prole

I don't believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. Or, I believe Immanuel Kant would agree with your first sentence. In any event, not sure what you're trying to say here--or who you've been reading. While it's still open to debate in some circles, I believe the fallacy of altruism in the natural world has been settled. Here, altruism and self interest are, essentially, one in the same. That said, if altruism exists at all (and I have my doubts) it is within creatures who are the sole bearers of intrinsic value--in other words, human beings. The down-side of this is, of course, that it is the epitome of anthopocentrism. The altruism/self-interest dichotomy is an irrelevant bore. That our understanding and experience, our getting on in the world is irreducibly social in nature goes without saying. There are no lone wolves in this chimp colony (the exceptions, like Kaspar Hauser prove the point). That we are enriched as individuals when our social orders are stable, functional, and mutually beneficial would also seem self-evident.

Not any more than Socialism--or even Cosmopolitanism. Part of Enlightenment appeal was its ability to free the individual from the oppression (real and perceived) of the community. While the unquoted portion of your post is apolitical and accurate, this last bit is way off base--or, at the very least, too narrowly defined. Liberalism and socialism and their variants are all part of the Enlightenment tradition. I'm not sure which Socialism you're referring to, but Marx's critique of the political economy of the time was founded on and strove toward a scientific examination and interrogation of actually existing conditions, the structure of ongoing social relations (political, economic, ideological) and their development through history. Classical liberalism elevates abstractions like a narrowly defined "human nature", natural rights, state of nature, individuality and the self at the expense of any thoroughgoing study of how those categories came to be or of society and the economic relations that Marx understood to underpin it. The Marxian critique of liberalism (and its efforts at explaining the world) is that, far from freeing individuals from oppression (or providing tools for its examination), it accepts the exercise of economic exploitation and class domination through capitalist market relations as the "natural", "apolitical", "neutral" state of things rather than as an outcome of ongoing historical processes.

I admit, you need to be reeeaallly stoned to get that one.

I guess what I'm saying is, all of this, the notions we throw around to explain ourselves to ourselves themselves are historically determined, endlessly mediated, and politically charged. Social reality constitutes categories of altruism/self-interest, nature/nurture, choice, etc. not the other way round. It's what's interesting about this filmmaker, telling stories about how ideas like these come into being and accepted, and naturalized into systems of thought that come to dominate our ways of thinking about ourselves.

Sure, but human beings are more densely interconnected than ever before in terms of relying on large-scale systems in order to meet our individual needs. Language, systems of thought, shared institutions, technology, we're essentially social creatures. Our means of exercising "self-interest" at any given moment is dependent on complex webs of social interaction. Radical individualism and Objectivism take structure and history for granted and deny its deeply political nature.

In more ways than one. This guy spins a pretty good yarn, if a bit sad. http://vimeo.com/m/27393748

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits, elves, and wizards."

I bet she's a helluva cook.

My baby is BACK!

Why is it, I swear to god, every time I hear Paul Ron's name the banjo music from Deliverance starts playing in my head?

Love me some Bartleby. The politics of refusal. It's been a trip watching the media, politicians, and even well-meaning folks who should know better scratching their heads looking for manifestos, demands, negotiators and the like. At this point, given the extent of corporate control of the State, there's no-one to make demands of or negotiate with. It's about building something from within, on its own terms.

"I would prefer not to."

Which one's Bill and which one's Kojak?

I think the point is they're not taking you seriously.

It's brilliant. Love it.

"Oprah's on!"?

They should run someone for governor of Wisconsin.

Competition for liquor delivery systems. We'll be free in no time.

Could this be the beginning of the end?

More carefully calculated, faux-populist, myth-making horseshit. He could come out there in a bearskin and the policies he advocates would still end in neo-feudalism.

Really? I couldn't tell. What a chimp.

Since when did being a "libertarian" prevent anyone from seeing a goddamn tailor?!

I have yet to see anything suggesting Huntsman is a credible candidate. More of the same policies that got us here. Being the Less-Insane Choice doesn't count for shit, let's not pretend it does.