Well then why do you rely on them for the military or for maintaining streets or administering justice?
Why do you always substitute questions for answers? Your argument has the obvious structure of the false dilemma either charities or government... ignoring the rather obvious possibility of charities and government. The real question is how an unexamined life can lead to political conservatism and how, once that avoidance is established, can an interest be rekindled or the willfulness that is at the center of the will to power can be tempered by its own actual desires. The answer, of course, is art. I hope, and in fact believe, that the young or maybe even yet to be born will rekindle artistic expression and once again show the world how to live. They are never rich when they start out. As they say, harder for a rich man to ..... But to answer most directly - because I have my vote and I can do what I want with it. I can foster my own interests by ensuring that there is a safety net. In government, properly structured as a democracy, a man has a single vote independent of his wealth. This provides a check to economic power. If however, the government controls the economy completely the check provided by wealth on the government is not provided and you have the opposite problem. The real problem is how to check the desire for domination carried out either through unfettered greed and its eventual control of all aspects of everyone’s lives or through the direct implementation of concentrated power in governmental hands achieving the same thing. Focault has important insights into how we can, acting together as "the masses" impair the attainment of totalitarianism achieved either through economic domination or political domination. It all comes down to privacy. What is necessary is to strip away the ability of those in power to remain private. To have laws for example - eventually – that establish that those in power are not allowed to meet or even talk except through a technical means that allows everyone to see. Before that however we need to establish international voting rights, with direct election of our representatives and wholly new and orders of magnitude greater constraints on power. There is a limit to what either charity of government can do in someone’s life to promote their benefit. Sooner or latter, if they truly are to be ok, then they need to be independent and contributory sources of their own benefit and - for their sake- and not only the sake of those that they will benefit - they need to be contributory sources of the benefit of others. But that does not mean that private charity or government can make no contribution. And there is the problem of the children of those who for whatever reason fail to provide for them. You might reflect your question back on yourself and ask why you are not doing more instead of writing in this news group if you are so concerned. If the answer is that you believe insights into foundation are needed right now and you are sincere in attempting to form them then that is great. If however, you are one of these hacks whose only purpose is to drive a wedge between people and their own political interests, to separate them from their vote in a sense, in order to marshal those votes in favor of those whose considerable economic power chafes at the idea of any limit being imposed on their power and for whom freedom itself, freedom ultimately from their own desires vice freedom in order to genuinely pursue their desires, is the only value, and a value that so conceived is as empty of content as a mirror reflecting on itself. If you’re one of those deeply despairing kind, for whom the only pleasure when they eat a steak in a very expensive restaurant is that they can eat it there and others cannot, and the fact that the cow was slaughtered for them vice they for the cow, if you are one of those angry despairing kind (you can hear it both Marxism and those that have elevated Rand to stature) then you simply must be defeated politically. There is plenty of room for a more reasoned approach. The real question is how to check all forms of human organization that are pyramidical. Governmental, business, religious, and non-govermental organizations to include all forms both legal and non-legal. What is needed is a comprehensive look at power and how it exercises itself in pyramids. Your idea that it is the single man against the government is severely flawed. It is the single man against any form of domination including the government. The false dilemma underneath your post has been successfully used to drive a wedge between people and their interests. You can see the attack on teachers, lawyers, government, all those that check economic might, as a fairly good thing as long as the teachers lawyers and government wage their own propaganda campaign to fight it and things stay in relative balance. This is needed until the will to power can ultimately be resolved in a genuine discovery of its emptiness that comes with enlightenment. Lately, it has been too little government, not too much. Globalization of markets has succeeded but globalization of the labor market and political democracy has not. I look forward to the time when all basic needs are covered, no one is allowed to starve, everyone has a place to sleep and when they are sick they are cared for. Then the artists can compete to keep us entertained. Scarcity is the real problem but we must not skew the economy by disenfranchising legitimate governmental use as a component of a necessary check on the political power of the rich. On Aug 27, 11:43 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > What is interesting to me is how those of you who keep going back to > “we are helping those in need” prefer not to do it all yourselves but > rather turn it over to the state, which is an external entity composed > of bureaucrats. It is almost as if you are saying ”I can’t decide > how to do it best myself, I don’t even want to choose where to put my > helping money, I can’t organize a group or a charity, (even though > they use mostly volunteers, which are WAY more cost effective, FREE in > fact.) No, I would rather you the State just did everything and I can > still have that helping the needy feeling and not have to choose” > States do not use volunteers very often. They have to pay them > exceptional wages and benefits, thus diluting the effectiveness. What > you seem to be saying is “they know better than I do” That is OK with > me, it just seems like giving away yourself to the state, which is the > thing I am against. If you believe so strongly in helping the needy, > why not just do it without the state? I would like to choose the > areas I think need the most help. Governments that take most of your > money don’t let you do that. > > Doctors without Borders is an amazing group, (who need MONEY for > some reason, I don‘t know why. ) They didn’t wait around for some > bureaucrat to do something, they just did it themselves. > > And when the State sends troops to Afghanistan or does something > else you don‘t like? In the name of “helping and protecting?” Too > late, you handed your money and your control over to “them” already. > It is always “them” who get to choose. You think you are choosing, > but it is clear that you are not. You can make a fuss, but it did not > stop them did it? > > You know what the ULTIMATE in “voting” is? Capitalism. Every > single dollar you spend is a vote. A vote that will be counted too! > Can’t be taken away from you. Everything you choose to spend money on > is a vote for it. Think about that the next time you spend your > money, what you have left of it, you already voted to give most of > your choices away already. You don’t approve of something? Don’t buy > it. There is no more powerful message, and it is your direct vote. > > I believe in personal choice. If you don’t, that is OK with me. > > On Aug 27, 7:44 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I do like Kunkel's take on capitalistic ventures and time. "Not the > > least way that Marxism is opposed to capitalism is in its relationship > > to time. Capitalist culture approaches a pure instantaneousness: no > > future, no past". > > Sure it's true that the culture of capitalism sees the now and > > disregards the ramifications, such as issues of environmental > > destruction, causal poverty and overall degradation of the extended > > life cycle. So we do have profits in the hundreds of billions while > > little attention is paid to the imperative which then leads to the > > death of ducks. > > Overall I don't think there is anything new when viewing the annals of > > human history, the deaths of many for the ideals of the few. I think > > it's a great topic which hopefully can elevate the group perspective > > and focus. Thanks Chris! > > > On Aug 27, 10:12 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > From > > > here:http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/08/24/what-we-are-not-emb... > > > > " > > > > Here is a good debate proposition: It ought to be less embarrassing to > > > have > > > been influenced by Ayn Rand than by Karl Marx. > > > > The most powerful way to argue the affirmative is to compare the number of > > > human beings murdered by the devotees of each. That line of attack ought > > > to > > > be decisive, but I’m afraid it won’t get you far with the multitude of > > > highly-self-regarded thinkers influenced by Karl Marx. Fact is, commitment > > > to some kind of socialism and fluency in the jargon of Marxism used to be > > > mandatory for serious intellectuals. And there’s something glamorous in > > > the > > > very idea of the intellectual. Even for those of us who came of age after > > > 1989, Marxism, like cigarettes, remains linked by association to the idea > > > of > > > the intellectual, and so, like cigarettes, shares in the intellectual’s > > > glamour. I don’t know if cigarettes or Marxism have killed more people, > > > but > > > it’s pretty clear cigarettes are more actively stigmatized. Marxists, > > > neo-Marxists, crypto-Marxists, post-Marxists, etc. have an enduring > > > influence on intellectual fashion. So it is not only possible proudly to > > > confess Marx’s influence on one’s thought, but it remains possible in some > > > quarters to impress by doing so. It ought to be embarrassing, but it > > > isn’t. > > > Being a bit of a Marxist is like having a closet full of pirate blouses > > > but > > > never having to worry." > > > > This gave me pause for consideration. Rand's philosophies have been much > > > maligned as "uncompassionate", while certain "socialist" (Marxist > > > Communist) > > > policies have been held up as an ideal, and yet, how many people have been > > > killed in the name of Randian philosophy, and how many have been killed in > > > the name of Marxist philosophy? > > > > What do YOU think? ;)- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
