Myth of the Tyranny of the Majority

[Brant Gaede]

You know, you get the world you beg for. You think you are the first cupcake to sail out of DIsneyland begging for this world? That is precious beyond belief.

Why do folks keep referring to this cupcake as a 'her?' Is there reason to believe that???

I've never heard of a boy named "Naomi."

--Brant

but I have heard of a boy named "Sue"

[dldelancey]

You know, you get the world you beg for. You think you are the first cupcake to sail out of DIsneyland begging for this world? That is precious beyond belief.

Why do folks keep referring to this cupcake as a 'her?' Is there reason to believe that???

Is there a reason to believe otherwise? Is there a reason for us to care one way or the other? I refer to Naomi as a "her" for the same reason that I refer to you as a "him." Because that's how you've identified yourselves to me.

You know I love you, Fred, so I hope you aren't going to allow your frustration with Naomi to go somewhere there's no need to go.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

A determinist as well. Might is right, and that's "reality". Live with it - has been the refrain.

If you had grasped it all, the difference between 'metaphysically given' reality and the man made(including, self-made) reality; or the contingent and the necessary; or collectivism and individualism; no, if you had - you would have thought twice about bringing up this topic and your narrow argument in the first place.

If you'd read, grasped and disagreed with it all - well then, you could have argued about Objectivism on its own premises, not on the superficial premises of "democracy", "the majority" and a pragmatic 'power sharing'.

That is to say, if you will disagree with Objectivist political-economical theory on a peripheral level, you'll have to be prepared to argue it on the fundamentals of metaphysics and ethics.

Thinking for yourself is great - getting something critically wrong, coming to impose it on everybody, despite the better knowledge anyone responds with - isn't great, it is pseudo-independence I think.

Your concept of reality is skewed.

Objectivism does not have any explicit positive theory of politics or economics. It's impossible to argue about Objectivism "on its own premises" on this subject.

Thinking for yourself is great - getting something critically wrong, coming to impose it on everybody, despite the better knowledge anyone responds with - isn't great, it is pseudo-independence I think.

How am I "imposing" anything on anyone here? Am I holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read and respond to this thread? If you're uncomfortable with having your beliefs challenged, then maybe the internet is not for you.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Now respecting physics: any smart person can learn physics on the level discused here--physics without math. There is no way to evaluate what is said here except for these superficial manifestations without math. OL is not much of a place to discuss physics in any depth. Both Naomi and Dennis can be completely incompetent in physics for all we know, nor can they really evaluate each other, assuming any real competence, until someone puts up the math. And didn't even Einstein have to take his stuff to a mathematician better than he was for that?

Ironically, Naomi tried to introduce some math on other subjects--math of sorts--where math is totally irrelevant and useless. There are only two places in the Liberal Arts for math: applied, not theorectical, economics and to some extent in science as addressed by the Liberal Arts. There is no such thing as a good Liberal Arts education that doesn't include a big dollop of science, especially the scientific methodology. Math is the language of science. I understand that math is also good for critical thinking skills, but that it's optional for that.

--Brant

Sorry to disappoint, but I actually can do the math necessary for General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but not Quantum Field Theory, regrettably.

Or, at least, not yet, anyway.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Guaranteed, that is not your fault. (Like a broken clock, you've got to be right once in a while.)

So to be clear, here is how the voices inside your head tell you that reality really works:

1] You are the Emperor of What Can Be.

2] What can be is a world with only two choices for producers: a] to put themselves on a rack in a nation where only they have no influence over a government for sale. b] to compete with others in a nation where influence over a government for sale goes to the last naked sweaty ape bidder. (Not even the highest, mind you, just the last.)

3] And if he's fool enough to pass up the lone ride on the rack, then some cupcake like you gets to pass judgement on him for not jumping through your academic paternalistic megalomania hoops.

You are doing a great job. I'm almost convinced by all that there really is no such thing as the Tyranny of the Majority. But it's OK, we're grading on a curve, and they are getting rid of the essay requirement on the SATs again.

As I've said before, the reason I limit B's choices in that way is simply because, in real life, currently, there are no laissez-faire governments in the world which he can move to.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is to say, if you will disagree with Objectivist political-economical theory on a peripheral level, you'll have to be prepared to argue it on the fundamentals of metaphysics and ethics.

Objectivism does not have any explicit positive theory of politics or economics. It's impossible to argue about Objectivism "on its own premises" on this subject.

This is the kind of statement that made me stop engaging Naomi on Rand.

In my mind, she has either not read Rand, or she has skimmed around a bit and not understood a thing. Probably read a critique or other of Rand, too, from academics who don't like her.

This poster never talks about the ideas Rand presented. All she does is say there are no ideas.

That's a cop-out and, now that she has repeated this crap over and over instead of talking about substance, it looks so much like a bluff, it's just not worth taking seriously.

Michael

[Selene]

Yep.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thinking for yourself is great - getting something critically wrong, coming to impose it on everybody, despite the better knowledge anyone responds with - isn't great, it is pseudo-independence I think.

How am I "imposing" anything on anyone here? Am I holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read and respond to this thread? If you're uncomfortable with having your beliefs challenged, then maybe the internet is not for you.

This part I do agree with.

Nobody is forcing anyone to take her seriously.

The only thing I have felt challenged on so far from Naomi was her comment about Dennis removing his avatar.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

This is the kind of statement that made me stop engaging Naomi on Rand.

In my mind, she has either not read Rand, or she has skimmed around a bit and not understood a thing. Probably read a critique or other of Rand, too, from academics who don't like her.

This poster never talks about the ideas Rand presented. All she does is say there are no ideas.

That's a cop-out and, now that she has repeated this crap over and over instead of talking about substance, it looks so much like a bluff, it's just not worth taking seriously.

Michael

Yep.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not a witch.

Just someone not to be taken seriously until she starts taking things seriously.

Respect has to be earned.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Guaranteed, that is not your fault. (Like a broken clock, you've got to be right once in a while.)

So to be clear, here is how the voices inside your head tell you that reality really works:

1] You are the Emperor of What Can Be.

2] What can be is a world with only two choices for producers: a] to put themselves on a rack in a nation where only they have no influence over a government for sale. b] to compete with others in a nation where influence over a government for sale goes to the last naked sweaty ape bidder. (Not even the highest, mind you, just the last.)

3] And if he's fool enough to pass up the lone ride on the rack, then some cupcake like you gets to pass judgement on him for not jumping through your academic paternalistic megalomania hoops.

You are doing a great job. I'm almost convinced by all that there really is no such thing as the Tyranny of the Majority. But it's OK, we're grading on a curve, and they are getting rid of the essay requirement on the SATs again.

As I've said before, the reason I limit B's choices in that way is simply because, in real life, currently, there are no laissez-faire governments in the world which he can move to.

Couldn't get on a jet plane in 1776, could they?

--Brant

[tmj]

What maths explain the historic record being devoid of a man to be King of America? Washington ,heroically, declined the role. What explains the lack of others not having sufficient power in that nacent society, with the politic /power structure still fresh in the people's mind that a new King was not the logical choice to fill the vacuum created?

[Frediano]

You know, you get the world you beg for. You think you are the first cupcake to sail out of DIsneyland begging for this world? That is precious beyond belief.

Why do folks keep referring to this cupcake as a 'her?' Is there reason to believe that???

Is there a reason to believe otherwise? Is there a reason for us to care one way or the other? I refer to Naomi as a "her" for the same reason that I refer to you as a "him." Because that's how you've identified yourselves to me.

You know I love you, Fred, so I hope you aren't going to allow your frustration with Naomi to go somewhere there's no need to go.

True 'dat. But I love women too much to think of them as being this... jello-like... in their reasoning. A guy, yes. Especially a pretender. It's my old school bias. Women have integrity. They aren't cowards, They give birth for crying out loud. Men are dogs when we aren't being pussies. We watch a woman give birth and we pass out. Not even a week of watching 'Alien' reruns prepares us to watch what women do with alarming frequency, often multiple times. I readily admit that; men are pussies. We do -nothing- like that on such a regular basis.

No amount of Hollywood SFX has quite captured the event...

regards,

Fred

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not a witch.

Just someone not to be taken seriously until she starts taking things seriously.

Respect has to be earned.

Michael

Naomi,

I want to stay on this point right now.

Why do you post on OL since you obviously have such contempt for the people here?

This is a forum where values are exchanged. You are not providing much at this point. What value does OL provide you?

If it's just for you to get an emotional kick to your vanity, there's no reason to keep this crap up.

Michael

[Frediano]

Guaranteed, that is not your fault. (Like a broken clock, you've got to be right once in a while.)

So to be clear, here is how the voices inside your head tell you that reality really works:

1] You are the Emperor of What Can Be.

2] What can be is a world with only two choices for producers: a] to put themselves on a rack in a nation where only they have no influence over a government for sale. b] to compete with others in a nation where influence over a government for sale goes to the last naked sweaty ape bidder. (Not even the highest, mind you, just the last.)

3] And if he's fool enough to pass up the lone ride on the rack, then some cupcake like you gets to pass judgement on him for not jumping through your academic paternalistic megalomania hoops.

You are doing a great job. I'm almost convinced by all that there really is no such thing as the Tyranny of the Majority. But it's OK, we're grading on a curve, and they are getting rid of the essay requirement on the SATs again.

As I've said before, the reason I limit B's choices in that way is simply because, in real life, currently, there are no laissez-faire governments in the world which he can move to.

He can't hide in plain sight? Be neither an employee nor employer? Refrain from building factories and a large business, paint the target on his own back? No way to do that in this world? The Hell you say.

Produce no more than he needs or wants? Choose other values other than the offered rack or free-for-some? 'Take' less of that mythical pie that some believe falls from the sky, unabetted? Gee. Where have all the good paying jobs in the US gone? More unions, please. Got a sign in my office, "unionize this." Please raise the MW even higher. I'll cheer.

Do you have to refine your allowed choices further? Perhaps, hand out his sentence on the rack back in HS, when he takes his SATs? You will let him know what he can and can't do in this world. And to the best of his abilities, not yours, he will fully accept your premise.

So, let me know. Also, let me know when he builds that time machine for you; the one you are going to need to limit my choices 30 years ago, fresh out of grad school.

Are you loving the new economies? The ones with these two choices that you claim are the only ones avaialble?

Enjoy. They're all yours. You and yours are earning every facet of them. They are rapidly becoming the remarkable face of Social Justice.

I'd love to go back and ask those left wing flakes from Disneyland days; "So, this is where you wanted to take the nation?"

No. you're right; more please. Take all the time you need to figure it out. If this is a class war, I know who is taking it up the butt, and that is exactly Social Justice.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

I want to stay on this point right now.

Why do you post on OL since you obviously have such contempt for the people here?

This is a forum where values are exchanged. You are not providing much at this point. What value does OL provide you?

If it's just for you to get an emotional kick to your vanity, there's no reason to keep this crap up.

Michael

I don't have any contempt for anyone here.

I came here to discuss ideas related to Objectivism. There are a few people on here who consistently give value for value, such as Francisco Ferrer, Dean Gores, and Derrel Hougan (and others I can't think of right now). When they disagree with me on something, they always give their reasons for disagreeing. I can learn from that. That is what is valuable and useful to me.

What they don't do is attack me personally or become dismissive of me or accuse me of nefarious hidden motives for holding contrary opinions. Such attacks are useless to me, and I have no patience for useless things.

[Selene]

geez...old Monty Python clips!!

Is this all your sorry ___ can come up with?

Is this how pititul the "utes" of today are?

Ah, wait...I got it...you actually live in O'bama's state...I should have taken this into consideration as my prompting about your language/semantic style emerged.

Now I understand.

You are forgiven for you classless, disrespectful and basically pitiful manner of incivility...I forgot you are disabled.

A...

Post Script:

Reading your prior post does not change this one.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What they don't do is attack me personally or become dismissive of me or accuse me of nefarious hidden motives for holding contrary opinions. Such attacks are useless to me, and I have no patience for useless things.

Naomi,

No contempt for anyone here? Bullshit.

But I'll let that go.

Let's deal with the quote above. How about when you make wrong statements of fact, not just opinions, and get pissy with those who disagree with you?

You left that one out.

I for one, am still trying to figure out how shadows move--which is as wrong a notion as can be and one you posited as you called someone else a crank. That's just one example.

Anyway, the noise to signal ratio around you is very, very high for the kind of atmosphere OL normally has. If you don't find that atmosphere valuable, I suggest you might find more value elsewhere.

That way neither of us has to put up with the "useless things."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Naomi,

I want to stay on this point right now.

Why do you post on OL since you obviously have such contempt for the people here?

This is a forum where values are exchanged. You are not providing much at this point. What value does OL provide you?

If it's just for you to get an emotional kick to your vanity, there's no reason to keep this crap up.

Michael

I don't have any contempt for anyone here.

I came here to discuss ideas related to Objectivism. There are a few people on here who consistently give value for value, such as Francisco Ferrer, Dean Gores, and Derrel Hougan (and others I can't think of right now). When they disagree with me on something, they always give their reasons for disagreeing. I can learn from that. That is what is valuable and useful to me.

What they don't do is attack me personally or become dismissive of me or accuse me of nefarious hidden motives for holding contrary opinions. Such attacks are useless to me, and I have no patience for useless things.

If you have discussed even only one idea related to Objectivism I admit I missed it.

--Brant

or forgot

[SoAMadDeathWish]

What they don't do is attack me personally or become dismissive of me or accuse me of nefarious hidden motives for holding contrary opinions. Such attacks are useless to me, and I have no patience for useless things.

Naomi,

No contempt for anyone here? Bullshit.

But I'll let that go.

Let's deal with the quote above. How about when you make wrong statements of fact, not just opinions, and get pissy with those who disagree with you?

You left that one out.

I for one, am still trying to figure out how shadows move--which is as wrong a notion as can be and one you posited as you called someone else a crank. That's just one example.

Anyway, the noise to signal ratio around you is very, very high for the kind of atmosphere OL normally has. If you don't find that atmosphere valuable, I suggest you might find more value elsewhere.

That way neither of us has to put up with the "useless things."

Michael

I'm internet-savvy enough to know when I'm being baited into pointless semantic arguments.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm internet-savvy enough to know when I'm being baited into pointless semantic arguments.

Well then you are Internet savvy enough to know how to write in text the same color as the background.

And you are Internet savvy enough to know what moderated means.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm internet-savvy enough to know when I'm being baited into pointless semantic arguments.

He doesn't want any kind of argument at all. He's letting the facts come down on you as he sees them.

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Couldn't get on a jet plane in 1776, could they?

--Brant

The situation wasn't at all fundamentally different in 1776.

What maths explain the historic record being devoid of a man to be King of America? Washington ,heroically, declined the role. What explains the lack of others not having sufficient power in that nacent society, with the politic /power structure still fresh in the people's mind that a new King was not the logical choice to fill the vacuum created?

America does have a king, in a way. It is the government as a whole, and the crony capitalists are his noblemen. Washington didn't want to take over the state because then he would be saddled with its debts. If instead he preserved its constitution and retired to his private life, he and other aristocrats could manipulate it from behind the scenes, while making sure that the state (i.e. people who aren't him), pays its debt to him for funding the revolution.

[Jonathan]

Why do you people keep arguing with this dunce?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why do you people keep arguing with this dunce?

J

Jonathan,

Just trying to make it work.

But things should get a lot better.

I got advised backstage about something (with proof) and now I have to look at almost 400 posts to see what actually exists.

I don't have all that much time, so this is going to take a while.

Michael