Mr.Taft wrote [to Emptying Guilt]:
Our inaction to someone's self-degradation hurts them just as much as lynchings and gas chambers. How do we help to stop the self-degradation (obesity, drug addictions, alcoholism) of individuals? By educating them on how to take care of themselves and advance as a society (not just the strong, but everyone). Here's where me and you disagree. Advancement can only come through a relationship with your Savior (I mean Jesus, not Donn). I sincerely hope your journey leads you to know your Creator on a deeper level. God really would like that.
Let’s say I agree...education is the answer. What will the curriculum be? Wait...wait...I know. Rational selfishness, Egoism! If you want people to learn to take care of themselves, they need to know:
1. This is your one and only life to live, so make the best of it. Take care of yourself!
2. Live your life in pursuit of your own happiness...there is no higher purpose. You have no need to feel any guilt for not living your life in accordance with anybody else’s wishes or doctrines. Set rational goals for yourself and aspire to achieve them!
3. Be nice to others. Respect the rights of all individuals. Judge, and prepare to be judged. Don’t let anyone nail you to a tree.
Alcohol, drug, and food addiction are forms of self-destruction, self-sacrifice. Self-destruction is a product of the altruist code.
That having been said, you believe you have a moral obligation to sacrifice your time, money, and energy helping that person who sits in the alley shooting up drugs, that to not help him would be the same as lynching or gassing him? Are you serious? Did you cause his self-destruction? Not at all. Does the fact that you live a moral life cause his immorality? Of course not. Can you try to help him if you choose to? Certainly. Do you have a moral obligation—a duty—to help him? No.
Charity, and whether or not to give to a charity, is a private decision made by individuals. It is no one’s duty. If one is “duty-bound” to do anything, that means they have no choice. For any issue to be a moral issue, it must involve a choice. For example: Do I kill this person who has hurt me deeply, or not? If I choose not to, then [and I think you will agree] I have made the moral choice. I’ve decided to do the right thing and respect the right of that individual to live no matter how much their rejection hurt me. Now if they’re coming at me with a knife trying to kill me, I have a very different choice to make. Do I kill them, or do I let them kill me? Moral choices are for the living. The dead have no need of moral codes. To allow this person to kill me without defending myself would be to sacrifice my life to satisfy his rage [or any other irrational desire]. It would be wholly immoral for me to not defend myself.
No one has the right to demand your charity. Any doctrine that defines charitable giving as a moral responsibility or duty has rendered all giving immoral. Again, without choice there is no moral question to be answered. There is no difference between giving your money to the thug who has convinced you that his gun is loaded and the preacher who has convinced you that he knows what God wants you to do. In both instances, by your standards, you must hand it over. The thug with the gun threatens to end your life on Earth; the preacher claims you will lose your eternal life in some paradise. Both use Force.
Finally, regarding your last point: Most people have difficulty understanding and maintaining successful relationships with people standing right in front of them or sleeping in the same bed with them...relatively simple minds, simple people, simple problems. Your lot claims understanding and a personal relationship with an all mighty, all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe... the most complex of all possible minds. Stupefying arrogance.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Mr. Taft [Part 2]
Mr. Taft Wrote:
Donn's evolution would tell us that the dying class would die. And if we're okay with letting the weak die off, we should have been okay with slavery. After all they were just the weaker class. We should have been okay with Hitler killing the 'weak'. Donn's "natural law" says that you can act as long as it 1. doesn't hurt you, and 2. doesn't hurt someone else.
Outrageous! Look at the laws again. Read them carefully: 1. Take care of yourself; 2. Do no harm. Slavery and genocide violate the second rule in every instance, clearly.
It’s not a coincidence that slavery, an institution that existed everywhere throughout human history, was abolished within a century of the birth of capitalism! The two freest economies on the globe at the time—England and the United States—were the first two countries to abolish the institution. Slavery in the United States persisted in the old-world, agrarian aristocracy of the South, only. In the more advanced, more capitalistic North, slavery died a natural dead decades before the Civil War. Slavery exists today in parts of Africa and Asia, in socialist-authoritarian states, only.
Genocide has never been committed by anything but a socialist-authoritarian state or a theocracy. Only an altruist-collectivist regime can “justify” the sacrifice of so many souls for the good of the community.
Slavery and genocide are impossible in a world governed by rational-selfishness, Egoism. The standard upon which all moral decisions are made, the question that must be answered, is: “Have the rights of any individual been violated?” If the answer is “yes,” to act on your ambition [whatever it is!] would be immoral. That’s what “do no harm” means... unequivocal respect, reverence! for the rights of each individual. What are those rights? Well, to begin with: Each individual has and absolute right to their life, to their liberty, to pursue their own happiness. My actions can never result in the sacrifice of anyone’s life or freedom to think and act on their own behalf. Religionists do this all of the time in their efforts to legislate a “moral society.”
While my standard is “absolute respect for the rights of each individual” and can never result in injustice or tyranny, the religionist’s standard is “what does Yahweh-God-Allah want?” or “what would Jesus do?” wholly subjective standards that have resulted through history in bloody holy wars, Inquisitions, and jihad. Why? Because the rights of individuals are freely sacrificed to what some consider the will of their god. If you think you’re working for an all powerful god, you’re not subject to any manmade law, however rational or appropriate, and you are free to commit atrocities in his name, like killing a doctor who performs abortions or flying airplanes into buildings.
Your moral code, Jesus’ moral code, Altruism is the code that glorifies the concept of “sacrifice.” Slavery—sacrificing the liberty of some individuals so that others can relax on their front porch sipping mint juleps; and genocide—sacrificing the lives of individuals so that others can create the “perfect society” they dreamed up while in prison, are both results of your moral code. May I remind you: the Southern slaveholder was Christian and defended the institution of slavery quoting from your New Testament, e.g. Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." Hitler was a Christian blessed by the pope of the Catholic Church. Nazi Germany was a Lutheran nation. A Christian locked the door and pulled the lever of every gas chamber.
Still, I don’t damn any member of any faith. An individual has an absolute right to think what they want to think as long as they harm no one. But, I must say, if you’re unhappy with the state of the world, Mr. Taft, know this: This is the world created by your moral code. Over 90% of the globe believes altruism is morality, that selfishness is evil, that self-sacrifice is the key to moral perfection.
Every bit of filth in existence—every murderer, thief, child molester, rapist, and leach—acts on the altruist’s code of sacrifice. They all force others to make sacrifices to their irrational needs. Egoists live by trade, dealing with all others by trade, value for value, devoid of force. What don’t you get?
Donn's evolution would tell us that the dying class would die. And if we're okay with letting the weak die off, we should have been okay with slavery. After all they were just the weaker class. We should have been okay with Hitler killing the 'weak'. Donn's "natural law" says that you can act as long as it 1. doesn't hurt you, and 2. doesn't hurt someone else.
Outrageous! Look at the laws again. Read them carefully: 1. Take care of yourself; 2. Do no harm. Slavery and genocide violate the second rule in every instance, clearly.
It’s not a coincidence that slavery, an institution that existed everywhere throughout human history, was abolished within a century of the birth of capitalism! The two freest economies on the globe at the time—England and the United States—were the first two countries to abolish the institution. Slavery in the United States persisted in the old-world, agrarian aristocracy of the South, only. In the more advanced, more capitalistic North, slavery died a natural dead decades before the Civil War. Slavery exists today in parts of Africa and Asia, in socialist-authoritarian states, only.
Genocide has never been committed by anything but a socialist-authoritarian state or a theocracy. Only an altruist-collectivist regime can “justify” the sacrifice of so many souls for the good of the community.
Slavery and genocide are impossible in a world governed by rational-selfishness, Egoism. The standard upon which all moral decisions are made, the question that must be answered, is: “Have the rights of any individual been violated?” If the answer is “yes,” to act on your ambition [whatever it is!] would be immoral. That’s what “do no harm” means... unequivocal respect, reverence! for the rights of each individual. What are those rights? Well, to begin with: Each individual has and absolute right to their life, to their liberty, to pursue their own happiness. My actions can never result in the sacrifice of anyone’s life or freedom to think and act on their own behalf. Religionists do this all of the time in their efforts to legislate a “moral society.”
While my standard is “absolute respect for the rights of each individual” and can never result in injustice or tyranny, the religionist’s standard is “what does Yahweh-God-Allah want?” or “what would Jesus do?” wholly subjective standards that have resulted through history in bloody holy wars, Inquisitions, and jihad. Why? Because the rights of individuals are freely sacrificed to what some consider the will of their god. If you think you’re working for an all powerful god, you’re not subject to any manmade law, however rational or appropriate, and you are free to commit atrocities in his name, like killing a doctor who performs abortions or flying airplanes into buildings.
Your moral code, Jesus’ moral code, Altruism is the code that glorifies the concept of “sacrifice.” Slavery—sacrificing the liberty of some individuals so that others can relax on their front porch sipping mint juleps; and genocide—sacrificing the lives of individuals so that others can create the “perfect society” they dreamed up while in prison, are both results of your moral code. May I remind you: the Southern slaveholder was Christian and defended the institution of slavery quoting from your New Testament, e.g. Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." Hitler was a Christian blessed by the pope of the Catholic Church. Nazi Germany was a Lutheran nation. A Christian locked the door and pulled the lever of every gas chamber.
Still, I don’t damn any member of any faith. An individual has an absolute right to think what they want to think as long as they harm no one. But, I must say, if you’re unhappy with the state of the world, Mr. Taft, know this: This is the world created by your moral code. Over 90% of the globe believes altruism is morality, that selfishness is evil, that self-sacrifice is the key to moral perfection.
Every bit of filth in existence—every murderer, thief, child molester, rapist, and leach—acts on the altruist’s code of sacrifice. They all force others to make sacrifices to their irrational needs. Egoists live by trade, dealing with all others by trade, value for value, devoid of force. What don’t you get?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Mr. Taft [Part 1]
Mr. Taft wrote:
Regulation is not the answer. I'm a huge proponent of free will. My answer is education. Educate the people on how to buy smart and eat smart and think smart. When they don't, it's their fault. That doesn't mean we stop trying. It seems to me that what we agree on is that there should be success. [Mr. Taft was corresponding with fellow blogger, Emptying Guilt at Blogspot...I snatched his comments without permission!] But who do we want success for? We SHOULD want it for everyone. Because if we don't want it for everyone, we only want it for a few. That's elitism.
So if we have complete capitalism, that creates a class of powerful and a class of dying. Donn's evolution would tell us that the dying class should die. And if we're okay with letting the weak die off, we should have been okay with slavery. After all they were just the weaker class.
[Actually, he said more. I'll address his issues one at a time over the next several weeks, assuming I get permission.]
Education is not a right: It is a responsibility. Individuals have a responsibility to acquire the skills they need to be successful in life in the 21st Century, just as they did when we were living in the wilderness, hunter-gatherers, 40,000 years ago. If you refused to learn your essential lessons, then, and you ate a hemlock salad, you died as a result of your failure to pay attention and act accordingly. Taking care of yourself or failing to take care of yourself is a matter of choice. In a free society individuals are free to succeed and free to fail.
Many of the people you euphemistically refer to as “the weak,” are the most morally depraved among us. They think they have a right to be taken care of. They think they have a right to your productivity. They use the widespread acceptance of your altruist code to force the sacrifice of the successful to sustain their own depravity. They wish to exist without effort. You are taught to pity them, as if ineptitude is a virtue. It is not.
Of course we should want everybody to make the right choices and live successfully. People who fail to live successfully—independent of others, surviving well by trading with others, relying on reason and the power of their arguments to persuade, rejecting the use of force in all human relationships—tend to be a drag on others...making unreasonable, immoral demands on others. “I don’t wanna work... provide me with food, clothing, shelter, and health care!” Or, “Yeh, I stole your car. I needed the money. What of it?” Or, “She divorced me and caused me pain. I couldn’t cope, so I killed her.”
Your moral code forgives their failure unconditionally... excuses it, rewards it. There’s nothing wrong with “wanting” everybody to make the right choices; but the only way to ensure that all people do, is through force; i.e. take away their right to make choices. You will have to destroy liberty, Mr. Taft, in order to execute “your wish.” This is the psycho-epistemology of every despot who ever walked the Earth, the sinister and the saint. As Madison said: The cure for the problem is worse than the disease. However much I may want everybody to live successfully, I cannot force them to. I can only take care of myself, make sure that I live a moral life, make sure that I am not a drag on my fellow man. This is what it means to live a moral life.
I spend my days earning my self-esteem trying to educate my fellow man about the only moral code that has the potential to make your wish come true, Egoism. If all individuals were rational and selfish, we’d live in a perfect world. Nobody would come to the market place empty-handed, or [perhaps] worse, carrying a gun. People would live in peace, trading with one another, value for value.
Finally, Capitalism is not elitist. It is economic freedom. Some will always make better use of their freedom. It is not elitist that some succeed by their own efforts and some fail by their own lack of effort. The A-student owes nothing to the dropout. He did not earn his “A” at the expense of the dropout. The dropout could have earned an “A” too. This thing you rail against—this inequality that results when men are free to pursue their own happiness, and some make good choices and some make poor choices—is called reality. The consequences, both those enjoyed and those suffered, are called justice. When you sacrifice those who succeed to those who fail, you reward failure and grow the number of failures who inhabit this planet. You sacrifice justice to your feelings, hoping to create a better world. Nothing good can result when justice is sacrificed. You can’t wish a better world into existence.
Regulation is not the answer. I'm a huge proponent of free will. My answer is education. Educate the people on how to buy smart and eat smart and think smart. When they don't, it's their fault. That doesn't mean we stop trying. It seems to me that what we agree on is that there should be success. [Mr. Taft was corresponding with fellow blogger, Emptying Guilt at Blogspot...I snatched his comments without permission!] But who do we want success for? We SHOULD want it for everyone. Because if we don't want it for everyone, we only want it for a few. That's elitism.
So if we have complete capitalism, that creates a class of powerful and a class of dying. Donn's evolution would tell us that the dying class should die. And if we're okay with letting the weak die off, we should have been okay with slavery. After all they were just the weaker class.
[Actually, he said more. I'll address his issues one at a time over the next several weeks, assuming I get permission.]
Education is not a right: It is a responsibility. Individuals have a responsibility to acquire the skills they need to be successful in life in the 21st Century, just as they did when we were living in the wilderness, hunter-gatherers, 40,000 years ago. If you refused to learn your essential lessons, then, and you ate a hemlock salad, you died as a result of your failure to pay attention and act accordingly. Taking care of yourself or failing to take care of yourself is a matter of choice. In a free society individuals are free to succeed and free to fail.
Many of the people you euphemistically refer to as “the weak,” are the most morally depraved among us. They think they have a right to be taken care of. They think they have a right to your productivity. They use the widespread acceptance of your altruist code to force the sacrifice of the successful to sustain their own depravity. They wish to exist without effort. You are taught to pity them, as if ineptitude is a virtue. It is not.
Of course we should want everybody to make the right choices and live successfully. People who fail to live successfully—independent of others, surviving well by trading with others, relying on reason and the power of their arguments to persuade, rejecting the use of force in all human relationships—tend to be a drag on others...making unreasonable, immoral demands on others. “I don’t wanna work... provide me with food, clothing, shelter, and health care!” Or, “Yeh, I stole your car. I needed the money. What of it?” Or, “She divorced me and caused me pain. I couldn’t cope, so I killed her.”
Your moral code forgives their failure unconditionally... excuses it, rewards it. There’s nothing wrong with “wanting” everybody to make the right choices; but the only way to ensure that all people do, is through force; i.e. take away their right to make choices. You will have to destroy liberty, Mr. Taft, in order to execute “your wish.” This is the psycho-epistemology of every despot who ever walked the Earth, the sinister and the saint. As Madison said: The cure for the problem is worse than the disease. However much I may want everybody to live successfully, I cannot force them to. I can only take care of myself, make sure that I live a moral life, make sure that I am not a drag on my fellow man. This is what it means to live a moral life.
I spend my days earning my self-esteem trying to educate my fellow man about the only moral code that has the potential to make your wish come true, Egoism. If all individuals were rational and selfish, we’d live in a perfect world. Nobody would come to the market place empty-handed, or [perhaps] worse, carrying a gun. People would live in peace, trading with one another, value for value.
Finally, Capitalism is not elitist. It is economic freedom. Some will always make better use of their freedom. It is not elitist that some succeed by their own efforts and some fail by their own lack of effort. The A-student owes nothing to the dropout. He did not earn his “A” at the expense of the dropout. The dropout could have earned an “A” too. This thing you rail against—this inequality that results when men are free to pursue their own happiness, and some make good choices and some make poor choices—is called reality. The consequences, both those enjoyed and those suffered, are called justice. When you sacrifice those who succeed to those who fail, you reward failure and grow the number of failures who inhabit this planet. You sacrifice justice to your feelings, hoping to create a better world. Nothing good can result when justice is sacrificed. You can’t wish a better world into existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)