159 replies to this topic

[EmbraceUnity]

For the record, I would like to state that I have no desire to do any of these things.

Suuure... We all believe you...

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto others. I also have absolutely no desire to do any of this, and bet most people here feel the same way. The fact that you have these fantasies confirms the statistical findings that show libertarians have an empathy deficit.

[RighteousReason]

For the record, I would like to state that I have no desire to do any of these things.

Suuure... We all believe you...

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto others. I also have absolutely no desire to do any of this, and bet most people here feel the same way. The fact that you have these fantasies confirms the statistical findings that show libertarians have an empathy deficit.

Hey man I'm with you, that empathy deficit theory is bullshit, as is the rest of that insane article you linked to.

Edited by RighteousReason, 08 April 2010 - 01:12 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto others. I also have absolutely no desire to do any of this, and bet most people here feel the same way. The fact that you have these fantasies confirms the statistical findings that show libertarians have an empathy deficit.

Hey man I'm with you, that empathy deficit theory is bullshit, as is the rest of that insane article you linked to.

Could you explain what about Haidt's study is insane or bullshit, or if nothing is wrong, what about the article misrepresents the study? I'm not saying libertarians are sociopaths, though some clearly are. Ayn Rand, for instance, idolized a man William Edward Hickman who murdered and dismembered a young girl.

They are closer to autistics, as Tyler Cowen showed in his book, and he meant this in a good way because autistics are supposedly more objective. Except libertarians are irrational in a different way, since they fail to account for the way regular people behave.

None of this is meant to argue against libertarianism, as that would be Ad Hominem, but I think people should keep in mind that sometimes there is no consensus to be had because we do not all share the same values. Also, this isn't a conversation-halter, because it leaves room for exploring similarities and differences in values.

Edited by progressive, 08 April 2010 - 02:28 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto others. I also have absolutely no desire to do any of this, and bet most people here feel the same way. The fact that you have these fantasies confirms the statistical findings that show libertarians have an empathy deficit.

Hey man I'm with you, that empathy deficit theory is bullshit, as is the rest of that insane article you linked to.

Could you explain what about Haidt's study is insane or bullshit, or if nothing is wrong, what about the article misrepresents the study? I'm not saying libertarians are sociopaths, though some clearly are. Ayn Rand, for instance, idolized a man William Edward Hickman who murdered and dismembered a young girl.

They are closer to autistics, as Tyler Cowen showed in his book, and he meant this in a good way because autistics are supposedly more objective. Except libertarians are irrational in a different way, since they fail to account for the way regular people behave.

None of this is meant to argue against libertarianism, as that would be Ad Hominem, but I think people should keep in mind that sometimes there is no consensus to be had because we do not all share the same values. Also, this isn't a conversation-halter, because it leaves room for exploring similarities and differences in values.

That comment about Ayn Rand is a seriously fucked up attack on her ... wow what kind of hate do you have to have for someone to suggest they idolize someone who murders and dismembers a young girl. I just want to make clear that what you said there is completely inconsistent with everything Ayn Rand has ever stood for and the diametric opposite of her philosophy which is one that places life and reason above all else. The very core of Ayn Rand's philosophy is called the Non-Aggression Principle which holds that one should never use any force against anyone except in self defense, and what you are suggesting is one of the most sickening examples imaginable of a violation of that principle. That article you linked to is a delusional political smear job raving about right wingers and Rush Limbaugh and "Teabaggers" and written entirely as a superficial appeal to emotion devoid of any actual thoughtful engagement with her ideas, which is so typical of leftists.

The empathy deficit article you linked is gross misunderstanding of political theories combined with a misunderstanding of psychological theories, and devoid of any of the understanding of the people, the philosophy, or the science where any of these words they use in such a brazenly untechnical manner come from.

The nature of conservatism is not a void of emotion. It is the principle of emotion being submissive to reality.

The second virtue is relinquishment. P. C. Hodgell said: “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” Do not flinch from experiences that might destroy your beliefs. The thought you cannot think controls you more than thoughts you speak aloud. Submit yourself to ordeals and test yourself in fire. Relinquish the emotion which rests upon a mistaken belief, and seek to feel fully that emotion which fits the facts. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is hot, and it is cool, the Way opposes your fear. If the iron approaches your face, and you believe it is cool, and it is hot, the Way opposes your calm. Evaluate your beliefs first and then arrive at your emotions. Let yourself say: “If the iron is hot, I desire to believe it is hot, and if it is cool, I desire to believe it is cool.” Beware lest you become attached to beliefs you may not want.

- Twelve Virtues of Rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues

The very concept of liberalism, of dismissing reality and abandoning your responsibility of thinking for the sake of your fearful, hateful, victimized emotions, is exactly why Michael Savage coined the phrase "Liberalism is a mental disorder". In fact I believe that conservatives are the only ones who can even feel true empathy, as they are the only ones who can truly understand the whole nature of a person's mind and soul, the true nature of degradation, death and evil, and the endless capacity of a mind to reason, and its unlimited potential for happiness, value, good, and life.

Edited by RighteousReason, 08 April 2010 - 03:34 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto others. I also have absolutely no desire to do any of this, and bet most people here feel the same way. The fact that you have these fantasies confirms the statistical findings that show libertarians have an empathy deficit.

Hey man I'm with you, that empathy deficit theory is bullshit, as is the rest of that insane article you linked to.

Could you explain what about Haidt's study is insane or bullshit, or if nothing is wrong, what about the article misrepresents the study? I'm not saying libertarians are sociopaths, though some clearly are. Ayn Rand, for instance, idolized a man William Edward Hickman who murdered and dismembered a young girl.

They are closer to autistics, as Tyler Cowen showed in his book, and he meant this in a good way because autistics are supposedly more objective. Except libertarians are irrational in a different way, since they fail to account for the way regular people behave.

None of this is meant to argue against libertarianism, as that would be Ad Hominem, but I think people should keep in mind that sometimes there is no consensus to be had because we do not all share the same values. Also, this isn't a conversation-halter, because it leaves room for exploring similarities and differences in values.

That comment about Ayn Rand is a seriously fucked up attack on her ... wow what kind of hate do you have to have for someone to suggest they idolize someone who murders and dismembers a young girl. I just want to make clear that what you said there is completely inconsistent with everything Ayn Rand has ever stood for and the diametric opposite of her philosophy which is one that places life and reason above all else.

I don't see how repeating a fact constitutes hate. The fact is that she thought very highly of a repulsive child murderer. You can read her twisted thoughts on the subject at length here. She stops short of outright approving of the crime but thought it was a "daring challenge to society." Granted, her diary entries weren't idolizing the crime itself or fantasizing about dismembering girls, but it seems to be clear evidence of a severe empathy deficit that borders on psychosis of the sociopathic sort.

Edited by progressive, 08 April 2010 - 02:56 AM.

[RighteousReason]

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto others. I also have absolutely no desire to do any of this, and bet most people here feel the same way. The fact that you have these fantasies confirms the statistical findings that show libertarians have an empathy deficit.

Hey man I'm with you, that empathy deficit theory is bullshit, as is the rest of that insane article you linked to.

Could you explain what about Haidt's study is insane or bullshit, or if nothing is wrong, what about the article misrepresents the study? I'm not saying libertarians are sociopaths, though some clearly are. Ayn Rand, for instance, idolized a man William Edward Hickman who murdered and dismembered a young girl.

They are closer to autistics, as Tyler Cowen showed in his book, and he meant this in a good way because autistics are supposedly more objective. Except libertarians are irrational in a different way, since they fail to account for the way regular people behave.

None of this is meant to argue against libertarianism, as that would be Ad Hominem, but I think people should keep in mind that sometimes there is no consensus to be had because we do not all share the same values. Also, this isn't a conversation-halter, because it leaves room for exploring similarities and differences in values.

That comment about Ayn Rand is a seriously fucked up attack on her ... wow what kind of hate do you have to have for someone to suggest they idolize someone who murders and dismembers a young girl. I just want to make clear that what you said there is completely inconsistent with everything Ayn Rand has ever stood for and the diametric opposite of her philosophy which is one that places life and reason above all else.

I don't see how repeating a fact constitutes hate. The fact is that she thought very highly of a repulsive child murderer. You can read her twisted thoughts on the subject at length here. She stops short of outright approving of the crime but thought it was a "daring challenge to society." Granted, her diary entries weren't idolizing the crime itself or fantasizing about dismembering girls, but it seems to be clear evidence of a severe empathy deficit that borders on psychosis of the sociopathic sort.

I'm not going to let you get away with this smear job without getting called out on it. This second thing you linked is also just that, a superficial smear job in the same manner as the previous article, pulling quotes from Ayn Rand totally out of context and applying them to a sick, inhuman crime. This suggestion that Ayn Rand or her philosophy have any meaningful connection with this crime is a malicious lie. The entire philosophy of Ayn Rand is the logical extension of the single foundational principle of Non-Aggression, and since you failed to quote the rest of my statement explaining it, I will do so here again: the Non-Aggression Principle holds that one should never use any force against anyone except in self defense, and the crimes of that man you are referring to are one of the most sickening examples imaginable of a violation of that principle.

Edited by RighteousReason, 08 April 2010 - 03:47 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

I'm not going to let you get away with this smear job without getting called out on it. This second thing you linked is also just that, a superficial smear job, pulling quotes from Ayn Rand totally out of context and applying them to a sick, inhuman crime. This suggestion that Ayn Rand or her philosophy have any meaningful connection with this crime is a malicious lie. The entire philosophy of Ayn Rand is the logical extension of the single foundational principle of Non-Aggression, and since you failed to quote the rest of my statement explaining it, I will do so here again: the Non-Aggression Principle holds that one should never use any force against anyone except in self defense, and the crimes of that man you are referring to are one of the most sickening examples imaginable of a violation of that principle.

You've done a great job of calling me a liar, but not such a great job of supporting your claims with evidence. If what she said was taken out of context, please explain how. She was quoted at length, and her statements sound no less despicable in their full context.

[RighteousReason]

her statements sound no less despicable in their full context.

Where in the world could you possibly come up with that... I have read Atlas Shrugged twice in a row and I'm rereading The Fountainhead after having just finished it. At this point I can only laugh in amazement and go enjoy the books.

Edited by RighteousReason, 08 April 2010 - 03:44 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

her statements sound no less despicable in their full context.

Where in the world could you possibly come up with that... I have read Atlas Shrugged twice in a row and I'm rereading The Fountainhead after having just finished it. At this point I can only laugh in amazement and go enjoy the books.

My statements had absolutely nothing to do with her books, but rather her statements from her diary that were quoted in the article, which you have again failed to give me a reason to believe were taken out of context. I doubt you even read the longer article. You should.

[medicineman]

just because you happen to know or were related to someone in the USSR does not make you an expert. if these statistics were lies, show me how so.

I mean about the bengal famine. Amartya Sen, the nobel prize historian (who lived through the famine) said that it wasn't a lack of food, but it was the fact that no one can afford any food which caused the famine.. and please, to refute it, you need more than a relative who lived there, who swears they were sippin on pina coladas during the famine.

''China in the late 1940s began to institute rural public health and educational programs, as well as other programs oriented towards the mass of the population. India played the game by our rules. It didn’t do any of this and there are consequences, for example, in mortality rates. These started to decline sharply in China from around 1950 until 1979. Then they stopped declining and started going up slightly. That was the period of the reforms. During the totalitarian period, from 1950 to about 1979, mortality rates declined. They declined in India, too, but much more slowly than in China up to 1979. Sen then says, suppose you measure the number of extra deaths in India resulting annually from not carrying out these Maoist-style programs or others for the benefit of the population, what you would call reforms if the term wasn’t so ideological. He estimates close to four million extra deaths every year in India, which means that, as he puts it, every eight years in India the number of skeletons in the closet is the same as in China’s moment of shame, the famine. If you look at the whole period, it’s about 100 million extra deaths in India alone after the democratic capitalist period enters.'' So just in case you try to ignore the point - according to the historian Amartya Sen (who lived through the famine) enough food was being produced in Bengal, however people could not afford it and starved as a consequence. This could have been averted through state re-distribution, however this clearly refutes your assertion that the capitalist market rationally allocates resources - or is responsible for less death than any given centralized command economy.

Chomsky articulates therefore, that India alone under a democratic capitalist system has during one famine seen excess of the total 100 million deaths attributed to global communism by liberal propagandists.

In relation to your despicable neo-liberal attempts to label Maoist China an ''economic failure'' a wealth of historical research illustrates sizable progress in terms of overall living standards relative to the prior period. ''It was due to this revolution that the average life expectancy of the majority Chinese rose from 35 in 1949 to 63 by 1975 (Bergaglio 2006) in a space of less than 30 years.'' Gao.


And regarding your assertion that Marx isn't read much, the communist manifesto has been ranked as one of the most influential pieces of writing ever written.

[medicineman]

Once again, the free market has its closets hidden as well..... was there oppression in central states? of course there was. did people die? undeniable. But that does not make a free market the better system by default. As history has shown, both sides of the spectrum has caused much suffering.

[medicineman]

and Ayn Rand is a second tier philosopher, and a nutjob.....

In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her views in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."^[2] In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then added that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."^[3]


and this is Peikoff, the Ayn Rand Institute dumbshit who is the official Ayn Rand spokesman since her death:

Peikoff claims that Palestinian people prior to the establishment of the State of Israel consisted solely of "nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain," and that "the Arabs" today have no concept of property rights; indeed, that their "primitivist" antagonism to such rights is the root cause of Arab terrorism. He argues that Israel is a moral beacon which should not return any territory to Arabs or even negotiate with them. [2] Peikoff further argues that all Middle Eastern oil reserves are the rightful property of the West, "whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible." He advocates the outright destruction of "terrorist states," especially Iran, "as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire," not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons, arguing that moral responsibility for innocent deaths would lie with their governments rather than the United States. [3]

Quacks. I can't believe these people are being passed off as philosophers. Have you read spinoza? or hume?????! I would not grant Ayn Rand and her whole philosophy the color of Humes shite.

[EmbraceUnity]

medicineman,

You are absolutely right to point out that the USSR experienced some of the most rapid rates of industrialization in history, and to deny that fact is to deny reality since clearly the USSR's industrialization is what made them into a superpower between the revolution and WW2. China wasn't as spectacular, but still rapid. To be truthful in criticism of these regimes, we'd need to focus more on their lack of political freedoms, which are arguably tied to their specific economic models. Of course once economies got more complex in the second half of the 20th Century, their command economies started to look far more clunky even from a purely materialist perspective.

The Asian Tigers provide an interesting counterpoint to the rapid industrialization of the Soviet block. These nations industrialized nearly as quickly, but at the same time were able to enjoy a high degree of political freedom and were able to maintain their affluence throughout the 20th Century and into the present because of their decentralized mostly-capitalist systems. The key word there is mostly. All of the Asian Tigers had very protectionist and state-driven development models, just like every other wealthy nation. Many decided that electronics were the future and picked winners in order to speed their development. Most had huge public works programs, social safety nets, strong regulations, tariffs, and all sorts of things. Hong Kong stands out from the others though, since they took a more Georgist path, which still includes a very crucial role for government, and in addition to that they have huge public housing projects.

It will be interesting though to see what happens in the 20th Century now that information technology could allow command economies the ability to handle the vast amounts of information that flow through an economy. WalMart's internal IT Systems could very well evolve into a system that coordinates price signals for a whole economy. Though this highly centralized mode of production would be quite vulnerable. Also, just because it is possible doesn't mean the experiment would be tried. I actually hope it isn't tried.

While I think the triumph of Keynesianism, at least in the 20th Century, is undeniable, I am cynical about it because as with any capitalist system it will lead to inequalities of wealth, which then lead to rent-seeking, corruption, and so forth. Then the great strength of capitalism, decentralization, is destroyed and the wealth centralizes. Our Keynesian system in the US was recently dismantled and that is exactly what happened. I would rather see other decentralized modes of production like Open Source and P2P replace the need for traditional economic systems in as many areas as possible, to reduce the threat of centralization, but Keynes still has his place in every sector of the economy that cannot be decentralized in this way. Though projects like RepRap should expand our notion of what is possible to decentralize.

Edited by progressive, 08 April 2010 - 07:30 PM.

[JLL]

and Ayn Rand is a second tier philosopher, and a nutjob.....

In response to questions from the audience at the two Ford Hall Forum lectures she gave at Northeastern University, Rand explained her views in more detail. In her 1968 lecture, she said, "I do not approve of such practices or regard them as necessarily moral, but it is improper for the law to interfere with a relationship between consenting adults."^[2] In 1971, Rand reiterated this position, then added that homosexuality "involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises", concluding that homosexuality "is immoral, and more than that; if you want my really sincere opinion, it's disgusting."^[3]

Talk about grasping at straws...

[Alex Libman]

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto others.

Jeez, and they say we capitalist nerds have no sense of humor... I was explaining how the Non-Aggression Principle works even in the worst case scenario of human nature. (Or not necessarily human, since it applies to "rational economic actors" regardless of species.) No matter how violent one may be, beyond a certain level of cognitive development one is able to recognize that violence will only lead to self-destruction, while non-violent competition (aka cooperation) would be much more fruitful.

[...] William Edward Hickman who murdered and dismembered a young girl [...]

Ah, I see you got the Comintern talking points memo on Mr Hickman, about whom Ayn Rand wrote a few brief notes contemplating several aspects of his personality in isolation from all others. To try to spin this into glorification of murder is ridiculous - the (negative) Right to Life is not something that principled libertarians ever compromised about!

Ayn Rand's critics are right, however, in pointing out her inexcusable mistakes on the Israeli-Palestinian issue - a black stain on her legacy that has only been exacerbated by some of her so-called followers. That, her exaggerated aesthetics, and her errors in taking "intellectual property rights" an order of magnitude too far are the main reason why no rational libertarian should base his philosophy on Ayn Rand alone. She is but one pillar of many, and the cracks in that pillar are well compensated for by others.

just because you happen to know or were related to someone in the USSR does not make you an expert.

I was born and spent the first 10 years of my life in Moscow, leaving for New Jersey in the summer of 1992, but you shouldn't just take me and my family's word for it - read an economic history of the Soviet Union that was actually published AFTER its collapse!

I mean about the [1943] bengal famine. Amartya Sen, the nobel prize historian (who lived through the famine) said that it wasn't a lack of food, but it was the fact that no one can afford any food which caused the famine..

That's a logical impossibility. If some people couldn't afford food, then someone else could afford that same food at a higher price - otherwise the price would decline. Duh. I guess you have to be as smart as Amartya Sen -- the high priest of "welfare economics", as opposed to real economics as a science -- to lie and spin your way out of that basic fact... And BTW - I know it's a major part of your religion, but given its recent reputation, the Nobel Prize is now more of a career liability than an asset...

Chomsky articulates therefore, that India alone under a democratic capitalist system has during one famine seen excess of the total 100 million deaths attributed to global communism by liberal propagandists.

India under a capitalist system? By 2100 maybe... India was always a collectivist hellhole, with many famines throughout its history. All countries experienced famines throughout their undeveloped history, the main reason for India's famines under the British rule is that not as many babies were dying in infancy as in the previous generations.

And you cannot compare a system that violates the negative Right to Life, Liberty, and Property (communism) with a system that merely recognizes the need for people to live within the context of economic reality. If you want someone else to grow food for you, then you have to pay for it a fair market-determined price, or persuade them to give you the food using any other non-violent means, that's all there is to it. Capitalism has never killed anyone, period! When a religious cult sacrifices someone that is murder, but when scientific medicine fails to save someone it's not murder, it is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of life!

In relation to your despicable neo-liberal attempts to label Maoist China an ''economic failure'' a wealth of historical research illustrates sizable progress in terms of overall living standards relative to the prior period. ''It was due to this revolution that the average life expectancy of the majority Chinese rose from 35 in 1949 to 63 by 1975 (Bergaglio 2006) in a space of less than 30 years.'' Gao.

That's a result of industrialization (and the end of Japanese / warlord terror), not communism. When communists imitate Western technology and force their population into factories they do achieve economic growth - but they can only get so far. Just compare Taiwan or South Korea to China before its shift toward capitalism starting in the late 1970s and you'll see what China could have been without Mao.

And regarding your assertion that Marx isn't read much, the communist manifesto has been ranked as one of the most influential pieces of writing ever written.

Of course the most influential piece is monkey throwing poo. I don't know which monkey invented it, but it has been imitated by monkeys for tens of millions of years ever since!

Edited by Alex Libman, 08 April 2010 - 09:55 PM.

[medicineman]

Stop projecting your sick fantasies onto others.

Jeez, and they say we capitalist nerds have no sense of humor... I was explaining how the Non-Aggression Principle works even in the worst case scenario of human nature. (Or not necessarily human, since it applies to "rational economic actors" regardless of species.) No matter how violent one may be, beyond a certain level of cognitive development one is able to recognize that violence will only lead to self-destruction, while non-violent competition (aka cooperation) would be much more fruitful.

[...] William Edward Hickman who murdered and dismembered a young girl [...]

Ah, I see you got the Comintern talking points memo on Mr Hickman, about whom Ayn Rand wrote a few brief notes contemplating several aspects of his personality in isolation from all others. To try to spin this into glorification of murder is ridiculous - the (negative) Right to Life is not something that principled libertarians ever compromised about!

Ayn Rand's critics are right, however, in pointing out her inexcusable mistakes on the Israeli-Palestinian issue - a black stain on her legacy that has only been exacerbated by some of her so-called followers. That, her exaggerated aesthetics, and her errors in taking "intellectual property rights" an order of magnitude too far are the main reason why no rational libertarian should base his philosophy on Ayn Rand alone. She is but one pillar of many, and the cracks in that pillar are well compensated for by others.

just because you happen to know or were related to someone in the USSR does not make you an expert.

I was born and spent the first 10 years of my life in Moscow, leaving for New Jersey in the summer of 1992, but you shouldn't just take me and my family's word for it - read an economic history of the Soviet Union that was actually published AFTER its collapse!

I mean about the [1943] bengal famine. Amartya Sen, the nobel prize historian (who lived through the famine) said that it wasn't a lack of food, but it was the fact that no one can afford any food which caused the famine..

That's a logical impossibility. If some people couldn't afford food, then someone else could afford that same food at a higher price - otherwise the price would decline. Duh. I guess you have to be as smart as Amartya Sen -- the high priest of "welfare economics", as opposed to real economics as a science -- to lie and spin your way out of that basic fact... And BTW - I know it's a major part of your religion, but given its recent reputation, the Nobel Prize is now more of a career liability than an asset...

Chomsky articulates therefore, that India alone under a democratic capitalist system has during one famine seen excess of the total 100 million deaths attributed to global communism by liberal propagandists.

India under a capitalist system? By 2100 maybe... India was always a collectivist hellhole, with many famines throughout its history. All countries experienced famines throughout their undeveloped history, the main reason for India's famines under the British rule is that not as many babies were dying in infancy as in the previous generations.

And you cannot compare a system that violates the negative Right to Life, Liberty, and Property (communism) with a system that merely recognizes the need for people to live within the context of economic reality. If you want someone else to grow food for you, then you have to pay for it a fair market-determined price, or persuade them to give you the food using any other non-violent means, that's all there is to it. Capitalism has never killed anyone, period! When a religious cult sacrifices someone that is murder, but when scientific medicine fails to save someone it's not murder, it is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of life!

In relation to your despicable neo-liberal attempts to label Maoist China an ''economic failure'' a wealth of historical research illustrates sizable progress in terms of overall living standards relative to the prior period. ''It was due to this revolution that the average life expectancy of the majority Chinese rose from 35 in 1949 to 63 by 1975 (Bergaglio 2006) in a space of less than 30 years.'' Gao.

That's a result of industrialization (and the end of Japanese / warlord terror), not communism. When communists imitate Western technology and force their population into factories they do achieve economic growth - but they can only get so far. Just compare Taiwan or South Korea to China before its shift toward capitalism starting in the late 1970s and you'll see what China could have been without Mao.

And regarding your assertion that Marx isn't read much, the communist manifesto has been ranked as one of the most influential pieces of writing ever written.

Of course the most influential piece is monkey throwing poo. I don't know which monkey invented it, but it has been imitated by monkeys for tens of millions of years ever since!

ok, so Chinas increase in standard of living was due to industrialization. Sen is a commie, and the USSR didn't grow economically and industrialize, it was just propaganda....

You fail to provide numbers. All you are doing is giving me your opinion (which I of course am taking into consideration). But I would really prefer you reply with facts rather than assertions about how great china would have been if mao wasn't around, or that Sen is a commie, or that the free market is the divine hand in all matters..... Telling me to grab a book about the USSR, talking about monkeys tossing poo, and telling me about the hearsay you heard from your relatives is hardly something I can ponder about regarding the topic.

BTW - Tiananmen Square was ordered by Deng Xiaoping an ardent proponent of economic liberalization. Many of the protesters, in addition to supporting greater democratic reform where industrial urban workers dissatisfied with the removal of state welfare provision and numerous privatizations.

Just thought I would include this fact.

[medicineman]

George Orwell describes a scene in Aragon during this time period, in his book, Homage to Catalonia: I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master.


it is unfortunate that left and right wing groups ferociously attacked Anarchist Spain, without any good reason to....

[Alex Libman]

ok, so Chinas increase in standard of living was due to industrialization. Sen is a commie, and the USSR didn't grow economically and industrialize, it was just propaganda....

I didn't say USSR didn't grow economically, I said that less economically free nations performed worse throughout history than the more economically free nations. (And sometimes a huge welfare state is not as toxic as other forms of government intervention, as is evidenced by Scandinavian countries' ability to still retain much of the wealth they've acquired when then were among the most capitalist countries in the world prior to 1960s.)

And I'm sorry but I don't have the time to find every statistic I reference - I have to work and earn the salary of the tax-moochers who try to bury economic facts and produce propaganda to the contrary.

BTW - Tiananmen Square was ordered by Deng Xiaoping an ardent proponent of economic liberalization. Many of the protesters, in addition to supporting greater democratic reform where industrial urban workers dissatisfied with the removal of state welfare provision and numerous privatizations.

I knew that, and you won't see me blindly supporting any democratization movements in China, only reforms toward greater state capitalism (the path other East Asian tigers went through), as well as some regional secession movements (Guangdong being far more important than Tibet).

[Alex Libman]

I came across this test on another forum. I can't really say that the test seemed all that great, but my results seem pretty accurate given the limited number of choices:

1. Ayn Rand (100%)
2. Aristotle (87%)
3. Nietzsche (85%)
4. David Hume (82%)
5. Cynics (80%)
6. Thomas Hobbes (80%)
7. Stoics (78%)
8. Spinoza (75%)
9. Jean-Paul Sartre (58%)
10. Aquinas (57%)
11. Plato (50%)
12. Epicureans (45%)
13. Jeremy Bentham (42%)
14. Kant (39%)
15. Nel Noddings (38%)
16. St. Augustine (38%)
17. John Stuart Mill (33%)
18. Prescriptivism (25%)
19. Ockham (23%)

[DairyProducts]

I came across this test on another forum. I can't really say that the test seemed all that great, but my results seem pretty accurate given the limited number of choices:

1. Ayn Rand (100%)
2. Aristotle (87%)
3. Nietzsche (85%)
4. David Hume (82%)
5. Cynics (80%)
6. Thomas Hobbes (80%)
7. Stoics (78%)
8. Spinoza (75%)
9. Jean-Paul Sartre (58%)
10. Aquinas (57%)
11. Plato (50%)
12. Epicureans (45%)
13. Jeremy Bentham (42%)
14. Kant (39%)
15. Nel Noddings (38%)
16. St. Augustine (38%)
17. John Stuart Mill (33%)
18. Prescriptivism (25%)
19. Ockham (23%)

I would be interested in a list like this from top philosophy professors ... I'm not sure who's in vogue now.

[EmbraceUnity]

Here is what a real man's results look like:

1. Jeremy Bentham (100%)
2. Epicureans (95%)
3. John Stuart Mill (87%)
4. Aquinas (86%)
5. Thomas Hobbes (83%)
6. Aristotle (74%)
7. Nel Noddings (71%)
8. David Hume (59%)
9. Cynics (56%)
10. Jean-Paul Sartre (56%)
11. Nietzsche (54%)
12. Spinoza (52%)
13. Plato (45%)
14. St. Augustine (45%)
15. Kant (43%)
16. Ayn Rand (36%)
17. Stoics (32%)
18. Prescriptivism (28%)
19. Ockham (4%)

[Dorho]

I came across this test on another forum. I can't really say that the test seemed all that great, but my results seem pretty accurate given the limited number of choices

Here are my results:

1. Jeremy Bentham (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (94%)
3. Kant (78%)
4. Aquinas (75%)
5. Aristotle (69%)
6. Jean-Paul Sartre (68%)
7. Plato (67%)
8. Ayn Rand (65%)
9. Epicureans (65%)
10. St. Augustine (57%)
11. Spinoza (53%)
12. Prescriptivism (50%)
13. Stoics (41%)
14. Thomas Hobbes (41%)
15. Nel Noddings (32%)
16. Cynics (29%)
17. David Hume (21%)
18. Nietzsche (21%)
19. Ockham (18%)

[Dorho]

Progressive, it'd be interesting to know how you managed to make choices so similar to mine yet have Kant at 43%.

What did you answer to question 7? I answered B. Question 3 is pretty important in my opinion too and I chose F.

[medicineman]

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100 %)
2. David Hume (63 %)
3. St. Augustine (61 %)
4. Aquinas (58 %)
5. Kant (58 %)
6. Stoics (58 %)
7. John Stuart Mill (56 %)
8. Aristotle (51 %)
9. Ayn Rand (50 %)
10. Nietzsche (47 %)
11. Cynics (42 %)
12. Nel Noddings (42 %)
13. Ockham (42 %)
14. Plato (42 %)
15. Spinoza (40 %)
16. Jeremy Bentham (35 %)
17. Epicureans (21 %)
18. Thomas Hobbes (21 %)
19. Prescriptivism (18 %)


Sartre and Hume probably have had the most profound influence on me.

[Rational Madman]

I think it would be quite difficult to quantify the contributions of the philosophers of the ages, or to fairly decide the determinants of "greatness." That being said, and without thoughtful analysis, I would say that that the proponents of utilitarianism, liberalism, rationalism, empiricism, and materialist dialectics have had the greatest impact. I base this opinion on each school's perceptible impact on what I deem to be important events in human history, the predominant conceptions of the structure and role of governance, widely held beliefs on the appropriate distribution of production, and the methodologies that are commonly employed for interpreting phenomena.

Edited by Rol82, 12 April 2010 - 12:09 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Progressive, it'd be interesting to know how you managed to make choices so similar to mine yet have Kant at 43%.

What did you answer to question 7? I answered B. Question 3 is pretty important in my opinion too and I chose F.

Being a utilitarian, on question 7 I answered C. I do respect the categorical imperative from the perspective that it is easy to mix up the means and the ends, and there are rule utilitarian reasons to abide by certain moral codes. Yet, when it comes down to it there are circumstances in which almost any action could be justified on the grounds that it is better than the alternatives. Murder, theft, and even war can all be justifiable. This gets very tricky and technical since it can lead to "utility monsters" and "repugnant conclusions" but the philosophy still holds up better than any others. Many transhumanists such as Pearce, Bostrom, and Yudkowsky have gone in depth on these topics, so I can refer you to them.

On question 3, I chose E. Good and bad come from our minds, but not our "intellect" per se, but our innate desires... empathy being an essential component of those desires (for most of us anyhow).

There were probably other differences that were also relevant to our slight differences in ranking.

On question 2 I answered F. I think the morally ideal way to live is for everyone to maximize MY value system, not an objective system, and not their value system if it is significantly different from mine. It seems only obvious, though, that rationally everyone should be utilitarian with regard to their own value system, but since I don't share the exact same values as everyone else, since everyone is different, I cannot say it would be best for everyone to pursue their own systems. In fact one of the reasons egoism is internally contradictory is that you cannot, as an egoist, say it is best for everyone to pursue their own self-interest.... all you could truthfully say is that it is best for everyone to pursue YOUR self-interest.

On question 11 I answered C. I am pretty much a believer in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. According to studies, depressed and suffering people seem to exhibit less empathy for others, not more as one might suspect. Anecdotally, I personally have an epicurean approach to the finer things in life, and indulge responsibly, and I notice that it definitely heightens not only my personal wellbeing but my empathy as well. Maybe that just makes me bourgeois.

Felicifia.org also goes into all this quite a bit. I think there are at least three axes on which utilitarians could fall. I made some illustrations here. There is hedonism vs preference utilitarianism, egoism vs altruism, and positive utilitarianism vs negative utilitarianism. I lean towards hedonism, altruism, and negative utilitarianism, but I'm not extremist. Maybe 60% on each one.

[EmbraceUnity]

Oh, since I wrote the post I linked to, I have become a bit more altruist and hedonist, in the technical sense. I struggle with all the axes though, and am always trying to refine my views.

The reason for my hedonism increase is related to some other threads on that site.

The reason for my altruism increase is related to arguments such as this, which in addition to enlightened self-interest should really tilt the scales toward compassion.

Edited by progressive, 12 April 2010 - 07:26 AM.

[medicineman]

I think it would be quite difficult to quantify the contributions of the philosophers of the ages, or to fairly decide the determinants of "greatness." That being said, and without thoughtful analysis, I would say that that the proponents of utilitarianism, liberalism, rationalism, empiricism, and materialist dialectics have had the greatest impact. I base this opinion on each school's perceptible impact on what I deem to be important events in human history, the predominant conceptions of the structure and role of governance, widely held beliefs on the appropriate distribution of production, and the methodologies that are commonly employed for interpreting phenomena.

I must say, I really did enjoy your profile comments. And I definitely agree with your statement.....

Edited by medicineman, 12 April 2010 - 09:15 PM.

[Alex Libman]

The reason for my altruism increase is related to arguments such as this, which in addition to enlightened self-interest should really tilt the scales toward compassion.

Wow, talk about unscientific gibberish used to distract the gullible while you reach for their wallet... It's really terrifying what kind of a living hell could be created here on earth by a government that pushed that bull as part of its mythology!

Furthermore, you do not get to be on the side of "unity" or "compassion" just because you claim to act toward those goals - every dictator and tyrant in history claimed absolutely the same thing. What matters are results, and it's free market capitalism that has the best record of bringing people together and improving their quality of life!

[EmbraceUnity]

Alex,

That post had absolutely nothing to do with economics. Actors in a capitalist system or any other system can be compassionate or uncompassionate. Charities being the main example of compassionate behavior in the market.

Most of the world isn't thinking about economics 24/7. You would do well to keep that in mind.