed.senate.gov/liheap/rel-windfall-11-03-05.htm
As is often the case with these types of schemes, this one is being done in the name of helping and protecting the poor. According to Senator Reed's proposal, the proeceeds will assist low-income families and seniors with their heating bills this winter.
Of course, the fact that the tax will simply be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher gas prices at the pump seems to have escaped these senators who are so eager to help and protect us.
Ugghh....who will protect us from our protectors?
-
Yes, last I heard the death toll that resulted from the banning of DDT stands around 50 million human beings. Hitler, Mao and Stalin would be proud.
-
Inheritance and Theft. Why does inheritance add good conscience to currency or has the moral lease expired upon death, thus rendering the benificiary free of responsibility as to it's root source.
Hi Bob. An inanimate object like money can't have "good conscience" or bad. If money has been stolen and you receive it as inheritance and know about the theft, I believe you would have a moral obligation to return the money, if that is possible and practical. However, this is not a statement in favor of reparations for slavery or giving Native Americans back land or anything of the sort. It simply isn't possible to right every historical wrong.
-
I haven't heard anything about that CF, thanks. It's remarkable the way the media are so shy about mentioning the involvement of radical Islamists in this violence.
This is all particularly disturbing because of what I see as Europe's inability and unwillingness to respond to this threat.
-
If you're interested, here are links to the final two parts of Tony Blankley's series on the war against radical Islam.
He says some good stuff, but I can't agree with all of his proposed methods of fighting the war.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050913-121424-2655r.htm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...15221-4519r.htm
-
Tony Blankley has a good series in The Washington Times on the problems that underlie these riots. Here's the first of 3 parts:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200509...22024-9420r.htm
This phenomenon of "Eurabia" is particularly disturbing. It's my understanding that Muslims make up nearly 10% of the French population. Blankley's perspective is interesting because he compares the radical Islamists in Europe to the Nazis.
Radical Islam, sometimes accurately called Islamo-fascism, has all the "advantages" the Nazis had in Germany in the 1930s. The Islamo-fascists find a Muslim population adrift, confused and humiliated by the dominance of foreign nations and cultures. They find a large, youthful population increasingly disdainful of their parents' passive habits.
Just as the Nazis reached back to German mythology and the supposed Aryan origins of the German people, the radical Islamists reach back to the founding ideas and myths of their religious culture. And just like the Nazis, they claim to speak for authentic traditions while actually advancing expedient and radical innovations......
In many ways, these radical Muslim fundamentalists are postmodern, not pre-modern. They are designing a distinctly Western, fascistic version of Islam that is less and less connected to the Islam of their Middle Eastern homeland.
Radical Western Islam brings the combative strength and deep faith of authentic traditions while constantly modifying itself to best attack liberal, secular European and American institutions.
The radical Islamists are able to rationalize concessions to modernity with ancient-sounding mumbo jumbo while still sounding like authentic fundamentalists, the only true voice of Islam.
The Nazis overwhelmed German society with these methods 70 years ago. There is building evidence that the radical Islamists are moving ever more successfully down the same path -- particularly within the younger generations in Europe and, to a lesser extent, in the United States.
Unfortunately, France and Western Europe are in many ways just as unprepared to combat this virulent ideology as the Weimar Republic was in the aftermath of WWI. From what I can see, the French lack the philosophical weapons necessary to win this battle. In fact, there are some "Ominous Parallels" between the intellectual atmosphere in 1920s Germany and the postmodern philosophic wasteland of France created by the likes of Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard and Foucalt. How do you fight the irrationalism of radical Islam when your leading thinkers write about the "death of the real", the growth of "hyperreality", and how there is a sort of unstable shifting back and forth between "privileged" and "marginalized" readings of the same text?
None of this bodes well for France or the rest of Europe.
-
Also if the Nazis loved Nietzche so much how come they had the Catholic Church on their side?
From what I can tell, the Nazis liked Nietzsche's hatred of reason, his love of force and his "overman" theory, which fit in well with the whole Aryan super race idea. The Catholic Church didn't do nearly enough to counter Hitler, however, the Nazis were equal opportunity murderers. For example, I know they killed roughly 7,000 Polish priests during the war.
-
And all the guys are saying: "No! Please don't stop!"
-
The economic situation is pretty depressing here. The City of Detroit is on the brink of receivership, property values are stagnant or in decline, the hit from Delphi is going to be horrendous and the only thing our governor can think about is how to tax the "windfall profits" of the oil companies. Scary stuff.
-
This point of view stands in stark contrast to the prevailing religious and Kantian notions that one has a "duty" to your fellow man. The more painful and difficult it is to fulfill your duty, the better. If you happen to pursue happiness or pleasure, then you should feel guilty about it. In fact, under the logical extension of the Kantian ideal, saving the life of someone who you despise is more moral than saving the life of someone you love. Pulling Hitler out of a burning building is more altruistic and, therefore preferable, to helping your spouse.Other people can be (and usually are) values, too. The point that Objectivism makes in regard to "serving" others is that there is no moral edict demanding it, and that one should only do so on the grounds of rationally chosen values. If one has an unfavorable judgment of another person, and views him as a great disvalue, then acting to save his life, or help him in any way whatsoever would be altruistic.Now if that isn’t immoral, I don’t know what is.
Libertarians
in Political Philosophy
Posted
The Libertarian movement has been around for a number of years now and doesn't appear to be getting any stronger or to be wielding any more influence on politics than it has in the past. Libertarians seem to have about as much credibility with the general public as the Green Party or the Natural Law Party. I wonder how much more of an effect on politics Libertarians would have had over the years if they had focused their money and their efforts on promoting a proper philosophy?