Donnadogsoth Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 And I'm still not persuaded FDR wasn't a great President, or even that Statism is always wrong. But Stefan makes a good case that there is another dimension of political and moral existence that has been intentionally swept under the bed for most of human history, so I'm willing to hear more. Myself, I'm from Canada, where I have yet to meet even a single anarchocapitalist, though I've met anarchocommunists before. People of good will can come from every political stripe.
AynRand Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Sorry to play devil's advocate, but what aspect of statism do you like the best, or why isn't it always wrong? Nice to meet you by the way.
shirgall Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 There's a secret project to rename it to "WWILSON". Have no fear. There are worse presidents than FDR, but not many.
PatrickC Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Yes I haven't accidently bumped into anyone with my opinions ever. So you're not alone.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 2, 2015 Author Posted February 2, 2015 Sorry to play devil's advocate, but what aspect of statism do you like the best, or why isn't it always wrong? Nice to meet you by the way. Well, here, it comes down to Ayn Rand versus Lyndon LaRouche, the latter of whom argues that a healthy, living or "negentropic" economy requires massive inputs into science and infrastructure, which inputs can only be arranged by government. He argues that "free trade" is always a front for ulterior interests, in the USA's case, Britain. So according to him the kind of capitalism the ancaps propose would never form, it would always devolve into forming a scum of tyranny up top. He situates FDR not in terms of advancing world socialism, but as advancing the American System under Alexander Hamilton. Basically, smash the power of monetarism and use government regulation and credit to weed and water the capitalist garden.
Carl Green Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 What would the goals of an ideal system, whatever it may be, ...be? Would keeping everyone from being forced to do anything be a good goal for an ideal system?
Donnadogsoth Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 What would the goals of an ideal system, whatever it may be, ...be? Would keeping everyone from being forced to do anything be a good goal for an ideal system? (1) The successful survival of the human race. "Successful survival" means long-term, beyond the immediate survival. It means setting up foundations for success, such as soft and hard infrastructure, and the education of the populace in classical culture, both science and art. Given that such is in tune with the essence of the universe--that human creativity is tapped and nourished--it will lead to general human happiness. Happiness and survival, survival and happiness. (2) Some people are dangerous animals; the entire populace is a dangerous animal if insufficiently educated, incapable of looking after its own interests. The greater the education (in classical terms) the more autonomy the populace can be entrusted with. Ideally we have a system of absolute autonomy, but this requires the foundational culture.
Carl Green Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 (1) The successful survival of the human race. Sounds good, I like surviving. What about my second question though? Do you believe securing 'absolute' individual freedom would be a good goal for an ideal society? (i.e., none of that "well ya gotta give up a little freedom for security" mumbo jumbo)
Donnadogsoth Posted February 5, 2015 Author Posted February 5, 2015 Sounds good, I like surviving. What about my second question though? Do you believe securing 'absolute' individual freedom would be a good goal for an ideal society? (i.e., none of that "well ya gotta give up a little freedom for security" mumbo jumbo) To the degree that autonomy doesn't contradict survival, yes. But as we all know there are people who use their autonomy to injure society. I'm thinking of murderers and anti-nuclear activists for example. Murderers we put in a box, concrete or pine take your pick. What should we do to anti-nuclear activists who are trying to bring down civilisation itself by preventing economic progress?
Brad Sherard Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Welcome to the other FDR. If you are interested in learning more about Roosevelt, I strongly recommend a book by Fleming titled "The New Dealers' War". Fleming's approach to history is wonderful; he deals in first hand facts in a way that other historians say is an impossible ideal. He doesn't deal in data that can be cherry picked to leave a bad impression of Roosevelt, he takes direct minutes from meetings, diary entries, and provides enough information that cannot be interpreted out of context. Some of the quotes Fleming mentions are so monstrous that I am surprised they haven't made Roosevelt infamous. You will see just how well propaganda can paint evil men as saints after reading this book.
LovePrevails Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 And I'm still not persuaded FDR wasn't a great President, or even that Statism is always wrong. But Stefan makes a good case that there is another dimension of political and moral existence that has been intentionally swept under the bed for most of human history, so I'm willing to hear more. Myself, I'm from Canada, where I have yet to meet even a single anarchocapitalist, though I've met anarchocommunists before. People of good will can come from every political stripe.
Donnadogsoth Posted February 5, 2015 Author Posted February 5, 2015 Welcome to the other FDR. If you are interested in learning more about Roosevelt, I strongly recommend a book by Fleming titled "The New Dealers' War". Fleming's approach to history is wonderful; he deals in first hand facts in a way that other historians say is an impossible ideal. He doesn't deal in data that can be cherry picked to leave a bad impression of Roosevelt, he takes direct minutes from meetings, diary entries, and provides enough information that cannot be interpreted out of context. Some of the quotes Fleming mentions are so monstrous that I am surprised they haven't made Roosevelt infamous. You will see just how well propaganda can paint evil men as saints after reading this book. Thanks for the welcome and the book recommendation. If the one-world-government elite count among the "evil men" along with Roosevelt, why is Roosevelt's name all but forgotten now?
Lingum Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 After reading through the thread, I made a few observations. They may come across as harsh, but I mean no offense - you're on this board and acting in good faith (despite the differences in values). I appreciate that. Let me give you some examples: Well, here, it comes down to Ayn Rand versus Lyndon LaRouche, the latter of whom argues that a healthy, living or "negentropic" economy requires massive inputs into science and infrastructure, which inputs can only be arranged by government. He argues that "free trade" is always a front for ulterior interests, in the USA's case, Britain. So according to him the kind of capitalism the ancaps propose would never form, it would always devolve into forming a scum of tyranny up top. He situates FDR not in terms of advancing world socialism, but as advancing the American System under Alexander Hamilton. Basically, smash the power of monetarism and use government regulation and credit to weed and water the capitalist garden. I understand that you're paraphrasing another person, but I would include some of his arguments alongside the conclusions. As of yet, we don't understand your definitions or reasons for holding these views. Stefan has extensively provided counter arguments for some of the later claims in your post. (1) The successful survival of the human race. "Successful survival" means long-term, beyond the immediate survival. It means setting up foundations for success, such as soft and hard infrastructure, and the education of the populace in classical culture, both science and art. Given that such is in tune with the essence of the universe--that human creativity is tapped and nourished--it will lead to general human happiness. Happiness and survival, survival and happiness. (2) Some people are dangerous animals; the entire populace is a dangerous animal if insufficiently educated, incapable of looking after its own interests. The greater the education (in classical terms) the more autonomy the populace can be entrusted with. Ideally we have a system of absolute autonomy, but this requires the foundational culture. I can't tell if you used the phrase successful survival because you struggled with finding the term you were actually looking for. If not, a more thorough definition would be needed. To begin with, you use a tautology (success means setting up the foundations for success) and circular reasoning to assert that soft and hard infrastructure, as well as education in classical culture is needed for success. You never shared a standard for success, but you've already prescribed the necessities for it. Basically you're coasting on the fact that people want to have a successful society by defining success as something you like; rhetoric. After this point I can never quite comprehend what you're trying to convey. It seems to me that you use unnecessarily complex language and grammar to distract people from noticing the fact that you don't reason, but assert. The ambiguous rhetoric reminds me of post-modern literature. To the degree that autonomy doesn't contradict survival, yes. But as we all know there are people who use their autonomy to injure society. I'm thinking of murderers and anti-nuclear activists for example. Murderers we put in a box, concrete or pine take your pick. What should we do to anti-nuclear activists who are trying to bring down civilisation itself by preventing economic progress? You need to be more precise with your language. Survival isn't the word you're looking for, murder is closer. Survival can't be applied as a universal principle. If that was the case, a person would be entitled to all the resources in the world even if it was only to extend his survival on a deathbed by 1 second. By staying with the term freedom, you can apply philosophy and make it a problem of definitions. If freedom is universal, freedom can not cover acts that suppress the freedom of others. Secondly, it's difficult to understand your introduction of anti-nuclear activists. You're either assuming that we both share some background knowledge related to anti-nuclear activism or that we share views on anti-nuclear activism, but I can't tell which. The last sentence brings up questions like: What is civilization? What is economic progress? What does it mean to bring down civilization? Is it bad to prevent economic progress? How do anti-nuclear activists prevent economic progress? How does preventing economic progress bring down civilization? You don't have to answer those questions. But as we all know there are people who use their autonomy to injure society. This type of statement is very problematic. There is no obvious definition of the word society that would provide your statement with an identifiable meaning. You can injure living things, not concepts (like society). I suspect what you mean is the common sentiment of a person harming the interests (common good) of all the individuals in a society. The problem with the concept of common good is that every individual in a group don't necessarily share the same interests. Often times, people have opposing interests. The use of a concept like common good in philosophy would require a measurable standard to qualify its use. Typically, common good is used as a rhetorical device specifically to circumvent reason and evidence. If you're looking for philosophical clarity, the first place to start is with rejecting collectivist terminology that is (forgive me if I there are exceptions) ambiguous at best, nonsensical probably. ----------------------- I hope this isn't too overwhelming. I don't expect you to respond to the extensive commentary above. I'm curious, do you have people around you that challenge your views or reasoning?
Donnadogsoth Posted February 6, 2015 Author Posted February 6, 2015 After reading through the thread, I made a few observations. They may come across as harsh, but I mean no offense - you're on this board and acting in good faith (despite the differences in values). I appreciate that. Let me give you some examples: I understand that you're paraphrasing another person, but I would include some of his arguments alongside the conclusions. As of yet, we don't understand your definitions or reasons for holding these views. Stefan has extensively provided counter arguments for some of the later claims in your post. I can't tell if you used the phrase successful survival because you struggled with finding the term you were actually looking for. If not, a more thorough definition would be needed. To begin with, you use a tautology (success means setting up the foundations for success) and circular reasoning to assert that soft and hard infrastructure, as well as education in classical culture is needed for success. You never shared a standard for success, but you've already prescribed the necessities for it. Basically you're coasting on the fact that people want to have a successful society by defining success as something you like; rhetoric. After this point I can never quite comprehend what you're trying to convey. It seems to me that you use unnecessarily complex language and grammar to distract people from noticing the fact that you don't reason, but assert. The ambiguous rhetoric reminds me of post-modern literature. You need to be more precise with your language. Survival isn't the word you're looking for, murder is closer. Survival can't be applied as a universal principle. If that was the case, a person would be entitled to all the resources in the world even if it was only to extend his survival on a deathbed by 1 second. By staying with the term freedom, you can apply philosophy and make it a problem of definitions. If freedom is universal, freedom can not cover acts that suppress the freedom of others. Secondly, it's difficult to understand your introduction of anti-nuclear activists. You're either assuming that we both share some background knowledge related to anti-nuclear activism or that we share views on anti-nuclear activism, but I can't tell which. The last sentence brings up questions like: What is civilization? What is economic progress? What does it mean to bring down civilization? Is it bad to prevent economic progress? How do anti-nuclear activists prevent economic progress? How does preventing economic progress bring down civilization? You don't have to answer those questions. This type of statement is very problematic. There is no obvious definition of the word society that would provide your statement with an identifiable meaning. You can injure living things, not concepts (like society). I suspect what you mean is the common sentiment of a person harming the interests (common good) of all the individuals in a society. The problem with the concept of common good is that every individual in a group don't necessarily share the same interests. Often times, people have opposing interests. The use of a concept like common good in philosophy would require a measurable standard to qualify its use. Typically, common good is used as a rhetorical device specifically to circumvent reason and evidence. If you're looking for philosophical clarity, the first place to start is with rejecting collectivist terminology that is (forgive me if I there are exceptions) ambiguous at best, nonsensical probably. ----------------------- I hope this isn't too overwhelming. I don't expect you to respond to the extensive commentary above. I'm curious, do you have people around you that challenge your views or reasoning? I appreciate your critique. I don't have anyone around me who agrees with me, including none of my friends, but that's okay. The truth will win out in the end, God willing. About the general welfare, as the US Constitutional Preamble refers to it. The economy, according to LaRouche, is to be viewed as a single agro-industrial enterprise, which acts like an organism, specifically in terms of having a "structural geometry" (paraphrasing) that is identical to that same geometry defining living organisms. The term is "negentropic" as opposed to entropic. So, an economy can exhibit characteristics of being entropic (dying and shrinking) or negentropic (living and growing), similar to how a living organism's circumstance or condition can be tending towards dying or living. This also speaks to survival versus successful survival, as LaRouche in "In Defense of Common Sense" writes that mere survival is a swimmer in a choppy sea managing to take one more breath, survive one more minute. Whereas successful survival would be securing an increase in infrastructure of survival, such as boarding a sound boat. In these general terms we can see that an economy can be healthy or unhealthy, negentropic or entropic, and thus successfully surviving or merely and increasingly less so surviving.
Recommended Posts