Recommended Posts

Treat others as you wish them to treat you, including with respect, courtesy, empathy, friendliness, non-criminality, and non-tyranny. This applies to low-life mass men and high-quality noble souls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treat others as you wish them to treat you, including with respect, courtesy, empathy, friendliness, non-criminality, and non-tyranny. This applies to low-life mass men and high-quality noble souls.

Better yet don't do anything to others you don't want them to do to you. This is Hillel's version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Judaism

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Treat others as you wish them to treat you, including with respect, courtesy, empathy, friendliness, non-criminality, and non-tyranny. This applies to low-life mass men and high-quality noble souls.

I experience the Golden Rule from the other side...

...in that the world treats me as decent as I am.

So whenever I have a complaint about how I'm treated by the world,

it only means that I haven't yet discovered how I gave it my permission.

Kyrel, I took a look at some of the excerpts from your book and this caught my attention.

"A thing is itself, is equal to itself, is the same as its definition... "

As I see it, love is not the same as a word that defines it... but is rather a direct personal inner experience of the reality of its existence.

And as far as your melding "pure" liberalism with objectivism. This is perfectly plausible as what people regard as the linear political spectrum is in reality a circle where the extreme right and radical left meet in accord on the dark side. :wink:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shin kicking has always worked for me.

--Brant

If the situation calls for it.

You can always figure out how you gave the world permission later. :wink:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...as far as your melding "pure" liberalism with objectivism...

I don't think I exactly meld liberalism with Objectivism. I claim Objectivism is a species or type or category of Western liberalism. So too is the philosophy of Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno the Stoic, Cicero, Lucretius, Horace, Locke, Smith, Voltaire, Jefferson, Mills, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. All adhere to a philosophy based on (in very simplified terms) epistemology of reason, ethics of individualism, and politics of freedom. Western Civilization has become considerably more liberal over time. But even Ayn Rand doesn't qualify as a pure liberal. She wasn't very reasonable when it came to evolution, relativity, the Big Bang, etc., and didn't allow her friends and intellectual allies to be very individualistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I experience the Golden Rule from the other side...

...in that the world treats me as decent as I am.

So whenever I have a complaint about how I'm treated by the world,

it only means that I haven't yet discovered how I gave it my permission.

Kyrel, I took a look at some of the excerpts from your book and this caught my attention.

"A thing is itself, is equal to itself, is the same as its definition... "

As I see it, love is not the same as a word that defines it... but is rather a direct personal inner experience of the reality of its existence.

Altho' your approach is generous, individualistic, and self-empowering, I don't think it's always true. For example, I don't think you gave the world permission to inflict its welfare state upon you.

Even tho' you have to have an insightful and clever definition at times, I think the verbal/intellectual and physical/material worlds ideally match up, one-to-one. So the feeling of love and its definition are the same, at least intellectually.

Thanks for checking out my radical new book, Greg! Maybe post a review or analysis of it sometime. I'm always looking to improve and correct my arguments!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...as far as your melding "pure" liberalism with objectivism...

I don't think I exactly meld liberalism with Objectivism. I claim Objectivism is a species or type or category of Western liberalism. So too is the philosophy of Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno the Stoic, Cicero, Lucretius, Horace, Locke, Smith, Voltaire, Jefferson, Mills, Mises, Hayek, and Friedman. All adhere to a philosophy based on (in very simplified terms) epistemology of reason, ethics of individualism, and politics of freedom. Western Civilization has become considerably more liberal over time. But even Ayn Rand doesn't qualify as a pure liberal. She wasn't very reasonable when it came to evolution, relativity, the Big Bang, etc., and didn't allow her friends and intellectual allies to be very individualistic.

Reasonable? Wrong word for her. It's rational or irrational. She hardly commented on those three and I can't remember anything specific about the Big Bang or relativity. For her evolution was just up in the air, but never explained any of the particulars within the concept she may have been referring to. As for not allowing individualism, that's on the others, not her, in spite of her control-freakism. The vehicle for that in fact was NBI unless we are talking about "the Collective." She never understood individualism and adopted the top-down model that seeks power for alleged good doing so common amongst the intelligentsia or the "Witch Doctor" she was supposed to oppose. Displace one for another and nothing much changes. If you think about it, even John Galt was a displacement for Mr. Thompson--or at least his own witch doctors--with the judge in the Gulch rewriting the Constitution to get rid of the flaws, as if a flawed document was partly responsible for the screwed up world.

--Brant

NBI teaching critical thinking--never mind "efficient thinking"--wouldn't have made any money(?) or served ego needs of leaders and followers and Boy!--would Rand have been pissed off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Altho' your approach is generous, individualistic, and self-empowering, I don't think it's always true.

It holds true in my own life and that's all that matters. Everyone else is free to work things out for themselves.

For example, I don't think you gave the world permission to inflict its welfare state upon you.

You're right, I didn't...

...but since I also didn't give the world my permission for its welfare state to affect the quality of my life... it can't.

The cost of the welfare state is already built into the price of every product and service I offer. American Capitalism is the key to immunizing yourself from becoming infected by the welfare state, because you can literally buy your economic freedom.

Even tho' you have to have an insightful and clever definition at times, I think the verbal/intellectual and physical/material worlds ideally match up, one-to-one. So the feeling of love and its definition are the same, at least intellectually.

You just explained why I see a difference between a wordy definition and the actuality it can only point to, but can never be. I'm not an intellectual theorist. I'm just a nuts and bolts mechanic.

Thanks for checking out my radical new book, Greg! Maybe post a review or analysis of it sometime. I'm always looking to improve and correct my arguments!

Sure, Kyrel. :smile:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of the welfare state is already built into the price of every product and service I offer. American Capitalism is the key to immunizing yourself from becoming infected by the welfare state, because you can literally buy your economic freedom.

You have made this claim before, and I have already shown why it is fallacious. Taxes cannot be shifted forward to the consumer through a raise in the price of a good without affecting demand for that good and consequently revenues.

Suppose, for example, that under our current version of "American Capitalism," the legislature doubles or triples the gasoline tax. Not a problem, you say. All the entrepreneur has to do raise his prices accordingly. But if the price of lumber (produced by the use of gasoline-powered motors) goes up, will as many homes be built? If the price of bus travel (produced by the use of gasoline-powered motors) goes up, will as many tickets be purchased?

The effects of taxation are real and involuntary. This is not Magic Pink Pony Land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have made this claim before, and I have already shown why it is fallacious.

It's only fallacious for you, Frank. This is because you don't know the first thing about being a Capitalist producer.

Taxes cannot be shifted forward to the consumer through a raise in the price of a good without affecting demand for that good and consequently revenues.

Everything you purchase has the complete cost of the government bureaucracy already included in it. Now this is a problem... but only for failures who don't produce anything useful. Produce something useful in your own Capitalist business and people throw money at you... especially when they're other Capitalist businessmen.

The only way to enjoy your God given rights is to live a life deserving of them. And as long as you don't...

...you never will.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have made this claim before, and I have already shown why it is fallacious.

It's only fallacious for you, Frank. This is because you don't know the first thing about being a Capitalist producer.

Taxes cannot be shifted forward to the consumer through a raise in the price of a good without affecting demand for that good and consequently revenues.

Everything you purchase has the complete cost of the government bureaucracy already included in it. Now this is a problem... but only for failures who don't produce anything useful. Produce something useful in your own Capitalist business and people throw money at you... especially when they're other Capitalist businessmen.

The only way to enjoy your God given rights is to live a life deserving of them. And as long as you don't...

...you never will.

Greg

You evade the point: one cannot "immunize" himself from the welfare state simply by raising prices. High taxes converted to higher prices result in lower sales volume and thus lower profits.

The federal excise tax nearly crippled the U.S. yacht industry in the early 1990's. The same is happening now to Europe's chemical industries as a result of "green" taxes.

As for the question of usefulness, is a new home not "useful"? Yet new home sales are directly affected by the price of materials, which in turn are affected by taxation. Is a bus trip to see the grandchildren not "useful"? Yet high gasoline taxes can make travel unaffordable for many.

When Congress raises the gas tax, is it acting on orders from God to keep Grandma from taking a trip she does not "deserve"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "bus" thing is fallacious as such but the underlying argument is good. That way of getting around is too cheap for an example. Greg is simply free enough to lead a life of self-satisfaction. He points out this is possible for Americans. He does not acknowledge who and what made this environment possible, only that it exists now and that he's exploiting it. His argument is he does what is possible to get done, not philosophical blather.

--Brant, the blatherer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is excellent data to support the conclusion that gasoline tax rates do have an impact on consumption of fuel. The economic shorthand that the more you tax something, the less you get of it does hold true in this case.

The Moralist assumes, wrongly, that a) taxation has no effect because the producer can always shift it forward with no impact on the bottom line, or b) if the looting cannot be shifted forward, one somehow "deserves" to be hit with that theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only talking about it affecting bus transportation. Car transportation is another matter and would be a better example. It explains India's jam-packed buses and trains--public as opposed to more private means of transportation.

You can't argue with an asseverationist. Greg's impervious to logic and has no use for it. All you can do is point out what he's doing. All his "arguments" are merely circular. They are valid enough for him insofar as he successfully can use them in his own life. I cherry pick him for my own use. For me personally he's been the single most valuable poster on OL, but I'm bigger than me, at least in my own head--that is, there are two of me. the me that is and the me that will be and that will be paid for that too, eventually. There's only one Greg that I know of. If there was more . . .

--Brant

those that fight for tomorrow live in it today (Rand)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Grandma does not own a car and can travel only by common carrier, why should we suppose that the rise in the cost of a bus ticket from Dubuque to Chicago will have no influence on her decision to make a trip? Just this week I made the decision not to fly to a relative's funeral because the flight was about 25% higher than what I expected and was willing to pay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one cannot "immunize" himself from the welfare state simply by raising prices.

You can't because you don't produce anything useful... but I can because I do. My clients are other successful American Capitalist producers, all of whom price their products and services to reflect the cost of government just as I do. Since I produce more than I consume, what is a problem for you is not a problem for me.

As for the question of usefulness, is a new home not "useful"? Yet new home sales are directly affected by the price of materials, which in turn are affected by taxation.

(shrug)So what?

The American Capitalist way to rise above that is to produce your own home at a fraction of the cost of buying a new one from someone else who produces it for you. Then you get to enjoy the windfall profits of your own labor. This idea of becoming your own producer is totally foreign to you isn't it?

And haven't you noticed yet?

For every problem you have complained about I have offered a real world practical solution. But not just empty intellectual theory, but rather things I actually do myself. That's how I know they work.

If you tried getting up off your ass, they might work for you, too.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All his "arguments" are merely circular. They are valid enough for him insofar as he successfully can use them in his own life.

Spot on, Brant.

That's ALL that matters to me... finding out which principles actually work in the real world just as it is... and then using them in my own life.

In my work I only get paid for producing results.

No results. = No money.

So naturally I apply that exact same principle to my own life by finding what works... and doing it.

I don't give a crap whether or not they work for anyone else, as everyone else is free to work things out for themselves. If they find a different way, fine. Good for them. Go for it.

But what I don't respect is weak self inflicted victims constantly whining about "oppressive government"...

...when they're only oppressing themselves by their own failure to man up and live like Americans.

Effing pussies.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one cannot "immunize" himself from the welfare state simply by raising prices.

You can't because you don't produce anything useful... but I can because I do. My clients are other successful American Capitalist producers, all of whom price their products and services to reflect the cost of government just as I do. Since I produce more than I consume, what is a problem for you is not a problem for me.

You have exactly zero knowledge about how much I produce or how useful it is.

As for the question of usefulness, is a new home not "useful"? Yet new home sales are directly affected by the price of materials, which in turn are affected by taxation.

(shrug)So what?

The American Capitalist way to rise above that is to produce your own home at a fraction of the cost of buying a new one from someone else who produces it for you. Then you get to enjoy the windfall profits of your own labor. This idea of becoming your own producer is totally foreign to you isn't it?

And haven't you noticed yet?

For every problem you have complained about I have offered a real world practical solution. But not just empty intellectual theory, but rather things I actually do myself. That's how I know they work.

If you tried getting up off your ass, they might work for you, too.

Greg

Cost of heart surgery too high for you? Perform a by-pass on yourself for a fraction of the cost! It's the American Capitalist way!

When government actions cause the price of a good to be so high that one must compensate by performing the labor oneself, then one's own labor is a cost one is not shifting forward but absorbing.

Think of the savings that could be realized by building a four-door luxury sedan (or a two engine airplane) in your own garage on nights and weekends. Since nights and weekends have zero value for Americans, they'll be getting a brand new car (or plane or submarine) for less than factory cost!

Capitalism arose out of the division of labor, not out of absolute autarky. You appear to be as well informed about economics as about the personal lives of your debate opponents.

What is your "real world practical solution" to the cost of the welfare state? Have every soldier, firefighter and police officer unilaterally raise the price he charges to the consumer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have exactly zero knowledge about how much I produce or how useful it is.

You're wrong, Frank.

I know that if you lived by the American Capitalist principle of creating wealth through useful production, you wouldn't be a complaining victim...

...because you would understand that enjoying your God given rights is your own personal responsibility...

...and you would know they do not depend on the government.

Clearly, you don't.

Cost of heart surgery too high for you?

No, it isn't.

Perform a by-pass on yourself for a fraction of the cost! It's the American Capitalist way!

That's certainly the stupid way.

The American Capitalist way is to be personally responsible for taking decent care of your own body, and not to let it degenerate by your own useless sloth.

And when you need goods and services, you simply go to other American Capitalist producers and make equitable value for value exchanges with them because they share your values. Again, this is Business 101. I'm only stating the obvious.

When government actions cause the price of a good to be so high that one must compensate by performing the labor oneself

Jeez, Frank... you just can't be actually reading what you're writing! :laugh:

If you DON'T do productive useful work, you'll NEVER create any wealth.

then one's own labor is a cost one is not shifting forward but absorbing.

That ludicrous statement just screams that you're not productive. You actually regard your own labor as a negative when it is the only way to secure your own economic freedom.

What is your "real world practical solution" to the cost of the welfare state? Have every soldier, firefighter and police officer unilaterally raise the price he charges to the consumer?

Public employees are very well paid for the services they provide. I know. I was one of them.

Your view is of someone who sits of their ass... and that's why it will never change. You'll always be a complaining victim because that's what you've made out of your self.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's certainly the stupid way.

The American Capitalist way is to be personally responsible for taking decent care of your own body, and not to let it degenerate by your own useless sloth.

And when you need goods and services, you simply go to other American Capitalist producers and make equitable value for value exchanges with them because they share your values. Again, this is Business 101. I'm only stating the obvious.

No matter how well one takes care of his body (exercises, eats moderately and avoids bad habits) we all end up the same way: deader than dirt in the dirt. It can't be helped. The second law of thermodynamics has no known exceptions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's certainly the stupid way.

The American Capitalist way is to be personally responsible for taking decent care of your own body, and not to let it degenerate by your own useless sloth.

And when you need goods and services, you simply go to other American Capitalist producers and make equitable value for value exchanges with them because they share your values. Again, this is Business 101. I'm only stating the obvious.

No matter how well one takes care of his body (exercises, eats moderately and avoids bad habits) we all end up the same way: deader than dirt in the dirt. It can't be helped. The second law of thermodynamics has no known exceptions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You hear that? No use taking care of your body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have exactly zero knowledge about how much I produce or how useful it is.

You're wrong, Frank.

I know that if you lived by the American Capitalist principle of creating wealth through useful production, you wouldn't be a complaining victim...

...because you would understand that enjoying your God given rights is your own personal responsibility...

...and you would know they do not depend on the government.

Clearly, you don't.

Cost of heart surgery too high for you?

No, it isn't.

Perform a by-pass on yourself for a fraction of the cost! It's the American Capitalist way!

That's certainly the stupid way.

The American Capitalist way is to be personally responsible for taking decent care of your own body, and not to let it degenerate by your own useless sloth.

And when you need goods and services, you simply go to other American Capitalist producers and make equitable value for value exchanges with them because they share your values. Again, this is Business 101. I'm only stating the obvious.

When government actions cause the price of a good to be so high that one must compensate by performing the labor oneself

Jeez, Frank... you just can't be actually reading what you're writing! :laugh:

If you DON'T do productive useful work, you'll NEVER create any wealth.

then one's own labor is a cost one is not shifting forward but absorbing.

That ludicrous statement just screams that you're not productive. You actually regard your own labor as a negative when it is the only way to secure your own economic freedom.

What is your "real world practical solution" to the cost of the welfare state? Have every soldier, firefighter and police officer unilaterally raise the price he charges to the consumer?

Public employees are very well paid for the services they provide. I know. I was one of them.

Your view is of someone who sits of their ass... and that's why it will never change. You'll always be a complaining victim because that's what you've made out of your self.

Greg

Gee, Greg, maybe he's concerned with broader issues, not just his personal productivity. This is something you're purblind to.

--Brant

Share this post


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...