STer

Has anyone seen this TED Talk. I would love to hear thoughts on it. I think its implications are deeply important for the issues cared about in this community. Perhaps as the discussion develops I'll add more of my thoughts, but for now I think I'll just post it and then see what people think. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM:480:360]

Very well said. It reminds me of this book: Depth Psychology and a New Ethic by Erich Neumann

There are those who use "positive thinking" as a means of denying the darkness in the world that they can't handle being aware of. Then there are those who take a constructive approach which involves being fully aware of both the light and darkness in the world and maintaining the attitude of trying to do the best one can given the circumstance. The former is an extremely immature defense mechanism. The latter is a highly mature state. These two must always be distinguished.

Oddly I couldn't find this anywhere but on this website. And there seems no way to embed it so you have to go to the link. But Saturday Night Live did this parody a few years back. I was really thrilled to see them take on the subject. And, while they could have made it a lot more funny, it did hit on some of the key concepts. And the ending is all about what you raise here, Mishelle, which has always bothered me greatly about these New Age ideas. I think especially the last part will hit home. http://moviestique.blogspot.com/2010/11/snl-oprah-secret.html

So ask him who made God. Not that this will likely change his mind. He'll probably just say "God was always there and didn't need to be made." But it might be interesting to see. If he says that - as well as any of these other things - you could just always ask "How do you know?" Unfortunately, logical argument is unlikely to change his mind. It would be better off if you try not to take his beliefs personally and rather take a curious viewpoint as to how his beliefs work in his mind. Unfortunately I already asked this question in my old conversation with him and I got the same answer as you have just said, I would repeat this and he would give the same answer saying that "nobody can make god, god is eternal" and stuff like that, unfortuantely my dad is not a rational person from his traumas in the past (especially in the military) so I dont really expect him to change his mind any time soon. It's good that you recognize that because it's pretty frustrating trying and trying and hoping that someone like that will change. Odds are they won't and even if they did it would likely not be by you badgering them with logic. Perhaps your best bet would be to just try to get off the religion topic and move to the more personal issues behind it all. Ask him about his military service, how he felt about it and so on. Maybe over time you can get him to open up on those types of things and that will probably have more impact than debating religion, which for him sounds like more of a symptom than a cause, anyway.

Well? what's your alternative suggestion to trusting the evidence of your senses? "we [/anchor]do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' [anchor=66]of anything-e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot. " - Aristotle. It may be true that everything is at some point filtered through human senses. But there is a big difference between one individual considering something with his unaided senses and making a judgment vs.: 1) Many people considering something and pooling the data 2) Using tools to extend the precision of our senses (ie: microscopes, telescopes, rulers and on and on) to more accurately and objectively check our initial sense impressions 3) Using systematic comparisons designed toreduce bias vs. simply anecdotal and isolated cases

So ask him who made God. Not that this will likely change his mind. He'll probably just say "God was always there and didn't need to be made." But it might be interesting to see. If he says that - as well as any of these other things - you could just always ask "How do you know?" Unfortunately, logical argument is unlikely to change his mind. It would be better off if you try not to take his beliefs personally and rather take a curious viewpoint as to how his beliefs work in his mind.

I would agree with that, though I start to get confused when thinking about this in relation to situations in my life. I've come across a few people who claim that there was no way they could have known, and I will point out things that happened and things they had said in the past, and then they are kind of forced to agree because they do remember, or they act like I am making stuff up. I'm not sure if these people legitimately forgot, unconsciously repressed it, or if they simply don't want to take any fault for enabling abuse. This is just to say that I am always skeptical when a victim claims that they couldn't have known because the "I couldn't have known" claim seems to be preferable. The above doesn't invalidate anything you said, though it certainly confuses me. I might be overthinking this. I agree that this kind of thing makes trying to accurately assess responsibility even more complicated than it already is. Since we really do have defense mechanisms like suppression and denial, which can happen unconsciously or subconsciously, and also because we can have a lot of confusion when dealing with mixed messages, it's very difficult to know how much someone really was equipped to act on red flags even when they are there and even when we know that at some point they were pointed out or they did notice them. And like I said, since these situations often involve people who were raised in unhealthy environments, it becomes even more likely that some of these defense mechanisms are in play. And then even if they do notice the red flags, you have the fact that there may be other factors where they just honestly feel it's safer or more beneficial to stay even despite the red flags (ie: financial issues and so on). Very complicated.

Does the fact that the author of that article has never been made the leader of a country negate his ideas? If his ideas are so great, howcome everyone hasn't cried out for him being installed in power? Hmmmm? Really makes you think doesn't it?!

1- The people wanted local representation as they felt it would listen more to their needs and not tax them too much. They still believed in government and taxation, but that smaller government would give each individual more say and more of a share of the representation. The people resented large and far-off taxing bodies. 2- A small group of people tried to get together and centrally plan a state. Some people who wanted a big state were there to plan it, as some who wanted a smaller state. Comprimises were made. A state was established and a few states who were more represented in the meeting quickly ratified it. This minority of people then imposed their will on to everyone else through state politics, propoganda, and killing people who rebelled. Other states joined in with the others over time because of these threats, bribes, propoganda, or the fear of being left out as the only seperate state that couldn't defend themselves at the new giant being created near them. OK thanks for clearing that up. With that said, now getting back to the original idea of the thread, I still think you can look at it either way. The Constitution certainly established a form of power that was not there during the Articles of Confederation. But you could also consider the entire Articles/Constitution episode as one basic event with a little hiccup in the beginning before the eventual form of government was put in place which still limited power compared to most everything in recent history before it. Ultimately I think it's semantics and it comes down to the "snapshot view" vs. "movie view" and whether you zoom in close or look at a longer span of history from a wider perspective. I understand tasmlab's point that he would prefer people focus on the fact that the Constitution established a government, so even if that government was better than what came before, those who don't like government shouldn't be as celebratory of it as they are. I think the way to solve this is to urge those people, rather than idolizing the Constitution, to see it as only a step toward something even better. It sounds like what bothers tasmlab is that they get stuck on the Constitution as if it's the Bible, the highest and most imperfectable document on earth. Instead they should view it as perhaps a step in the right direction from what came before, but with still so much improvement left to go.

(1) Some did and others did not. There was a debate by which some wanted a smaller localized confederation, and others who wanted a big federal state. You cannot characterize the intentions of the founders as a group. This meeting was because problems percieved by some with the confederation and the stated intent was to reform it and make it a little better. (2) Some did, oothers were fine with the confederation. In fact, these tended to be revolutionaries and influentials who then didn't go to the meeting because they didn't desire to reform the current system. Of course, some tried to argue for the liberty side of things, but they were obviously outnumbered and the dial moved a little bit back toward the other way. (3) This was the appeasement or compromise. Yes, the federal government will get the powers of taxation and to kill dissenters, but we promise that we won't go into these couple areas so you can still be free. Those who wanted more freedom just tried to get all the protection they felt they could in the system. In general, there were lots of different ideas and in my brief comments I made it seem polar, but that is only for illustration and not completely accurate. However, there ceratinly were individuals who edged one way or the other. 1) OK of course I understand that the founders were not of one mind. But the decentralized solution actually won out at first. Why do you think that it won out even for some time? 2) And then what happened that led to the decentralized situation no longer winning out? Was there a significant change in actual personnel? Or did some of the people who were at first for the decentralized solution change their minds? If the latter, why? Of course I could just go read and bone up on this stuff. But I'm more interested in what you think the real answers to these things are than what the "official story" is, given that you might disagree with the conventional wisdom.

I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that there are two equally valid ways to look at it. You could call them "the snapshot view" and "the movie view." As a snapshot, obviously by definition the Constitution created a government. So people who don't like governments could say "See, in that snapshot they're doing something I don't like. That's bad." In the movie view, we can look at hundreds of years of history and say "See they created a government that I think offers more freedom than most of them before it. We're moving in the right direction!" This kind of difference is at play in discussions among all sorts of activists on all sorts of issues. Some people celebrate anything they see as a step in the right direction, no matter how small, hoping to use it as a basis for even further progress in that direction. Others refuse to celebrate any incremental steps and want to look at each action almost in a vacuum and label it good or bad in and of itself. So I think that's the broader context of this. The Constitution issue is just a proxy for you seeming to advocate for the "snapshot" approach and to be telling other Libertarians to stop using the "movie view" and celebrating things that, even if better than before, are still bad. Now Snipes seems to be saying "No, even in the movie view you're missing something. Actually they had created a better, small, decentralized government, which is progress. But then they soon undid that and moved in the wrong direction again." And to that I'd say even if that's true, now it just depends how big of a scale you view the story on. If you zoom in real close, you might see those two events as two very separate big events. If you zoom out you'd just see a little glitch consisting of the two, and kind of take them as a package, but see that in the end it still ended up moving in the right direction compared to the past So different perspectives will lead to very different feelings on this.

I disagree. Stef has gone into this area with relationships, so I will analogize to that. If we are dating and I make a comment and you get angry, it is not relevant whether you intended to make me angry or not. There are two facts. I did something and you feel angry. My intention is irrelevant. What we need to do is explore what happened, why I was angry. It may be that I do not like it in a justified and rational matter, it might be a trigger from my childhood, it might be I am a passive aggressive person who likes making people angry and then rejecting their anger because I cannot experience anger myself. The point is we need to try to figure out what the problem is and not do it again if possible by learning what the true cause and result was. Back to this, it doesn't matter what they wanted or their intent or what they felt like. It is fact that they went from no coercive government to establishing a coercive government. Whether they were power hungry, or tried to restrain things, or thought they could limit government this is not reality. Many communist revolutionaries thought they could create utopias, but instead their ideas created millions and millions of dead. I do not give them credit for their intentions, but rather attempt to go from the facts and find the cause of the problem. I do admit it went deeper than this instance and people were raised in this paradigm or else it wouldn't have been able to happen, but it was a fundamental establishment of power when a previous state did not have that power. I am referring to the Articles of Confederation, namely to the fact that "the confederation" could not tax the states but it had to ask for money and that states could leave and the feds could not kill people for dissent. The fundamental powers that were given the the new federal government were the powers of forcible taxation and the power to kill those deemed treasonous. These increases in power lead to the empire and carnage we see today. Intent matters little. States had much less power, could not wage war except by the collective of states agreeing to it, and were more beholden to the individual in the state. It is not ideal by any means, but much better than a federal government with the power of the army from all of the states. I think you're missing the fact that it isn't as simple as "small state governments = less coercive and more liberty for individuals" and "federal government = more coercive and less liberty for individuals." The nature of those various governments matters a lot. Don't forget that there have been times when the federal government's "coercive" role was actually to reduce the coercion of certain state laws that were segregationist or hugely discriminatory, giving many individuals more freedom, not less. Another example would be when a citizen's civil rights are wrongly infringed by a state court and the person appeals to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court steps in and overturns the state's decision that actually took away their freedom unfairly. So I think it's too oversimplified to assume that having a somewhat stronger federal government automatically means more coercion for the individual in every case than having lots of separate smaller, but also coercive governments. It can go either way. Smaller state governments can go rogue and become hugely oppressive to many individuals and the federal government can come in and limit that. Or the federal government can go rogue and trample over the people in states. We've seen both happen many times. So I do think intent matters in this case in determining whether the change from the Articles to the Constitution was about enhancing power in some power grab or an honest belief that it was a better way of having a more just and sustainable system because the previous way was not working well. And I've just given examples that show there are cases where the latter is a legitimate possibility. So again I'd like to know: Why do you believe that the founders rejected the smaller localized situation? Why do you think they tried it in the first place before rejecting it? Why do you think they made sure to add the Bill of Rights? If you think these questions are irrelevant, please humor me anyway and give me your thoughts on them.

I never claimed that. However, there was a fundamental shift from a strong centralized state to a smaller localized state which at least would have lessened power and control in a very real sense. The absence of a federal ceorcive state would have been a large step forward, and this the "founders" rejected. I disagree with the native treatment as well and think that is immaterial to the point at hand. I understand that the verbiage is disconcerting to you and you do not like it, but is there anything false about what I said? That is different than you feeling like the tone is misleading which I cannot really evaluate. Why do you believe that the founders rejected the smaller localized situation? Furthermore, why do you think they tried it in the first place before rejecting it? And why do you think they made sure to add the Bill of Rights? I ask these questions because I think they speak to the founders' intent which is my understanding of what this thread hinges on. Were they just power hungry people trying to grab as much as they could for themselves? Their actions make it hard to believe it's as simple as that. The Native treatment is relevant as a contrast. For the Natives, it really was an establishment of power over them that was in no way there before. For the rest of the population, it was just a change in form of power, not an addition of power that wasn't there before. So it gives us a nice demonstration of what true sudden establishment of power looks like vs. change in form of power. I need to clarify. On your earlier list when you said "2. Establish No Coercive Federal State" were you referring to the Articles of Confederation? Or did you mean a tiny period before those were even established?

You are changing the order of events: 1. Overthrow Monarchy 2. Establish No Coercive Federal State 3. Handful of people decide there isn't enough centralized control or power or whatever other sematics you would like 4. Establish a Federal Coercive State that by definition increases the centralized power or control etc. 5. Put down dissenters who did not agree with the new federal powers and propogandize states to join at the expense of their people This is the order of events. It is not people nicely sitting around and debating policies and picking on a state and slightly missing the boat on freedom. It was political subjugation where they established a federal state to gain control of a country politically that had no formal federal state and that many of the people were opposed to after shirking off such power already so recently. No taxation without local reprsrntation was the mantra and much of the people viewed the federal state as just as bad or worse than the monarchy. Then there was the propoganda to get various states to join (which of course they had not evolved to allow people to choose yet) and the violent putting down of individuals who rebelled against the power. This is true history. We would not have violent federal crap we do today and at least have had the competition between states for government policies had a group of rich men not seized control of the country and used the military to assert their power. I think this is a bit misleading in tone as you make it sound like they overthrew the British and then sat there like "Hmm wow there is no power structure now. We COULD just leave it that way but....nah let's not." Was there really any serious chance at any point that simply having no government at all was going to be an option? I've never read anything leading me to believe that. I'm sure there were some people in the country who wanted that. But it seems it was a foregone conclusion that there was going to be some kind of government as that's the culture these people came from. Now, on the other hand, if you really want to talk about a sudden imposition of government, it's the Native Americans' viewpoint we should be looking at. From that perspective you do see a real imposition onto a situation of no centralized government and true subjugation.

I guess it depends what you mean by "establishing." If you are already living within a power structure and simply change the form of that power structure, is that "establishing" it, especially if the new form allows for more freedom than the previous form? This is word games. It isn't establishing power initially since the power is already established. But it is establishing a new structure. So depending on which definition of establish you use, it may or may not be appropriate.

No doubt the Magna Carta fought a much more tyrannical government at the time it was accepted by the monarchy but, read that last part again... It was presented by the serfs and accepted by the king. The constitution was not written by "the people" and they were not counceled before it was made law. Also, the constitution was made law before the Bill of Rights. That was only added after the blatant and numerous problems with the constitution were realized. And speaking strictly from a performance perspective, the US constitution is an abysmal failure at protecting liberty when the benchmark is the Magna Carta. The latter was some six hundred years old before it began to be bastardized and ignored by the state. The Us constition is less than three hundred years old today and it has been horribly corrupted for at least 150 years. And to clarify, I'm not arguing for the Magna Carta as some sort of solution to the US constitution. I'm just making a comparison of what the founders had experienced and what they foisted upon the prols. And as I said above, that comparison doesn't lead me to believe that human liberty was on the front of the founders' minds. The Constitution was written by the people, though they were rather wealthy, powerful people. They weren't monarchs. Some of them even grew up without very much privilege. But regardless who wrote it, as you said, it was based a lot on the Magna Carta which was written by the people. There is a reason they chose documents like that as their model no? I'm not sure why the fact there was a short period before the Bill of Rights was added makes much difference to the overall point that it shows the founders were concerned with limiting the role of government. And it's clear that many of them were concerned about the things involved in the Bill of Rights from day one and were fighting for their inclusion. The rest of what you said is not really relevant. This was about the intent of those who wrote the Constitution, not about whether future generations adhered to it or not. It seems that we agree that the founders did have concerns over limiting the role of government and were not out to simply make the government as powerful as it could possibly be.

But the Magna Carta was also an attempt to expand individual freedom in the face of an almost totally oppressive feudal system was it not? And the Constitution includes the Bill of Rights. So it not only says "What the federal government can't do, the states can" but it also says "Except for these things which no government entity within our country can do." You can be against government and still admit that it's clearly a lot more free living as a citizen in the US than a peasant in a feudal system or a subject of an oppressive monarchy. I guess the question I'd ask is why do you think the founders went to the pains of including the Bill of Rights if not because of a concern about limiting the role of government to some extent? Was that not at least to some degree their intent with the Bill of Rights?

I don't mean to quibble with the details (ok maybe a little) but the Constitution was actually a statist revolution that took the much freer Articles of Confederation that established a voluntary (to the states) federal government. The Constitution then was a major step up as far as centralized power by establishing a true federal state with the power to tax. These same people soon after put down the Whiskey Rebellion to reinforce their new powers of taxation and violence in the opposition of dissent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion So the Constitution was certainly established to centralize power for those who considered confederation of states to be too "unorderly". The way I'd frame it is that they wanted something less centralized than the British monarchy. They tried the Articles and found it too decentralized for their taste. So then they centralized more with the Constitution. But both ways were less centralized than what they were coming from, one a lot less centralized and the other somewhat less centralized.

Again I think it has to be seen in relation to what it was in response to. Having federalism was still a lot more decentralized than the British Empire or previous empires. Not completely decentralized, but more so than what they were coming from. It was a step toward decentralization, not away from it. Also they tried the Articles of Confederation and it didn't work well. So they were trying to find a good balance. I think one of the main reasons for the cheerleading people do for it is because they compare it to other governments including the one the founders were reacting to and see it as progress.

I was going to add a couple more critiques of this article, but then I think I figured it out. This article is a form of trolling. In the next couple of days, the author will post a new piece explaining that he was just seeing how many people caught all the fallacies in the article and then going on to explain what they all were. Then we will all have a good laugh together.

You have to remember the origin of the Constitution. These weren't free people to begin with. These were people living under an even more oppressive monarchy. So they drafted a Constitution that scaled back the government's power relative to what they and just about all of the civilized world was subject to at that point. If they had gone from an anarchist situation to drafting the Constitution, then yes you could look at it as establishing power rather than limiting it. But they were in a world where power was already quite established and the Constitution was in great part about limiting that power relative to the status quo at the time.

I'm not even a libertarian, per se, but anyone who is logical should see that this is an absolutely moronic line of thinking to apply to any idea. Is the author implying that the truth of an idea can be measured by how many people support it? Was the earth not round until after most people accepted it and decided to try living as if it was the case? Is the author claiming that the majority of people can never be wrong, not even to mention that the small minority that get to decide the way countries are run can never be wrong or misguided or selfish or many other things that would keep them from trying a new system, even if it was beneficial to people in general? A better article, which would actually be very valuable, would be on the topic of why people often reject or do refuse to even try potentially better solutions. And there is a wealth of insight into that question. There is a long history of people resisting good ideas. I could go on and on, but I'll just leave it there for now.

What's interesting is that you can frame what is going on in our world in a quite different way though. People in our culture are materialistic, yes. But that materialism has to do with satisfying their own inner subjective wants and needs. It's not really outer focused. It's a narcissistic desire to fulfill their own inner states through acquisition and consumption. At the same time, they are actually failing to pay attention to the real issues of the outer material world. Problems like terrorism and environmental destruction are not being addressed sufficiently as people are instead focused, in the West, on using material consumption to manipulate their inner states to distract from material destruction. More inner focus, alone, won't solve that. It's a problem of focusing on less important aspects of the outer world for the "wrong" reasons rather than focusing on the truly important aspects of the outer world that really, in my view, merit the bulk of our attention. I agree there is a role for greater inner focus and work, as well. But inner work alone is not a solution. We have a problem both of lack of healthy inner focus and a misguided manifestation of outer focus. It's also worth noting that some of the most dangerous places on earth, perhaps the places that most threaten the well-being of our planet currently, are places where people are not materialistic and are even violently opposed to materialism. In fact, they are driven to violence in part in opposition to materialism. So inner focus and a lack of materialism is no cure-all for the ills of our world.

"This is one of the first studies documenting long-term alterations in specific brain areas as a consequence of child abuse and neglect" http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/06/03/brain-changes-from-child-abuse-tied-to-adult-mental-illness-sexual-problems/55556.html