Of Human Objectivism: An interpenetrating aspect of subjectivity tends to be unavoidable (thank goodness). However, to the extent possible, to communicate respectfully, one should endeavor to couple one’s subjective insights to commonly shared models, by which such insights may be communicated as objectively, testably, and meaningfully as possible. One’s models should serve purposes and functions, and they should, as much as possible, be objectively testable in respect of whether and how they serve such functions. That is how to communicate objectively and in respect for the dignity of the independent minds and perspectives of others.
It tends to evil disrespect towards others to deploy models that serve no function except to ridicule, intimidate or dispirit them into states of confused submission in order to steal the dignity of their separate perspectives. When it is shown that a model serves no function except to convey confusion about objective reality or despair about traditional values, with no insight or inspiration for any meaningful system of replacement values, then such a model may reasonably be labeled as conducive to mind-rotting bunkum, social depravity, or collectivizing slavery. Those are the models of Religious Fascism, Hierarchical Socialism, and Elitist Oligarchism. Those are the models that bribe masses to help financing elites to safely reduce the middle class to the cattle feed lot.
As a society becomes more and more fragmented, divided, and multi-culti, it becomes easier to insinuate hierarchical fiats and fatwas, and it becomes harder to accord due respect for common ways for conveying information and good will. Regardless, not even our best attempts to communicate about non-trivialities can be reduced to perfect logic. As to oughts, it remains necessary to work with each culture’s accumulation of parables and figures of speech. It borders insanity to try to communicate oughts without due deference to prevailing connotations about God or higher values.
Meantime, Dinos of little mind and Rinos of little conscience have aligned for an evil, N.W.O. putsch: to reduce minds, enslave consciences, and steal humanity. They advance their wicked meme by conflating theft as charity, small minded ridicule as principle, and sinisterism as virtue. Theirs is the principality of serpents, the charity of zombies, the intelligence of inertia, the joy of oblivion, the peace of mind surrender, and the salvation of darkness. While independent, middle-class people of mind, purpose and conscience have slept, the zombie axis has been voraciously at work. The voraciousness is now measured in terms of trillions of dollars. Little time remains to awaken, unite, and fortify a city on a hill for decent civilization to resist the red-eyed zombie Dino and Rino cowboys for the N.W.O.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Regarding corruptocrats: Are the most massive of modern fortunes made in direct connection with inventing or building new and better products, or are they made by cornering, buying, selling, manipulating, and corrupting currencies, laws, politicians, and governments? To what end are those fortunes made and applied? Are they applied to advance science, technology, or culture, or are they applied to acquire and defend seats at an international syndicate for imposing a N.W.O. under a hierarchical system of elitist oligarchism?
In what way does elitist oligarchism enhance human freedom of expression and enterprise? Insofar as elitist oligarchism is not good for the freedom and dignity of mankind, what, in good conscience, can an inventive, industrious, courageous, free-thinking, American middle-class do to reverse it? How is a human feed lot that is imposed by an international, hierarchical oligarchy of lying elitists guaranteed to be much better than a human feed lot that is imposed under a system of lying communist Nomenklatura or Sharia minded Islamofascists? A feed lot is a feed lot is a feed lot.
Regarding corruptocrats: Are the most massive of modern fortunes made in direct connection with inventing or building new and better products, or are they made by cornering, buying, selling, manipulating, and corrupting currencies, laws, politicians, and governments? To what end are those fortunes made and applied? Are they applied to advance science, technology, or culture, or are they applied to acquire and defend seats at an international syndicate for imposing a N.W.O. under a hierarchical system of elitist oligarchism?
In what way does elitist oligarchism enhance human freedom of expression and enterprise? Insofar as elitist oligarchism is not good for the freedom and dignity of mankind, what, in good conscience, can an inventive, industrious, courageous, free-thinking, American middle-class do to reverse it? How is a human feed lot that is imposed by an international, hierarchical oligarchy of lying elitists guaranteed to be much better than a human feed lot that is imposed under a system of lying communist Nomenklatura or Sharia minded Islamofascists? A feed lot is a feed lot is a feed lot.
Consider how much of America the Obamanites are selling to China. Consider how much they admire the elites of China. Consider how much the Obamanites would love to run America without having to heed middle class conservers of liberty. Consider how willing they show themselves to give the internationally known middle digit to every attempt to "true the vote." Consider how the Constitution is one judge shy of becoming whatever Obamanites say it is. Is it not transparent that the change the Obamanites are feverishly working to bring about is to foist the Chinese model of governance onto America?
Well, that model does seem to be working well for the Chinese, at least financially, at least for the time being. But what happens once the American economic engine is junked? What happens once elite rulers no longer have to give even lip service to the middle class? What happens once competition breaks out among the various thug empires and corporations that trade only in buying politicians appear to be carving up and competing for hegemony over the N.W.O.? This is "progress?" This is "higher atheistic values?" wth.
*****
Re: "We ARE or should be our brother's keeper."
The government not only cannot perform such function; those who are governed ought not allow government to usurp to feign such function! The main function of government is to provide a framework so people can minister such function, as they choose. When government helps in natural calamaties, the main purpose should be to preserve the country, not to opportunize elites to redistribute among classes or individuals.
From A.T. --
Re: "Reason is self-evident. It requires no evidence because the whole notion of evidence as basis for belief presupposes the existence of reason"
Huh? What has reason got to say that makes anything "self evident" about what sort of moral values "ought" to be derived from "is?" Do you have some self evident, logical, or mathematical means for deriving and proving your "oughts?" Is someone suggesting that "oughts" are self evident in themselves, apart from being evident to persons who have been inculcated to believe in them? Well, maybe ... if the person is a pre-programmed brain in a vat. If so, I must have escaped the programming, because the matter of "oughts" as applied to specific cases is not self evident to me. Rather, I suspect my oughts are flavored by my accumulation of experience, and that is flavored by my culture. I say "flavored," because I don't think culture or government, any more so than "reason," are the final source of oughts. I think there is Something else. In any event, I assume that even many atheists do respect some kind of code of values. If so, and if not based entirely in reason or dictate, then from what source do these atheists draw their "self evident" higher values? And if they are self evident, then why has there been no double blind study, to test atheists so we could find and prove these self evident higher atheistic moral values? BTW -- if these values are "self evident, then what in goodness sakes does "reason" have to do with the matter?
From A.t.--
@Countryman, Re: "It seems that a good many people see libertarians as amoral, without morals; given that those people are good, thoughtful, and rational I cannot understand this position. It seems that they have the unbending idea that morality can only come from a supernatural being, and is not found in nature. The truth is, every living being on the planet has morals, even my cat."
I tend to agree with your general drift. (And I think my puddy tats are moral, too.) That said, I think you're missing something. Yes, people follow moral tenets, even when they don't have them foremost in their lingo. Their acts are their moral statements. But I think you're missing the value of articulating moral interests in forums (like churches and civic clubs) to get feedback and help assimilate the values that can sustain a nation. For that purpose, it is good to come and reason together. It can be even more effective to come together to reason in respect of God.
The problem tends to comes in when human authorities seek to interpose, to feign authority to translate for God. I suspect what many Conservatives feel is that without means for assimilating values, a nation will not cohere to survive, absent intolerable governmental intrusiveness. In 22 years, we have come perilously close to becoming a vassal of China -- not exactly a regime that promotes libertarianism or freedom of mind.
I have watched this occur almost in tandem with the decline of respect for, and often outright militant insult of, Christianity. I have also noted that folks I know who have made bad choices and who have ended up on skid row seem more often to wind up being cared for by Christian organizations than internet Libertarian rehab lounges. It seems to me that there is considerable anger against Christians. I think this was on the rise before all the priest pedophile outrages against children. But those depredations probably helped blow the lid off. Personally, I think that indicates that people need to reconsider the need for interlopers in order for them to relate to God. Either that, or Catholics, for the good of all Christians, need to assert better adult supervision over a good many priests, and fast.
Regardless, I assure you, I don't want religion unduly intruding in people's lives. However, I don't want government trying to fill the void, either. As I look at the kind of folks who won't accept rulings by authorities at State levels, who always seem to be looking to make national precedent with a federal case, thereby to expand Feds' grabs for power, I seem to see the ACLU regularly. But if they're so libertarian, why are they quickest to give Feds excuses to grab power?
Regarding dissolution of assimilating values:
A common difference between liberals and libertarians seems to be that libertarians imagine a society can be atheistic without becoming collectivist. Atheists in general, whether liberal or libertarian, seem also fond to suggest that they see little difference in individual behaviors of believers or non-believers that would indicate that believers are any more moral. Maybe. However, devising a scale to make that measurement seems of dubious feasibility, and may perhaps best be left to God, as opposed to a class one may reasonably suspect of encompassing a disproportionate share of persons who entertain few values by which to make the comparison. IOW, I doubt there is much agreement between Christians and atheists (either liberal or libertarian) regarding the definition of "moral."
Even so, some interesting factors may be measurable for societies in the aggregate. For examples:
Consider whether America did not begin her lurch towards becoming a vassal of China, a regime repressive of individual freedom of expression, until our elites began in earnest to try to turn us into a socialistic, atheistic regime.
Consider also making graphs to compare societies in the aggregate. That is, plot and compare the longevity of life, as well as the proportion of deaths by violence, in respect of the various Protestant, Catholic, Islamic, and atheistic populations. Continue such comparisons back in time, through 1776, though the Protestant Reformation, back through the publication of the New Testament in language accessible to the masses.
That may give us some data by which to form a clue about whether or not Christianity or aspects thereof may have been of more value for civilizing purposes than Islam or Atheistic Collectivism.
From A.T. --
@Adam addressed: "Rothbard's Ethics breaks down in dealing with non-adult humans and less than fully capable adult humans."
Yes. It would be one thing were a person to spring fresh from the head of Zeus, smoking crack, harming no one but himself. But what sort of people and groups are easiest to turn on to dope, easy credit, buying things they don't need, learning to celebrate the taking advantage of kids-gullibles-senile persons, etc.? In this day and age of advanced sales, pushing, and recruiting techniques, to what extent must society keep open season for preying on the young, stupid, desperate, easily addicted, and infirm? How does facilitating an entitlement-minded ghetto dweller's presentation of his right to dope himself affect his family, children, neighbors, and everyone he tries to fool into looking up to him?
Generally, I would say a certain rein of allowed predation is necessary if any semblance of liberty is to be preserved. But when we get to the point we are now, with our prisons, borders, and ghettos for celebrating depravities, I become less certain. I don't want Big Gov, and I doubt Big Gov is effective. I suspect decent local churches may help more than government. But atheists among Libertarians seem to have problems even with that. So what are the choices? Do nothing and let predators reign; inject Big Gov with all its lousy bureaucrats; encourage losers to "off themselves" and their families and to be quick about it; or encourage common-sense respect for basic decency among the general populace? I sort of prefer the last. But how many so called Libertarians defile even that?
Among Libertarians, is there some sort of age of emancipation, so that everyone has the universal, natural right to off himself -- either slowly or quickly? By what moral law of nature do they arrive at this age, if not by legislating, either directly or indirectly?
Post a Comment