MtnGoat

Democracy exists whereever men have choice to order their own lives, it's institution as a method to force men to change their lives because a mob says so, does not represent democracy I for one am interested in furthering. We already know slavery was wrong wether or not a majority demanded it, so the idea that some things are not within the purview of democracy is already a given. At that point, it becomes entirely legitimate to resist "democracy" as it encroaches on other issues of self determination.

"The giardia in the Nalgene bottle of MtnGoat's cultic devotion to philosophy of Objectivism is not in the use of reason, or in the emphasis on individuality, or in the belief that humans are self motivated, or in the conviction that capitalism is the ideal system." so far so good! "The wet runout rhetorical slab that faces MtnGoat is the belief that absolute knowledge and final Truths are attainable through reason, and therefore there can be absolute right and wrong knowledge, and absolute moral and immoral thought and action." This is a brilliant point you make, and entirely valid. The counter to it is that while it is evident that in real life, compromises must be made to allow absolutes to not rule the show but be tempered with practicality. This method of chasing unknowns and deducing principles and facts has proven itself time and time again as the most effective method of determining reality when compared with competing ideas. I do not expect this method to reveal all unassailable truths, but I do maintain it is the *least* flawed method we have for figuring things out. "For MtnGoat, once a principle has been discovered through reason to be True, that is the end of the discussion. If you disagree with the principle, then your reasoning is flawed." Not only for me, and other Objectivists, but anyone who follows classical scientific method, which underlies objectivism. The devil in the details is deciding when Truth has been arrived at. I cannot claim to be better able to discern this than anyone else, I can only lay out a rational claim for an issue and engage in the inevitable debate to follow. "So, MtnGoat, let's hear the objectivist take on bolting issues and sport climbing. Using Reason, what conclusions of absolute Truth or moral Right or Wrong have you arrived at in regards to these topics?" Since these issues are entirely value based in personal views, with no way of determining objective positions (Since objectivism rejects feelings as proof) there is really no way to comment. You must understand that Objectivism is intended as a synthesis tool that explains the physical reality of the world and our physical interactions but *intentionally* stops at the border of feelings and interpretations because these are not objectively measurable. This is why objectivists insist each man's view of "goods" are impossible to disprove, and this is why he is entitled to them.

"There we go with the "minimum American casualties" argument. Are American lives worth any more than Afghanistani lives? If so, why?" Because they are my fellow citizens with whom I share culture, govt, and certain agreed upon routines and practices. Like it or not, the reality of the world requires I make distinctions. I am plain and honest about these distinctions. I do not think it is a good thing to kill innocents, but sometimes doing good means unavoidably doing bad. I am sure you accept this very principle when you support the coercion of your fellow citizens in service of a goal you personally deem more important than their own control over their own lives. This does not mean dealing with non citizens with disrespect, nor treating them as chattel, expendable, or anything else, but the simple fact is that if we are in a war, and we are, I prefer them to die instead of us. It's ugly but that's the way it is and I will not lie to you. If you go and say the opposite, that you prefer Americans die instead of others, see what response you get and who will support you. "Destruction of Al Qaeda's infrastructure was militarily appropriate, yes, however destruction of civilians is not, and the destruction of Al Qaeda's stuff led to a great deal of innocent lives lost." Yes it did but there is no way to get one without the other without exposing our troops to more danger. "Do you base all of your actions solely on fact? Do you ever act based on feeling or opinion? Or is everything you do dictated by cold logic? Surely you make some decisions based on your feelings?" Yes I do, but I try not to claim my feelings validate my critique of one action, but do not suffice to validate what I think should be done instead! "The Doctor finds war and murder to be morally objectionable, and while he understands that it is frequently unavoidable and will never go away, he feels that any military action that is carried out so as to limit civilian casualties is a good start." We agree on this, we obviously have differing limits. "The point was that we were ostensibly looking for Osama B. Laden and rooting out a government we disagreed with, which is a fairly specific task, so it is analagous." Police do not root out govts they disagree with. "You don't hunt down a criminal by demolishing the country he was last seen in and taking thousands of civilians down in the process." but you do destroy an infrastructure this way, which was the other task. "The question of Bin Laden being alive is not a "judgement call ... take[n] for granted as proof;" it is something that is accepted as fact by the president whose actions you're so keen on defending." On bin laden specifically, you have a point, on the larger question of dealing with the base of operations, that was very successful. "So assuming that the government is on the level telling us we face continued threats of terrorist attack, does that not indicate that there is still a functional terrorist apparatus out there?" Of course. Who thought we'd end this quickly? No one I'm aware of. We can only do what we can do when we can do it. We are not gods. We deal with what we know and hunt for the rest. This is how life works. I am kind of mystified by a requirement that something as messy as this situation be solved and all wrapped up when it will most likely take years and everyone knows it. "DFA knows it's a lot to ask to interpolate things using known information, but humor him, here. It won't kill you to accept something without empirical proof, you know." OK by me. But I'll still use that as a sticking point because without empiricism, we're off into the dark ages. [ 09-17-2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"Are you trying to say we're an exceptional, differently-principled threat to the world?" yup. don't you think so?

"I understand you to be a clinical rationalist, and as such, I would be led to think that a preponderance of observable phenomena indicating the validity of a certain hypothesis would sway you towards that hypothesis, no? I think we have it, in this case." that's a very good case you're making, and I especially like the clinical rationalist part, which is pretty damned close to correct, since Objectivism could be described this way. What we have not established however is that a preponderance of people hold this view, which would be one issue, and that the view has actual rational underpinnings, which balances the majority view position. Still, some great thinking on your part. But I really find someone believing we cause more extinctions than any other cause to be a pretty big statement. "Certainly we survived because we are adaptable creatures. We have been imbued with intelligence, foresight, communal caring and compassion, along with other qualities we might call greed, selfishness, viciousness, and brutality. I tend to think that on some level, all of these led to our survival." But what about weeds, trees, frogs, ants, birds, etc now with us? They survived too, without any of the qualities you describe as necessary for ours. The constant of the earths climate is *change*. I see here defenses of an idea where the climate is static. IMO this is not supportable. "But, is survival the bottom line? Why would we want to make life difficult for ourselves, if we know better? I think we can use these qualities of intelligence and foresight to notice trends and patterns in our behaviour, and work towards the elimination of behaviours that create harm and suffering." Why do we get to assume this causes harm and suffering, a-priori? How do you know the temperature isn't "supposed" to be 5 degrees hotter or cooler? The idea that the earth is "perfect" now is *itself* a construct that must be defended and explained before one can make a case against warming, and I don't see any of that here yet! "Let's not force insufferable conditions on our progeny, a progeny still without a voice! Their liberties must be considered also, no?" Surely. But when the Vikings were growing crops in Greenland, a place where they later starved to death when it got towards todays "normal" temperature, wouldn't they consider the future cooling to *now* insufferable? This is the problem I have with this. The entire debate assumes an unknown and arbitrary setpoint, which does not exist. It stakes such a point as the current time (or a few decades previous), when a look at any climate chart shows how rediculous this is, and then people claim we must save the earth from change, when all it has ever done is change, for reasons no one can explain! [ 09-17-2002, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"The questions of Bush's ties to and dealings with the energy industry aren't pointless." They are when they are answered, the answer is not believed nor is proof to the contrary provided. "looks like" is not good enough to overide someone elses answers, who knows because they are them, and you are not. If there is actual evidence, produce it and send people to jail. If there is not, consider the answer given as truth until shown otherwise. I do not accept "looks like" proofs of malfeasance because anyone with a gripe can make noise. "Do you honestly believe he and his cronies denied Congress access to all those files because it was an issue of national security?" Possibly. I am not sure. "It's tempting to accuse you of being naive again, but you seemed genuinely hurt by that before, at least hurt enough to adopt a holier-than-though attitude, so the Doctor will let the question stand. " I was not hurt, I was pointing out the common thread I find in nearly all people who are sure others need to be told what to do and profess this attitude as caring. Look at how many times on this thread alone we see someone who wants more control over others claiming those other darned people don't know what to want, are programmed by someone else, are too stupid to make good decisions, and all the rest. The common element is always those *other* people aren't as smart as the claimant. If calling someone on the reality of this is "holier than thou", I ask what is more holier than thou than deciding *others* need to be forced to live as the proponent wants them to, by the proponents values. If we're gonna go on about holier, let's discuss that one. Feel free to strike out on the naive path again, I can take it, but I wanted to point out the innate elitism buried in such statements. "and the Doctor doesn't see why he should continually allow himself to be duped by believing that this time they're honest and not self-serving corporate whores." I don't blame you. But until real evidence is shown that stands in court, it's all hearsay. I refuse to consider men I don't know liars until I see the actual evidence against them. I know I don't like being called a liar and it is disrespectful to do to others what I do not like myself, politician or not. "As far as DFA is concerned, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt." They are human like anyone else, I make no distincton between their right to respect even if I disagree, until proven otherwise. Unless I extend this to everyone I canot expect it for myself.

"illegal for the lower classes and tolerated/condoned by those in power. if you steal from a rich man you are a thief, if you steal from 1,000,000 poor people you are a savvy businessman." Example please. "if you are poor and smoke crack and get caught you are thrown in prison, if you are jeb bush's daughter you get some cushy optional resort disguised as rehab." and this happens differently...where? Don't make the mistake of comparing the real with the perfect, in a world where the reality is comparing the imperfect with the less imperfect.

"No, these acts aren't legal, but if you look at these incidents, you don't see the police being too heavily punished for their actions, either." So they aren't legal, we are different, but it's a matter of degree, right? So are we better enough to even bother doing anything, in your eyes? "In a nation where the powers that are meant to maintain the law are given a slap on the wrist at most for working above the law, it doesn't make much difference if these behaviours are illegal." Does it or does it not make a difference, even if it's not much? Are you aware that you are consistently attacking the very basis of moral action you use to claim social and environmental goals must be imposed on people who don't agree with them? How is it I am supposed to think your ideas are valid and worth imposing if I can turn around and say that they are imperfectly implemented, then you have made no difference?

"However, engaging a ragtag army of AK-toting Afghans intermixed with civilians by dropping huge bombs on them doesn't seem like the most efficient way of rooting out who we're looking for." It was a very efficient way of destroying their base of operations with minimum American casualties. Next question: Are you suggesting that elimination of Al Queda's primary training, logistics, supply, and concentrations was not militarily appropriate? And another: If you are not qualified to make judgements concerning an alternate plan, how is it you are qualified to determine the one used was not appropriate? This is very curious. "When the police are looking for suspects, do they blow up the houses of those they suspect, and then look for the evidence?" Are the police in a foreign nation, looking for combatants who have declared war on them? nope. The tendency to compare situations which are not analogous doesn't make much sense to me. "Perhaps smaller groups of soldiers launching more precise attacks on specific targets would have been a good start." Our attacks were on very specific targets. "For all the rhetoric about how this is a new kind of war requiring new tactics, why did we charge in with the B-52's (Love shack, baby, love shack!) and start cluster-bombing?" Who said new tactics couldn't involve old ones, especially when faced with a classic situation of entrenched troops in open country ripe for B52 runs? If we say new tactics are we still allowed to use guns, or is that old tactics too? "It's obvious that the tactics we used haven't done much as far as turning up or eliminating Bin Laden." is it "obvious"? I don't see how obvious it is, when we have wiped his organizational center. These judgement calls you take for granted as proofs continue to amaze me! "Additionally, we seem to be threatened by potential terrorist action quite a lot lately (see Tom Ridge's brilliant color-coded alert system), so it would seem that aside from not finding Bin Laden, we haven't done much to mitigate the threat against us, either." Using what standard, exactly? How many attacks have there been since 911? how many have we stopped? How many were planned? Isn't this all stuff that needs to be known before we can trot out the "fact" that we haven't done much?

"To the doubting wanks the Doc was arguing with before, your argument that there is no conclusive evidence that we're toasting our little planet is weak." So first you admit there is room for doubt, a few paragraphs later you say it "might be a crock, fine", now you're back to the evidence *against* it is weak, which is it? For someone really sure about the lack of evidence in the "doubting wanks" position, your own pacific attitude oscillation isn't exactly engendering confidence here. Which of those views in your previous post are you now refuting, and which one are you sticking with? "If you're going to argue that DFA doesn't have enough evidence that we ARE cooking ourselves, where's your evidence that we're NOT?" It is not required, for one thing, because the burden of proof for extraordinary claims, like oohhh, heating the earth up for example, is on the one making same. In addition, I'd present the fact that we still exist, and all the flora and fauna here today, and made we all made it, through all the cyclical changes in the last few millennia. With temps both higher and lower, which varied all by themselves for reasons unknown, and we did so with no technology higher than horses. I think we'll manage even if you are right and I am wrong. In fact, I think we'll do better than managing, because the vast bulk of land too far N to be farmed now, will become available and growing food will be easier, not harder, especially given GM crops on top of it. "And, again, look at the website the Doctor linked to before. It's a fucking basic science information site, not the Utne Reader," Is it? Is part of basic "science" adjusting scales on graphs to alter how data is presented? "so your "liberal propaganda" arguments are bullshit." I personally do not think it's *all* liberal propoganda, but I think it's demonstrable of lot of it, is. The global warming bandwagon is the perfect tool for social control "progressives" desire to implement their agenda. "Your arguments about Saddam could easily be made about America, as we've sponsored plenty of brutal regimes and bloody coups for our own ends." You are right. But we're talking about Saddam, not the US, and now he's demonstrably responsible for killing Americans, when you claimed he was no threat to begin with, a charge you respond to now with "oh yea, what about US?". Instead of addressing the point made, where you claimed he is not a threat and I proved he is, you sidestep. So are you saying he is not a threat even though he has proved to be, or what? And he's like us? Really? Which presidents have their sons shot? Which presidents watch tapes of gasoline being poured in people's mouths and lit on fire? Which US citizens have their intestines spread on police station walls in DC or their eye poked out for talking bad about the administration? Are we doing this too? NO. We are not. IF you see us as being like Iraq, we have some serious, serious disagreements about our country. "Do you think Bush would allow UN weapons inspectors into the US? Yeah, right." We have in the past, in concert with SALT treaties, and again now, with the current destruction of weapons agreed upon by Putin and Bush. Yes, that's right, we do allow inspections. Will you now modify this element of your theosophy on these issues to take this into account, or just wait a day, a week, or a month and then just make the claim again because you won't modify the shtick in the face of evidence, hmmmm? "Fucking hypocrites." Who are you addressing? I'm tired of this kind of name calling, and I'm calling you on it.

This is going to be fun.... DFA says: "It would seem that while there is some contention regarding whether CO2 and other gases are causing the earth to warm up," Well then you mean it isn't a done deal? That's not exactly the feeling I get from proponents, not by a long shot. "there is no contention regarding the fact that things like CFC's are wrecking the ozone layer, allowing more UV to get through the atmosphere." OK then lets take that on. "OK, so global warming due to CO2 may be a crock. Fine." So are we done with this angle, putting it down to maybe? I can hang with maybe. "How about the fact that the climate has grown rapidly warmer since the 1920's? You know, around the time we started getting after the fossil fuels?" Correlation is not causation. I know many smart people with good conscience work hard on these issues, but given the ton of data pouring in from archeological climate projects, I just don't think the natural cycles and changes are well enough documented. I'd like, just once, to see a normalized climate graph using all known measurements for the past say 1000 years, 10,000 would be even better. Is there such a source? Link? "So, the Doctor will bet that there are a shitload more websites out there with more specific information indicating that man is having a detrimental effect on the earth's climate." Gee, whoda thunk people convinced the world was ending would flood the net with information about it? It's pretty easy to find man slandering man for some reason, it's a big fascination. On this note I'd have to go for quality. "We managed to cluster-bomb and daisy-cutter a World Trade Center's worth of civilians, yet we still seem to be facing a major terrorist threat. Way to go, USA! Wooooooo!" So you wouldn't have broken up Al Queda in Afghanistan? You would have left training resources, money, organization, materials and expertise of all kinds there, until what? Not knowing where they are, giving them time to plan more? OK smart fellow, cough up the alternative.... while realizing military realities. "It's OK, though, because we're distracted by the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein, which even Republican elected officials aren't buying." Heck no, no threat there. A guy whose press release extol him as the return of nebuchadnezzar or somesuch, here to rebuild babylon, I kid you not. he views himself as an Islamic hero who will leave a legacy and example for Muslims to follow. This guy gives Kuwait the shakedown with murders, rapes, and mass looting. He gases ethnic populations with chemical weapons, picks a fight with Iraq that kills what, 10 million? He sets fire to oil wells and intentionally causes enormous spills. Fires missiles on Israel, funds an assasination attempt on Bush Sr. He ordered the execution of his own son. He has slaughtered his own immediate family, uncles and such. His people starve as he spend oil money while he chases weapons. He is known to have funded and trained Abu Nidal, who killed many Americans. He is known to train still other Islamic terrorists and personally pays bounties to families of suicide bombers who manage to kill Israelis. No supposed threat there, no, just the *fact* that he has already directly contributed to the deaths of Americans, by terrorism via Abu Nidal *and* the payments to Palestinians who have *also* killed Americans. I call activities proven to have caused American deaths, a threat, what about you? Now this guy could get an atomic bomb. A guy with a vision who probably would probably welcome matyrdom, given the right circumstances. And he's getting old. Dandy. No threat? "Touché, fucker." Touche, indeed! *********************** Fence Sitter: "skewed for dramitization...it goes -1.5,-1,-.5,0,1,2,3 etc... hm...i wonder why they would have done that" Funny how these things happen, isn't it? ********************************

"but I also cannot condone bombing the fuck out of a country and toppling its government because we have created a false perception that they pose a threat to our way of life." All those false perceptions.. seems to me the purposeful deaths of 3000 people at work isn't too much of a false perception. Neither are the known activities of supporting Abu Nidal who also killed many Americans. What part of the intense hatred for the west, the self stated goal of killing Americans by those Saddam supports strikes you as false?

"Honestly, do you really believe that the megatons of chemicals that humans spew into the atmosphere has nothing to do with climate change?" Honestly don't know. But I do know I do not support the subjugation of hundreds of millions of free individuals to ideas that no one can prove, when it will cost them personal choice and labor. Especially when the earth, and us, and zillions of types of flora and fauna has *demonstrably* survived hotter and cooler periods all on it's own quite nicely, even in the last millenia. Especially when all those zillions of megatons are a tiny fraction of naturally emitted CO2. Which is one of lots of greenhouse gases. The worst of which is...... water vapor, with a greenhouse retention of something like 30x that of CO2. And what comes from fuel cell and hydrogen combustion engines? Water vapor.

"The fact that Bushie is in bed with the energy industry and is as such heavily influenced by what they want is not supportable objectively." Wether he is in bed with them makes no difference with regards to the validity of energy planning. It is entirely possible to have connections and influence with people and still be correct on the issues surrounding same. Who you deal with and why are not inextricably connected to the reality or not, of warming. "it's pretty likely his decision making is heavily influenced by their wants, and not his own innate leadership." Doesn't it seem curious that if his decision making is so influenced by their wants, that he let them go under? What is more "wantable" than their corporation to go on making the big money? What good was all that influence (supposedly) when he refused to bail them out? "Also, perhaps you'll enlighten DFA as to what Clinton's role in Enron's dealings was, as this is the first the Doctor has heard about it." Clinton had his executive office aid Enron directly in making deals in India, and Enron gave it's largest *ever* campaign donation to Clinton, among other things. "Actually, you might appoint someone besides the corporate pimps who hold your leash to an energy policy task force if you had any interest in the wise use of resources, or at least a balanced approach to energy policy." It completely depends on what you call wise use and balanced energy policy, which is entirely arguable. The wise use of resources in my mind is using energy with proven reserves capable of lasting centuries, with known technology, well developed infrastructure, and low cost. Balance is shown by allowing mature technologies to continue until the free operation of the market, and consumers, rules it out for for cost reasons or reasons of personal choice. I don't care who sits on the board, as long as their reasons are defensible and not illegally implemented. "Given Bush's oily background and his buddy-buddy relationship with the energy ind., it's not difficult to reach the conclusion that his rejection of the Kyoto treaty had a lot more to do with money than any apparent flaws in the treaty itself." No, it's not difficult, but it's also not provable beyond "looks like". I am more interested in the outcome and actual policy than who claims who had a hand in it, because I don't care whose hand is in the pie as long as it is defensible using standard practice. I do not expect people to do nice things because they want to, I expect people to do what they want for their reasons, and I will decide if that suits me, for mine.

Me: "We'll get used to for one important reason, it happens all the time, we have nothing to do with it, nor can we stop it." whoever it was... "well that's an utterly ridiculous position", Preposterous! Rediculous! got any more amazing proofs up your sleeve? Enlighten us O great one. But without the invective, if you can.

"For a president so far in the energy industry's pocket, GWB hardly stands out as an example of maverick, opinion-be-damned leadership." Sometimes the correct course is not a maverick one. Note how I have not said leadership demands following, I have also not said that leadership demands maverick action. A correct course of action is independent of either because who follows, or doesn't, or how many, simply has no relation to what is supportable objectively. "Doing campaign touring in an Enron corporate jet" Unless you are going to include Clintons *larger* role in Enron's dealings, this isn't a very balanced view of Enron as they relate to presidencies. "and appointing energy industry bigwigs to energy policy task force positions doesn't do much to suggest that W's reasons for ditching the Kyoto treaty lie entirely in science and logic, either." Why not? If you don't beleive in Kyoto, why *wouldn't* you put bigwigs in a task force? You'd only avoid doing so if you did swallow Kyoto hook line and sinker.

we got used to it during the warming since the little ice age of the 19th century, and we got used to the global cooling following the period when it was warm enough to farm greenland when the vikings lived there. We'll get used to for one important reason, it happens all the time, we have nothing to do with it, nor can we stop it. Other than that, it's great about the inspections, it will be interesting to see if they actually happen. Bush gets the credit here and from Mr UN himself, Kofi Annan, I'll bet that makes some teeth grind.

Bush does a great job on the world stage and shows how actual presidents do the job. He says what needs saying in blunt language, and does what needs to be done *regardless* of world opinion. What the rest of the world thinks is entirely beside the point, what matters is are they right? And in many cases, the answer is: NO. No, it is not right to subject Americans to "courts" which are not bound by constitutional dictates for evidence, for court proceedings or structures, and most importantly, to be held accountable to laws voted on by our legislators as defined in the constitution. The world court blows. No, it is not right to allow the UN to dictate what our national security concerns are. If we are threatened and find the threat sufficient, we are not obligated to allow American corpses in a new place in this nation, as another example to the UN that bad people are bad. Regardless of how the UN feels about it. No, it is not right to buy into a worthless climate treaty even it's *proponents* say will change the temperature by 0.2C over a century, and only delay the climb to the higher temp by 5 years. Assuming one buys the whole notion that one greenhouse gas out of many controls the earths climate. And is predictable. And controllable. What the rest of the world thinks is of no consequence when it comes to leading. Leadership is not following what everyone else applauds and agrees on but in charting a course that is correct regardless of who agrees at the time. Listening to "world opinion", *especially* the opinion of Europe which has been responsible for all of the worlds worst wars, is hardly the responsible course. If you want to know how to avoid war, listen carefully to the Europeans and then do the exact opposite.

"the influence of the allmighty dollar on available culture?" Course it has an influence. The allmighty dollar, or ruble, or drachma, or a pretty piece of abalone, or whatever represents value, is a basic idea, regardless of form, for millenia. I'm not sure we are disagreeing on this at all, after all I did not comment earlier that we weren't motivated by money, only that in my belief we are not programmed by mass marketing to buy what we do not want. I do not believe we can cnange human nature so that people will not want what they choose to want for themselves or look after themselves first, because on a basic level anything less is a non survival behaviour racially. That does not mean we cannot learn educated self interest though, I get more from you asking you what you'd like and trading with you by choice than I will from compelling you to serve me, and I believe this is evident to anyone who has the opportunity to observe cooperation in action. "it's because the alternatives at your disposal are as hopeless. Good 'fastfood' has been around forever but it can't survive in this economy." The consumer has spoken. I will not eat at a place I find too expensive, regardless of quality, or a good place if it's slow and I'm in a hurry, or if some find it great but I think it sucks! My alternatives also include going into a grocery store and eating healthy, but today my need for speed outweighed this alternative. I am not sure why it is related to the economy instead of the consumers view of the relationship to them of price/speed/quality, though the economy make play a role. Can you illuminate? The same principle applies to the ruckus over airline seat sizes. No matter how many complain about them, the consumer has shown time and time again what they care about more than comfort, is price. I know for certain this is the case for me. I do not wish to see any seat guideline in terms of size imposed on airlines, I am perfectly capable of deciding which seats I prefer by choosing among them, or not flying at all. IMO I do not have the right to compel the owner of an airline to offer me what I want by force. If they are smart, they offer me what I will accept, if they do not I do not ride with them, if none offer it I go another route. I do not have a right to air travel no matter where it is, IMO. [ 09-12-2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

kinda, they didn't know they were drinking piss beer but they liked beer so they drank it and thought it was great. But due to the ever profitable search to sell more beer and advance the beermakers inscrutable yet honored art, someone invented microbrews, the regular brews became piss brews by comparison and there you have it. I don't drink micros because I'm told to, but because they freakin taste good! I didn't gag down a McBurger at lunch today because I've been programmed, it was because it was not totally objectionable and it was on the way back to work and the drive through was empty, and the tradeoff was acceptable, indeed desirable. I like your comments, one of the former forced me to think in more detail about the social angle of influence, which I appreciate.

"if your wants are different according to the culture you are exposed to, I just don't see how individuals make purchasing decisions "based on their own values and desires"". It's because I did not say their wants were enforced by their culture necessarily, only differing by culture, and in this sense, I meant because what one *can* want in different cultures plays a role because something may not exist, or may exist but is not known, not necessarily because we are programmed per se. When you don't know there is such a thing as electricity, you don't want it because you don't know about it. When you do know, you can want it, and this is not because the culture is forcing it's choices on you but because your values are used to decide you desire it. [ 09-12-2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"so the kid who wants the latest sport shoe or the Bellevue housewife who wants the latest suv, want it for their 'own reasons'?" Of course! Who else makes the decision based on their own values and desires? They do! We're not mindless robots programmed to want what others tell, us, we have minds, independent ideas, needs and values. The latest SUV or shoe may look cool, may be functional, may be a whim. Any of these reasons is sufficient for that person, as it's their life, their values, their choice. "at best this is vague terminology, but more likely it is a blunt apology for our mass marketing dominated culture." I have no need to make apologies for free individuals able to decide for themselves what their needs are. Wether or not mass marketing takes place has no bearing on the individuals ability to decide for themselves what tradeoffs they wish to accept in pursuit of what they value for their own reasons. If you see validating human choice as an "apology" for mass marketing, so be it. See it however you like, as long as you do not argue this means people should not own their choices and be able to make them, the disagreement is an academic one. "especially when those wants are derived from the marketing of those 'willing to trade'." Are they? How do you know this? How can you tell me people don't go to Mcdonalds because it has a universal value, instead of being robots programmed to do so by ads? If people did not like the convenience, price, etc, they would not go *regardless* of the ads. MANY companies with worldwide reach spend millions or more on failed ad campaigns because their products have no intrinsic value to those who decide to spend their money. We're not deterministic cogs driven by marketing masters, and each product that fails in mass markets is proof of this because if what you say is true, marketing would succeed every time. How do *you* resist the pressures of what you see as your marketing masters? Are you a special case? Do you allow advertisements to determine what you will buy and what you want? Of course not. You pick and choose based on what is presented to you and how it fits with your values. The idea that everyone *else* is too stupid to make decisions is something I fundamentally disagree with. [ 09-12-2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

"that would be true if we lived in a vacuum and our wants were innate to being on this earth." ' I agree that one's wants are influenced by culture, but this doesn't mean those wants, however derived, are not what creates a market to fulfill them. If you want firewood or a goat, you want it for your own reasons influenced by culture, and someone will be willing to trade you one. "I don't need to tell you what generates the dominant culture." Sure you do! What generates it?

"Thankfully some folks can empathize with the less fortunate even though they don't face the same challenges " I think most of us empathize with the less fortunate, but only a subset insists their self described "caring" must involve the use of others lives, and resources, at gunpoint. There's nothing cheaper to do than expressing "empathy" using someone *elses* life and resources, regardless of how much you personally donate. Or not.

Now how is it some folks are posting pics and I cannot? I tried this syntax: <img src="http://reason.com/0107/b3.jpg" alt="- " > and no can do. Yet it's what shows when I check the source for this page and Tricky's post. I don't get it. [ 09-09-2002, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]