"Thats not saying it wasn't Imperial or "good" but it certainly isn't proof positive that he wasn't an agrarian"

I didn't mean to suggest he wasn't an agrarian. He clearly was. All the slaveocrat Jeffersonians were.

The protests in Egypt were much the same way, Obi. They succeeded. Nobody cares about what you think. You want them to base their organization over hierarchical principles which they in principle reject. You disagree? Fine, then come help them organize and stop bitching from the sidelines, show them how it should be done. Otherwise shut the hell up.

Putin +32 - I would have given you the extra one if you told him to get a life. :-)

@ Obi
"Why should I care about what they ahve to say, its either something I don't agree with or something redundant as another group has beaten them to the punch, and this matter is nothing new."
Then shut up and ignore it. Arguing with you has become as pathetic and pointless as arguing with Krellin or TC. This isn't worth my time.

I've been at occupy toledo for a few days, you're wrong obi.
this is something different.

re-reading some of your posts obi you are grossly mis-informed about quite a bit. I encourage you to visit the one in your city

Cincinnati's is evidently going very peaceably and the cops simply hand out tickets with the protestor's getting in line to receive them when the park closes. They are going to let the court's handle that decision. Cincinnati's Police Chief sits down every morning to donuts and coffee with the organizer's of the "sit in" and keep sin contact wit them through out the day. The only arrests have been people who have been destructive or public indecency (urinating/defecating in the open in a public park is illegal after all).

If all the cities would look to the way Cinci is handling the protests on both sides, this could be one very peaceful and possibly much more effective protest. Too bad the OWS folks don't realize that peaceful and law abiding demonstrations get more respect than blocking sidewalks and streets without a permit.

Here you go, obi-kike. Educate yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAhHPIuTQ5k

Sic, could you humor us with a report on the protest there? I hear wildly different things about OWS depending on who is reporting and which location they are at, and would be interested in your take.

My God...

Obiwan's Monster...I thought...I thought it was dead...but...no, it can't...can't be, it's...

IT'S ALIIIIIIIIIIIIVEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! :O

(Seriously, though, wasn't this discusion dead and buried? I think we've kind of exhausted the topic here...it pretty much boils down to a fundamental disagreement on human nature--some might agree man is self-interested necessarily, others might buy into altruism--and the dual facts that I don't think the protests are carried out well and that, on top of it all, the "goals set," as it were, are either impossible, unrealistic, contrary to human nature from where I'm sitting, or just not something I agree with.

And so agree, some don't.

So...why dig this up again? I mean, I'm called a troll, but generally, if a thread is dead for a week, I leave it dead, rather than raise the cadaver like ol' Dr. Fronk-en-shteen...)

I disagree with the idea that there must be an essential human nature at all. Or rather, our nature is to learn our nature, if that makes sense. And even if there is a kind of essential human nature that is selfish, it is also within human nature to become aware of it, and to strive for more. Isn't it? I don't think "Human nature is greedy therefore any protest against corporate greed is necessarily misguided" is an argument that necessarily follows. What about "Human nature is inherently greedy, therefore, making people aware of that so they can become aware of it and try and do better" makes at least as much sense.

@Mafialligator:

I'm not saying that any protest against corporate greed fails because of human nature.

To adress your whole post:

-When I say greed/self-interest is in our nature, I mean that in a more animalistic way...ie, it's not so much human nature as just *animal* nature, something that's inextricably linked to animals. All animals have a drive to survive, and THAT is wehre self-interest kicks in--obviousl, he or she with the most resources and best genes in any animal race has the best chance at winning mates, space, food, happiness, and the survival race. That being said, I'm NOT saying that human beings must never be above all animalistic tendencies, but I don't think you can make a case for this one being shaken off--it's not a drive towards excess so much as, again, survival in the most comfortable manner, and greed/self-interest is a means to that greater end, and a necessary means. What's more, it could be argued such a tendency is actually literally impossible to escape as its encoded in our very makeup, if "The Selfish Gene" argument is to be believed (and I buy it.)

-Locke said that human nature was something like a tabula rasa, a blank slate, and Sartre that it was human nature to NOT have a pre-set nature, but to create out own; both are true to an exent, but again, as long as human beings are animals--and unless we have something other/divine, ie, God, that sets Man above animals, we must take him to be an animal, albeit a very smart and highly-developed one with great potential--then they must follow the natural, biological laws of animals, and one suich rule is, again, "Survival of the Fittest/The Drive for Mates/Comfort," which is where greed and self-interest stem from.

After all, the caveman who first sparked fire likely did so be cause he was cold...the Sumerians who invented the wheel, language, and irrigation did so because it helped with trade and to grow, move, and sell more food and resources...inventors such as Edison worked for profit as well as progress...

And as much as aesthetes might have you believe otherwise...

Mozart Beethoven, Shakespeare, Plato, Dickens, Michaelangelo, Picasso--ALL worked/composed/wrote for money to get ahead in life.

It's at our core as animals to do so--we as human beings just refine the process more...instead of scavenging for food, we have a system of economics and trade...instead of mere calls and animalistic displays, we recite poetry or go out on terribly awkard dates worthy of sitcoms and have conversations and show wit--amongst other things--ot attract mates (those of us who date, anywho...) ;)

We're more highly-refined animals, but we ARE animals--and as such, we're driven by animalistic tendencies, which are fine, as these...well, these have helped us suvive for hundreds of thousands of years and continue to do so.

-I DO like the "become aware of our nature" bit as being part of human nature...that's a pretty Sartre/Camus-esque thought...

-Again, I haven't knocked all protests against greed--case in point, I supported Egypt's revolution, and that was about a greedy dictator and wanting more "fairness," at least on paper, in reality, it was somewhat different, but I digress.

-I also haven't supported all instances of greed...I'd have to disagree with such great figures as Bertrand Russell and one of my favorite authors, D.H. Lawrence, and say that the French Revolution WAS justified and was a good thing insofar as it was justified and what ULTIMATELY, in the LONG run, came from it...the short-term was pretty awful, what with the Reign of Terror and the restoration of the Monarchy; it's up to every individual to decide whether Napoleon was a good or bad move, I tend to lean towards it being slightly in the good, but again, it's open for debate (BUT NOT HERE, OH, GOD, NOT HERE, NOT ANOTHER 100+ POST DIGRESSION DUE TO A HISTORICAL WAR IN A THREAD!) :/

-If we take your last argument, your reasoning seems agaisnt itself--if we DO accept that human nature is inherently greedy, it seems absurd to think we'd need REMINDING of that...after all, most everything that is inherent to "human nature," ie, Survival of the Fittest, is pretty well known by people already as it's well, inherent...if not to ALL people, than certainly to most. It'd be pretty absurd to stage a demonstration explaining to people why drinking water is so important--it's sort of a given, we already know. We already know we're motivated by self-interest. Conversely, it'd be equally pointless to bang on in public about how getting sick is bad for your health--again, kind of a no-brainer. If we take Aristotle's Argument for Moderation and call "Greed" an "excess" of the "virtue" of "self-interest" (since, given all the good it produces, I think we can agree to it as being a virtue in the Greek sense of the term), it follows that, just as Aristotle argues an excess of anything, even a virtue, is bad for you, this seems analogous to telling people getting sick is bad for your health--it goes without saying.

OK, no offense obiwan but I find all your responses to my points assume a very straightforward and simplistic world, that simply isn't the case. Survival =/= greed especially when you're an animal that survives in groups. When you're a social animal, what's good for the group is good for the individual in the long run. And I think that any kind of thing we can call "human nature" must have taken that into account given our remarkable ability to live with huge numbers of the same species and our unparalleled ability to interact and communicate with each other. Individual greed is much more short sighted than that.

You really don't seem to grasp what survival of the fittest means. For humans, survival of the fittest can often mean the person who is best at considering other people and is able to create very strong ties and bonds within a community. Fittest doesn't mean, the one with the most money, it means the one most suited to a given way of life, and the human way of life is based on cohabitation and cooperation.

And your response to my last argument precludes the possibility of instinctive or unconscious behavour, or just plain thoughtlessness. I have said stupid, or offensive things to people without meaning to, and then benefited from having my thoughtlessness pointed out to me. By your logic that should be impossible. Since it's often easiest to speak without thinking obviously I should be aware that I'm being thoughtless most of the time, so naturally there's no reason to point out when I've accidentally offended someone, because obviously I should be aware that I'm just doing that all the time. Now when you put it like that, clearly that's absurd.

Who the fuck let obi on a computer again?

"For humans, survival of the fittest can often mean the person who is best at considering other people and is able to create very strong ties and bonds within a community. Fittest doesn't mean, the one with the most money, it means the one most suited to a given way of life, and the human way of life is based on cohabitation and cooperation."

Leaving blue-bloods and royals aside...

I'd argue those who have the most money are, in many cases, the ones who have beaten the rest of the competion for it and, thus, have found themselves the most well-suited for their environment...

It just happens to be an ecpnomic/coporate environment.

So you buy into the "the wealthy deserve their wealth myth"? and you call yourself a liberal. Jesus.

" I have said stupid, or offensive things to people without meaning to, and then benefited from having my thoughtlessness pointed out to me. By your logic that should be impossible."

Not so, as that's not a fair application of my statement, which dealt with INHERENT truths...

Unless whatever you were discussing was a matter so inherent that most anyone, regardless of political, racial, theological, sexual or other such alignments would agree it was in error essentially...

I'd submit such an error was just your missing a consgtructed, societal truth, RATHER than the sort of two+two, "sick is bad for you" inherently-understood matters I mean.

Technically speaking, even the use of the most hurtful word I can think of, the N-word, wouldn't fit here, as the pain there comes from its historical, societal, constructed use, AND some African-Americans today speak the word amongst themselves colloquially...

It's not inherently but societally wrong to utter that word, ableit IMMENSELY wrong in that case; there is no inherent or logical basis for racism, that's a social construct, and so even its use isn't inherently wrong in human nature.



Such is the case with your societal offenses, I'd submit. :)

"So you buy into the "the wealthy deserve their wealth myth"?"

In every instance?
No.
In the instance of, say, a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or Thomas Edison or Will Shakespeare?
Yes.

Steve and Bill ran the companies.
Tommie invented/improved those machines.
Billie wrote those plays.

All were massively beneficial, and so all deserve massive reward, in my opinion.

In the case of inherented wealth, and the son does nothing?
No--he just got lucky.

EVEN if the boss is a horrible, Dickensian, Sikes-like figure...

If he founded the cpompany and ran it and is responsible for its successful ideas, he deserves his fmoney (not good mention or standing, mind you, but his money...I might be a jerk, but if I sell you an item I make, you owe me the value of the item or the price we agree upon--fair is fair.)

And once and for all:

I am more a SOCIAL liberal than a FINANCIAL one.

Shakespeare wasn't rich.

^
He wasn't ppor, either, his family was faily well off, for the time...

And he was even "better off" after the plays and notoriety.

Perhaps another writer or artist would be a better example, but still...

And my point is that Shakespeare deserved the capital he DID get from the plays, however much or little it was (probably deserved more, considering how hifhly he's regarded now, but what're you going to do...he died at a good age for the time and had a family, a successful career, money and fame in his time...he had a good run.) :)

And that those who DO work hard DO deserve a reward as a result.

Do you disagree?

Here's a sci-fi example:

In Star Trek, in the movie "First Contact," we learn that the guy who invents warp drive--that great engine device that allows ships to boldly go where no man has gone before--didn't do so for any idea of progress or peace...

But in the hopes of getting rich off the idea.

He did what he did out of self-interest, and sought a reward as a result...

And that seems to be a perfectly-fair impluse:

"I've invented this device that will be an aid to millions of people...I think I'd like some cash and capital, and I've EARNED IT, I think..."

Do you disagree?

If so, who does "Deserve it?"

I'm so fuck sick and tired of having this same stupid debate over and over and over again. This is the last time I'm saying it, so listen very, very very carefully.

People who become rich become rich, because of social structures which coerced people into entering into wage agreements which allow the so called "deserving visionaries" to appropriate their labour for far far less than it is actually worth. No one deserves the money. What did Steve Jobs actually DO? Did he design Apple products? No. Did he make them? No. Was he in charge of the company? Not really, that's what the board of directors was for. What did he do? He started the company using his parents own relative wealth as a springboard. Yes he was partly responsible for building the company up? But how did he do that, through the coercion and appropriation method I just described. Now tell me, in what sense did he "deserve the money".

Agh! That should read "I'm so fucking sick and tired of having this same stupid debate over and over and over again."

@Mafialligator, you apparently have no idea about the division of labor between a CEO and a board of directors.

"I'm so fuck sick and tired of having this same stupid debate over and over and over again."

As am I...which is why *I* didn't restart it...

As for your example...

You know, from semck's response, I think he's more in line with whatn I'd be prepared to say anyway, and I think we can all agree my saying my viewpoint hasn't made much headway as of yet...

So unless you object I'll leave it for semck to adress if he likes, and if he does not wish to take up the pen--or sword--then we might all leave the matter here and agree to disagree after a good, nearly 300-post thread's worth of exchanges, as clearly you and I don't share the same philosophical ideals of value theory and what makes a man deserving of what.

So I'm happy to agree to disagree or hand this off to someone else who, with words and ideas and a happy absence of Shakespeare references, might make the point better than I might here, or just end it...

I won't answer unless you really insist, because honestly...

I think my responding on this point has run its course--you can guess what I'd say, probably, and why, and even how I'd say it, and you clearly don't agree, so why bother with the trolling rigamarole?

Those protestors are so annoying. One threw an old shoe at me as I walked to work the other day.

^Someone already quoted that--was it you?--and, sorry...

You might as well go

Do you hear the people sing,
Singing the song of angry men,
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again,
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes...

Except for the fact you'd be quoting one of the few musicals I actually like...

Frankly, my Draug, I don't give a damn. ;)

Hell, even the students in Les Miserables I can sympathiz with as protesters...they set lofty goals, but at least they're lofty because of the situation--ie, seeking democracy in a monarchal Europe--and they were organized with leaders and everything...

I don't care about song lyrics, though.
I don't care about good intentions.
I don't care about what might maybe somehow possibly come of this down the road.
I don't care about the philosophic nature of human beings in relation to greed.
I don't care about analogies to the Flower Children in a post-1960s world.

I just don't care.

It's ALL vague circumspect conjecture and ifs and maybes and could bes...

All about tommorow--and tommorow does NOT excuse, justify, or make relevant, successful, or "good" the actions of today.

If it does, then the ends justify the means, and my arguments for self-interest hold as much sway as your arguments for thes kids do.



I think these kids are wasting their time, your time, my time.
I think these kids are directionless, and until they have at least that, I won't applaud them.
I think these kids are dreaming impossible dreams.
And I think they'll find that they ARE impossible dreams and that, in the end, dreams are all well and good...

But at some point, you wake up from the dream, and realize you just did all that...and for what?

"Empty Chairs at empty tables...
Now my friends are dead and gone...
My friends! my friends! don't ask me
What your sacrifice was for!"

^ALSO from Les Miserables...Marius to the empty pub where the Students of the ABCF USED to live and chat and sing...

And then they all went and died in a three-day stand with unrealistic goals and no support and...

They died for NOTHING.

(Well, they died to give Marius and Cosette more freedom in the story and to provide a really awesome tragic climax to that part of the story, but this is real life and NOT a story, and these kids are in for a rude awakening.)

and if that sounds bitter and old and crusted...

Maybe it is.

If it sounds cynical--good.

I am.

And that cynicism makes me an asshole, maybe, but it at least grounds me and lets me live my life, do what I like, and have thoughts and feel passionately about movements without throwing time away on a cause that few support, fewer see as logically-coherent, and none have planned out.



The Man of La Mancha?
Certainly.
But remember...

He--and they--are charging head-long 500 years too late, and into a windmill...

?????

That post was in response to a Draug quote that,...is no longer showing???

:/