Strictlylogical

Flutterby Butterfly?

In the spirit of understanding... in the specific context of misled people being nonviolent assholes and idiots... "Idiots' Lives Matter"... many idiots given the chance of time and the exercise of free will have changed from idiots into decent human beings.

heh I'm not rage quitting the forum or anything. I'm just bowing out of a discussion... and yes I will have a mind to do so a tad more gracefully in future.

We disagree at a deep level. I completely understand, and I know that having a conversation in such a case ... to some... will feel like the other is trying to pressure them or somehow just doesn't get it (because of course you're right and the other is wrong). I get it. Yet, I do not agree. There are endless ways one could chose to react to someone else's disappointment and differing opinion. You have made your choice above and you sure have made it clear. Message heard, know that I now completely understand, and accordingly disengage, and notwithstanding my choice not to engage any further, all should know my silence is not an indication of agreement.

Disproportionate... as in the common sense "way out of line". I'm not talking about legality or technicality but as common sense human decency, a sense of morality, a sense of justice, and a sense of humanity... which always were and still are part of the American sense of life. BTW: I am familiar with the sense of life piece I read it. Choosing to act with restraint rather than from emotion and choosing actions which are measured rather than insanely over the top is not at base related to the choosing between obedience and independence... a civilized, balanced, moral, and just response is no less independent, but in fact relies on an extraordinary level of it. The leash of emotional dependence has loops at both ends too. You speak of context as though it is an excuse of a person "losing it"... where in the American sense of life is "loosing it" to the point of killing your fellow citizens with whom you disagree? LOL... your NOIF discussion is laughable. SO lets just go ahead and kill anyone who initiates any kind of nonlethal force or fraud if they do it repeatedly, if you are annoyed, and lose it... In context, there was no emergency, the person was not acting in self defence, the response in context of shooting people down in cold blood, although something many famous american criminals have done in the past... is, in my opinion, unamerican. Dismiss the Founding fathers all you want, but their sense of goodness and freedom go hand in hand, and I would take the eloquence of Washington or Jefferson or better yet John Adams, as exemplifying the spirit of America more than any thug who can't control his temper and kills people in a moment of irresponsible evil. I'm more disappointed.

Clearly disproportionate action in reaction to behavior (in the place where the justice of appropriate action should be), which infringes other's individual rights, their most sacred ones, is NOT part of the American sense of life. Kyle Rittenhouse is a much better example of the American sense of life... self-defense, justice, freedom, and individual rights. I am disappointed.

I should walk this back a little... it seems there is a wider variation than this... on the collectivist - individualist spectrum. I do think in the end it will be a good thing... inasmuch as good can come from an enlightened free Western democracy based in a society with a religious culture made up of mostly kind and honest people.

Perhaps, but it's got a lot the same self-sacrifice, higher power, stuff we see in religion and well of course it does, its based on religion even with the willingness they seem to show to cooperate with enlightened human spirit loving atheists. Jordan throws some realistic nuance in.. sacrificing the short term hedonism to the long term flourishing...but he and his crew seem to believe as many religious people do, that ultimately without God or this higher power, there can be no morality. So the "pill" comes in the form of mental chains, perhaps not chains for literal service of predators, but even chains to higher things are chains. Ans so, I find the approach taken to be little more than an invitation to religiosity as such with its perils of blind obedience and unthinking fervor. It is a capitulation, an admission that the mind of the common man is to be forever a slave to a higher power, rather than a proud exponent of his own virtues and existence, and for all their talk of countering prevailing pessimism about the scarcity and crises of the world with ideas about abundance and the human spirit, they are ultimately pessimistic about the capacity of man's soul... leading them to conclude that that the peace and flourishing they seek requires humbling oneself, subservience, and sacrifice... rather than a lifting of everyone and everything of value in response to a love of life, self, and the joy of being. Still watching various talks and mulling over this.

Done, not sure about the "403 Forbidden" when add a link to the organization.

Hi all, I have not done a really deep dive into this, but I thought this might be an interesting thread to start. (Although, on this site with the low numbers of active posters, it seems that a good dose of MSK is needed to keep ANY topic alive... I hope you are interested MSK!) Anywho... so as some may know ARC was the brainchild of Jordan B. Peterson, and was founded by him, John Anderson, and Baroness Stroud earlier this year, as an "answer" or foil to the WEF and is currently holding its first conference. ARC Forum I will be looking into this more closely, but one big reservation I have is that because it is, at least is in part, a rallying call for those who have influence or power to act better, it appears as almost an apologetic mimic (or a straw-man imitation with a heart of gold) of the top-down WEF, which is the quintessential paternalistic/tyrannical, "we will figure out everything and tell you what to do" kind of organization, only now the elites, politicians, authors, and academics appear to be "benevolent" rather than hell-bent on coercion and conformity... . On the other hand how do you rally both the general populace and persons in power or influence towards a better world without involving the elites in so called "thought leadership" (a term I hate but seems appropriate here)... and that is where my second reservation comes in... the ARC smacks a little of utopianism and collectivism... in fact much of the language used is inherently collectivist... as if they perhaps have drunk the same koolaid from the Marxists and Socialists as any collectivist central planner, that the only way to really persuade or convey something profound is to denigrate the individual and raise the group... some purpose beyond persons... something above individual rights ... a purpose beyond purpose... I am a little saddened at how things look, at least at first glance... but I will keeping an eye on this group, and hoping at the very minimum it will tend to steer us away from Global Tyranny.

here's a groaner we have all heard: "workin' hard or hardly workin'"

Isn't it funny that: "overlooking something" and "looking something over" are really quite opposite, while "upside down" and "downside up" are really the same thing?

Grr....

Multiple videos on Youtube about the amendments to the WHO "agreement", recently there was debate in the UK government... although there is some we are not getting much coverage or discussion (not even by politicians) on this side of the pond... Do nations and individuals just not care about sovereignty and freedom from central tyranny? The vote is next May I think. IS this going to be avoided before Trump gets in? What about the rest of the west?

Haha... it's funny as heck but not the best deepfake. Look closely at her mouth while she speaks. For lack of any accepted term... its aT2 Skinpuppet.

Ok that was a literal loL.. lots of emphasis on the second L.

Saw his entire speech… wow. Legacy media will fail to convince the public this guy is a crackpot (and they will have to try their darnedest at the behest of their overlords) so his message will get out. and it’s a good one. I think the gig is up for the corrupt uniparty system… they were already desperate in the struggle with Trump… and the MAGA movement, now with RFK jr running on another dismantle the corruption platform… they have enemies of corruption coming at them from everywhere. ”Declare your independence” This is getting spicy! Love it.

I lean towards the sentiment attached to "Bad Laws are not law at all"... when I think of how things should be and yes what "proper" government would be, but this "ideal" so to speak is not grounded in wish or faith or intrinsicism or any thing other than the political principles springing from ethics, i.e. morality (rational selfishness)... how the economy "should" be, what "government" should do, how the market "should" interact with "government" are all premised on what kind of systems individuals should set-up and maintain... and guard with eternal vigilance. I know, in the real world setting up things is more than wishing and speaking with two friends who might tell two of their friends... setting up systems has been incredibly laborious, bloody, and complicated in the past, and it would ever be so. It must come from an overriding culture and sense of life as well, ultimately ideas, individuals have, morphing into some "we" deciding to act on it because they know the kind of society which leads to flourishing. But in the real world every system involves people, and people are flawed in innumerable different ways and to different degrees... but why even bother keeping the idea of what is "proper" in mind in terms of a system or government, if we have no one too staff it with diligence and integrity? I'm not at the point of throwing out "shoulds" and "propers"... to me they are still lodestones, and principled... ideal even.. and like perhaps an unreachable infinity... they still are "directions" toward which can all face and move, knowing the end is never reached and the striving never ends. I have thought of your points many times before, and bemoaned the fact of reality that although we may be able to determine what "we" should set up for ourselves based on ethical principles and human flourishing... it is somehow unattainable because "we" (the only ones who could) cannot implement it as flawed human beings... but this feels like Peter saying he knows what he should do but he cannot... it is synonymous to someone initiating the individual task of personally seeking moral principles but giving up entirely when he realizes he is flawed and cannot be completely and infallibly trusted to DO or ACT in accordance with those principles. I, however, believe in free will... for individuals AND for cultures/societies (even if Harry Seldon would argue the statistics prove determinism for groups..) and so I have hope. But of course, these things are NOT easy, so principles both individual and societal need to take into account the frailties AND the virtues of human nature... obtaining a result according to principles requires implementation which soberly takes into account human nature. So, insofar as the balance of powers works with and takes into account human nature without giving up on the principles those powers are meant to uphold... I see great genius and benefit in something akin to that.. if one day someone could think that up. I do agree that something along that vein ... of aiming to live by and set up principled proper systems, necessitating the inclusion (and made possible by) specific kinds of systems, or procedures, or machinations which attenuate, balance, cancel...etc... the effect of our lower natures. The principle "laissez-faire" means government leaving alone private parties... free individuals etc. to deal with each other however they choose. This principle applied to a deal BETWEEN government and private parties does not take the same form of "leave the dealers alone" BUT must be in the same spirit and provide the same outcome as the wider principle. The wider principle is the separation of government and the economy.. or government "leave the market alone". In the same manner the principle of honesty is not an imperative forbidding one person for uttering falsehoods to another, but the wider principles of adherence to reality and not faking reality to gain a value. So too, "applying" the principle of "laissez-faire" to a government deal does not mean leaving the GOVERNMENT alone (to deal however the heck it wants), but means structuring the dealings so as to ensure they leave the market alone and as untouched and unaffected as possible. [The deal also should leave the government and its agents unaffected... and untarnished...] How to systematically achieve this, structure it to attenuate the darker side of the people implementing it from affecting the intended results... that is another mystery new Founding Fathers will need to tackle. I agree with you in broad strokes, the separation of powers of the branches of government work well to balance that power, but the interface of that power with the people and the economy needs its own mechanism, it needs to be somehow inoculated from the the opportunities and incentives of corruption.

No. A proper government does not buy medicine... why would it? Granting immunity to private entities is also not the role of government. Here you speak of corrupt government doing improper (non proper governmental) things. I see a pattern here... a corrupt government, an improper government, can and does things which are corrupt and improper... this is not an argument for why Rand's statement that government should interact with the private market in a laissez faire manner. I submit again, a proper government should do so except for services and goods which are not properly in the free market. Ok so you know what I think, how do you think a proper government (minimal... three branches) should interact with the free market in a proper and free society, with respect to goods and services properly offered in that free market to others?

I don't think it is a huge misidentification though. I think there is a lack of a critical distinction/identification. In the free market anyone is free to provide goods and services to anyone... and this is true for sealing wax, haircuts, office supplies, etc. What a proper government is and does, will still require many of these things and it would be senseless to have them provided only within the government from scratch ... we know government is not the entity which is good at providing any goods or services.... quite the opposite. Furthermore, government must not and should not obtain any goods and services from the free market at preferred or coerced prices... indeed prices which are artificial in any way. OK, so much for the business of the Justice System, laws, courts and all... What about the police? What about weapons? Without thinking harder on it, its not perfectly clear to me whether there is a justification for the police, in executing their duty to protect individual rights of the people via enforcement, to have any armaments which are prohibited to the law abiding individual citizens... to me it seems there should be a symmetry or mirroring of both professional and non-professional alike ... defending themselves, loved ones, and neighbors. What is clear to me is that the weaponry and tactics and offensive devices of a military for use against foreign powers must be greater and of a different kind from that provided to and used by the police and the citizenry. As such, here we have a CLEAR situation where the government has a complete and utter monopoly on use of and engagement with surveillance, cyber, conventional, and nuclear weaponry dealing with foreign threats. In this way then, there will be some products and services which have only one customer... the military. THOSE products and services, for which there is properly NO free market, must be differentiated, and should likely be controlled by government according to principles of the role of a proper government. Likely this would prohibit Global entities from providing these to America as well as other countries whose interests may not be aligned... In fact engineers and scientists creating said weapons should likely be employed by the military. Now drilling down further... there will be components IN those products which are on the free market... but then we go back to what I said above. So Rand I think was right for (just about) at least two branches of government, but not for SOME products and services solely within the power of the third ... the military branch.

If everybody owned property, had ze caars, ate steak, und lived in ze house inshtead of ein hoomble living pod, ze planet would kaput in next years.. somebody has to eat ze boogz, own nossing, an live in pods… ze solution is that YOU do so, zat way togezzer WE are zaving ze planet.

If the American people would just vote to get rid of the FED, and tied the currency to something real, maybe you would have a choice of saving your money instead of being forced to gamble it on others enterprises, just to keep the money's value and purchasing power. Given the current situation though, betting on the best and most sound horses out there would be a good idea... as long as you can get reliable information and clarity. But the system is designed so that you are forced to invest or transfer wealth to others... soon property will be myth, and you will be "rewarded" based on your credit score.

Just as there are armchair scientists and armchair philosophers so too ... there are armchair Objectivists. They do not take Objectivism seriously, they don't really take Atlas Shrugged seriously. They profess understanding and belief, they speak and espouse principles, syllogisms, ... identifications... but they err in identifying important truths in AS and application of those truths to reality at large. AS is oft labelled science fiction and rightly so, as it takes liberties identifying certain physical truths or falsehoods about sound... and how it could be harnessed as a weapon... and liberties identifying certain physical truths and falsehoods about the atmosphere and what energies in what amounts could be extracted therefrom. All Objectivists are able to suspend disbelief of these fanciful plot devices to enjoy and obtain the important substance, including identification of moral and political truths, truths about the nature of Man and Man's mind. Some however, some of the armchair variety, choose also to suspend their belief... ignore.. blank out and evade other truths in AS. The inconvenient truths about the nature of vice, and corruption, of how humans following statist, and collectivist ideas and ideals behave... how utterly corrupt markets and governments can (as they have throughout history) become.. and the utter villainy of many in places of power, of many entrusted with power by others. As comfortable as they are in their chairs, the armchair Objectivist squirms at and dismisses the corruption and treachery of industry and government at the highest levels as quickly as if not quicker than they wave away a machine that takes energy from the atmosphere... after all such things are incredibly implausible... one being pie in the sky and the other an uncomfortable conspiracy theory. What the armchair Objectivist misses, is the flip side of the coin, the other edge of the sword's lesson, that the discovery of the morality of rationality and selfishness is a light in the contrasting darkness of collectivism, corruption, petty power mongering, and authoritarianism which tendencies and personalities always and continually walk with society. Today is NO exception to this truth AS fully explores. We have no reason not to take AS seriously, and wave away ONLY the science fiction, as the rest: philosophy, principle, morality, human nature... all of it... is a wide integration which constitutes truth and a warning we would be wise to heed.

"Insurrection" - is to - Jan 6 as "Attempted Murder" - is to - trespassing, walking up to a person in weird clothes, waving a flag, and making them feel bad

If I were an anthropologist, I might think a free population of very unique and varied people would vote in a twisty winding track over the years swinging toward and away form various specific policies as the moment required like the changing weather. I also might think a set of parties would form around those various policies, live and die, with changing seasons. In such an organic system I would expect landslides, swings in support, transformation of parties etc, and would treat NEAR EQUAL SUPPORT for TWO PARTIES as a rare anomaly. THAT modern America seems to follow a hair splitting pattern, with elections won ... almost like clockwork.. by one party (after one or two terms) and then by the other and then again by the one... makes me wonder... WHEN did such a pattern appear and does it reflect the reality of the people?