[hrothgar]

luke warm, on May 20 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

richard said:

Maybe, someday, you'll understand how grown ups behave...

do grownups behave like you, daddy? wouldn't the world be a much better place if everybody did what you wanted them to do, thought like you wanted them to think?

DrTodd is a nutjob. He a Manichæn biblical literalist whose entire world view seems to consist of absolutes.

I'm quite upfront with my own prejudices. I consider this type of philosophy abhorrent. I think that the world would be a better place if folks didn't hold these views.

However, please note: I am not arguing that DrTodd shouldn't be allowed to speak. I am not arguing that DrTodd or Mike777 or any of the other folks that I disagree with should be rounded up and put into FEMA run death camps.

I do, however, believe in actively confronting these individuals when they show up and start spewing their crap.

[Winstonm]

Quote

winston, it's possible todd was referring to the loaves and fishes also, but imo he's speaking of systems of gov't, a'la ayn rand... he's saying (again, imo) collectivism, as a form of gov't, is immoral and evil... do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. Perfect colletivism would probably be an ideal, a utopia, but as it is impossible to obtain this perfection an imperfect collectivism becomes useless, budensome, and abusive.

It is not evil - it's just lousy.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on May 21 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Quote

winston, it's possible todd was referring to the loaves and fishes also, but imo he's speaking of systems of gov't, a'la ayn rand... he's saying (again, imo) collectivism, as a form of gov't, is immoral and evil... do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. Perfect colletivism would probably be an ideal, a utopia, but as it is impossible to obtain this perfection an imperfect collectivism becomes useless, budensome, and abusive.

It is not evil - it's just lousy.

I think collectivism is a somewhat necessary evil, but often less necessary than most people think (and politicians like to us to think).

This is a bold statement and could obviously be interpreted as to make it absurd: of course H. Sapiens is a social species and of course modern societies face a lot of inherently collective decisions, protection of the environment being one of them. But ....

When I was young I believed very strongly in Communism/Socialism (with capital C/S for its similarity to religious faith). I thought life was ideal in the USSR. I learned it wasn't. So I thought that what they has in USSR was pseudo-socialism. But in China, life was ideal. China turned out not to be ideal either. Cuba then .... ooops .... but at least Cuba could have been an ideal society if it wasn't for the US obstruction. Or maybe Albania ....

At a certain point I realized that such large collectives were prone to corruption, but maybe at the smaller scale it could work. So I went to Israel to do voluntary work in a kibbutz. The kibbutz was a very democratic and very safe society. Per capita income was higher than in Israel as a whole. Elderly and disabled people enjoyed the highest level of comfort and everyone contributed to society, even the half-lame half-blind half-deaf lady whose daily achievement was peeling three or four potatoes in the communal kitchen. The residents had a lot of spare time while the kibbutz generated a substantial financial surplus that was spent on support for new kibbutzim.

To me it was an ideal society but to most people it wasn't. Most temporary residents despited it. Some 70% of young people would move to the cities after having completed military service. And it was quite hard to attract new members with the skills needed by the kibbutz.

What I learned from that experience was that it is a rare subspecies of H. Sapiens, including me and some 2% of the Israeli population, that is willing to sacrifice personal economic freedom, even if the collective decision processes work as democratically and as effectively as they did in the kibbutz. Actually I don't think I would like it today, I have become more individualistic since then.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on May 20 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

Quote

winston, it's possible todd was referring to the loaves and fishes also, but imo he's speaking of systems of gov't, a'la ayn rand... he's saying (again, imo) collectivism, as a form of gov't, is immoral and evil... do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. Perfect colletivism would probably be an ideal, a utopia, but as it is impossible to obtain this perfection an imperfect collectivism becomes useless, budensome, and abusive.

It is not evil - it's just lousy.

well ok... i guess your experience with that form of gov't differs from mine, in an historical sense... my historical memories go somewhat beyond "useless, budensome, and abusive"... btw, what would make a "perfect" collectivism?

[kenberg]

Helene's estimate of 2% of Israeli society may well be right. But there is a strong current of idealism in many Israelis. Across the world the percentage is likely to be much lower.

I see things roughly as:

A. We are ultimately on our own. Until this is grasped, no clarity of thought is possible.

B. If we are lucky, we expand our concept of self to include family and some others.

C. We can pursue affiliation based on self interest. If I am a miner who would like better pay and safer conditions, a union can be very useful. Trust should be given very carefully.

D. After we get out own lives in shape, it is reasonable to see what we can do for others and to have a sense of history and hopes for the future.

Thinking this way, I don't get surprised when people who have very little are too busy pursuing A,B,C to give much thought to D. Of course there are some saints, or exceptional people, who rise above this. Now and then.

As to Ayn Rand, my wife has read Atlas Shrugged and I think some other stuff. I started either Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead once. Boring.

[helene_t]

btw, the concepts "freedom" vs "collectivism" are quite abstract. Most of us are libertarians on some issues and collectivists/ moral absolutist/ restrictionists on other issues.

Some want to constrain citizens with respect to choice of marital partner (sex, age, number of partners), some want to constrain possession of firearms, others again want to constrain abortion, immigration, pollution, prostitution, cocaine sniffing, Sunday shopping, pornographics, f-word usage, what have you.

I once joined a mailing list called "Nordic libertarian network" because I found myself of the laisez-faire site on many political debates. Turned out that the other libertarians were mainly concerned with issues that I don't feel particularly strongly about (taxes, drugs, prostitution, abortion) and one on which I am even pro restrictions (firearms). So maybe I shouldn't call myself a libertarian.

I don't think one can objectively say that either the "left" or the "right" is more pro freedom than the other, neither in Europe or in the US.

[mikeh]

DrTodd13, on May 19 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

Quote all over drudge yesterday about how Obama said that the US can't continue to drive SUVs, eat to the point of obesity, and keep our homes at a comfortable 72 degrees and expect the international community to say "OK."  WTF does that mean? 

Maybe it means the way it reads.

It is hubris to think that the economic and military ascendancy of the US is a permanent feature of geopolitics. History teaches us that no one grouping, whether tribal, or 'national', can be top dog for ever. Should you doubt this reality, consider ancient Rome, or, in more recent times, Great Britain.

Add to this the reality that grudges and attitudes linger through generations, and it should be apparent to all but the most obstinately chauvinistic that no nation can afford to ignore the rest of the world without risking some come-uppance down the line.

Look at the Balkan conflicts... dating back for hundreds of years... look at the skirmishing that has been going on for decades between India and Pakistan, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. anyone think that a real peace treaty would eliminate all hatreds within a generation or two?

So even if Obama were stupid enough to think that the US can ignore world opinion in the short term, he is surely acting sensibly, as a prospective leader of the nation, to gently remind the electorate that the US lives IN the world, not aside from it.

And think, too, of the topics he is addressing.

While the US enjoys many benefits as a result of its geography and its peoples, it is undeniably true that:

1) its population is the most obese in the world. This is a major health issue, and a major economic issue. Health care costs are astronomical by the standards of most Americans, let alone citizens of other countries... and obese people consume a disproportionate share of those costs... while being limited in or disabled from productive work more than their leaner counterparts.

2) its population is addicted to oil.. even Bush recognizes that.. his solution to increase the number of drug labs to feed the addiction, rather than to encourage a weaning off the drug, is a bit weird from someone who is opposed to any letup in the war on (real) drugs, but then, again, he comes by it honestly, the family fortune being based in oil. Oil is a non-renewable resource, at least in human time-lines, and the supply is finite... drilling in wild-life refuges and in the deep ocean floor may prolong the supply for some decades, but it is all going to run out eventually...and that will put paid to a lot more than gas-guzzling SUVs. Oil is used for many, many purposes beyond driving to the convenience store to fill up on twinkies and soda pop.

3) other forms of energy consumption, at least energy generated the way 99% of US energy is generated, contribute to global warming. While as a Canadian, I can be smug in that our summers are rarely scorching, huge amounts of energy are used in the US for airconditioning. I recall playing in a Vegas Nationals... walking to the site, the temperature was 108. In the site, the temperature was maybe 70. I am not suggesting that we should or could have played in an un-air-conditioned environment, but there are ways to design buildings and have large events that don't require the huge amount of air-conditioning that most large buildings consume..

And as for his sounding paternalistic, well, I haven't read his actual words and nor, so it seems, did DrTodd. But just who the heck is supposed to suggest changes to lifestyles if not a candidate running for President? Teddy Roosevelt was, I think, the first President to make reference to using the 'bully pulpit' of his office to inspire change in the nation. Being President isn't merely about enjoying lots of vacations on one's ranch while members of the underclass get blown up in a fraudulently started war. It should be about setting goals for the country.. and the goals can and should be ambitious.... whether it be Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, or JFK's mission to the moon, or FDR's opening the public purse in an effort to end the Great Depression, or Lincoln with the emancipation of the slaves and so on. Not all of the goals are attainable, and sometimes the goals may be (with hindsight) ill-conceived, etc.. but it is the leader's job to lead. If the goals include reducing health care costs while enhancing the lives of millions of Americans, of reducing the dependence on foreign oil, while reducing pollution and the consumption of the other materials used in building large vehicles.. then more power to him. Surely even DrTodd can see that this is preferable to the Bush ideas on the oil issue... drill more wells, build more refineries!

If Obama thinks that a reference to how the world sees the US may cause some thinking members of his audience to take heed, then he has a positive duty to make the reference.

Besides, I suspect that Obama and his advisors already know that they will never attract the votes of those who would cheerfully urge 'my country, right or wrong' or similarly small-minded fanatics.

[Winstonm]

Quote

well ok... i guess your experience with that form of gov't differs from mine, in an historical sense... my historical memories go somewhat beyond "useless, budensome, and abusive"... btw, what would make a "perfect" collectivism?

Jimmy, I don't apply the word in historical sense. I take the word collectivism and determine what that word means. Then I make a determination if a society based on that definition would create a perfect scenario. Collectivism cannot work because you can never eliminate the human ego - it is the jealousy, anger, and resentment of the ego that is the flaw - not the system. Myself included, btw.

But none of it matters, as any type of soceity model chosen will be flawed by the human imperfections that drive it.

They are all lousy; after that it is only a matter of degree.

[luke warm]

well i do agree with that...

[nige1]

Obama is right: most scientists agree that to avoid catastrophe, we must tackle global warming, as individuals, as nations, and internationally.

Per capita, we in Europe and North America use many times the energy consumed by other nationals. Hence a drastic reduction in our carbon footprint is relatively easy.

The past fashion for apathy and cynicism may be historically justified, but now we must "accentuate the positive" so that our children have a chance of a tolerable future.

BTW, I'm a neither a Tory (roughly, Republican) - nor a Socialist (roughly, Democrat). I'm a Liberal (roughly, pragmatic eclectic) but this issue transcends party-political considerations.

[luke warm]

nige1, on May 22 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

Obama is right: most scientists agree that to avoid catastrophe, we must tackle global warming, as individuals, as nations, and internationally.

Per capita, we in Europe and North America use many times the energy consumed by other nationals. Hence a drastic reduction in our carbon footprint is relatively easy.

The past fashion for apathy and cynicism may be historically justified, but now we must "accentuate the positive" so that our children have a chance of a tolerable future.

BTW, I'm a neither a Tory (roughly, Republican) - nor a Socialist (roughly, Democrat). I'm a Liberal (roughly, pragmatic eclectic) but this issue transcends party-political considerations.

i don't know the politics of your country, but in america it might be difficult to get elected president if you are perceived to be in favor of subjugating america's sovereignty to the authority of some other entity... this issue will be revisited in the campaign, i'm sure

[nige1]

luke warm, on May 23 2008, 08:49 AM, said:

I don't know the politics of your country, but in america it might be difficult to get elected president if you are perceived to be in favor of subjugating america's sovereignty to the authority of some other entity... this issue will be revisited in the campaign, i'm sure

IMO: Most countries are strong on patriotism. Nevertheless. many problems need to be tackled at individual, national and global levels. International co-operation inevitably involves loss of sovereignty: in the current context, that is a necessary sacrifice.

[blackshoe]

Maybe. We must, nonetheless, let the citizens of each country decide for themselves just how much of their sovereignty they're willing to give up.

[CSGibson]

DrTodd13, on May 19 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

Quote all over drudge yesterday about how Obama said that the US can't continue to drive SUVs, eat to the point of obesity, and keep our homes at a comfortable 72 degrees and expect the international community to say "OK." WTF does that mean? Does this mean he's going to make efforts to curtail these things so that the international community is happy that our standard of living has decreased? I don't think it is his job even if he becomes president to force people to change their lifestyles so that the perception of Americans improve overseas. Certainly, even if the international community is aghast at some supposed luxurious lifestyle we have, what are they going to do? Let them use all the words they want...those are cheap. They going to attack us to make us drive miniature cars, go on diets, and suffer in cold and hot weather? Increasing energy prices are going to do that quite nicely without anyone's help.

I think what he was saying is that the United States, as an aspiring world leader and a super-power, has to have it's own citizens doing the right thing before the international community will follow our leadership on issues. I think he's right in that we cannot be leaders and hypocrites at the same time, but where there's room for debate is what issues we should be fighting for.

[Al_U_Card]

The U.S., like most countries throughout history, when they, narcissistically, started to pay attention to their world "status", they were already well into their decline.....All hail our asiatic overlords.....(until the aliens show up...rofl)