US ambassador killed over a film

[kandrathe]

I'm a social libertarian. If I can't point to specific and compelling harms to others caused by certain behaviours, then I don't see what makes them immoral or unethical.

Well, me too. Maybe I'm just old and have been hammered into the mold. There are parts of our social contract I don't generally agree with, or wish were worded better, however I've subscribed to live in this society and don't see any better alternative. Therefore, I've signed onto the existing social contract. I'm in favor of amending it where possible to extend those freedoms that harm no one else, but it gets thorny. I see no need, and big risks if we were to trash it and start over.

First, a story. I used to lease a place with my college friends. We were responsible, and mostly a studious group. We'd have the occasional low key party, and inform our neighbors in advance (give them our phone number to call us if there was a problem) to head off a noise complaint and an unexpected visit from the police. But, there was another group of people who were a pariah to the other tenants. Frequently, after the police broke up their party, and dispersed the more irresponsible revelers, all of us in the complex would have to clean up after them.

If we look at the ancient Mosaic rule about sex outside of marriage. This was ostensibly to ensure that children were reared in the context of family, since even with modern society it is very difficult to both tend to a baby (or babies), and earn a living wage. Contraceptives could change the necessity for the rule if people were responsible for ensuring that pregnancy was truly planned.

There obviously remains a societal problem and our society is divided in which path we should follow. Clearly, the libertarian approach would be in favor of people being in charge of their own contraception and thereby pregnancy. The conservative approach is to favor the original intent of the Mosaic rule (i.e. abstinence), and actually the conservative realists secondarily also promote certain types of contraception when abstinence ultimately fails (62% of HS seniors report they've done it).

However, where the libertarian argument ends is when the progressive movement feels it is necessary to step in to expend national resources to rescue individuals from the negative consequences of their own choices.

We could also extend this libertarian exercise to the use of recreational drugs. I believe, as I think you do, that the government should not criminalize recreational drug use if it does no other person harm. But, as with many behaviors (some sanctioned) there are risks of addiction. We condone the use of tobacco and alcohol, which are demonstrably addictive, yet we do not do so for similar psychoactive substances. Mostly, the society still allows individuals to suffer the consequences of their choices. Recent legal actions against tobacco companies seem specious, and hypocritical when considering how farming tobacco is subsidized.

Again, the libertarian argument ends when the progressive movement feels it is necessary to step in to expend national resources to rescue individuals from the negative consequences of their own choices.

In our social contract, it doesn't make any sense to extend liberty without conditions, and then penalize everyone (by taking away their earnings) for the bad decisions of those who do not take responsible actions. Like the irresponsible tenants from my story, we are taking care of the irresponsible and enabling their bad behavior. We get left with cleaning up the mess.

In terms of social programs, this why I'm more in favor of minimal and limited protections (short term safety nets), and in favor of voucher systems, rather than "free" smörgåsbord type services. Whatever can be governed locally, should be. Whatever can be privatized, should be.

[Kevin]

In the case of drugs this is why I'm in favor of legalized and taxed and that tax rate being adjustable based on the amount of public monies required to clean up the messes that it causes. In that way, the primary involved are still paying for the consequences or potential consequences. Of course that does lead to a slippery slope, where do you stop? Do you tax sugar/fat to help the system pay for the potential consequences later?

Or do you wait till the consequences happen, and clean up, and potentially not get any payment for that?

In both cases (pay ahead, pay later) responsible people can still end up footing the bill, since responsible alcohol users would end up paying for the irresponsible ones. Or just the genetically blessed who don't suffer the long term health affects pay for those who aren't.

I also realize the whole "other people's money" and how governments all tend to spend money that is supposed to be for Budget Item X on Budget Item Y.

I think it would also require changing laws and possibly the constitution about how taxes are handled. I know that the recent health care stuff was deemed OK but I'm not sure everything like that would withstand a challenge.

[kandrathe]

I think it would also require changing laws and possibly the constitution about how taxes are handled. I know that the recent health care stuff was deemed OK but I'm not sure everything like that would withstand a challenge.

I agree with most of what you discussed above. This part though, I would clarify that the SCOTUS only confirmed that congress had the power to "tax" people, not that it was a sound and wise decision. They don't really offer blessings on legislation. They DO allow us to suffer with our own bad legislative decisions.

Ultimately the what and why of our laws rests with US, and who we send to represent our opinions. I tend to think the "blank check" health care programs are doomed to fail due to a lack of resources, and inability for a semi-rigid system to cope with the pace of change, and the volume of health care issues.

It is perhaps "more fair" to expect tobacco or alcohol consumers to pay for the additional societal costs of their consumption. Would it make sense to add taxes for grams of fats or sugars in foods? Should all food consumers pay for the additional societal costs of low exercise, diabetes, heart and artery disease of a few?

Why not engage in reckless self-indulgence when there are ample social programs awaiting your eventual decline? Can I get the government to both buy my drugs, and set me up with a free place to live as an unemployable addict? It reminds me of some people and places in my life, like Venice Beach near LA, or Ocean Beach near San Diego.

I think it moves away from a premise of individual liberty where each person is responsible for their own behavior and to a degree suffers the pros and cons of their own decisions.

[eppie]

Similarly to how I bristle at Eppie's posts that have an edge to them suggesting that there is some "dumbing" effect in religion, I bristle at this.

I haven't said that. I say that religious upbringing brainwashes people. And indeed the fear of hell is a very big factor in that brainwashing.

[Jester]

However, where the libertarian argument ends is when the progressive movement feels it is necessary to step in to expend national resources to rescue individuals from the negative consequences of their own choices.

We could also extend this libertarian exercise to the use of recreational drugs. I believe, as I think you do, that the government should not criminalize recreational drug use if it does no other person harm. But, as with many behaviors (some sanctioned) there are risks of addiction. We condone the use of tobacco and alcohol, which are demonstrably addictive, yet we do not do so for similar psychoactive substances. Like the irresponsible tenants from my story, we are taking care of the irresponsible and enabling their bad behavior. We get left with cleaning up the mess.

The estimated costs to the taxpayer of smokers is negative. They die early, and when they do, they don't claim future benefits.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w4891

Does that mean they're entitled to some rebate?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

In terms of social programs, this why I'm more in favor of minimal and limited protections (short term safety nets), and in favor of voucher systems, rather than "free" smörgåsbord type services. Whatever can be governed locally, should be. Whatever can be privatized, should be.

See, this is a Randian fantasy world to me. Capitalism, as any class antagonist system does, REQUIRES a heavy-handed State, and it also necessitates a considerable welfare-state, which of course varies nation by nation. The size and operation of these things is developed and fluctuates, in accordance with the flexibility of the labor pool as is needed for production in capitalist society. And stronger local power in the US? There goes the last century of progress, and the civil rights of minorities, women, and other marginalized groups. The system we live in now sucks bad enough, but sometimes I think you want to take us back to the dark ages.

Voucher systems, lol. Yea, try turning social security, medicare, and medicaid into a voucher - that is essentially one of the key policies of the Romney/Ryan plan, and that is also a good reason why Obama WILL be re-elected next month. Of course, within the framework of which I mentioned above, it makes no difference on which candidate wins, since capitalism wins either way, and the rest of us lose. But turning all social programs into voucher systems is ASKING for civil unrest, and perhaps revolution. Your philosophy wants to make the rich even more rich, and everyone else poorer. Perhaps a weeks vacation in Somalia, which is pretty close to the capitalist utopia that you adhere to so much, is something you should consider - although their military dictatorship still exemplifies that even the most neo-liberal nations need some sort of substantial State force to protect ruling class interests.

[kandrathe]

I haven't said that. I say that religious upbringing brainwashes people. And indeed the fear of hell is a very big factor in that brainwashing.

Is this your concept of parenting?

"Systematic effort to destroy an individual's former loyalties and beliefs and to substitute loyalty to a new ideology or power. It has been used by religious cults as well as by radical political groups. The techniques of brainwashing usually involve isolation from former associates and sources of information; an exacting regimen calling for absolute obedience and humility; strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation; physical and psychological punishments for noncooperation, including social ostracism and criticism, deprivation of food, sleep, and social contacts, bondage, and torture; and constant reinforcement. Its effects are sometimes reversed through deprogramming, which combines confrontation and intensive psychotherapy."

You must have had a rough childhood.

---

See, this is a Randian fantasy world to me.

Have you read her? It appears not.

[FireIceTalon]

I have read enough of and about her philosophy to know that one almost has to be a sociopath to identify or sympathize with her ideology, and therefore saved myself the time and agony of reading any of her "novels". I guess they would be good for a reading or two if you don't mind wearing your own colon as a belt. Not to mention the concepts in them are just laughable - billionaires going on strike because of high tax rates. LMAO. Poor billionaire plutocrats, they have it SO hard, dont they?

When a person writes a book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness", admires a serial killer that murdered and dismembered young girls, and whose self-proclaimed philosophy is the opposite of communism (Objectivism - just a fancy word for fascism), no further reading is required.

She was scum, on the same level as Hitler, and so are her right-wing, crack-pot admirers.

[kandrathe]

I have read enough of and about her philosophy...

gg. Thanks fer playing. You talk crap, and you don't bother to even read that which you pontificate about. I read Marx, I read Engels, I even read Nietzsche. My eyes bled, but I made it through.

[FireIceTalon]

Again, I've read enough to know what she's about, and it's not pretty.

I think there is little point in us engaging in further discourse to be honest - we don't even speak the same language. I don't speak bourgeois. Nor do I subscribe to people's philosophy (although in Rand's case, it is hardly worthy of being called "philosophy") who admire child rapists/killers.

I will leave you with this: Marx and Engels were scientific, objective, intellectual, analytical, and intelligent, revolutionary social scientists and economists. Rand was an egotistical, simple-minded, sociopathic, delusional Idealist and quite frankly, a not so intelligent reactionary, bat-shit crazy lunatic. Not to mention they were right on well, almost everything, and she was wrong on, well, just about everything. No comparison.

[DeeBye]

I tend to think the "blank check" health care programs are doomed to fail due to a lack of resources, and inability for a semi-rigid system to cope with the pace of change, and the volume of health care issues.

By "blank check health care system", do you mean the universal health care system adopted by almost every first world nation (and a few third world nations)? If they are all indeed doomed to fail, then surely some of them already have. Show me some convincing evidence that a government-run universal health care system is a total and complete failure using some real-world examples, and convince me that every nation using such a system is wrong for doing so.

[eppie]

I haven't said that. I say that religious upbringing brainwashes people. And indeed the fear of hell is a very big factor in that brainwashing.

Is this your concept of parenting?

No this is my concept of bad parenting. Making your child religious before he has grown up is bad parenting to me. (although I understand the cultural implications so I am not saying that such parents need to go to jail or so)

[i]"Systematic effort to destroy an individual's former loyalties and beliefs and to substitute loyalty to a new ideology or power. It has been used by religious cults as well as by radical political groups. The techniques of brainwashing usually involve isolation from former associates and sources of information; an exacting regimen calling for absolute obedience and humility; strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation; physical and psychological punishments for noncooperation, including social ostracism and criticism, deprivation of food, sleep, and social contacts, bondage, and torture; and constant reinforcement. Its effects are sometimes reversed through deprogramming, which combines confrontation and intensive psychotherapy."

You must have had a rough childhood.

No I didn't but I care for other people, I am not just thinking about myself

[Jester]

I will leave you with this: Marx and Engels were scientific, objective, intellectual, analytical, and intelligent, revolutionary social scientists and economists. ... Not to mention they were right on well, almost everything, and she was wrong on, well, just about everything. No comparison.

Yes. Remarkable how right this intelligent, objective Marx fellow was was about Judaism.

Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.

Remarkable truths from a remarkable man! (/sarcasm off)

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Marx was atheist and had contempt for all religion, so what is your point? He had this to say about Christianity:

"The social principles of Christianity declare all the vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or trials which the Lord, in his infinite wisdom, ordains for the redeemed.

"The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness, in short, all the qualities of the rabble, and the proletariat, which will not permit itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its self-confidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread.

"The social principles of Christianity are sneaking and hypocritical, and the proletariat is revolutionary".

And I think he is pretty spot on with most of it...especially the first statement.

[Jester]

Marx was atheist and had contempt for all religion, so what is your point?

Marx makes it abundantly clear - he is not talking about their religion. He says so right at the top of that quote. He is talking about Jews, and how they Jewishly Jew people out of their money, greedy bastards. The world being greedy, and the world being Jewish, are the same thing, because Jewish is synonymous with greed.

He was a rank anti-semite, in addition to a hypocrite and a sponge. So long as we're playing the game of "whose intellectual heroes were worse," Marx is pretty bad.

-Jester

[shoju]

Man, I'm thinking my intellectual heroes are just not as cool as everyone elses... I rank George Orwell and Aldous Huxley as my "big 2". But then, that probably speaks to my personality more than anything else.

[kandrathe]

No this is my concept of bad parenting. Making your child religious before he has grown up is bad parenting to me. (although I understand the cultural implications so I am not saying that such parents need to go to jail or so).

You are out on the fringe here, beyond the consensus of even secular main stream professionals in child and adolescent psychology. As described by Ken Pargament in "The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice", his description of the "rejectionist" position in psychology is 1) alienating to the patient, 2) against research findings, and 3) unethical. Page 363.

My own view is that children enter this world devoid of our societal structural framework, it would be abusive to leave that blank. They would fill it in with whatever influences they absorbed -- from other children, from their baby sitter, from the television, or from Big Bird videos. The parental responsibility is to 1) be responsible for them until that time they can be responsible for themselves, and 2) set them on a course to successfully integrate into our society capable of using their unique gifts for the betterment of themselves and society. Where I live, this society includes many things, including main stream Christianity. If I were in the depths of the Amazon, I would alter my guidance to better help my children survive/thrive in that society.

Thanks for not advocating tossing us Christian parents in in jail. You are a paragon of tolerance.

And... to set the record straight, Ayn Rand is not my hero. Her works are in my library along with many other notable authors. Perhaps I'll sandwich her between Marx and Engles just to hear the bindings scream.

If I had to pick the top 10 people who've influenced my thinking in no particular order;

Society
1) John Locke
2) Jean-Jacques Rousseau
3) Søren Kierkegaard

Economics
4) Milton Friedman
5) Frédéric Bastiat
6) Friedrich Hayek

Machines, Minds and Aesthetics
7) Marvin Minsky
8) Roger Penrose
9) Wystan Hugh Auden
10) Paul Cezanne

Ms. Rand might be in the top 100 -- I haven't thought about a list that big... I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged -- as a story, I like Dagny as an empowered heroine. Objectivism as a philosophy, suffers like others when slavishly imposed ( much like Marxism). When I have access to a knife, fork and spoon, why should I eat peas with only a knife? There are pearls of insight in studying many many viewpoints. I'm not so narrow minded to become the Fan Boi of one.

[kandrathe]

I tend to think the "blank check" health care programs are doomed to fail due to a lack of resources, and inability for a semi-rigid system to cope with the pace of change, and the volume of health care issues.

By "blank check health care system", do you mean the universal health care system adopted by almost every first world nation (and a few third world nations)? If they are all indeed doomed to fail, then surely some of them already have. Show me some convincing evidence that a government-run universal health care system is a total and complete failure using some real-world examples, and convince me that every nation using such a system is wrong for doing so.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/69520...tml?pg=all

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...48728.html

In an interview in La Razon with Ana Mato, Ministra de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad de España:

–En una entrevista al diario alemán «Frankfurter Allgemeine», el ministro de Economía, Luis de Guindos, ha anunciado que la próxima reforma que toca es la de Sanidad. ¿Es posible salir de actual situación de bancarrota?

–Yo definiría la situación de nuestro sistema sanitario de absolutamente insostenible. Hacen falta reformas para que el modelo sanitario que tenemos, que es magnífico y de una buena calidad, sea también viable. He propuesto un Pacto de Estado en Sanidad y Políticas Sociales, porque creo que se puede racionalizar el gasto, mejorar los sistemas y quitar duplicidades a través de una cartera básica de servicios.

The key translation there is "I would define the state of our health system is absolutely unsustainable."

The common theme throughout all those I look into is that it's the good when there are sufficient funds; we are all facing the same issue, with a growing population of need and an explosion of technology in treatments, devices and drugs -- just not enough "free money" to fund it all without driving us over the cliff. Unsustainable. It's maddening to know you have the means to solve a problem, but just cannot afford to do it.

A few weeks ago our cat of the last 8 years got really, really sick; the initial emergency room diagnostics were expensive ($500), and ruled out a bunch of things but didn't determine what was really ailing her. So, rather than jump into the $5000 operative procedures (way out of our budget), we opted for a simple regime of bringing her over to our local vet every few days for an hour or two of intervenous fluids and nutrients ($30 a pop). She eventually overcame her ailment, and has bounced back to her usual albeit cranky demeanor. Yes, it's a cat. But, it made me think about the economics of the care we'd like, versus the care we can afford. If you were paying for it, I may have opted for the expensive route (with all the risks of complications) with perhaps a worse outcome.

[FireIceTalon]

Marx was atheist and had contempt for all religion, so what is your point?

Marx makes it abundantly clear - he is not talking about their religion. He says so right at the top of that quote. He is talking about Jews, and how they Jewishly Jew people out of their money, greedy bastards. The world being greedy, and the world being Jewish, are the same thing, because Jewish is synonymous with greed.

He was a rank anti-semite, in addition to a hypocrite and a sponge. So long as we're playing the game of "whose intellectual heroes were worse," Marx is pretty bad.

-Jester

Your observation, comrade Jester, is a gross oversimplification of historical facts pertaining to the context of which Marx was writing in, as well as in response to, and it also doesn't take into consideration the political climate and nature of "political correctness" of the time.

"The Jewish Question" was written by Marx as a response to an author named Bruno Bauer, a German historian. Bauer was arguing at the time that Jews should not be allowed full civil rights or freedoms unless they converted to Christianity or were baptized as one, and that any suffering they endured was of their own cause - typical bourgeois language, much like what Republicans say about poor minorities today in America (though perhaps more in a cultural context than a religious one). If you really think about it, it was Bauer, not Marx, who was the anti-semite. Marx's argument was not against Jews themselves, but rather that Germans needed to be emancipated from capitalism, and not from Jews. His critique was in the context of the behavior of Jews being a result of living under capitalism, and not as a result of actually being Jewish as Bauer was arguing - this was part of Marx's concept of alienation. Also, at the time, there was no such thing as Judaism being viewed in a racial context, it was still very much in a religious one. Even today, it doesn't make much sense to me because one can change their religion at anytime. You might be born Jewish, but you can covert to another religion easily. You CANNOT convert to another race, obviously.

Admittedly, Marx's writing here is very awkward and can easily be taken out of context if it is just looked at upon face value, without any consideration to what he was responding to and writing about, and without considering the political correctness (or lack thereof) that was very common among philosophers and social scientists during this era. It wasn't until the 20th century where political correctness really came into itself, and much of the "political correctness" that the far right hates today is a result of the dreaded (from their perspective) "Cultural Marxism". I very much doubt Marx was an anti-semite, and when he stated "Workers of all countries unite" at the end of the Manifesto, you can bet your bottom dollar that included Jewish workers. Marx's writing style was often very rhetorical, sarcastic, and sometimes even scathing. Sometimes it was funny and true at the same time, like his quote about Napoleon III riding off the coattails of his infamous uncle, when he stated "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce". Other times, it is ambiguous, clumsy and doesn't come off well like in the case of these quotes from The Jewish Question, which is why an understanding of historical circumstances and context is important when reading any intellectual piece, especially a controversial one.

Lenin also has been commonly accused of anti-semitism (possibly because of the perceived anti-semitism of Marx, and being guilty by association) but this is refuted by a speech he gave in 1919:

"The tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organised pogroms against the Jews. The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. ... It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people. The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries. Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority. They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. ... The capitalists strive to sow and foment hatred between workers of different faiths, different nations and different races. ... Rich Jews, like rich Russians, and the rich in all countries, are in alliance to oppress, crush, rob, and disunite the workers. ... Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations".

The premises in the above speech rings even more true today, in America. Except now American capitalists and their reactionary apologists use Muslims and Latinos as scapegoats, rather than Jews.

Be as it may, racial and gender equality are absolute and universal prerequisites to being a revolutionary Leftist of any stripe - be they an anarchist, socialist, or communist. Always. The same is true for all other identity politics, including ethnicity, nationality, age, disability, sexual orientation, etc etc.

And lastly, I don't "admire" anyone. I respect his work and for the most part agree with what he wrote, in particular his scientific and historical materialist conception of the development of our history, but nothing more. Marxists in general don't like Great Man Theories.

---

Objectivism as a philosophy, suffers like others when slavishly imposed ( much like Marxism). When I have access to a knife, fork and spoon, why should I eat peas with only a knife? There are pearls of insight in studying many many viewpoints. I'm not so narrow minded to become the Fan Boi of one.

One problem: Marxism isn't a philosophy, nor is it an ideology - it is a science, and mode of analysis. Now, if you had said communism, you might sort of have a point, although communism itself isn't really a philosophy either, it's actually an ideology though the context of what you are saying may be applicable to it. Certainly not to Marxism though.

[kandrathe]

One problem: Marxism isn't a philosophy, it is a science, and mode of analysis. Now, if you had said communism, you might sort of have a point, although communism itself isn't really a philosophy either, it's actually an ideology though the context of what you are saying may be applicable to it.

Please point me to the volumes of Marx's reproducible experimentation. One does not become a self-proclaimed scientist merely because they hate philosophers.

I would accept Popper's characterization of Marx/Engels as pseudoscience. "Historicism" is unscientific. Its claims cannot be tested and, in particular, are not subject to being tested as falsifiable.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/critical_th...ility.html

I don't think Marx was merely an anti-semite -- he hated all organized religion. Consider "The Marx Nobody Knows" by Gary North http://www.unz.org/Pub/MaltsevYuri-1993-00075