SteveWolfer

Your exposition of the revolutionary history is good. But I'd argue that the battle between those who, like Madison, believed that the bill of rights might be a confusion and might make it seem like the federal government could do anything unless the bill of rights were limiting, and those in opposition to that, most of whom totally agreed with the idea of a federal government that could only do what was enumerated, but took a belt and suspenders approach. They said, in effect, we understand about the enumerated powers, but we don't trust that they key rights wouldn't be violated anyway. What I'm saying is that both sides to this argument, for the most part, were on the side of the constitution protecting rights and only in disagreement as to which would prove the most effective. The arguments at the ratifying conventions seemed to show that. True... but only in explicit terms. It has always been understood that the declaration of independence announced our severance from Great Britain for the purpose of securing our rights. And it has always been understood that, first the alliance of the now independent states, and then the federal government under the constitution were intended as the means of securing those rights by having the power that they would not have had as independent nations. The main idea of the constitution and the greatest constant in the writings of the founding fathers is to limit government power and the only purpose of that is to protect individual rights. What we have today is many generations of bad Supreme Court decisions, and the shift to where precedent (bad decisions) take precedence over what the DOI, the constitution itself, and the founding fathers wrote. Ginsberg wants to use language from some foreign constitutions to make decisions - Really! It is only partly tyranny... but clearly getting bad.

No way that the IRS under this president and the current director of the agency would ever undertake a serious investigation of Hillary. Not going to happen. This has to be just a make-believe investigation forced on the IRS by congress - and the shortest way to shut up these congressional pressures. And maybe it is a way to put off or slow down any investigation that might otherwise have gone forth under the FBI. Remember, all of these agencies need do no more than keep things quiet for 100 days. Then she will be either able to pardon herself, or be of no interest. I always listen to "look into this" as the words that precede NOT looking in to it.

I went out to Drudge, and looked at the interview where Charles Koch was alleged to have said he might support Hillary - complete nonsense. He politely said that could only happen if he were confident that her actions would not match her rhetoric. In other words, never. The Koch brother don't like Trump, and definitely don't like Hillary. They are going to pour nearly half a billion into senate races. That is critical. And that is going to be their sole focus this election season. No matter who is president, we need a senate with balls and that is anti-progressive or else there will be no stopping the loss of the Supreme Court, and massively bad appointments to the Federal bench, and who knows what else. I see absolutely no evidence that either of the Koch bothers is in favor of global governance. I know they both favor free trade and not tariff wars. And I don't see any evidence that they engage in crony activities. These guys are serious capitalists that have been active in the conservative wing of the GOP only because the Libertarian party too often behaves like frat boys. They do a lot for CATO. They said that they are not aware of any contact with Trump or his organization. It appears that they said, in answer to a media question, that they were not going to be supporting Trump, and then he made it like they approached him and he turned them down, when that was not the case.

Probably true. It would be too big off a anti-Trump talking point: "Trump takes money from the Koch brothers and will let them destroy our environment with more oil."

It would have been better if he'd said nothing. Kahn's wife had spoken on a televised interview. Later, she said she didn't speak at the convention because she felt too emotional. That killed Trump's response while keeping this whole thing in the news which it didn't merit. Then he gave an interview and he said that he has sacrificed, and he said he has hired tens of thousands of employees. Stephanopoulos said, do you think that is a sacrifice, and Donald went on to talk about putting up a Veteran's memorial and that it was a sacrifice. A leader of a veteran's organization said that Trump's idea of sacrifice in the context of a death of their son is insulting to veterans and their families. So he lost twice. He should have ignored that till questioned (no tweets). And when questioned, he should have said something like, "I'm sorry that Hillary chose to politicize that mother and father's grief. My heart goes out to them. I want to keep our children from being killed. And when we must go to war, I will back them up - fiercely, and then bring them home quickly." If he were pressed further on the issue of "sacrifice" he should say something like what Patton said, "As commander in chief I will ensure that it is our enemy that makes sacrifices, not our children. Their brave son had dreams for a future. He didn't plan on dying. He deserved better support and a commander in chief that didn't put us in wars that we didn't need or wars that that go on forever." He needs a bit better advice or to listen to the good advice he is getting.

Why doesn't Donald want to accept money from them? They are libertarians - not crony-type of parasites or people that would ask for special benefits.

I agree that Hillary should be seen as NOT good. And that Trump should be seen as a business man with successes and some unknowns. But here are the problems. A vast majority of the Hillary supporters have presorted her into the good. Why? Partly because they have been told lies and believed them (they are part of our entire educational system and mass media), but also partly because they don't understand what is good in the political context. They will take their faulty understandings and with a heart full of goodwill, pull the lever for Hillary. This is a case where I see understanding preceding goodwill. The other problem is the unknowns about Trump. Again, I say that we need to understand so that our goodwill can send us out to support him, or that same goodwill have us throw away a vote on Johnson.

I doubt that it will happen, and if it does, it would be a last ditch effort to split up electoral votes so badly that the election ends up in the house of representatives. Not going to happen. No way a true core Neocon would be attracted to Johnson (except out of enormous dislike for Trump). Neocons want big government and war. Johnson wants small government and one step short of isolationism. If a bunch of Neocons join Johnson, he'll welcome them - he needs everybody he can get - because he needs to go from about 9% to 15% just to get on the debates - and that is what he really wants. Even if he gets to the debates I don't think he has a chance.

Well put. We are talking about a period of time before Darwin had written on evolution. Before science had advanced far enough to generate the kind of confidence we have now that it will answer the questions we put to it. Being a Deist would be easier then. And being a closet atheist would be more important in those times.

I completely agree. Individual rights are moral principles. The Declaration of Independence is the interface that actively connects individual rights to the constitution. The constitution should be the interface between the DOI (with the Individual rights) and the laws of the land. These are hierarchical with the Individual rights as primary, the DOI comes next, and the constitution should be amended where needed to keep it in accord with the individual rights from the DOI - just as laws should be changed to meet the constitution and never the other way around. That is a very good approach to the second amendment. It respects the hierarchy I've mentioned and to me that gives it the intellectual integrity that is needed to make sense of these issues. I agree with the better education and the critical thinking. As to Western values... that depends. I've been an atheist since age 14 and I easily bristle when I think that is taken to be undesirable. God doesn't belong anywhere that is government supported. God has to be a personal choice. Defining God as reality doesn't work when it will continue to be the Christian God that everyone else takes as the meaning. I would like all schools to be private and if a school wants a pledge of allegiance, that would be up to them, but I'd hope that it was more of a tribute to liberty than a call for subservience to either God or Nation. I have nothing against patriotism as long as it is framed in terms of real national values - our nation has had great values, we still have great founding philosophy and some great history. Nothing wrong with children letting their hearts swell with pride in the good of the country as long as they are also taught critical thinking and independence (those are what would prevent patriotism founded on propaganda and lies).

Celebration, affirming, enjoying, sharing

Well, what would you suggest? I don't see the mistake. If you don't join that branch of knowledge that deals with "What shall I do next?" to the description of "What can I not do?" That is you need to join morality to law: Otherwise, you have law with no moral basis, or morality that is never enacted in law. (by the way, doesn't morality deal with more than "What shall I do next?" but also what is of value, what is the standard of value, what is right, and does so apart from time - that is: past, present and future? E.g., "What should I have done") Is a "right" not a moral principle? I know that there are legal rights, but that isn't what we are discussing. And doesn't this moral principle apply to a social context... it doesn't apply when on an otherwise deserted island. And doesn't a right pertain to action? Specifically those actions one can take by right, as opposed to those that require permission. That is why I think that Rand's definition is just fine: "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context."

Yes, sorry. If someone with admin privileges wants to, I'm okay with having everything from Baal's post at 3:55 on Thursday snipped and moved it to a new thread.

I'd never thought of that. I think you are right. But I think that something that has a social aspect and maybe some ritual - something that allows for a celebration of objective values. would make a big difference. Most people are busy in their career and lives and not being steeped daily in the philosophy like she was - and with her friends and associates.

I strongly dislike that way of speaking about yourself. You are human and it is wrong approach this in any other way. No one should ever build a personal identity that walls them in, that describes differences more significant than they need to be.

I think that this comes about because the abstract constructions (which are needed) is what we explore, work with, and argue over on forums. I love her formulation. Here is her definition: That's elegant. Like so much of what she wrote she never strayed from purpose - which is such a key part of context when you don't want to float off on untethered abstractions. There is much in religious practice that we should look for to find the important ways to bind good ideas, motivate virtuous behavior, and bridge social interaction with moral tune-ups, and celebration of our core spiritual values. People are 'choosing to value' when they go to church. They have to have the belief, or think they might, before it works psychologically. But when they go, and they sing and pray and listen to sermons they are choosing all that they hold as good in their beliefs and that builds it into their being. We should have something that is similar, but obviously secular, and based upon reason instead of faith. But we should also be teaching the most elementary versions of moral and political philosophy in the early years of school (I wouldn't trust today's schools). The constitution should be a tight legal document. A modern declaration of independence would be a better place to bind the spirituality of free men of goodwill with the legal document that confines government. As to Galt's Oath, did you see what I wrote on another thread about that? Much of what we are discussing here should have a developmental foundation for it. For example, if you strip out the religious stuff in the pledge of allegiance (which was added in the fifties), and make it more individual rights instead of pure nationalism, that is good, but what should happen is some learning each and every year of school so that rituals like the pledge draw on a background of teachings that grows deeper and richer with each passing year. Pledge what to what is a question that would have a much richer answer in the mind of a high school senior than a sixth grader.

Yes, I understand that. I have a cousin who is not autistic in the least, but she was married to an engineer with autism and their two boys are on the autism spectrum. I watched the interactions between my cousin and her husband and between her and the boys. I recognize that this is probably genetically conditioned, but I saw a lot of variability in its expression from one moment or one day to the next. The autism was a kind of baseline, but there was a lot of psychological movement that could be called "more autistic" or "less autistic" - mental/emotional movement that was psychologically conditioned. I also saw her husband looking a bit unhappy at times as a reaction to being autistic, and I saw times where I believe autism was being used in different interpersonal ways - as a defense, as a tool, as a refuge. I have no experience beyond that, but I'm a keen observer and that's what I saw and thought.

I never put anything out where I intend or imply an absence of volition - that's just not me. If something I've written reads that way, it just means that you aren't understanding it as I intended it, and maybe because I didn't write it clearly enough. For example: "People can understand and not be good" could have been written as "People can understand and choose not be good." That is how I understood it because I take volition for granted - it is part of human nature - it is who we are - it is at the heart of motivational psychology - of self-esteem.

Absolutely! It is very true that many, maybe most, people don't grasp independence (theoretically or as a process of judgment or as life attuned to their own values and not those of others). If you turn to a self-help book it often gives platitudes and little rules-of-thumb, but usually without a solid understanding of why. You can just pick them up and run with them. It isn't much of surprise that something that simplistic is unlikely to provide any stunning results. What Rand did in Atlas Shrugged was to present the heart of an entire philosophy - the metaphysics, the epistemology, the morality, the sense of life that went with it - and she symbolized it in fiction. And as the story progressed she summarized the purpose of her philosophy - a philosophy for a good life here on earth. Then she gave this creed - this guide-line - that was created and adopted by her ideal man. What she did was to present a 'self-help' guide-line, but as she went along, she laid out everything one needed to know first to be able to make sense of it. That creed, that guide-line works only to the degree that you understand what it summarizes. I'd say that the better one's understanding of all the prerequisite knowledge, the more use that guide-line will be, but there is also the integration of all of the information, and there is the psychology that is woven in and applies as a kind of 'skill' in using ones' consciousness in working with that information and its integration and its application. So, all of those are the things that can be improved on, almost without limit, and each improvement will make for more effective understanding and use of the guide-line. That is way I see it.

I love it! Unrest on the Progressive plantation. The video maker, O'Keefe, did a great job of pretending to be a Hillary supporter.

I believe that this is a case where the judgments and a social metaphysical pattern would be present with someone who tried to live for another. But I think that Rand was going for that passion that human nature will allow us when we are integrated around the principle that our life is an end in itself. We don't run roughshod over others, or violate rights, but those restrictions just to set boundaries within which our passion for OUR OWN LIFE can be loosed at full throttle. That integrates values and judgements. Living for another requires a clamping down, or diminishing, or killing of that spirit - that exuberance - that would be felt if we fully held our own life as our proper purpose. And to seek to have others live for us... well, with my focus usually being on the underlying psychology, I'd see that as defensive and defenses arise out fear, shame, anger and are a disconnect from reality to some degree. Clearly that is a terrible twist and kink in the natural process of our judgments and values and experience of life being a full-throated pursuit of our own ends. We look at altruism and contrast it with rational egoism. We look at collectivism and contrast it with individualism. We contrast other political systems with capitalism. We compare high self-esteem with low self-esteem. But all of these worthy occupations are abstractions we engage in to acquire better understanding of a given aspect of reality. That understanding is different from what our purpose should be, which is to experience a vibrant life full of passion for our goals, for our living. So, I see "To never live for another's goals, and to never have others live for our goals" as an approach to life... that is a good razor or guide-line for staying on the path to the most passionate experience of life.

Michael, In practice I don't think we are far apart. I keep resisting because of the sense that "good" is being taken as something that can exist in some intrinsic way that has nothing to do with understanding - that morality as a code of values where there can be widely differing views of what is good, can somehow be abstracted as a separate, psychological entity. I think our disagreement arises from subtleties of context shifts between psychology and epistemology (on one hand) and between theory and practice (on the other hand). Any way, it isn't something I want to pursue since I don't see it as something that needs to be stamped out, or anything that would lead people down the wrong path. -------------------------------- Didn't you like this:

I'm not buying that... not fully. Often, your writing is quite expressive. Too expressive, too nuanced to be a "state-machine automaton." I recognize that there can be significant differences between communication processes in people, but any differences that existed at an early age, or from birth, are going to be grist for the developmental process. That is, they are going to change in one way or another. I suspect that there is utility for you in your identity. And you quite often do NOT respond to just the words and do NOT take everything literally, and do NOT respond with word choices of your own that are the least mechanical. That says that there is latitude in what you understand and what you output. I'm talking about a variance in the emotional content, and particularly a way to vary things to suit an internal state - a kind of self-regulation. Children with very high levels of intelligence usually feel that as a pressure and find different ways to deal with being different. How to be safe from conflict or rejection can be done in many ways. One is to take a difference and get behind it - that takes a high level of intelligence, but once a pattern is there, that intelligence can set itself free to roar in the non-emotional areas. Of course, this is just me making wild-ass guesses... but, if I'm right, then if you were to practice focusing on finding that self-regulation, on being more aware of it in action, you would extend the range of your control, and diminish the degree of "mind-blindness". The problem with our developmental process (child to adult) is that a kind of decision making goes on... in areas like understanding what others want or expect, and like how to react to them - and the processing 'decisions' get made by a child. Often an actual difference is compensated for, as if our mechanism were built to shift till it was more like others, but other times a perceived or real difference is magnified or used in some way - like a shield. We have to wait till we are adults before we can grasp enough of the essence of self-awareness to make any changes.

Goodwill is a feeling state and/or the evaluation of the motivation behind an act. As such it isn't about an objective good. It can be discussed as such, like I am now, without having a specific person, or act, or motivation in mind. Let me give you some examples. A young person goes off to college and she is told that the very best thing we can do with health care is to have it be universal and that way everyone will be able to have health care and people won't be dying on the streets. She is told that it will only cost a very small amount more in the economy and the rich won't even notice the difference and for the poor it will make a difference between life and death. She believes this. Why? Because she has never been given any understanding of principles that would let her see the fallacies AND because she is a person of goodwill. The person who taught that class was a teaching assistant who is an earnest young fellow that is a true believer in socialized medicine and he knows that some of what he told was outright exaggerations, but he believes that it is a good cause and he is a person that wants to do good. He told some exaggerations even though he is a person of goodwill. His full professor is an asshole, to put it bluntly. Years of blanking out, years of playing university politics, years of trying to boost his self-esteem by feeling superior to others have left him with a nasty bitter sense of life. Generally speaking, he isn't a person of goodwill, but he might feel goodwill towards his dog or kids for the context of taking care of them, maybe he loves them (whom, for what, or why).

Yes, I agree. The point I was trying to make is that people find it too easy to say "we shouldn't do this" or "the state shouldn't let people do this." We have become a nation where it seems natural to prohibit almost anything. The government should not allow the use of lightbulbs that aren't energy efficient. The government... blah, blah, blah. There ought to be a law.... If they phrased the questions to make them about the personal liberty of the person being asked the question, when it would matter, the answers would be totally different. Ask someone, "How would you feel if someone would not let you take the medical action you needed to take to stop your baby from getting a serious disease, even though it wouldn't have any effect on anyone else?"