The Individual fights VS The Group (was Libertarianism)

About: Virginia Murr quotes Ayn Rand

"There is only one fundamental right: a man’s right to his own life." -- Ayn Rand

"That is only half of the story" -- Bozo Faust

We are social beings. That is part of what we do that separates us from slime mold. As we act together for common purpose or out of common need or common spirit, we create society. That is our nature just as very much as our nature is to secure our own life.

But as we create society we should be vigilant that it does not turn back on us and rob us of our natural freedom.

Let's not over simplify ... there *is* a tug-of-war between our individual freedom and the nature of our common purposes, needs, and spirits. That tug-a-war will always be there. Any partisan who talks as if that paradox, that contradiction, does not (or should not) exist is, imho, telling us just half of a truth. And any partisan who tells us that one side should "win" and other side should "loose" is telling us a lie.

... or at least that is my no so humble opinion.

Tags

  1. outnumbered meh
  2. libertarianism
  3. individualism
  4. society
  5. fight clubs
  6. being
  7. contradiction
  8. ego
  9. socialism
  10. synergy

Comments


Mark de LA says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
most libertarians would agree with the greatly reduced state & freedom part & probably not care where the concept of "right" comes from while agreeing with the Declaration of Independence.

Like I said on Facebook, it is all about a set of abstractions which are subject to the contexts & inventions of he who is arguing & which could be anything.

Ayn Rand did not use the term Libertarian or Libertarianism in the quote & probably not in her books.

Seth says
MR 2013-06-05 13:27:55 16555
No libertarianism here.

please explain!  Ayn Rand's thoughts form the very core of libertarianism.  Here, let me quote her entire piece to which this item forms a response ...
source:  Man’s Rights, from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Copyright (c) 1946, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966 by Ayn Rand. used by permission of Dutton Signet, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc.

The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.

The Declaration of Independence stated that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man’s origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.

“The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational.” (Atlas Shrugged)

To violate man’s rights means to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, there is only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.

The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.

...


Seth says
well, i agree that the word "right" is a peculiar way to put it, yet that *was* the way that spirit was framed by the founders of our country.   the language used is not the important thing here.  for me, the important thing is the balance (or dynamic equilibrium) between myself and the society in which i live.  Most libertarians use the thoughts, articulated by Rand, as the core of their philosophy ... which is mostly just about government.  All i am saying here is that is just half of the story.  If one only focuses on that half, then, me thinks, one becomes unbalanced.  I like to look at it also from the societies point of view ... and i don't mean just the government's point of view.  We create society by what we do as individuals ... it's really not all about ourselves, as Rand's words alone would have us believe.

Do you remember Steinar's framing of how we choose what to do?   if i remember, it went something like,  "ask yourself how it would be if everybody did what you are about to do".   That is quite different than "ask yourself what is best for your own person".

Mark de LA says
When you talk a course on English & ontology from a reputable source! Life as in "this is the course of my life." is an abstraction.  Maybe just read BofNK.



Mark de LA says
seth 2013-06-06 08:24:43 16555
MR 2013-06-06 08:19:00 16555
seth 2013-06-06 07:37:17 16555
MR 2013-06-06 00:43:38 16555
BTW, there is nothing sacred about what you say or I say.  If I have a different hold on things, & I most certainly usually do then so be it. Enjoy the otherness of it or shove it - your choice!

well, that is oh so true .... i have no idea why you thought it needed to be said 

incidentally, the whole point of my saying what i said was to try to get at a understanding between us ... ya know, to understand your point of view ... perchance even to find the words to communicate mine to you so that you might understand mine. 
Perhaps you might consider that all you are trying to do, from my perspective, is force me to take on your definition of things. Enjoy the reflection.

no i am not ... i'm trying to get a term that we can use that refers to the same thing.  i really do not care what that term is ... just as long as it can mean the same thing to you as it does to me. 

i was just thinking ... how about "commonwealth" ?

my only complaint about that one is that it sounds too much just about commerce ... ie the "wealth" part.
I have lost your thread or pointer.  Describe what you are talking about.  Commonwealth is a late 15th century idea & seems to be used mostly by threefoldness people & those states who call themselves commonwealths like these 4 states.


Seth says
MR 2013-06-06 08:19:00 16555
seth 2013-06-06 07:37:17 16555
MR 2013-06-06 00:43:38 16555
BTW, there is nothing sacred about what you say or I say.  If I have a different hold on things, & I most certainly usually do then so be it. Enjoy the otherness of it or shove it - your choice!

well, that is oh so true .... i have no idea why you thought it needed to be said 

incidentally, the whole point of my saying what i said was to try to get at a understanding between us ... ya know, to understand your point of view ... perchance even to find the words to communicate mine to you so that you might understand mine. 
Perhaps you might consider that all you are trying to do, from my perspective, is force me to take on your definition of things. Enjoy the reflection.

no i am not ... i'm trying to get a term that we can use that refers to the same thing.  i really do not care what that term is ... just as long as it can mean the same thing to you as it does to me. 

i was just thinking ... how about "commonwealth" ?

my only complaint about that one is that it sounds too much just about commerce ... ie the "wealth" part.

Seth says
MR 2013-06-06 00:43:38 16555
BTW, there is nothing sacred about what you say or I say.  If I have a different hold on things, & I most certainly usually do then so be it. Enjoy the otherness of it or shove it - your choice!

well, that is oh so true .... i have no idea why you thought it needed to be said 

incidentally, the whole point of my saying what i said was to try to get at a understanding between us ... ya know, to understand your point of view ... perchance even to find the words to communicate mine to you so that you might understand mine. 

Mark de LA says
also:
Common Wealth cover image

Common Wealth

For a Free, Equal, Mutual and Sustainable Society

Martin Large

ISBN: 978-1-903458-98-3, £15.00
234 × 156mm

Add this item to your shopping basket.

Seth says
M 2013-06-07 12:40:10 16555
seth 2013-06-07 12:30:46 16555
M 2013-06-07 11:49:35 16555
Time is an abstraction of change.  Quite a powerful idea if you can get past your problems with English!


yes ... there is a change ... and there are changes.   changes are experienced as time.  good point .
Nope!

please explain !

Seth says
MR 2013-06-06 09:00:20 16555
The term tug-of-war is over dramatic .

well i actually think it should be even more emphatic ... perhaps vicious fight would capture more what is happening.  that is why i put this item into fight clubs.

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-06-06 09:02:21 16555
I bolded and blued my point in the body of this item.

I am talking about the being which embodies "our common purposes, needs, and spirits". Another word for that might be "community", but there are many communities within society (or perhaps civilization) as a whole. My point was that Rand's philosophy is one sided, only looking at what is happening from the point of view of individual egos, and is oblivious to what those individuals make up as a whole.

When Steiner talks of the threefold commonwealth, i think he is talking about how he would like to see that very same thing evolve into health.
Rand's point in the movie at least is that the government is a bully. This is exemplified by our current administration which pretends to be looking out for the whole community in America, but is looking out for government first. This is exemplified by Obamacare, FBI, IRS spying & election tampering, making religious organizations pay for abortions, etc. including appointing Rice to an unconfirmed high position in the security council after she lied about BenGhazi. Raping the taxpayers for generations is not what the American community wants.

... just an aside - why do you suppose that freedom was such a high value for the founders of this once great country?  Those who are religious might also ask why did God choose to give us free will to do evil as well as love?


Seth says
MR 2013-06-06 13:12:02 16555
For those on the material plane such being is abstract.
Seth (above): ... Is not our society just as very much of a being as our own egos?  Should we not grant it the respect as such that it deserves?   What happens when we do not?
... you proposed something which I would not have.  I challenge you to find & specify it apart from your wide generalizations & abstractions & then I would consider such.


For me there is no abstraction here whatsoever.  It is all just experience.  Again, almost everything i do in my life is an interaction with what i have called society.  Each of those interactions feel like something to me ... and each of those interactions produce some kind of response from society.  But it is not just me.   Everybody has the same kind of experiences ... unless of course they totally isolate themselves ...

When i read a book,
When i buy groceries,
When i read from the internet,
When i pay my taxes,
When i get my social security check,
When i hear someone singing in the park,
When i drive down a highway,
When i get a new furnace installed,
When i talk to a person,
When i hear what they say back,
When i listen to music,
When i watch a drama,
When i read a Steiner book,
When i sell a talking product,
When i answer the phone .....
this goes on and on and on and on ... these transactions are vast.

I am just saying that the sum total of all of those interactions and the changes they produce and have produced in our environment is just as very much a living being as my own personal ego is a being.

Seth says
MR 2013-06-06 11:09:48 16555
seth 2013-06-06 10:49:08 16555
MR 2013-06-06 10:18:18 16555
seth 2013-06-06 09:02:21 16555
I bolded and blued my point in the body of this item.

I am talking about the being which embodies "our common purposes, needs, and spirits". Another word for that might be "community", but there are many communities within society (or perhaps civilization) as a whole. My point was that Rand's philosophy is one sided, only looking at what is happening from the point of view of individual egos, and is oblivious to what those individuals make up as a whole.

When Steiner talks of the threefold commonwealth, i think he is talking about how he would like to see that very same thing evolve into health.
Still abstract, but there is nothing wrong with individual egos - each has one. The voluntary, positive purpose to join in community must be respected & not demeaned for me to be interested in the conversation.

well certainly there is nothing "wrong" with individual egos
... except of course where they are sick.

nor is there anything "wrong" with our society
... except of course where it is sick.  

Is not our society just as very much of a being as our own egos?  Should we not grant it the respect as such that it deserves?   What happens when we do not?

There are many sub-cultures, groups, and communities within our society.  I agree, membership in any must needs be voluntary. 
SICK is a value judgment or a mixed metaphor; out of balance or equilibrium is a better term. My tax-paying is not voluntary.  If you can find the being I will respect it. You might need to be  as clairvoyant as Rudolf Steiner in order to be able to grok the nation spirits & folk spirits & race spirits in America.  Deriding the American Dream is probably a block to being able to do so.


Yep, sick is very definitely a value judgement ... which everybody is free to make or not make just as they choose. 

if you can find a way that local, state, and federal governments can provide the needed services to us without taxing us, then by all means you should propose it.   It would be hard for you to find a place on the earth where you could live without making use of those services.  Do you think it is practical to just allow anybody to opt-out of paying for those services?

Your sentence, "If you can find the being I will respect it", sounds very strange to me ... i think it might more honestly read "if I can find the being, I will respect it" ... that is not something that i can just provide to you.   But, me, i don't need no clairvoyance to experience that being ... to feel that being ... to interact with that being ... i do so in just about everything i do in my life.   You might be different there ... sorry, it is not something that i can tell you how to perceive ... it is a Gestalt.  i would, however, suggest not over thinking it ... it is very simple and direct.

Seth says
MR 2013-06-06 10:18:18 16555
seth 2013-06-06 09:02:21 16555
I bolded and blued my point in the body of this item.

I am talking about the being which embodies "our common purposes, needs, and spirits". Another word for that might be "community", but there are many communities within society (or perhaps civilization) as a whole. My point was that Rand's philosophy is one sided, only looking at what is happening from the point of view of individual egos, and is oblivious to what those individuals make up as a whole.

When Steiner talks of the threefold commonwealth, i think he is talking about how he would like to see that very same thing evolve into health.
Still abstract, but there is nothing wrong with individual egos - each has one. The voluntary, positive purpose to join in community must be respected & not demeaned for me to be interested in the conversation.

well certainly there is nothing "wrong" with individual egos
... except of course where they are sick.

nor is there anything "wrong" with our society
... except of course where it is sick.  

Is not our society just as very much of a being as our own egos?  Should we not grant it the respect as such that it deserves?   What happens when we do not?

There are many sub-cultures, groups, and communities within our society.  I agree, membership in any must needs be voluntary. 

Mark de LA says
For those on the material plane such being is abstract.
Seth (above): ... Is not our society just as very much of a being as our own egos?  Should we not grant it the respect as such that it deserves?   What happens when we do not?
... you proposed something which I would not have.  I challenge you to find & specify it apart from your wide generalizations & abstractions & then I would consider such. Lots of politicians say they are for the greater good of Americans but in fact are just pandering for votes. That I do not respect at all.



Mark de LA says
In threefoldness projects & costs of the rights domain (government) are born out of local & regional requests agreeing that the projects can be born out of surpluses produced through the economic domain. That surplus is also used to sponsor the spiritual domain of health & the arts. The big difference is that no universal taxes are levied into a giant slush fund that grows faster than the economy can support & borrow to support; where nobody knows how it is spent & politics determines the crony corruption that actually spends it.
  

Seth says
M 2013-06-08 07:54:37 16555
I like my point-of-view & weltanshauung & I gather that you do yours. So apparently these are not the droids I am looking for!

I think we have dialogue between different (or even contradictory)  weltanshauungs, not to judge between them, ... not to pick which is better ... not to fight for our stance  at the sacrifice of the other ... but to peruse a view which contains both stances ... for each view to understand and be informed by the other.

Such a pursuit is obviously voluntary .

Seth says
source: mark above
I guess you still & finally resist the notion of abstraction . or abstract nouns.
I don't resist using what you call "abstract nouns" at all.   They are the way we refer to aggregates.

There is an ant ...

...............................................................................................

and there are also ants ...


both of those are just as very real ... yet they are different.  the whole is more than just the sum of its parts.  you cannot see ants by just looking at a single ant ... nor can you see society by looking only at  your own life.


I know that some people have objected to using what you are calling "abstractions" ... but in this particular case, i really do not understand the objection.

Mark de LA says
DERP!

Mark de LA says
seth 2013-06-08 11:37:21 16555
M 2013-06-08 07:54:37 16555
I like my point-of-view & weltanshauung & I gather that you do yours. So apparently these are not the droids I am looking for!

I think we have dialogue between different (or even contradictory)  weltanshauungs, not to judge between them, ... not to pick which is better ... not to fight for our stance  at the sacrifice of the other ... but to peruse a view which contains both stances ... for each view to understand and be informed by the other.

Such a pursuit is obviously voluntary .
So .... what is your intent?  Weltanshauungs don't really have dialogues only people do.  Somewhere in the YouTube is a meaning of intent. ~ 3.00 (Deepak Chopra).


Seth says
M 2013-06-07 13:53:21 16555
seth 2013-06-07 13:31:48 16555
M 2013-06-07 12:58:23 16555
M 2013-06-07 12:56:08 16555
seth 2013-06-07 12:42:19 16555
So, Mark, what are you saying?   Are you saying that society is not as real as yourself because the word "society" is a abstract noun?    I really do not understand your objection here ... and i do want to get your gestalt on the matter.
The question as to what is real is another matter.  I sort of thought you were confusing or treating your meta world of concepts as reality. They are are real concepts but not the same kind of reality as an apple. You can't really share your meta-world you can only describe it with words. We could share an apple if we were within the required proximity to do so.
The Science channel series Through the Wormhole may discuss What is reality? in their new opening season in a couple of days.

I guess it already started on the 5th. http://science.discovery.com/search.htm?terms=reality

Well i can easily forgive you for presuming that i was confused about what is real experience and what is its reflection in the so called meta-world and even with how that meta-world gets communicate and created by our use of language.

Now back to the matter at hand ...

me thinks there is not just a little bit of complexity here to deal with.  Thing is, we experience not only what happens as it impinges upon our individual senses ... but we also experience how we feel and interact with the meta-world itself.  Then too our own creation and imagination is being experienced at some of the same times.    So i think we must  allow that can become quite confusing indeed.

The point being that society is a being ... i don't want to loose that thought here.
You are mixing worlds or elevating an abstraction. STILL!

well mixing words is how we communicate ... if my mix feels peculair to you, then that is merely a good excuse to try out a new combination .

but that said, you are right, there is a thing people erroniously do  called "reification" ... see wikipedia article for a good definition of that.   I was accused by the RDF group of reifying the graph ... of making a real thing from just a notation.   In that case i think the criticism was correct. 

The question is: am i doing that same mistake here?  I don't think so.  Experiences are real ... aggravates of experiences are real too.  What is your ego?  What is society?

Seth says
M 2013-06-07 15:18:10 16555
FUN: As long as you choose to use different meanings for the same words that I use there is not much to say any more; particularly as you won't understand mine & yours contradict mine in the conclusion area. Have a nice rest-of-the-day.

How does mine contradict yours in the conclusion area?  I really cannot guess what specifically you are refering to.

Incidentally this is really the only way that people who have different and perhaps contradictory actual beliefs can communicate and arrive at a common gestalt or understanding.  I certainly do understand if you don't want to think about it anymore. 


please see 16255

Seth says
M 2013-06-07 14:04:31 16555
seth 2013-06-07 13:04:59 16555
M 2013-06-07 12:48:22 16555
Nobody experiences time, they only experience and can sense change.  The biggest clue is that if you have to go to a concept you are in mind & not experience. Experience is NOW & not what happened a few seconds ago or years ago.  Concepts are abstractions or derivatives of the real world. The only exception to that might be if you can directly experience a thought coming into existence or a concept & are talking about that instead of the external world. Your meta-world is not the real world. It only exists in your mind or materialists would say it only exists in a bunch of neurons in an electro-chemical storm in the brain.

fine ... now tell me something that i do not know. 

we are talking here and must needs use words and all of that is meta-world transactions.  when you refer to one of your now experiences i assume that the experience was not the words you used to refer to it.  

Do you experience your ego being in some particular now?   I do mine.  Do you experience your transactions in the world in various nows?  I do mine.  Are those experiences not real?  Mine sure as hell are.   ......  So why can we not refer to everybody's such experiences in the world in aggrigate ?  I am just saying that network of everybody's experiences in the world is a being ... is similar to the being you call your ego.  You just cannot feel the whole thing, so you do not acknowledge its existence as happily as you acknowledge your own.
Actually I don't experience NOW as a piece of time.  When I hunt for now or meditate on it I can only look around and focus on my body, my internal senses, my external senses etc. My mind & all the rest. You are merely labeling an aggregate as a being not experiencing the same as such.  The only piece of that being you experience is you & your abstraction, concepts & ideas. I'm not sure you even know what being  is in the sense that BofNK & Peter Ralston discuss such. Most people just chatter about being from the new age religion point of view & think they have something. BofNK, chapter 25, might hold some interesting clues.


You are actually playing around here with something that i discovered quite some time ago.  A person cannot expereince the being of society just because they are not the entire thing.  But i do experience that of it in which i participate ... and i can extrapolate ... then imagine  i am no longer trapped within my own identity, and then instead identify with the whole.  that is the only way i can feel it and know it is real.  after all i don't necessarily need no stinking ego and i don't necessarily need to experience everything myself to know that it is real.

i know, right off the bat, that you and Ralston have different assumptions bundeled in with what you are calling "being".  it should not surprise anyone that my assumptions going into what i call "being" are quite different from yours and from Ralston's.   The task here, in this dialogue, is to tease out both sets. 

Seth says
M 2013-06-11 10:37:22 16555
seth 2013-06-11 09:46:59 16555
Brooks is right on the cusp of this dialogue when he says ...
source: David Brooks The Solitary Leaker writing in the NYT

 If you live a life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society, perhaps it makes sense to see the world a certain way: Life is not embedded in a series of gently gradated authoritative structures: family, neighborhood, religious group, state, nation and world. Instead, it’s just the solitary naked individual and the gigantic and menacing state.

This lens makes you more likely to share the distinct strands of libertarianism that are blossoming in this fragmenting age: the deep suspicion of authority, the strong belief that hierarchies and organizations are suspect, the fervent devotion to transparency, the assumption that individual preference should be supreme. You’re more likely to donate to the Ron Paul for president campaign, as Snowden did.

It’s logical, given this background and mind-set, that Snowden would sacrifice his career to expose data mining procedures of the National Security Agency. Even if he has not been able to point to any specific abuses, he was bound to be horrified by the confidentiality endemic to military and intelligence activities. And, of course, he’s right that the procedures he’s unveiled could lend themselves to abuse in the future.

But Big Brother is not the only danger facing the country. Another is the rising tide of distrust, the corrosive spread of cynicism, the fraying of the social fabric and the rise of people who are so individualistic in their outlook that they have no real understanding of how to knit others together and look after the common good.

The thing, for me, is that everybody is free to choose how they relate to their group and with  which groups to interact. That is one of the beauties and the complexities of our predicament. Those are not things for you, me, or David Brooks to decide. 

Quit trying to explain LIBERTARIANS & LIBERTARIANISM - you are not one!  Try explaining LIBERALISM which is closer to your bailiwick.


Well, in general, i do favor the libertarian political stance ... that is a fact.  But for me it is never just the same binary partisan choice ... context is king ... context and the now of the moment ... and how that fits in with my narrative of history and future.   You have never appreciated just how very much i am committed to these kinds of things ... but then that is just you and your presumptions about me.

Mark de LA says
Newsroom monitoring rears its ugly head on WSJ

Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-19 16:04:38 16555

i find it interesting that your would find this meme today and post it here.

Is that the way you feel?

Do you feel you have no responsibility to the people around you?

Do you feel that you have no social contract with society?

Do you laugh so very hard because you feel the truth of the meme so very fast?

Honestly.

Just asking

M1g0r says
seth 2014-02-19 20:13:36 16555
M1g0r 2014-02-19 16:04:38 16555

i find it interesting that your would find this meme today and post it here.

Is that the way you feel?

Do you feel you have no responsibility to the people around you?

Do you feel that you have no social contract with society?

Do you laugh so very hard because you feel the truth of the meme so very fast?

Honestly.

Just asking
Well you might read it as , like, er ..  all the words & notice that indeed there is no written CONTRACT signed by you or anyone else to join society! Some assholes just refuse to see humor even if it bites them in the ass.  I found it humorous on G+ .

Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-20 07:35:48 16555
Send me a SCAN of the one YOU signed!

Well of course i got the joke, and chuckled too, and did not sign some actual document. 

But if we are to comprehend the relationship between us and our society within the framework of an economic transactional contract, we must look at what actually happens when we live in some society.  What is a contract anyway?  It is an agreement that you get something and you give something.   Now, sure, there are people who never get anything from a society ... the only way i know how they do that is to totally isolate themselves from it ... and, no, those people have obviously made no agreement.  The rest of us, well we have tacitly agreed to take the benefits from living in society ... and er, give back to it such that it will be able to sustain its existence. 

How can you honestly think differently?

ύπα&# says
seth 2014-02-20 11:12:55 16555
ύπα&# 2014-02-20 11:05:10 16555
seth 2014-02-20 10:51:30 16555
source: mark
I'm waiting for the time when others besides you make a crime out of attitude! WE already have hate crimes. Maybe soon we have attitude crimes.
It ~should~ be obvious that i don't want to "make any particular attitude a crime".  If you are honest with yourself you should know that. 

But I we can change my attitudes to improve them, i have done it many times.  I strongly suspect others can do it too. 
It should be obvious but isn't.  You blame attitude for a lot of shit.

i don't know if "blame" is the right word here.  All i know is that changing attitudes can improve things.  So, yes, i like to become aware of attitudes and how i can change mine ... and i will be doing that a lot.  We associate crime with a punishment met out by society.  I truly counsel against us going down that road. Whether you knew that about me or not, i don't know ... but at least me thinks you know it now ... do you not?
As long as it is on your side it's OK -

Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-20 08:44:10 16555
seth 2014-02-20 08:13:35 16555
M1g0r 2014-02-20 07:35:48 16555
Send me a SCAN of the one YOU signed!

Well of course i got the joke, and chuckled too, and did not sign some actual document. 

But if we are to comprehend the relationship between us and our society within the framework of an economic transactional contract, we must look at what actually happens when we live in some society.  What is a contract anyway?  It is an agreement that you get something and you give something.   Now, sure, there are people who never get anything from a society ... the only way i know how they do that is to totally isolate themselves from it ... and, no, those people have obviously made no agreement.  The rest of us, well we have tacitly agreed to take the benefits from living in society ... and er, give back to it such that it will be able to sustain its existence. 

How can you honestly think differently?
The devil is in the details. It is assumed that the 3 branches of government + the 4th estate will perform in balance.  Right now they are rather disgustingly out of balance! Such is probably what cause a libertarian to post the epigram on G+. We can argue a while about it if you like.


i don't want to argue about it at all.  rather just laugh about it, just because it is bullshit masquerading as a reason for me not to be a responsible individual within my society.

Seth says
source: mark
Or surprise that what the Revolutionary War created & the U.S. Constitution enshrined in words & introduced with the Preamble  is being lost on a daily basis by collusion of media with nice sounding idealists calling their ideals "society" - maybe case in point here:
Government monitors in the newsrooms of America ? first amendment be fucked !


Well i have not heard anybody call their ideals "society" ... that would surely be a category error.

But if you doubt the existence of our so called "society", i suggest you move your life outside it, and see if there is any real difference.  Or alternatively, if you have already done that, move your life inside our society, and let me know if anything changes. 

Seth says
...
M1g0r 2014-02-19 13:11:53 17109
seth 2014-02-19 12:31:24 17109
M1g0r 2014-02-19 12:06:58 17109
Sorry, I must respond directly to the item. See Mark Twain below.
(parable, paraphrase, perturb-able)


well me i am a people watcher ... the more i learn about them the better i like them ... er, generally.

but, i've been there too, Mr Twain, i know the lick.  hard place not to visit ... glad i don't live there.

Strangely enough our father got us started in that state with his [title troglodyte thelemite] stuff ... more about that later perhaps under that title.
Yep, that's another one you will never understand, dude!

... I'm moving this meme here, because me thinks this is where it belongs.

I would like to really hear GW's reasons for continuing the troglodyte/thelmite meme.  Me, i think it is a grave mistake.  I do obviously know that Thelmites are suppose to live by some code of practice and be somewhat enlightened .... i just don't think it wise for them to feel superior to others and isolate themselves from others to practice their choices.  Doing that has some very nasty, perhaps unintended, consequences. 

Please don't call me dude!

M1g0r says
M1g0r 2014-02-20 10:34:04 16555
seth 2014-02-20 10:09:52 16555
incidentally, do you know the name of the person in the picture of the meme?
Epigram! 
Maybe Henry Wadsworth Longfellow ? IDK
See also this picture & bio


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-20 10:29:20 16555
seth 2014-02-20 10:05:30 16555
source: mark
Or surprise that what the Revolutionary War created & the U.S. Constitution enshrined in words & introduced with the Preamble  is being lost on a daily basis by collusion of media with nice sounding idealists calling their ideals "society" - maybe case in point here:
Government monitors in the newsrooms of America ? first amendment be fucked !


Well i have not heard anybody call their ideals "society" ... that would surely be a category error.

But if you doubt the existence of our so called "society", i suggest you move your life outside it, and see if there is any real difference.  Or alternatively, if you have already done that, move your life inside our society, and let me know if anything changes. 
Nope! it's not about that.  Its' about small groups of individuals in government or particular institutions determine that their ideals of what society should be doing are the interests of society & what idividuals that differ in that regard want is politically incorrect & should be squashed out.  Case in point on local school discipline.


yep lots of problems in our society. no real need to chronicle them here.

one of those problems might just be people trying to corrupt our attitudes towards it.  no?

See Also

  1. Thought Axiom of being: A being lives by changing relative to others, not relative to itself with 669 viewings related by tag "being".
  2. Thought Thought, Feeling, and Will with 396 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  3. Thought cognitive dissonance with 272 viewings related by tag "BeIng".
  4. Thought Win Win Interactions with others with 225 viewings related by tag "ego".
  5. Thought You are part of my SubConscious with 210 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  6. Thought The story of being, is not being with 200 viewings related by tag "being".
  7. Thought Teasing out the "will" with 190 viewings related by tag "ego".
  8. Thought Thoughts re freedom & Christ ... i don't want to forget ... with 161 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  9. Thought about: The #RWG - comment 67967 with 159 viewings related by tag "ego".
  10. Thought The ego bubble plane with 153 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  11. Thought Contemplation: what is my ego? with 143 viewings related by tag "ego".
  12. Thought Inquiry: what isolates us? with 124 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  13. Thought ANDing is better than XOing with 123 viewings related by tag "synergy".
  14. Thought [title (23904)] with 119 viewings related by tag "ego".
  15. Thought So which is it? with 118 viewings related by tag "contradiction".
  16. Thought I am a variable with 112 viewings related by tag "BeIng".
  17. Thought Making up Others with 85 viewings related by tag "BeIng".
  18. Thought Eropa with 81 viewings related by tag "Ego".
  19. Thought about: Unhacking Wars - comment 67183 with 71 viewings related by tag "ego".
  20. Thought Taking control of our media with 51 viewings related by tag "society".
  21. Thought Looking for some wording ... with 49 viewings related by tag "BeIng".
  22. Thought Bring it ... with 49 viewings related by tag "ego".
  23. Thought Christ with 48 viewings related by tag "individualism".
  24. Thought Be ing enthralled ... with 44 viewings related by tag "BeIng".
  25. Thought The trick is to enjoy the prick with 39 viewings related by tag "ego".
  26. Thought Cognitive Dissonance with 37 viewings related by tag "ego".
  27. Thought #LoaSwim with 32 viewings related by tag "BeIng".
  28. Thought Blogging on a Higher Plane with 31 viewings related by tag "synergy".
  29. Thought Autolagnia with 31 viewings related by tag "ego".
  30. Thought about: The Medium is the Message - comment 74259 with 30 viewings related by tag "BeIng".
  31. Thought Degrading into Knowing with 26 viewings related by tag "being".
  32. Thought [title (22121)] with 23 viewings related by tag "synergy".
  33. Thought Money as a Vote - SELECTIVE SPENDING with 20 viewings related by tag "being".
  34. Thought about: Abstractia - comment 59923 with 19 viewings related by tag "being".
  35. Thought Rule of Whatever with 19 viewings related by tag "synergy".
  36. Thought Contrast ... with 18 viewings related by tag "contradiction".
  37. Thought Distinctions that I can make that make more sense to ME with 14 viewings related by tag "being".
  38. Thought Egoo with 12 viewings related by tag "ego".
  39. Thought Socialist Stumbling-Blocks with 8 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  40. Thought The NEW SLAVERY with 7 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  41. Thought Is nothing by an oobey feeling of death with 7 viewings related by tag "ego".
  42. Thought Life is boring repitition ... with 6 viewings related by tag "ego".
  43. Thought Now *IS* Being with 6 viewings related by tag "being".
  44. Thought Here, Kitty ... Kitty ...Kitty with 5 viewings related by tag "socialism".
  45. Thought Awareness, Attention is the function of the Ego with 5 viewings related by tag "ego".
  46. Thought Culture with 5 viewings related by tag "society".
  47. Thought Word Salad Dressing with 5 viewings related by tag "ego".
  48. Thought Towards a recognition ... with 4 viewings related by tag "ego".
  49. Thought The Decay of Society with 4 viewings related by tag "society".
  50. Thought A Libertarian point of view on Obamacare with 4 viewings related by tag "libertarianism".