Idiocracy

[KaskadskyjKozak]

people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard?

 

my problem with this statement is that the claim that "nobody else is harmed" by a certain behavior is often completely false, but posited as incontrovertibly true.

 

 

[JayB]

One of the more frightening notions I've heard voiced on this site in quite some time.

 

What scares you so much?

 

Boundless compulsion

 

I'm not trying to compel you to do anything, Jay. We're just talking here.

 

 

in an effort to contrive utopias has also been tried with widely noted downsides that seem to exceed a general policy of making the protection of personal liberty the prime end of government.

 

 

 

I don't pretend to know what any "ideal" society looks like. But I think it's fair to attempt to observe what it does not look like. And again, why do you insist that merely talking about such things equates to a desire by the speaker to see government impose the solution? I see government, and our relationship to it, as one of our many problems .

 

 

 

What do you have in mind?

 

Discussion, dialogue, observations, questions...what else is there?

 

What kind of entity should constrain the deplorable excess of personal liberty that we are suffering from,

 

There you go again- assuming an external entity (i.e. government, etc.) must be the speaker's solution!

 

Beyond a suggestion- through dialogue- that our human problems are largely borne from a lack of self understanding and that an earnest effort by each individual to undertake that in themselves- if they so choose- may have far more value than creating new systems and organizations or GOVERNMENTS to solve our problems for us. In short: Personal initiative and responsibility, if that wasn't clear.

 

and what vision of a perfect society should its revocation be be in service of?

 

Ditch the ideals and utopias or assumptions of such. They have no basis in reality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay. I see where you are coming from. I agree with the proposed treatment if not the diagnosis of the supposed ills.

 

Foster-Wallace and Hayek's essay should still make it onto your reading list.

 

Now I am off to order a set of Trucknutz.

[JayB]

people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard?

 

my problem with this statement is that the claim that "nobody else is harmed" by a certain behavior is often completely false, but posited as incontrovertibly true.

 

 

True. It's often more complicated. This is why the legislature drafts laws rather than maxims.

[olyclimber]

no...just that it considers morality. like...is it moral to kill someone in cold blood? should we let the open market decide that?

Do you really believe that statement? The best statement of the liberal moral code is that nothing that transpires between consenting mentally competent adults, or that adults who meet the same qualifications do to themselves can properly be called immoral. Protecting individuals from being forcibly deprived of their rights or liberties by the actions of others is thus the prime end of the state in a liberal society. This is not moral? Using force to compel people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard?

 

tell that to the conservative party. you know the party of the moral majority?

 

by the way, i didn't say "The liberal society doesn't have a sound moral basis?". I'm not sure what you mean by the term "liberal" here since it has been perverted into a negative meaning by a certain segment of society. i think there is a basis, i'm also surprised at times how narrow it can be.

[JayB]

Morality as defined by whom? Imposed by what authority?

 

it does beg the question: how does morality fit in with your undying commitment to the open market? does it have a price like everything else?

 

It's derived from the same principles that define personal morality in a liberal society.

 

"When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

 

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

 

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."

 

From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative."

 

I think that this is one of the more elegant and concise defenses of (classical) liberalism out there. Read it and you will have a substantial answer to your question.

 

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

no...just that it considers morality. like...is it moral to kill someone in cold blood? should we let the open market decide that?

Do you really believe that statement? The best statement of the liberal moral code is that nothing that transpires between consenting mentally competent adults, or that adults who meet the same qualifications do to themselves can properly be called immoral. Protecting individuals from being forcibly deprived of their rights or liberties by the actions of others is thus the prime end of the state in a liberal society. This is not moral? Using force to compel people who are not harming anyone else to abide by a particular standard of conduct defined by a particular moral code represents a higher moral standard?

 

tell that to the conservative party. you know the party of the moral majority?

 

by the way, i didn't say "The liberal society doesn't have a sound moral basis?". I'm not sure what you mean by the term "liberal" here since it has been perverted into a negative meaning by a certain segment of society. i think there is a basis, i'm also surprised at times how narrow it can be.

 

Classical liberalism. Quite a bit different than the modern set of beliefs that has the same name. See above.

[prole]

So far we've got jazz, advertising, bourbon, truck nutz, and the ability to consume endless amounts of cheap plastic crap without regard for anything, provided we can pay for it. I'm not so sure 2, 4, or 5 actually belong in the "good things" category, but we'll let them stand to enlarge the sample. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of social life in 21st century America. Even Kojak lays on the hates when given the opportunity. Why wouldn't someone just seek a better life elsewhere, like the immigrants crossing our borders?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So far we've got jazz, advertising, bourbon, truck nutz, and the ability to consume endless amounts of cheap plastic crap without regard for anything, provided we can pay for it. I'm not so sure 2, 4, or 5 actually belong in the "good things" category, but we'll let them stand to enlarge the sample. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of social life in 21st century America. Even Kojak lays on the hates when given the opportunity. Why wouldn't someone just seek a better life elsewhere, like the immigrants crossing our borders?

 

I'll take life in America - warts and all - above the resulting hell we'd see if your ilk would have your way, Prole.

 

So, when are you emigrating? Hell, maybe we can all chip in for your one-way ticket out of here.

[builder206]

What's great about America: I'm gratified that I can own a war-arsenal of firearms and ammo in order to kill any jack-booted thugs that want to take away my right to buy books by Marx, L. Ron Hubbard, or Jane Fonda, as I see fit. The Germans amd French I work with love to go to the shooting range with those of us Americans who are into the shooting sports. Rule .308 will keep us free, baby!

Edited February 20, 2008 by builder206

[JayB]

"So far we've got jazz, advertising, bourbon, truck nutz, and the ability to consume endless amounts of cheap plastic crap without regard for anything, provided we can pay for it. I'm not so sure 2, 4, or 5 actually belong in the "good things" category, but we'll let them stand to enlarge the sample. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of social life in 21st century America. Even Kojak lays on the hates when given the opportunity. Why wouldn't someone just seek a better life elsewhere, like the immigrants crossing our borders?"

 

 

Doubtless, some do this very thing.

 

I think that for you, losing the entrenched and assiduously cultivated sense of grievance and contempt for the society that you inhabit would be like depriving a plant of its soil and sunshine.

 

What would be left of you, what would sustain you if you were deprived of the psychosocial niche that you inhabit in this society? I think that this factor alone will keep you here for the remainder of your life.

 

 

BTW - was reading the passage from Schumpeter an experience eerily like being agent Sparrow being read by Hannibal Lector? Once you finish Aron, continue with Schumpeter.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add that I will also chip in for your voluntary and permanent exile from this country. Let us know where you end up, and I will gladly chip in once the paperwork needs to be filed. This will of course have to include the permanent revocation of your citizenship.

 

Right now I put my pledge at $50, but may increase it if necessary. I think that if you include a profile of yourself, your beliefs, and a sample of your writings on a website, and troll conservative blogs soliciting donations for the funds required to seek another life in a country of your choosing, you may well find yourself astounded by the generosity of your fellow countrymen. Another voluntary win-win interaction, brought to you by the free-market.

 

 

[olyclimber]

Morality as defined by whom? Imposed by what authority?

 

it does beg the question: how does morality fit in with your undying commitment to the open market? does it have a price like everything else?

 

It's derived from the same principles that define personal morality in a liberal society.

 

"When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as "concessions" to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

 

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

 

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."

 

From Hayek's "Why I am not a Conservative."

 

I think that this is one of the more elegant and concise defenses of (classical) liberalism out there. Read it and you will have a substantial answer to your question.

 

http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46

 

 

 

 

thanks will read when i get a moment

[prole]

I think that for you, losing the entrenched and assiduously cultivated sense of grievance and contempt for the society that you inhabit would be like depriving a plant of its soil and sunshine.

 

What would be left of you, what would sustain you if you were deprived of the psychosocial niche that you inhabit in this society? I think that this factor alone will keep you here for the remainder of your life.

That's good.

 

I like Schumpeter quite a bit. I think he lays out some of the deficiencies and contradictions between democracy and capitalism quite well. I think the Schumpeter quote above is just as powerful as an indictment of "rational and utilitarian" societies as it is for the reasons you posted it.

 

Anyway, yours and Kojak's contempt for the critic or the criticisms does not necessarily strengthen an argument that America has any exceptional qualities or opportunities that can't be found in greater abundance elsewhere.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Anyway, yours and Kojak's contempt for the critic or the criticisms does not necessarily strengthen an argument that America has any exceptional qualities or opportunities that can't be found in greater abundance elsewhere.

 

Your insipid, repetitious, neurotic contempt for the country you live in, repeatedly expressed with vitriolic spew doesn't necessarily convince anyone either.

 

Now, who loves ya baby?

 

[prole]

Now, Telly was Greek, but I'd definitely put him in the plus column.

 

[rob]

Didn't we help protect the world from nazis or something? Was that not a good thing? I don't know, because I'm not hip enough to be a marxist.

[rob]

Bottom line, let me know what country you are emmigrating to. I'll be curious to hear your rationale. Until then, you're just full of shit.

[underworld]

Bottom line, let me know what country you are emmigrating to. I'll be curious to hear your rationale. Until then, you're just full of shit.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Bottom line, let me know what country you are emmigrating to. I'll be curious to hear your rationale. Until then, you're just full of shit.

 

The funniest part is the fact that the video that supposedly elicited this bold proclamation, and was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back in leading to Prole's ultimate rejection of our society centers on a dumb faux blond (likely selected for her stupidity considering the name and premise of the game show upon which she was a contestant) who thought Europe might be a country and wondered if France was one.

 

I wonder just how much Prole knows about Budapest, Hungary, it's people, language and history? Or does his relative brilliance merely be reflected in his knowledge that Europe is not a country and France is?

 

[prole]

Hardly the camel's back, just one of 1000 or so distinct impressions observable on a daily basis by anyone that America is becoming nothing less than a complete junk-show. And considering the timing of the fashionableness of Hayek's thought with the acceleration of said junk-show, I'm thinking there might be a connection.

[tomtom]

And considering the fashionableness of Hayek ...

 

Let's consider this:

 

 

Oh, yeah.

[glassgowkiss]

I'm beginning to seriously consider emigration. Sorry Obama. Coming across things like this on an almost daily basis is making the decision easier.

hope you are treated the same way this country treats immigrants.

[G-spotter]

And considering the fashionableness of Hayek ...

 

Let's consider this:

 

 

Oh, yeah.

 

omg, which came first, the chicken, the egg, or you when you saw that?

[ZimZam]

And considering the fashionableness of Hayek ...

 

Let's consider this:

 

 

Oh, yeah.

Oye! Mami! Yo quiero trepar encima de ti esta noche para amor. Déme los besos con su lengüeta venenosa. :kisss:

 

Oh wait! She has no idea I'm spraying over her.

[Matt Kidd]

I confess I've read a few of the political rant threads and have never contributed my opinion. Before contributing it is apparently important to clarify who I am and what I do. I am a carpenter. Before that I climbed trees with chainsaws for rich people. Before that I worked in a steel fab. shop, before that I installed irrigation systems in graveyards. etc... In a couple months I will (finally) have worked my way through a history/politics degree, so I've spent some time on both sides of the fence (working class/academic).

I stopped attending political rallies. I stopped the union talk with my co-workers. I stopped trying to get everyone to watch Bakan's "The Corporation". I do think that people are affected by marketing, that consumerism is rampant etc. But people don't care, in my experience. Or, more accurately, some care but not enough. I think that things might change, but likely only when it get really bad for them. Marx thought so too, so maybe I still am a Marxist. So many are long with criticism and short with solutions. I'm one. If there is a problem what do we do?

 

[Matt Kidd]

The other thing that I noticed is that working-class people ignore you as soon as you start with the academic jargon. Many will talk politics on site over a double/double (I'm in Canada) as long as you engage them respectfully and with language that doesn't exclude them.