Hallelujah

[Jared Warren]

Praise the Lord of circular reasoning for finding me this hive of libertarianism.

No, I'm not a cult fan of Rand, but I do believe descending into a pit of philosophagus tends to drive one insane. That is why I support the straightforward rules that Rand proposed. That being said, it is surprising how pragmatic objectivism turns out to be, even though it is based on moral principles.

My main point of guidance is that taxation is theft, and capitalism has a knack of landing on its feet when left alone (and off the leash). Exploitation is too ambiguous to define and often mutually beneficial, therefore coercion must be the only point of departure from morality.

[equality72521]

welcome Jared,

And I am proud to say I am NOT a libertarian. Though I do tend to agree with your general observation about "objectivists".

[BaalChatzaf]

Praise the Lord of circular reasoning for finding me this hive of libertarianism.

No, I'm not a cult fan of Rand, but I do believe descending into a pit of philosophagus tends to drive one insane. That is why I support the straightforward rules that Rand proposed. That being said, it is surprising how pragmatic objectivism turns out to be, even though it is based on moral principles.

My main point of guidance is that taxation is theft, and capitalism has a knack of landing on its feet when left alone (and off the leash). Exploitation is too ambiguous to define and often mutually beneficial, therefore coercion must be the only point of departure from morality.

There is really no conflict between what is moral and what is practical in the long run. And you are quite right. People can work out ways of living if they are not constantly interfered with by congenital butt-in-skis. Our kind of human has been around for maybe a quarter of a million years and we have only inflicted governments on ourselves for the last ten thousand years or so. So how did we survive? By seeing what was there and doing what needed to be done.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jared Warren]

There is really no conflict between what is moral and what is practical in the long run. And you are quite right. People can work out ways of living if they are not constantly interfered with by congenital butt-in-skis. Our kind of human has been around for maybe a quarter of a million years and we have only inflicted governments on ourselves for the last ten thousand years or so. So how did we survive? By seeing what was there and doing what needed to be done.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would say that the chief of the tribe was our first politician, and the witchdoctor was our first star-gazing bureaucrat pulling the strings behind the scenes. The former was the mouthpiece for the latter, who always managed to find a new scapegoat for the warriors to pick on.

[BaalChatzaf]

I would say that the chief of the tribe was our first politician, and the witchdoctor was our first star-gazing bureaucrat pulling the strings behind the scenes. The former was the mouthpiece for the latter, who always managed to find a new scapegoat for the warriors to pick on.

Do you have empirical evidence to show that your assertion is true say 150,000 years ago?

In the days of hunter gathering the humans did not have time to indulge in such nonsense.

Please look at this:

where were the witch doctors? The ad hoc response to problems is the key to human survival.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 13, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

Excellent video Ba'al reminds me of the end of Meet John Doe, when James Gleason, who plays a hard boiled editor of the newspaper, turns to fascist "businessman" [well no movie is perfect!] and retorts:

"There you are Norton! The people, try and lick that!"

The quote begins at 5:44 of the clip.

One of the greatest movies of all time also.

Adam

[Jared Warren]

I would say that the chief of the tribe was our first politician, and the witchdoctor was our first star-gazing bureaucrat pulling the strings behind the scenes. The former was the mouthpiece for the latter, who always managed to find a new scapegoat for the warriors to pick on.

Do you have empirical evidence to show that your assertion is true say 150,000 years ago?

In the days of hunter gathering the humans did not have time to indulge in such nonsense.

Please look at this:

where were the witch doctors? The ad hoc response to problems is the key to human survival.

Ba'al Chatzaf

i don't have empirical evidence 'on hand' to support most of my posts (nor do most people). I do have a lot of stored evidence in my mind, but to compile it all after each post would defeat the marginal benefit I receive from typing the post in the first place.

Hunger-gatherers had a variety of spare time available, depending on the scarcity of resources within their territory. When you establish routine methods of obtaining resources, e.g. setting booby traps for animals, returning to the same areas for wood/plants, getting the village women to do the cooking, etc, you have time left over to stargaze. Establishing routines allowed some tribes to work for just 4 hours a day (google it). In fact I remember perfectly well watching a documentary about a Papua New Guinea tribe that had almost zero contact with 'western ways', and they had witch hunts whenever someone mysteriously died (e.g of disease, etc). It was inevitable that one of the tribe members would be found guilty of practising black magic, and would subsequently be tortured and hacked to death. Anywhere in the world, tribal people are shit-scared of black magic; it's part of the God delusion; the fear of the unknown. Thus, humans hide behind stargazers, who direct the witch hunters to the witches. This is true today in ways you could never imagine.

[BaalChatzaf]

i don't have empirical evidence 'on hand' to support most of my posts (nor do most people). I do have a lot of stored evidence in my mind, but to compile it all after each post would defeat the marginal benefit I receive from typing the post in the first place.

"Evidence stored in your mind" is a neat phrase for prejudice and preconceived notions. Evidence is Out There not In Here.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

i don't have empirical evidence 'on hand' to support most of my posts (nor do most people). I do have a lot of stored evidence in my mind, but to compile it all after each post would defeat the marginal benefit I receive from typing the post in the first place.

"Evidence stored in your mind" is a neat phrase for prejudice and preconceived notions. Evidence is Out There not In Here.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Actually, "evidence stored in your mind" is a great description of a CONCEPT.

Welcome, Jared.

We are not all anti-conceptualists here.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Actually, "evidence stored in your mind" is a great description of a CONCEPT.

Welcome, Jared.

We are not all anti-conceptualists here.

Tony

I am not an anticonceptualist either. But I know the difference between a fact (a state of the world) and mental vaporware. Facts are what remain after every last brain has rotted away.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Actually, "evidence stored in your mind" is a great description of a CONCEPT.

Welcome, Jared.

We are not all anti-conceptualists here.

Tony

I am not an anticonceptualist either. But I know the difference between a fact (a state of the world) and mental vaporware. Facts are what remain after every last brain has rotted away.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob,

Primacy of existence! Damnation, you're a closet Objectivist, after all. B)

Now I only have to convince you of the 'consciousness' part...