Future BSA President Intent to Eliminate the Ban on Gays

[Peregrinator]

Peregrinator, an open marriage is, nevertheless, a marriage. As long as it doesn't affect us, who are we, outsiders, to question a relationship that other people agree on? It might not be what WE have decided for ourselves but that is OUR individual choice, right? Why deny that freedom to others?

 

I don't recall remarking on whether Ayn Rand's marriage was a real marriage or a sham. She and her husband were buried together for what it is worth. But I don't have any qualms with stating that adultery is wrong even if one has the permission of one's spouse. I don't have any qualms with stating that the O'Connors' marriage is a poor model to for other married couples to follow (the same can be said for the Brandens).

 

As for family, there is no doubt in my mind about the emotional bond between, for example, parent and child. I can't explain instinct but I sense that it exists.

 

I think a family is quite a bit more than an emotional bond. Wouldn't you agree?

 

But your answer doesn't really explain an incompatibility between individualism and family. What you describe is how the individual 'relates' to or 'fits in' with family - in your ideal world.

You refer to 'errors' of individualism. That's what I'd like you to explain. What are those errors and, if possible, how do they explain the incompatibility of individualism with family?

 

I did not refer to the errors of individualism. I referred to the errors of individualism and collectivism -- that is, both individualism and collectivism are errors.

 

I've already pointed out how individualism is incompatible with the family.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

AZMike writes:

So you have 28 members of Congress who don't have the courage to announce their convictions?

 

I'm sure there are a LOT more than that, but there are 27 (or so; the survey was a few years back) who haven't made their atheism known. Your bizarre accusations that most atheists are genocidal is a good example why.

[Peregrinator]

What better way to argue that atheists are not genocidal than to courageously out oneself as an atheist?

[packsaddle]

"I think a family is quite a bit more than an emotional bond. Wouldn't you agree?" I would agree that they are different. I didn't intend to imply that family is no more than that.

 

"I did not refer to the errors of individualism. I referred to the errors of individualism and collectivism -- that is, both individualism and collectivism are errors."

So what is the error?

 

"I've already pointed out how individualism is incompatible with the family."

You did state that opinion. That is not an explanation of your reasoning.

[AZMike]

"Your bizarre accusations that most atheists are genocidal is a good example why."

 

I don't think most atheists are genocidal.

 

I think the majority of atheist leaders of countries have been democidal, as the stats show. The odd atheist president of a western country is unlikely to be able to slaughter significant portions of his population (with the exception of abortion), even if he wanted to, thanks to the stability of western political systems. Mostly.

 

The comment was in reference to why most people don't trust atheists as political leaders.

 

 

[BartHumphries]

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means."

 

I think that there have been more self-professed religiously-minded bad men throughout history than there have been atheists, simply because most people are religious. I do think that a strongly-atheistic mindset does tend to lead to looser morals in general as the experiments with Princess Alice have shown: http://bathspa.academia.edu/GordonIngram/Papers/496704/ That's not to say that people who are atheists are all bad people, though, just that it's human nature to drive differently on the freeway when you spot a police patrol car a little ways behind you.

[moosetracker]

Packsaddle Moosetracker, can you even consider the possibility that altruism is an illusion that you and others have? Can you consider the possibility that individual enlightened self-interest CAN lead to a structured and ordered society? Do you not realize that this is precisely the economic system that we live in and it is possible that society is structured and ordered as a result of related or similar interactions? What is so wrong about individualism?

 

I might concede that it is in my self-interest to live in a society whose members care about each other. To have a family and friends that I can care about over myself, but can trust that they too will care about me. I know I will work harder for others happiness then for myself.. For example when I was single dinner would consist of the very same easy to make meal, night after nignt. I work harder in my job for the benefit of my family. I know my family makes me a better person.

 

But, to live in a society that thinks the best thing is to only care for yourself and the right that if you are fortunate to have power through birth, marriage or possibly your own work with lady luck on your side.. That this power gives you the right to be a dictator over everyone else. For example all the various new voter suppression rules to keep the minorities and the poor from voting. Michigans Republican Governor using the Emergency management in order to walk in and overtake various towns that are run by Democrates, kicking out all elected officials, firing the towns police, fire and teachers. From what I heard some teachers are expected to teach classes of 80+ students.. Fine number for a college class, but not for grade school. And for that jerk Akins and Paul Ryan to work together to create some sort of heretic bill that defines rape as only if the female fights back. So they seem to think they have the power for all the US to discount any rape that the women does not fight back, such as being drugged, having a gun to their head, child rape where the child is too young to know what to do, being held hostage for months or years or holding hostage a womens child or spouse and threatening their life.. None of those would be considered legitamite rape.. Republicans deciding the average voter does not need to know the details of things like their plan for medicare, or how they plan to reduce the deficit, or the loopholes they are proposing to remove from taxes etc. etc. Just continue to say Us Good.. Democrat Bad...

I guess packsaddle.. The answer is Yes.. My self-interest is that I do not see it a good thing to be lied to, kept in the dark, or dictated to by my head of state.. Kind of reminds me of a government lead by Hitlar or Stalin.. Or at the very best a government run by the old European monarchies..

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

AZMike writes:

The comment was in reference to why most people don't trust atheists as political leaders.

 

And your bigoted attitude towards atheists shows why.

[moosetracker]

I think I would elect any atheist who cares about the good of society over any religious conservative who feels that individualism (over family and working as a community for education and rodes and other needed infostructure) is a better society.

 

Then again religion (or lack of) had little to do with my political vote. I never really stopped to ask about it.

 

So Merlyn, when are you getting into the political race?.. You have my vote over many in the Republican party.

[Peregrinator]

So what is the error?

 

Individualism is the error, whether we're talking about egoism, hedonism, libertinism, objectivism, etc. Each of these forms of individualism teach that the goals of the individual are not subordinate to those of the family.

 

You did state that opinion. That is not an explanation of your reasoning.

 

But I did explain my reasoning, which I have just repeated above. That you don't accept my explanation doesn't mean I haven't explained.

[packsaddle]

Peregrinator, I think the difference between what you write and what I'm asking is a difference in approach or something like that. When you write, "Each of these forms of individualism teach that the goals of the individual are not subordinate to those of the family." you view this as an explanation; whereas I view it as an outcome.

I want to understand the underlying processes and rationale by which this outcome is produced. Is this outcome the only possibility or is it one possibility constrained by history, or environment? Or is it the only one that someone with a particular 'world view' can envision?

I am willing to entertain the possibility that individualism can ONLY produce this outcome but I need to understand in my own mind, how that outcome arises so that I can explore any other options I can think of.

That's what I'm asking for.

[Peregrinator]

Can you consider the possibility that individual enlightened self-interest CAN lead to a structured and ordered society?

 

How does self-interest become enlightened? Who does the enlightening?

[NJCubScouter]

Pack: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one?

 

I know you will know where that's from, others may not.

 

Please note that I am not trying to engage in a serious philosophical discussion here, or in a discussion of big government vs. medium government vs. almost-no government vs. no government. The subject just reminded me of that line, so there it is.

 

I'll also say that most philosophical discussions really boil down to what one person believes vs. what another person believes, which is one of the problems with Ayn Rand's "Objectivism." It is one thing to say that you believe in a minimalistic role for the government or a more expansive role for the government. It is quite another thing to say that through the application of "reason", the only possible belief is... whatever you say it is. That is what Ayn Rand did, and among her believers, she has gotten away with it. (Even though she's not around to see it.) It's a cute debating tactic, but hardly the basis of a philosophy.

 

Another issue is that Ayn Rand said that her philosophy of almost-no-government went hand-in-hand with atheism. That is where Paul Ryan is getting tripped up now. I don't think she was right about that, either. She just had a knack of convincing people that all the various things that she believed (or disbelieved) necessarily went together in a coherent philosophy, which obviously I don't buy. And I will add that I think this is a big mark against Paul Ryan. By tying himself to a particular person's beliefs (rather than emphasizing the beliefs themselves) early in his career, he is now "stuck" (in a political sense) with whatever else she believed, that he may or may not have known about. It does not leave me impressed with his thinking skills.

[packsaddle]

Rand sure wouldn't be my choice to run a day-care center, lol, and she probably wouldn't fare very well in Vulcan society either - I could be wrong. I was always struck by the number of times that the Enterprise would risk the lives of thousands of crew members for some remote outpost with just a handful of renegades...but it made for some entertaining episodes (Shut UP, Stella!).

 

What I'm trying to do is to play the advocate for that thing that Beavah won't let me apply the 'M-word' to. I am asking if the 'null hypothesis' has been rejected: Is it impossible to have a stable society based on individuals interacting on the basis of self-interest (which is, in my view, the American economic system - so in that sense the null is not rejected at all but rather validated). What I am trying to do is to examine the possibility that if it works in economics, why then does it not work the same way in society?

 

I'll expand on that. Our knowledge and understanding of ecology and ecosystems follows the same logic and there are no interactions that we know of which do not adhere to physical laws and the interactions, as far as we can tell, are mostly individualistic. And yet, there are vast systems which are operating and sustained successfully with no sense of future or morality or purpose, other than that which is the outcome of some fairly basic physical constraints. Why then does it not work the same way for society?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Rand sure wouldn't be my choice to run a day-care center

 

http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Ayn_Rand_School_for_Tots