Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Living for the state

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

That is a nationalistic and racist view. In an ideal world, people are closer to being "citizens of the world". Obviously one has memories and fondness for things associated with your life. That's good. There are some foods I eat that you will think smell like shit. That's just fine.

However, when it comes to essentials, rational men should take the exact opposite of the view you espouse. Just because you stay in the same country I do, or even in the same neighborhood, does not make me nearer you on its own. Many people living across a border considered hostile are closer to each other, intellectually, than they are to their fellow citizens. And, this is a good thing.

There's the common parable told in third-world countries, saying the country is like a jar full of worms, and if any worm tries to rise above its station and get out, the others will pull him back. Pride in things they have not done -- things that preceded their first thought and action -- like country and community, is for worms, not for human beings.

Nobody should be proud of America by the mere fact that they are born here. As juveniles, fine; but, as adults, a country has to earn their pride.

 

This is a racist view that is commonly held, but at its root is the same false ideology that drove the Nazis.

I am proud of the human race for coming out of Africa. If some of them went on to Phonecia and invented an alphabet, I am proud of those cousins, even though some of my closer cousins missed that. If others went to South America and invented a calendar, I am proud of those cousins, even though my closer cousins missed that. If some went to China and invented paper, I am proud of those cousins, and so on.

 

Do not shatter your world with narrow domestic walls. That is the basis for all racism and war. A country and a community is a good thing, but not a primary, and it must earn respect. Respect must never be given it automatically. The idea that the community is primary, and your notion of vampire that flows form that is evil. Abandon it, for it is the creed of leeches who want an unearned love and an unearned respect.

I would rather identify myself with a race and culture than not have any. No domestic borders are necessary in a global society, only races and cultures can have locational borders where they can coexist with others. This is called differentiation, like the law of identity, versus undifferentiation, which is meaninglessness without "absolutes."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My goal, for the moment, is clarifying any misconceptions you, or anyone reading this, may have regarding my outlook on globalization. I have no other goal.   An individual is the ultimate minority

Don't worry - I only got it after a lot of reading and lectures too, and actually some very thoughtful posts here too.  Some of that is really deep and outside of my interest points (ethics and politi

Your tribalistic thinking is for savages.

False alternative. And the rest of your post is words with no coherent meaning.

Do you believe in genes? Races are genetic cultures. For example, my DNA analysis has shown that 64% of my world region match results belongs to the Slavic-Aryan race, which is basically all of Northern Europe and Russia. Races are inside of people. How can you abandon your own selves?

 

The source of my DNA analysis is: http://www.dnatribes.com. I mathematically found the percentage from the data (the genes of Autosomal STR Profile).

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, a racist National Socialist eventually outs himself.

Yes, I am racist who believes in his race and culture, loves his race and culture, and respects other races and cultures. In contrast to multiculturalists, or worse, patriots of an undifferentiated state who support those racists oversea who go against their own race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oy, k'shmar! He's back.

Ilya, there is only one race: the human race. Any other illusion of multiple races is a concept in your head.

You are right, there is one, unified human race, but we have not approached that understanding fully yet and we are not living in that reality. In order to do so, we must compare our race against extraterrestrial races, of whose existence there is no consensus. Therefore, we can first subdivide our human race inso smaller races, similarly to how we subdivide the global society into smaller societies we have today. Unified human race is in unified human world with one global society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Define what you mean by "culture" here.

Surely, thanks for asking. You all deserve clarifications in meanings from me. What I mean by culture is not just an industry made for comfort, but a natural, diachronic connection to nature intrinsically (through genes) and to the world extrinsically.

In the model, nature is a part of race/culture and society is likened to civilization, or industry:

Society--Nature

Race--World

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I asked. Your meaning here is completely unlike anything in any dictionary I can find with my search engine so far.

 

". . . culture is . . . a . . . connection to nature . . . and to the world . . ." So, "race is a genetic connection to nature and to the world" -- is this an accurate translation of the sentence I quoted earlier? If so, 1) how would nature and the world be different things 2) how does a connection to the world/nature require separating people into smaller groups to function?

Edited by bluecherry
Link to post
Share on other sites

aleph_1, I agree with you. Now that we are done with historical mistakes and downfalls, what can we learn from them? One answer is: we need Democracy. That is why socialists/communists/marxists today believe in Democratic Socialism (Democratic Socialists of America, Communist Party of the Russian Federation). Why are they clinging to the semblance of the previous model? Because there is something good in that model. It is naive to believe that intelligent people can be so stupid. They are not, well, at least not all of them, are stupid. There are some very good individuals out there who want to live in a society that they would like to build. I want to live in such a society. Because society is a goal. This is what we are attempting to build. It is not just to have a family for the sake of a family (which usually does not work out, e.g. "Breaking Bad"), but it is to have a family as a society we can all share and build together. Outside of this, individuals simply die with a legacy they bequeath to their offspring, so that those can build a better society.

First of all, I'm really not sure what model you're referring to. Western Europe developed welfare states in the second half of the 19th century. OTH, Russia's attempt thru 'zemstevo' failed miserably.

 

Moreover, while it might be said that social welfare was introduced because of pressure from (non-Marxist) socialists, the welfare reforms were in greater part carried out by conservatives.

 

Russians cling to Stalinsim not because they're stupid as human beings, but rather because in terms of developing viable democratic and economic institutions, they're still barefoot and pregnant.

 

Lastly, the purpose of a state is to do things as a collective that individuals cannot do on their own. This also includes deriving cost-benefit from collective spending and accepting collective liability on forseeable events that will eventually effect all members. For example, comprehensivehealth care, in which the Americans are either hopelessly  barefoot and pregnant in terms of the numbers and/or bogged down in a pseudo-individualist cult of refusal.

 

This, too, is utter nonsense. But we don't justify one's nonsense by citing others, do we?

 

Therefore, to speak of living for the state is utter nonsense. It's nothing but the rhetorical flip-side of the juvenile division of people into holding either 'collectivist' or 'individuaslist' beliefs.

 

For one, people can possess the moral insight and responsibility of passing down weath and progress to future generations without embracing any state ideology. Millions died in the Great Patriotic War because killing Germans was simply the right thing to do.

 

They didn't sacrifice themselves for the glory of Stalin, or that Mamayev Kurgan might be turned into an amusemant park. It must also be remarked that the communists intentionally hid the true human cost of the war by at least ten million. The regime that you nostalgically remember as having some good could not even give proper recognition to its own dead. Ryzov...Yelna...the entire Stalingrad campaign...this is shameful.

Edited by frank harley
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad I asked. Your meaning here is completely unlike anything in any dictionary I can find with my search engine so far.

 

". . . culture is . . . a . . . connection to nature . . . and to the world . . ." So, "race is a genetic connection to nature and to the world" -- is this an accurate translation of the sentence I quoted earlier? If so, 1) how would nature and the world be different things 2) how does a connection to the world/nature require separating people into smaller groups to function?

Yes. Here are also two definitions from dictionary.com that I accept: race is "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." culture is "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action" among others.

Some examples are: the American-Indian culture, the Slavic culture (or Slavic-Aryan), the Chinese culture, etc. Pretty much every country has a culture. However, countries such as the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. created their cultures relatively recently and thus could still be considered artificial and unnaturalized. Yes, if you wish to argue for the American culture (of the founding fathers, westerns, country music, thanksgiving and independence day holidays, the american flag, etc.) I will not disagree, but will even promote such identity as being considered race/culture.

1) Nature is the surface of the planet shared by people socially. World is a sphere that includes all events through time and that are inseparable from human societies (the artificial factors) as well as nature (natural factors, such as reproduction, and being in harmony with nature in general).

2) I differentiate between world and nature, just as I differentiate between society and race. Social identity can be undifferentiated and faceless, whereas racial identity always has a face (i.e., specific and unique culture). What you see as separating people is actually differentiating people in order to later unite all in the world. Cultural assimilation should only occur when one identifies with some culture, not when one is forced into it. Type "races" or "races peace" into google and you will hopefully understand what I mean. The unity of races, not just nations.

frank harley:

Thank you for joining the discussion! It's nice to meet new people!

The society debate may still be a part of what I am writing here, but I would prefer to concentrate more on race instead.

The model that I was referring to is my own. It is quite extensive and the piece that I posted here is only a small part of it. The thread that has the whole model is Integrating Objectivism and Marxism and specifically post #182.

Another important point is that some of the expressed ideas in the beginning of that thread (except for the model) are obsolete and in lieu of which there are new upcoming developments (i.e., the Neo-Objectivist philosophy that I am still working on).

The one idea that I do not promote anymore is democracy. Instead, it is going to be a republican government (specifically, aristocratic one). When I have finished reading some Objectivist books and have finalized the new theory, I will post it in the economic forum.

 

Therefore, to speak of living for the state is utter nonsense. It's nothing but the rhetorical flip-side of the juvenile division of people into holding either 'collectivist' or 'individuaslist' beliefs.

Most people are living in that belief. I agree with pretty much everything you mentioned, though. There needs to be an integrative way of living one's life. It is not about living for the government or specific individuals. It is about living for one's own sake that is not in conflict with others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly, the purpose of a state is to do things as a collective that individuals cannot do on their own.

What are those things? There are precious few things we cannot do on our own. If those things are maintaining courts to adjudicate disputes, a defensive military, and police who pick up the pieces after violent crime, then I agree with you. Otherwise, I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.

To live for the state is to sacrifice for others. This is the basis of all those failed value systems that litter history. They divide value from virtue and hence lead to bastard moralities that leave disappointment, frustration and horror in their wakes.

The industrial innovations in the last decade alone show that we don't need NASA, the post office, etc. I want to pay for all services that I receive so that no dishonest strings remain attached. To the extent that I am forced into government health care, you can be sure that government doctors will have to treat every boil on my *ss. I demand the best and most abundant treatment your dollars can buy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To call your genes your most important trait (as in every variant of racism and sexism) is to also call your brain meaningless. That's a confession of the worst sort of self-hatred I can imagine.

Anyone with such a mind has my pity.

I never called my genes my most important trait. Genes are not even a part of my self-consciousness; they are a part of my body. I call my genes an evidence for race. I would be stupid to call any molecule greater than my organ or my body or anything above. Genes are simply an inseparable part of me - they are not my ultimate goal. The goal is to evolve to someone greater than yourself. In other words - to grow in all respects. Geneticists may be concerned with fragmentation into genes, but I am not a geneticist and do not wish to be one.

 

What are those things? There are precious few things we cannot do on our own. If those things are maintaining courts to adjudicate disputes, a defensive military, and police who pick up the pieces after violent crime, then I agree with you. Otherwise, I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.

To live for the state is to sacrifice for others. This is the basis of all those failed value systems that litter history. They divide value from virtue and hence lead to bastard moralities that leave disappointment, frustration and horror in their wakes.

The industrial innovations in the last decade alone show that we don't need NASA, the post office, etc. I want to pay for all services that I receive so that no dishonest strings remain attached. To the extent that I am forced into government health care, you can be sure that government doctors will have to treat every boil on my *ss. I demand the best and most abundant treatment your dollars can buy.

If there is no need for NASA, then there is no need for the Outer Space Treaty. Apply Harrison Danneskjold's thinking here. And this means you won't be able to search for that Uranium outside of Earth and you are doomed. And if you do not want affordable healthcare, you can choose a private insurance.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya said, "If you do not want affordable healthcare, you can choose a private insurance."

Don't you understand, collectivism turns productive people into louses? Like it or not, I'm what you get when you force me into Medicare when I turn 65. Every sneeze and ache has now become your responsibility. I'll comply with the system explicitly, but I'll take advantage of it to the limit. As retirement looms large in my future, watch out baby!

The sky is falling. We don't have enough Uranium! Poppycock. You've been had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of U.S. elderly to double by 2050: reports

 

Those older U.S. residents are expected grow from 43 million in 2012 to nearly 84 million over the next four decades as the baby boomer generation ages, the Census Bureau said in its latest estimate.

 

One in 5 of the nation's population will be 65 or older by 2030, the year by which all baby boomers - named for the "boom" in U.S. births in the years following the Second World War - hit the unofficial retirement age, the Census Bureau found.

 

By 2056, its researchers expect another milestone: The number of U.S. seniors will be larger than the number of those age 18 and younger.

 

My finger hurts from copying and pasting all of that. Thank entrepreneurs for that voice recognition software on the cell phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya, for the sake of moderate amusement, indulging your compulsive desire for scatological banter could require endless entries on this thread. It appears you have no more interest in "Living for the State"; is this so?

 

frank harley:
Thank you for joining the discussion! It's nice to meet new people!
The society debate may still be a part of what I am writing here, but I would prefer to concentrate more on race instead.

The model that I was referring to is my own. It is quite extensive and the piece that I posted here is only a small part of it. The thread that has the whole model is Integrating Objectivism and Marxism and specifically post #182.

Another important point is that some of the expressed ideas in the beginning of that thread (except for the model) are obsolete and in lieu of which there are new upcoming developments (i.e., the Neo-Objectivist philosophy that I am still working on).
The one idea that I do not promote anymore is democracy. Instead, it is going to be a republican government (specifically, aristocratic one). When I have finished reading some Objectivist books and have finalized the new theory, I will post it in the economic forum.
 

 

Would it be too much to ask to either stay on point, or create a new thread (related to the subject of race/culture, or whatever), or perhaps create your own website for the purpose of exhibiting your bizarre writings?

One more question, do you really expect people on an Objectivist forum to give any serious consideration to your "model" and/or other notions, e.g. your "Neo-objectivism" based on absolutely no comprehension of the works of Ayn Rand, treaties with extraterrestrials, and other pseudo-scientific claims you so proudly and casually assume the readers will believe?

I realize that was a lengthy and loaded question, but, if you'll excuse the expression, "come on", Ilya. Enough is enough. You're on the sixth page of another rant that goes nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya said, "If you do not want affordable healthcare, you can choose a private insurance."

Don't you understand, collectivism turns productive people into louses? Like it or not, I'm what you get when you force me into Medicare when I turn 65. Every sneeze and ache has now become your responsibility. I'll comply with the system explicitly, but I'll take advantage of it to the limit. As retirement looms large in my future, watch out baby!

The sky is falling. We don't have enough Uranium! Poppycock. You've been had.

Please name an actual collectivist who became a louse. Becoming a louse is a personal choice, not a fault of a system. For the second part, please refer to post #30 of Integrating Wealth and Health.

 

Ilya, for the sake of moderate amusement, indulging your compulsive desire for scatological banter could require endless entries on this thread. It appears you have no more interest in "Living for the State"; is this so?

 

Would it be too much to ask to either stay on point, or create a new thread (related to the subject of race/culture, or whatever), or perhaps create your own website for the purpose of exhibiting your bizarre writings?

One more question, do you really expect people on an Objectivist forum to give any serious consideration to your "model" and/or other notions, e.g. your "Neo-objectivism" based on absolutely no comprehension of the works of Ayn Rand, treaties with extraterrestrials, and other pseudo-scientific claims you so proudly and casually assume the readers will believe?

I realize that was a lengthy and loaded question, but, if you'll excuse the expression, "come on", Ilya. Enough is enough. You're on the sixth page of another rant that goes nowhere.

It is not going anywhere for you, but it is going somewhere for me. I love learning about Objectivism through the Platonic dialectic - a dialogue, involving two or more people sharing their ideas, opinions, meanings, etc, that is, sharing their minds. However, my views on race are not enough (in my opinion) to start a new topic. I realize that my defense of these views, even supported with physical evidence, is futile in your case, as you say so. I honestly hope, though, that someone else may take something out of it. Society is not all there is. There is also culture. Please read my essay - especially part 39.3.3.6. Life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Number of U.S. elderly to double by 2050: reports

 

Those older U.S. residents are expected grow from 43 million in 2012 to nearly 84 million over the next four decades as the baby boomer generation ages, the Census Bureau said in its latest estimate.

 

One in 5 of the nation's population will be 65 or older by 2030, the year by which all baby boomers - named for the "boom" in U.S. births in the years following the Second World War - hit the unofficial retirement age, the Census Bureau found.

 

By 2056, its researchers expect another milestone: The number of U.S. seniors will be larger than the number of those age 18 and younger.

 

My finger hurts from copying and pasting all of that. Thank entrepreneurs for that voice recognition software on the cell phone.

It's great info, but I don't quite know what to do with it. The Chinese have the same problem, except they care for their seniors. Would you rather let the American seniors die off, since you do not want the young to be pressured into paying for them? I do think there is a way out, though. I am against taxation myself, but so far this is the only way it works with a monetary economy. People are dependent on money in order to survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great info, but I don't quite know what to do with it. The Chinese have the same problem, except they care for their seniors. Would you rather let the American seniors die off, since you do not want the young to be pressured into paying for them? I do think there is a way out, though. I am against taxation myself, but so far this is the only way it works with a monetary economy. People are dependent on money in order to survive.

You think there is a way out, yet you offer the same old tired apologetics for the state.  Are you sure you did not typo and actually meant to type "I don't think there is a way out, though."?

 

I will be one of the "One in 5" by 2030. If you (and a host of others) do not discover the morality proper to man by that time, you will be asking yourself if the young will continue to allow themselves to be pressured into paying for your social 'security' and 'affordable' health care. You are against taxation, but since it is the only way a monetary economy 'works', then Capitalism and Austrian Economics must simply be pie-in-the-sky, wishful, idealism. After all, people are dependent on money (not their minds) in order to survive.

 

For cryin' out loud, you make it sound as if 95% of Americans will be dead or broke at age 65. On the other hand, like aleph_1, if you and your ilk are going to force me to take Medicare when I'm 65, it should not be too difficult to recoup what I've already paid into it over the years, especially if I have got an additional 40+ hours a week to devote to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...