SteveWolfer

There are socialists of goodwill. What will they do with a rational constitution? And no matter who they are, and no matter what the constitution says, they will have to understand it, then they will have to come to some degree of common agreement as to what would be good so they can decide how to implement it, or how to change it before that. Striving to be good is terribly important. It almost always contains being honest, but that is because we understand that it is good to be honest. Yet there are people who are otherwise good, but will decide that some lies in the field of politics are okay because otherwise they can't do what they understand to be the right thing.

Yes, but you missed my point. The people also have to understand individual rights - not a deep theoretical level, but as general rules that they accept. "Understanding" precedes "being good". I'm using "being good" because it is "wanting to be good" put into action - if it just stays a want it is impotent. "Understanding" precedes "being good" because there has to be an understanding of what being good means. Here are the alternatives: - People can understand and not be good. - People can not understand and attempting to be good may be futile or misdirected. (good intentions aren't enough) - People can not understand and not be good (total disaster). - People can understand and be good (success!)

This is very true. And an important point... but it is in the area of intentions, or psychology. And I had to take a moment to follow you, because what we discuss on these forums are ideas and we put them in different categories, like epistemology, politics, ethics, etc. We need the categories, and we need to chew on the ideas, and to use logic. That is such a common experience her on a forum, that it takes a minute to shift and say, "Michael isn't discussing what the answer to "is such and such is right" but rather he is talking about the person who will be thinking and acting. I'd say that we have to pin down a context to say if 'being good' is a secondary or a primary question. If we are on the forum and chewing on ideas of how to implement a proper, oh say, legal system. Then the question of what is good has to have some common agreement.... unless it comes to something that make a population decide to 'be good' or not 'be good' in which case primary and secondary switch. Context is king. Well, there is actually a period of learning that is in conflict some natural impulses. Mom has to say things like, "Tommy, little sisters are not for hitting!" And for Tommy that lesson, if it is learned, becomes a principle that he will follow because he wants to "be good" - until he had that principle, he might have thought smacking little sister was good. "Morphing" into common decency is nearly always helped along. Addressing the principles on a "theoretical" level - as theory - is totally different. We do that here. It is optional in our culture, but questionable how advanced (in good ways) our culture can become without it being a common stage of development.) And adding self-awareness of how principled one might be is also on a different levels and comes later (if ever). It has levels within it - really good people are those who have done a lot of this.

Yes, there is a lot of meaning in that. The philosophy one chooses will have a lot of say in one's psychology. And there are levels of psychology. We each have accepted some epistemological beliefs and they will have an effect on our psychology. But it works the other way as well. There are some psychological paths a person takes that will make some philosophies much more appealing than others. As Branden would have said, we have a reciprocal cause-effect going on. I'd have to chew on that for a while. In terms of knowledge hierarchy I see that metaphysics->epistemology provide a base for human nature. With human nature there are different perspectives: biology would be one. Psychology would be another. While at the level of human nature, there is a layer that separates (and joins) human nature to psychology and that is the philosophy of psychology. And that needs to take general principles from the philosophy of science and particularize them as to apply to a philosophy of psychology. metaphysics->epistemology->philosophy of science->philosophy of psychology->psychology Psychology gets split up into lots of subareas - motivational psychology, clinical psychology, animal psychology, etc. There is clearly a joining of some sort between psychology and ethic in that virtues are character traits (both of ethics and from psychological choices). Ethics applies to acts and acts arise out motivation. Ethics is about values as well and those are formed in our minds as well as examined objectively relative to human nature. There is a reciprocal causality between ethical acts and psychology. And act can have a psychological effect based upon our held ethical beliefs are, and the kind of things we hold as ethical will effect our psychology (self image for example). That's what comes to mind... don't know if it is anything like what you were thinking.

Baal, I really do make an effort to answer what you write. To pay attention to what you say. But it doesn't feel reciprocal. I hear the word reactionary at different times, and I know it usually comes up in a political context, so I asked what it was. I could have looked it up, of course. But I wanted to get an answer that was in context to our discussion. No reply. I don't know how to respond when what you choose to do is ignore what I write in my post. I explained about "The ends justify the means" in a political/moral context and how that was very different from the business of joining two pieces of wood. You ignored those just as if I hadn't written them. Why is that?

Ed, have you read Virginia Postrel's "The Future and It's Enemies"? Interesting twist on this same theme of resisting change.

There is a real weirdness about the results when you ask it in a collective context (for everyone), as opposed to asking it like this, "If gene editing would save your baby, or grandchild, from getting a serious disease, would you be willing to do that?" Then the matching question is, "Would you stop someone else from doing gene editing for their baby if it would save their baby's life?"

You could also take a pack of vicious dogs and give them the constitution on a deserted island. That would be identical to the criminals because there would not be that one missing thing: A significant number of the population that understand what it means to observe the law (we're assuming good laws). You are doing a kind of switch. You are switching the concept of a constitution for the implementation of a constitutional government which requires an ongoing effort by knowledgeable people. That is like saying, "hey, a constitution is just a piece of paper. I'm giving you a piece of paper... see, it didn't help." Yes, but that doesn't tell the whole story. What does "be good" mean? Without a specific moral philosophy it is meaningless. And there are some people who want to "be good" but because they are steeping in socialism or altruism, they abhor individual rights. We are in complete agreement here, and in other aspects of what you explaining. I lump it under the heading of psychology (as theory) and "goodwill" is a reasonable descriptor (as practice). The intersection of philosophy (or abstract beliefs in general) and psychology is a fascinating area and both underrated in its effect, today and throughout history, and rarely paid the attention it deserves. I tend to talk to myself in these posts, as a way of working out what I believe and how best to express it, but I try to stay tightly in the context of talking TO the person. I always have the hope of informing or persuading, but I've been to enough rodeos to know that isn't a good reason to spend much time at a keyboard. (Like that cartoon of a guy hunched over his keyboard typing like crazy, and his wife says, "Are you coming to bed?" and he answers, "Later. There's someone on the Internet that is wrong.") Sometimes I give in to the urge to fight 'evil' on the internet. I'm a little more graceful about it now, but it probably won't go away as long as I remain judgmental to some degree and believe in the importance of ideas. I think that talking AT someone is failing in an attempt to put your ideas in their language. Like that video you posted today where the Asian Communist was yelling at that black guy. All rhetoric just louder volume. I'd say that keeping things in the abstract (where they start floating) is seeing the value as being more in a set of words or thoughts than in their meaning or purpose.

The better part of 1.6 billion people have found a way in their mind and their culture to hold this as a peaceful religion. I think you are absolutely correct in the need to expose the words for what they mean.... those are the words that give the moral power, direction and meaning to the Jihadists, and it explains why there are so many violent jihadists and such abusive behavior toward women. I agree with the point that one can't fight what they can't name, but there is a much bigger reason to speak the truth. Until all the good Muslims feel very uncomfortable with these truths being spoken, they will have zero motivation to reform Islam. Right now people say, "Islam can't be reformed. It is the word of Allah as given to the prophet." But that is applying logic to this big rat's nest. Apply sufficient moral pressure and people will find the way to explain how it is okay to do a reformation, and actually do it. And, then the extremists won't find that overlap with a large population that sanctions, maybe supports them around the edges, but doesn't join them. When all the good Muslims move on, it will be easier to find and kill the bad ones.

This kind of thing is a huge problem. We let generations of our best and brightest come out of the 'best' of universities with their heads filled with social justice progressive bullshit. This goes back to the late 1800s... Each generation just a little farther to the left - somehow we stayed blind to what was happening and now we are in real trouble and I don't think we can fix it in less than a number of generations. Journalists, talking heads, politicians, professors, writers, Hollywood people, and now even the heads, top people, and technical staff of big corporations like Google, Facebook, Yahoo... they are all sinking into 'The ends justify the means' approach to their social-justice/global-warming/globalism jihad.

Apply to things political, by everyone who believes that individual rights are the basis for political philosophy. Michael, if you no longer believe that those are the principles that should be used to judge good from bad in the political context, what principles do you adopt? Because politicians have said one thing and done another, do we throw out all talking? Trump isn't going to get rid of any of the international trade deals - he is going to re-negotiate them. Is that free trade or just (hopefully) better non-free trade? And if they are heavy into tariffs, they will be bad. But then that is just me, making judgments based upon principles.

What's a "reactionary"? Please give me a rough definition. The progressives aren't using this 'end justifies the means' to join two boards. They are making a moral claim that says we can do immoral things as long as they are intended to achieve a moral end. examples. If you are person who has a larger than average carbon footprint, then it is moral for me to kill you. Or, if Hillary is the most progressive candidate, then it is okay for her supporters to tell lies and engage in cover-ups. Note: They are not making a practical case for something. They are, when they use this dictum, claiming that they have a moral sanction but at the same time avoiding any judgment on the morality of the actions taken towards their goal. They want to have their moral cake and eat it too. (To be moral, but not to have to act moral.)

Tucker Carlson makes an excellent point when he says that the left, in making Trump appear to be not just wrong, but evil, create a mindset where anything is justified in their fight against him. Tucker says, "If Hitler were running for president, wouldn't you do ANYTHING to stop him?" Progressives do this all the time with Identity Politics and wedge issues, with Saul Alinsky tactics of demonizing your candidate, and again.... like I've said before, they start with "The end justifies the means" - when you add these up, you end up with a political faction that is more likely to sanction violence, abandon facts and truth, and separate from reason.

Libertarian/Objectivist/Constitutionalist principles are the ones that apply when the job is political. And when he talks about being smart, fair, competent, etc. we still are going to have to wait and see it these were jargon or the real deal.

Progressives believe that the ends justify the means, and that says that as partisan politics grows more heated we can see more and more phony studies, bald lies, and aggressively irrational arguments.

Paying for stuff you don't want is the norm with government spending, except when it does the minimum needed to maintain an environment where individual rights prevail - that is something everyone uses, wanted or not. Try to protest against freedom of speech without being free to speak, etc. Akin, in spirit, to axioms, capitalism's political freedom is necessary to organize against capitalism - making intellectual asses out of socialists, communists, Nazis, and the social warriors of progressivism who agitate against microaggressions and for safe spaces and shout down diversity of ideas.

We have reached the bald-faced lie stage of political competition. Everyone who heard Trump speak knew that the 30,000 emails he was talking about were already deleted, gone, non-recoverable, and the remains of the hard-drive and such can't be further explored even by the FBIs best forensic people, which is where they are. So, how in the Hell would anyone hack those without a time machine? And if those emails, deleted by a team of her lawyers (she hires lawyers as data clerks, not because law school teach data skills, which they don't, but because they can't talk due to client-attorney privilege)... if those emails were all about yoga poses and wedding plans, then where is the national security issue. Top secret yoga position? There was only one person inviting foreign powers to hack into actual national security secrets: the person who chose to use a server in her basement that was less secure than a GMail account, to use multiple devices in countries where she was told they would be vulnerable. This was all verified by the head of the FBI, not one of her campaign guys. Since it's impossible in the present or future to hack what no longer exists, how could that be an invitation. And here is the thing: all of the top campaign operatives knew this, just like the top people knew it wasn't a video in Benghazi, just like Hillary knew she wasn't under gun fire when she landed in Kosovo. Lies. All Lies.

Yes, exactly. In the absence of any data, that government advances are faster. And, I put forth a principle that we, and Baal, understand and agree on... government and free enterprise are different in terms of efficiency and in terms of being motivated to satisfy the most desires of the most people. I agree. And I've agreed that the research and development that directly effects our ability to protect ourselves is what government ought to do. To me, that line we draw is between choice and force - as opposites in the realm of human nature - and that is how we derive individual rights and from there, we derive the proper purpose of government, and from there we derive what government should do and should not do. Baal likes to make an exception for things he considers cool or important or that he likes - certain scientific/technological government projects. I think you need to have a principle that you stick too, particularly with something as dangerous as government can potentially be.

That's true. But there are the people who respond emotionally to those who say, "You're getting screwed, and I'll fix that" even though no principles are offered. We see both these at play in politics, both are emotional, both are intellectually dead.

There are two elements to consider from this perspective. What the advance is and how it is funded. What is the mechanism that chooses what to advance: When government chooses what area or item to advance, it will, over the long-term, fail to make as many people as happy or as well off as a capitalist system. The very nature of government interventions is elites choosing. Under capitalism the invisible hand summarizes, maximizes, and carefully tracks the desires of the most people as they seek to flourish, do well, and have good lives. When you put aside the issue of choice as to what to advance, what is left is how is the advance funded. Historically we have church funding, and both in the past and the present we have government funding. But remember that the government has no wealth of its own. It has to take money from the private sector first (or borrow, which will just be future taxes, or inflate which is just a different kind of taking). If all of that government confiscated funding were still in the private sector is could be allocated in many, many ways. Our financial markets have acquired extraordinary flexibility and facility. Think about the fact that (ignoring the government mucking about) it is mostly private money that funds buildings - all buildings - every house that was purchased on a mortgage, every shopping center funded with a floated limited partnership sale, etc. This is an amount that dwarfs all of the government spending on advances for the entire century. And, it is driven by the individual desires - all unique. Government projects are one size is forced on everyone. Here is your advance. I, government took your money. I decided what to spend it on. I decided how to spend it. So, like it or not here you go. That's very different. In terms of single item advances, it is easy for today's capital markets to fund them regardless of size. But there is a limitation. It has to be able to show a profit (which means people want it) - I like that limitation. This is at least partly a kind of intellectual optical illusion. You see government taking money, picking projects, hiring people, and putting out a product. What you don't see is what that money would have done had it been left for the free market which ceaselessly produces those things that people think give them the best life. You are comparing what is a known product of a known inefficient system directed by elites, with what doesn't exist because of their interventions. Here is the stuff you should make a formula of: A = the money taken out of the system. B = a factor of efficiency that is high for private market satisfaction of wants, and low for government work. I maintain that only the elites are actually benefited by the government route. Everyone else would be better off to stay with the Capitalist system. Government only got a few former military pilots turned astronauts to the moon. Not "us" - for "us" to be able to go to the moon will require private enterprise to find ways to develop whatever technology would be needed and the mustering and organizing of resources that would provide a profitable way to get "us" to the moon. The government is unlikely to ever get "us" to the moon. Private enterprise probably will, and it will happen faster if government doesn't take our money and burden us with restrictions. Which is faster? Which is "accelerated"? Never (as with government), or as soon as people want it enough for themselves to pay for it (as with liberty)?

That is because private firms seek to make customers happy and to serve their needs and desires. That is why a capitalist system will always provide more of what most people want. Yes. And I think that is a very good thing. I don't want other people to take my stuff. And I know that a society where people can take other peoples stuff is not a good place to live. Yes. And if they do not raise enough revenue (from taxes or other means) they won't be able to carry out their primary function which is to protect us from military forces from outside the nation or thugs inside of the nation, or provide a good civil court system so we can interact and be able to resolve differences without the use of force. Government cannot do anything that isn't based upon prohibition, confiscation and/or directing of force. And even these things are being done by humans. Government is an organization of humans, operating according to laws made by humans, enforcing laws with humans. Government power has to be limited unless you advocate for outright totalitarianism. So, what is the principle by which you decide what things should be legally permitted for government to confiscate, prohibit, or direct force. If it isn't individual rights, then government isn't a force designed for the purpose of protecting liberty. If you can't name and describe your principle by which you decide "yes" or "no" on what powers are proper to government, then you are like someone trying to tell a scientist what is going on in reality but without understanding any scientific principles. We know that fire can be a good thing or a bad thing. A fire can warm your house or burn it down. It can cook your food or set the kitchen on fire. It can power internal combustion engines to transport us and goods or be used as a terrorist bomb. A person who runs around advocating for this or that kind of government, or saying that government should do this, or not do that, but does not have an explicit principle that drives those declarations is like a person who runs around setting things on fire and says it is good but can't give a rational explanation why those things and not other things.

That was my favorite part. By then he was really worked up. And you could see that the dorky guy he was yelling at believed he was advocating for a better system. The Asian guy that was yelling at the black guy earlier was different - you could see that in some way the Asia was motivated by conflict. And he was fairly practiced. (What was with that strange metal throat guard or scarf?) How do people grow up like the dorky guy, such that it is easy for them divorce their minds from reality when grasping hold of a theory. They make their minds into machines that work with floating abstractions - walling them off from contradictions, creating blank-out triggers in certain areas. Then the work their mind does is about attaching passion to bad rhetoric, manipulating symbols, and getting some kind of gratification or emotional reward while ignoring any signals that are trying to tell them they are on the wrong track. If we could find the kids that are just starting down that psycho-epistemological path - find them early on - schools might be able to get them back on path for critical thinking, for openness to errors and fallacies. I like what the black dude was asking, "What state are you from? Who paid for you to come here?" He was trying to do what our news media should be doing at every single demonstration - find out which are paid demonstrators, find out who is supporting them, find out how they organize and communicate. Incompetent journalists.

He really did said for Hillary to not take money from big donors, and he is telling her that it isn't helping anyway. He is coming from the meme that the big donors will own the candidates that they fund. But, at least for the Clintons, that is the wrong meme. A leash has two ends. Look at this from the Clinton's viewpoint. They have spent their adult lifetimes looking for donors to milk. It isn't about them 'being owned' - it is about them 'making a sale.' For them the politics is just the larger marketplace they work in. The money coming their way, and sticking to their pockets is the purpose. Do you have a Lincoln bedroom - rent it out. Are you the Secretary of State - Make sales to foreign interests.

I completely agree about being better off economically and that our society is the worse off because of the government intervention. But I totally disagree that we would not be so advanced technologically. The government is terribly wasteful and myopic and inefficient in its processes and that certainly includes doing research and advancing technology. You are just looking at things that have been invented by government contractors or employees on this or that government project. But you don't imagine in your mind that if government were smaller, people were much freer and had much more of their money that the 'magic' of the excitement and ingenuity and profit motive wouldn't be a far more powerful engine - not just for commerce - but for advancing technology as well. A technology breakthrough is worth big money, this would mean that industry (without all the government soaking up money) would pay inventors and researchers far more, and would target advances in their particular area. And this would be going on in every conceivable area at the same time, and the stupid or failed approaches would quietly disappear and the successes would be the ones where new technologies paid off and spread to all the consumers who wanted it. Look at cell phones, smart phones, apps... etc.

The have such disdain for (and fear of) the masses they desperately want to control, the masses they need to get elected, the masses they will prey on and live off of. The more successful they are in fooling their followers, the less respect they have for them.