Psychic FRAUD

[Serapis Bey]

I think this is a sad day at OL.

Kacy, you might find more concensus for your peculiar hot button issues over at The Objectivist Standard.

My understanding is that they are all about the "imminent Christian theocracy".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paying customers deserve to know what they are receiving in return for their payment.

Kacy,

Statements like this creep me out.

What??? You disagree? You don't think people deserve to know what they're paying for?

Kacy,

I agree that people should be informed of what they are buying.

I don't agree that you should be the one to decide what that information is, nor do I think a government bureaucrat should decide.

Spin it like you want, but all I see is an underlying effort in your good intentions to control the lives of others against their will.

It's not as if psychics haven't been debunked time after time in the mainstream. If people see that and still want their psychics, what on earth have you to do with that?

Like I said, friggen' busybody.

And like the saying goes, get a life, will ya'?

Even Bill Maher thinks something is wrong with a billionaire like Bloomberg lying in bed dreaming up how much soda pop people should drink. This psychic stuff is the same crap.

I want no part of your good intentions enforced by a government.

You don't like psychics? Fine. Don't spend your money on them.

You want to inform people about them?

Fine.

Ever heard of the free press? It's out there all over the place with open arms just waiting on you to instruct everyone on how to save the world by debunking psychics.

Michael

[anthony]

Does anyone at all here agree that psychic readings are fraudulent?

Naturally - cognitively fraudulent - but how much is my business, or the government's? I genuinely may feel sorry for anyone who falls foul of them - because of his/her grief, for example. But should I, or the State, be responsible for shattering his/her belief - or for restricting or punishing the psychic?

I also don't 'approve of' some products in the market. So what? The free market isn't Utopian.

(Arthur Conan Doyle was into psychics btw, for all his brilliance.)

A secondary argument is that the client is getting exactly what he pays for, in comfort and reassurance.

No worse than titheing to one's church (or visiting many psychiatrists.)

Not legally fraudulent, then.

[Robert Baratheon]

I think this is a sad day at OL.

Kacy, I don't mean this to be antagonistic, but why is your primary reaction that everyone on this board is wrong and your position is correct? Since you've said that you admire many of the posters here for their capacity for independent thought and reason, given the overwhelming consensus against you in this case, shouldn't your null hypothesis be that you are mistaken? I'm not advocating a popularlity contest of ideas, but I bring this up because I believe it underlies many of our disagreements and is indicative of some philosophical differences between you and SB and me.

[jts]

James Randi offered $1 million. Sylvia Browne accepted the challenge. Nothing happened.

The official page, James Randi vs Sylvia Browne:

http://www.randi.org/sylvia/index.shtml

[Serapis Bey]

I think this is a sad day at OL.

Kacy, I don't mean this to be antagonistic, but why is your primary reaction that everyone on this board is wrong and your position is correct? Since you've said that you admire many of the posters here for their capacity for independent thought and reason, given the overwhelming consensus against you in this case, shouldn't your null hypothesis be that you are mistaken? I'm not advocating a popularlity contest of ideas, but I bring this up because I believe it underlies many of our disagreements and is indicative of some philosophical differences between you and SB and me.

I'm not saying Kacy is mistaken, necessarily.

He does have a point.

But only *a* point.

He is correct that fraud is most likely taking place since psychic abilities have never been proven to exist. This concern is no different than the FDA's interest in controlling questionable health products meant to cure cancer, but which might prove harmful. Kacy, as he so often demonstrates, is concerned with folks being harmed.

So I would agree that he is correct -- in his context of values.

The reason he finds resistance on this forum is because most everyone here has a different context of values, namely, most here are liberty-minded and concerned about an overreaching nanny-state. This doesn't mean they are wrong, it means their priorities are with larger issues related to government and freedom.

So we see here again the psychological divide between liberals and conservatives (or certain libertarians). I have mentioned Jonathan Haidt's research elsewhere on this forum, but for the uninitiated:

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

Moral Foundations Theory was created by a group of social and cultural psychologists (see us here) to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that several innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The foundations are:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.

4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Liberals like Kacy obviously score high on (1) and (2). The Objectivists here score highly on (3) (and possibly some others).

Regarding (1) care/harm, Kacy has said in the past that the true measure of a country/society is how it treats its most vulnerable members (paraphrased). Note: this "true measure" does not include "freedom", or "liberty", or "social cohesion" or "technological progress." His focus is on care/harm -- his psychology weights this concern heavier than others.

Regarding (2), his busy-bodied desire to regulate transactions between psychics and their customers is proof enough of his sympathies lying with fairness/cheating.

I shouldn't have to go down the list, I'm sure most of you get the point.

This should serve as an illustration of why these conversations between liberals and conservatives ( or libertarians) are so aggravating. What we have are not two dispassionate truth-seekers looking for a Single Concensus, but rather a clash between values. And this is why I don't see much use in engaging such things -- it is mostly futile.

(MSK would refer to these near-intractable psychological traits as "cybernetic programs" which operate independently of conscious awareness -- most other people would refer to them simply as "personality traits." Furthermore, I would like to point out that this conception of human value-behavior spears yet another stake into the heart of Objectivism's laughably simple-minded notion that the field of philosophy is more fundamental, more important, than the field of psychology. As if.)

[Brant Gaede]

If it's a "sad day for OL" then the world must be a "big, rock, candy mountain."

--Brant

I'll pass on the adult-onset diabetes

[dldelancey]

Damn... lotsa folks sticking up for the frauds. Not one word of concern for those defrauded.

Very well. Carry on.

Which defrauded person do you wish for us to be concerned about? Amanda Berry's mother who is now deceased? I can and do feel compassion for Ms. Berry and her family for everything they suffered during the last decade. That compassion has very little to do with the few moments of that Montel Williams show during which Ms. Berry's mother was told by Sylvia Brown the same thing that probably lots of law enforcement people had already been telling her (your daughter is likely dead). I'm sure that poor woman was grasping at plenty of straws during that time. I'm also quite sure that, on balance, the publicity that the abduction gained by that appearance far outweighed the damage it may have done (considering that damage relative to the damage of the actual abduction).

Or are you asking us to be concerned about defrauded people like me and my girlfriends who sometimes like to be tourists in our own town and head to the French Quarter for a little harmless fun? I've lost count the number of times I sat for a palm reading or a tarot card reading in the name of passing an afternoon by the river. What about when I make a reverent pass through the St. Louis Cathedral marveling at its majesty? I mean, after all, that place is a monument to faith. Might you also want me to sign a disclaimer before I pay too much for a cup of coffee I don't like and fried bread that does severe damage to my arteries? Shall I also sign a waiver before I down too many tequila shots and convince myself that climbing up on the bar at Coyote Ugly is actually a really good idea?

Does anyone at all here agree that psychic readings are fraudulent?

Are you talking about legal definitions? If so, I think that point has already been argued quite soundly by another poster. Otherwise, there's a crazy lot of information available regarding the success and failure of psychics. Anyone is free to avail themselves of that information. Anyone.

James Randi did a good job on Ms Browne. He offered her a million dollars if she can proved her psychic ability. What more is required?

What's required is honest business practices. At least it ought to be.

Define the "honest business practices" you require of psychics and how you would implement and enforce those practices. Further, how do you propose to fund the implementation and enforcement? Are you going to stop at your proposed disclaimer that must be signed by the clientele? Where will these disclaimers be filed and by whom? How are you going to address the concerns of people like me who really doesn't care for the government to know every time I make my way to the Quarter? (Seeing as how my palm reading and bar dancing forays tend to go hand-in-hand.)

Busybody, indeed.

[Robert Baratheon]

SB - You raise good points, and I'm basically in agreement with you that this is a more fundamental divide between competing values and philosophies (which my metaphor about carpeting the world or putting on shoes intended to illustrate). What I was referencing with my comment - perhaps inarticulately - was Kacy's apparent conclusion that there was something wrong or "sad" with how the group here felt psychics should be handled through government. I don't think Kacy is objectively wrong (although I personally wouldn't want to live in his society), and I didn't mean to suggest that specifically. My point was rather that if he wants to question anyone on this topic, he should be questioning why he alone holds his position in a group organized around a philosophy he claims to share.

[anthony]

I think this is a sad day at OL.

Kacy, I don't mean this to be antagonistic, but why is your primary reaction that everyone on this board is wrong and your position is correct? Since you've said that you admire many of the posters here for their capacity for independent thought and reason, given the overwhelming consensus against you in this case, shouldn't your null hypothesis be that you are mistaken? I'm not advocating a popularlity contest of ideas, but I bring this up because I believe it underlies many of our disagreements and is indicative of some philosophical differences between you and SB and me.

I'm not saying Kacy is mistaken, necessarily.

He does have a point.

But only *a* point.

He is correct that fraud is most likely taking place since psychic abilities have never been proven to exist. This concern is no different than the FDA's interest in controlling questionable health products meant to cure cancer, but which might prove harmful. Kacy, as he so often demonstrates, is concerned with folks being harmed.

So I would agree that he is correct -- in his context of values.

The reason he finds resistance on this forum is because most everyone here has a different context of values, namely, most here are liberty-minded and concerned about an overreaching nanny-state. This doesn't mean they are wrong, it means their priorities are with larger issues related to government and freedom.

So we see here again the psychological divide between liberals and conservatives (or certain libertarians). I have mentioned Jonathan Haidt's research elsewhere on this forum, but for the uninitiated:

http://www.moralfoundations.org/

Moral Foundations Theory was created by a group of social and cultural psychologists (see us here) to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that several innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The foundations are:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.

4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Liberals like Kacy obviously score high on (1) and (2). The Objectivists here score highly on (3) (and possibly some others).

Regarding (1) care/harm, Kacy has said in the past that the true measure of a country/society is how it treats its most vulnerable members (paraphrased). Note: this "true measure" does not include "freedom", or "liberty", or "social cohesion" or "technological progress." His focus is on care/harm -- his psychology weights this concern heavier than others.

Regarding (2), his busy-bodied desire to regulate transactions between psychics and their customers is proof enough of his sympathies lying with fairness/cheating.

I shouldn't have to go down the list, I'm sure most of you get the point.

This should serve as an illustration of why these conversations between liberals and conservatives ( or libertarians) are so aggravating. What we have are not two dispassionate truth-seekers looking for a Single Concensus, but rather a clash between values. And this is why I don't see much use in engaging such things -- it is mostly futile.

(MSK would refer to these near-intractable psychological traits as "cybernetic programs" which operate independently of conscious awareness -- most other people would refer to them simply as "personality traits." Furthermore, I would like to point out that this conception of human value-behavior spears yet another stake into the heart of Objectivism's laughably simple-minded notion that the field of philosophy is more fundamental, more important, than the field of psychology. As if.)

Absorbing hit list. Thanks for showing. Trouble is, it reflects a 'one or the other' approach. If you don't "care" - and who knows that, the thought police?- you must mean "harm"?? And also does not go far enough, conceptually. Psychological cardboard cutouts (and I have a lot of respect for some psychology.)

It hands over (without a fight) the "care" and "fairness" 'higher morality' to the very people who would harm and cheat fellow citizens the most, ultimately.

I for one, will not hand the moral high ground to the 'carers'.

There's a point at which the greatest self-interest comes round to meet the greatest benevolence; and I'm not even including in this economic-political freedom for everybody.

[KacyRay]

Point of clarification to SB - I said that the measure of a society's degree of civilization is in how they treat their most vulnerable members.

"The measure of a society" could have been misinterpreted too many ways - I wanted to be clear on exactly which attribute was being measured.

I'm a little shocked at the idea that anyone would object to the idea that psychics should not be able to peddle lies under the guise of truth - that they should not be allowed to offer a product they cannot deliver.

I don't see myself arguing this one out. If being concerned that emotionally vulnerable people are being exploited by shysters makes me a liberal, then shame on anyone who isn't one.

Of course, I'm not agreeing to that characterization. I think it just makes me a decent human being. But call it what you will.

[Brant Gaede]

Point of clarification to SB - I said that the measure of a society's degree of civilization is in how they treat their most vulnerable members.

"The measure of a society" could have been misinterpreted too many ways - I wanted to be clear on exactly which attribute was being measured.

I'm a little shocked at the idea that anyone would object to the idea that psychics should not be able to peddle lies under the guise of truth - that they should not be allowed to offer a product they cannot deliver.

I don't see myself arguing this one out. If being concerned that emotionally vulnerable people are being exploited by shysters makes me a liberal, then shame on anyone who isn't one.

Of course, I'm not agreeing to that characterization. I think it just makes me a decent human being. But call it what you will.

Everybody is emotionally vulnerable. Being exposed to small shysters is an inoculation against big shysters. Next, are we to protect people against that anti-Christ--the Pope in Rome?

--Brant

[Serapis Bey]

My point was rather that if he wants to question anyone on this topic, he should be questioning why he alone holds his position in a group organized around a philosophy he claims to share.

Oh, I agree completely. But what do you think the odds are of him doing that?

As our combined experience has shown: you can bring a Kacy to wisdom, but you can't make him think.

[Serapis Bey]

I'm a little shocked at the idea that anyone would object to the idea that psychics should not be able to peddle lies under the guise of truth - that they should not be allowed to offer a product they cannot deliver.

You shouldn't be shocked. I've been telling you for some time now you are a liberal, but in your stubborn obstinancy have avoided any self-reflection on the issue. What you have done over the years is get offended at my characterization to the point of demanding that I cease and desist because in your view, it is a baseless charge and I was "disrespecting" you for continuing. Imagine if I had acquiesced to your demands? You would have gotten what you wanted and this aspect of your thinking would have gone unexamined. No -- I value my independent judgement far too much to worry about other people's self-concept in this regard.

But notice what a clever way your "respect" epiphany can be used to silence dissent (if I had kept my mouth shut).

Very similar to progressives.

Of course, I'm not agreeing to that characterization.

Oh, of course not. What I've learned over the years is, "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it will get mad at you for calling it a duck."

[Robert Baratheon]

I'm a little shocked at the idea that anyone would object to the idea that psychics should not be able to peddle lies under the guise of truth - that they should not be allowed to offer a product they cannot deliver.

The difference of opinion is over whether we should place our collective trust in a government administrative body to determine what is "true" and what isn't and charge them with regulating our consensual transactions on that basis. It gets particularly messy when the claims are of a spiritual or religious nature, which many consider politically "off limits" in the United States. You seem to be approaching the issue with the typical utilitarian/progressive/technocratic mindset, which is that every societal problem has a distinct top-down solution that can be dreamed up and administered by an elite sociopolitical class of disinterested, morally and intellectually superior experts (progressives). We're in agreement over the nature of the problem - if you can call it that - but I'm concerned about what happens when this entity you've empowered decides that your political philosophy is a "lie being peddled" (ban Ayn Rand?), that your own chosen leisure activities no redemptive value, or that some of your favorite brands are peddling lies by exaggerating their utility to you?

I don't see myself arguing this one out. If being concerned that emotionally vulnerable people are being exploited by shysters makes me a liberal, then shame on anyone who isn't one.

Of course, I'm not agreeing to that characterization. I think it just makes me a decent human being. But call it what you will.

Libertarians generally default to the position that just because something concerns or upsets them doesn't mean that it should be regulated by government. We are inherently skeptical of the effectiveness and unintended consequences of government intervention. I don't personally think your position is shameful or objectively wrong, but I do think that, aside from the liberty/individual responsibility issues involved, it ignores some very troubling slippery slope concerns and the elephant in the room of how your designs would be practicably enforced.

[KacyRay]

Point of clarification to SB - I said that the measure of a society's degree of civilization is in how they treat their most vulnerable members.

"The measure of a society" could have been misinterpreted too many ways - I wanted to be clear on exactly which attribute was being measured.

I'm a little shocked at the idea that anyone would object to the idea that psychics should not be able to peddle lies under the guise of truth - that they should not be allowed to offer a product they cannot deliver.

I don't see myself arguing this one out. If being concerned that emotionally vulnerable people are being exploited by shysters makes me a liberal, then shame on anyone who isn't one.

Of course, I'm not agreeing to that characterization. I think it just makes me a decent human being. But call it what you will.

Everybody is emotionally vulnerable. Being exposed to small shysters is an inoculation against big shysters. Next, are we to protect people against that anti-Christ--the Pope in Rome?

--Brant

Oh come on Brant. Please don't play dumb.

You know I'm talking about people who are in extreme emotional duress, such as a mother whose daughter has disappeared, or someone who is still in shock from losing a loved one.

Those are the vulnerable of which I speak. You know that.

And the difference between people going to psychics and people going to church is that when you go to church you are not required to pay anything, AND there is no specific service rendered. It's just a sermon, and you can listen to it or not.

With a psychic there is a specific service rendered, and the psychic is promising something they cannot deliver and taking payment for it.

This is a no-brainer. It's fraud - whether by legal definition or not.

If someone took your money and promised you something in return that they could not deliver on, you would rightfully demand your money back. If they did not provide it, you would be in your right to take them to court over it.

This is such a no-brainer that I can't even believe I have to explain it.

[Serapis Bey]

Absorbing hit list. Thanks for showing. Trouble is, it reflects a 'one or the other' approach. If you don't "care" - and who knows that, the thought police?- you must mean "harm"?? And also does not go far enough, conceptually. Psychological cardboard cutouts (and I have a lot of respect for some psychology.)

It hands over (without a fight) the "care" and "fairness" 'higher morality' to the very people who would harm and cheat fellow citizens the most, ultimately.

I for one, will not hand the moral high ground to the 'carers'.

There's a point at which the greatest self-interest comes round to meet the greatest benevolence; and I'm not even including in this economic-political freedom for everybody.

You're not thinking about this the right way. For example, "care/harm" is not meant to imply that liberals favor care and conservatives favor harm! LOL. No, that's just one of the 5 "foundations" (or modules if you will) that are scored. Liberals score highly on this particular measure, whereas conservatives might score moderately.

Since most people here are probably nerds, think of the way characters are created in Dungeons and Dragons, with various traits being weighted along a spectrum. Hope this clarifies.

It hands over (without a fight) the "care" and "fairness" 'higher morality' to the very people who would harm and cheat fellow citizens the most, ultimately.

I agree, but note that the consequences of such beliefs/motivations are not at issue. Yes, very often an undue concern for "care/harm" leads to unintended consequences, as we all know. However, it is a bit of propaganda I think, to assume that liberals are always operating with these consequences in mind. Haidt's studies focus only on intimate, immediate psychological motivations -- he is not a political theorist or strategist.

You'd probably be better served by reading his recent book on the topic:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Righteous-Mind-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777

[KacyRay]

I'm a little shocked at the idea that anyone would object to the idea that psychics should not be able to peddle lies under the guise of truth - that they should not be allowed to offer a product they cannot deliver.

You shouldn't be shocked. I've been telling you for some time now you are a liberal, but in your stubborn obstinancy have avoided any self-reflection on the issue. What you have done over the years is get offended at my characterization to the point of demanding that I cease and desist because in your view, it is a baseless charge and I was "disrespecting" you for continuing. Imagine if I had acquiesced to your demands? You would have gotten what you wanted and this aspect of your thinking would have gone unexamined. No -- I value my independent judgement far too much to worry about other people's self-concept in this regard.

But notice what a clever way your "respect" epiphany can be used to silence dissent (if I had kept my mouth shut).

Very similar to progressives.

Of course, I'm not agreeing to that characterization.

Oh, of course not. What I've learned over the years is, "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it will get mad at you for calling it a duck."

You're growing tiresome. I don't think you've made a single comment on OL of any substance without the word "Progressive" or "Liberal" in it. I very much favor MSK's position of rejecting all of these tribal associations, and your insistence on continuing with this is tedious.

Take my positions for what they are - my own positions - and stop trying to lump me in with a group with whom I reject association. I have no doubt that some of my views will be shared by liberals, as others will be shared my conservatives. But this really is getting old.

[Robert Baratheon]

And the difference between people going to psychics and people going to church is that when you go to church you are not required to pay anything, AND there is no specific service rendered. It's just a sermon, and you can listen to it or not.

With a psychic there is a specific service rendered, and the psychic is promising something they cannot deliver and taking payment for it.

This is a false distinction. Most religious organizations charge for membership or actively solicit financial contributions. They are clearly offering a service, which is a place to come worship with others and guidance in said worship. Religious organizations make many promises and claims they can't prove (salvation, forgiveness, enlightenment, happiness, morality, communication with God, etc.). The logical implication of your position, although you may not realize it, is that churches would be regulated and shut down unless they provide disclaimers to their members. I don't see any principled way of distinguishing the situations.

[Serapis Bey]

Point of clarification to SB - I said that the measure of a society's degree of civilization is in how they treat their most vulnerable members.

"The measure of a society" could have been misinterpreted too many ways - I wanted to be clear on exactly which attribute was being measured.

I'm a little shocked at the idea that anyone would object to the idea that psychics should not be able to peddle lies under the guise of truth - that they should not be allowed to offer a product they cannot deliver.

I don't see myself arguing this one out. If being concerned that emotionally vulnerable people are being exploited by shysters makes me a liberal, then shame on anyone who isn't one.

Of course, I'm not agreeing to that characterization. I think it just makes me a decent human being. But call it what you will.

Everybody is emotionally vulnerable. Being exposed to small shysters is an inoculation against big shysters. Next, are we to protect people against that anti-Christ--the Pope in Rome?

--Brant

My guess is that Kacy would probably point out that there is no material transaction involved in listening to the Pope, although I suspect that can be debated.

But I would draw your attention to something Kacy said earlier:

What I *want* is for Ms Browne to be put out of business forever, as well as all psychics. But as there's no ethical or legal way to make that happen, I'd settle for them just having to provide their clientele complete information and full disclosure on what they're actually getting when they pay for psychic services.

Note: he admits there is no ethical or legal way to get what he "wants", so he views the use of regulation as a mere tool to achieve his objectives. It is not a principled advocacy of free voluntary trade (necessarily), but rather a means to "get" those psychics whom he has stated he "hates."

One can see in this example the machinery and gears which go on in a progressive's mind: they have their own personal vision of the True and the Good, and are quite amoral and ruthless in using the machinery of State to pursue their aims. I'm not saying Kacy is a hardcore Progressive, but this example is illustrative. The overarching idea being that "it's all fair" because it is in the service of the True and Good.

All "philosophy" eventually becomes dictatorship. -- Hyatt

[KacyRay]

Note: he admits there is no ethical or legal way to get what he "wants", so he views the use of regulation as a mere tool to achieve his objectives. It is not a principled advocacy of free voluntary trade (necessarily), but rather a means to "get" those psychics whom he has stated he "hates."

You mean my objective of vulnerable people not being ripped off by being sold something that can't be delivered under fraudulent pretenses? Yeah, I see that as a legitimate objective.

I've never suggested that psychics shouldn't be able to sell their services. I've just said they should have to be honest brokers.

One can see in this example the machinery and gears which go on in a progressive's mind: they have their own personal vision of the True and the Good, and are quite amoral and ruthless in using the machinery of State to pursue their aims. I'm not saying Kacy is a hardcore Progressive, but this example is illustrative. The overarching idea being that "it's all fair" because it is in the service of the True and Good.

All "philosophy" eventually becomes dictatorship. -- Hyatt

Have you noticed that you're the only one that goes on and on about this? Everyone else is approaching my arguments and ideas (and disagreeing with them) on their individual merits or lack thereof. You're the only person who incessantly tries to lump my entire worldview in with a tribal association.

We all advocate using the machinery of the state to achieve our vision of the "Good and True". For those of us who feel that the government's job is to enforce laws and protect its citizens, we should be able to discuss exactly what that means without being incessantly subjected to a barrage of labels and ad homs. You yourself believe the government should achieve your vision of the True and Good by closing the borders, for example. So what makes you any different?

Listen, I'm trying to tell you this nicely. Either discuss my ideas and what you feel is right tor wrong about them, or don't. But I am telling you right now, you're the only person here who is stuck on making tribal associations. You can't seem to open your mouth without the word "Progressive" or "Liberal" coming out. There's seriously something wrong with you and it's wearing on me. I'm trying to be as patient with you as I can.

[9thdoctor]

I think that I would support legislation that required all psychics who receive payment for their services to disclose to their clients that there is no evidence to suggest that the advice offered by <the psychic> would be any better than that of someone offering evidence based on a coin toss.

My two cents: Psychics ought to have their right to free speech (including 'commercial speech'), and so should James Randi as he goes about debunking them. Same goes for Keynesian economists, Scientology auditors, and peddlers of homeopathic 'drugs', just to pull a few unrelated comparables out of the air.

Someone said 'paternalistic' earlier, and I agree.

[Brant Gaede]

We all advocate using the machinery of the state to achieve our vision of the "Good and True". For those of us who feel that the government's job is to enforce laws and protect its citizens, we should be able to discuss exactly what that means without being incessantly subjected to a barrage of labels and ad homs. You yourself believe the government should achieve your vision of the True and Good by closing the borders, for example. So what makes you any different?

Not the libertarian anarchists.

--Brant

of which I am not

[Serapis Bey]

I very much favor MSK's position of rejecting all of these tribal associations, and your insistence on continuing with this is tedious.

You've missed MSK's point. He doesn't reject such tribal associations since he regularly identifies progressives for what they are, and analyzes their methods.

How wonderful it would be if we could just eschew all these labels and focus on our common humanity...."are they oblivious, to this quality....EQUALITY"

Too bad you're wrong. And not just about that Rush lyric.

Take my positions for what they are - my own positions - and stop trying to lump me in with a group with whom I reject association. I have no doubt that some of my views will be shared by liberals, as others will be shared my conservatives.

You are missing the significant characteristic we are discussing in this thread.

You are right that it would be imprecise to characterize a libertarian as a liberal because he is for the legalization of drugs, just as it would be imprecise to characterize a libertarian as a conservative because he is against gun control.

What distinquishes a libertarian is their fundamental approach to the role of government as such, and your suggestion here about regulating psychics speaks to that very issue, and it probably isn't the libertarian one.

[Serapis Bey]

Have you noticed that you're the only one that goes on and on about this? Everyone else is approaching my arguments and ideas (and disagreeing with them) on their individual merits or lack thereof. You're the only person who incessantly tries to lump my entire worldview in with a tribal association.

Listen, I'm trying to tell you this nicely. Either discuss my ideas and what you feel is right tor wrong about them, or don't. But I am telling you right now, you're the only person here who is stuck on making tribal associations. You can't seem to open your mouth without the word "Progressive" or "Liberal" coming out. There's seriously something wrong with you and it's wearing on me. I'm trying to be as patient with you as I can.

I'm beginning to think Doug Bandler over at SOLO-P has it right when he bemoans how the Objectivist community has been hijacked by the Progressive borg.

This renders them impotent as they blah blah blah over minutia in the face of very real, very powerful forces amassing around us.

"Look where all this talking got us, baby."

In lieu of this, I find it useful to both NAME and IDENTIFY exactly WHEN and WHERE such progressive tendrils make inroads into Objectivist thinking -- for example, by dissecting some of Kacy's thinking online for all to see.

(Well, that's only part of it. The other part is my "wicked" impulse and glee in getting people to lose their shit by pointing out their blind spots in abstruse philosopical theory. )