Let's talk about the ideology of Charles Koch and its repercussions

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's talk about the ideology of Charles Koch and its repercussions

«‹›11 »

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

The-Mole posted:

And this philsopohy of the koches poo poo belongs in TCC, if anywhere.

Why, is there something about talking about kochs that makes you uncomfortable?

You can tell us, no judgement.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 02:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 09:43

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Nuclearmonkee posted:

It's not coherent and doesn't stand up to serious thought. However, it can sound pretty great to a completely self-centered teenager who just KNOWS they can do anything on their own and totally would if it weren't for those takers holding them back. Some people never get past that stage.

I mean this applies to any extreme ideology. Bigotry and racism to an extent too. Just replace "takers" with any number of things - corporations, jews etc.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 02:15

Caros: May 14, 2008

Weldon Pemberton posted:

Can one of the people on here who used to be Libertarian/Objectivist explain what they thought was coherent about this, please. I'm not attacking you, I sincerely want to know. She criticizes people who accept humans are social animals and should support each other in some way. She criticizes a mother who disregards everyone except her family (a lot of right-wing people would advocate supporting their family, if not the rest of society, even some hardcore libertarians). She criticizes businessmen who exploit others (in the form of subsidies and government corruption) for their own gain. Which I suppose is her setting the stage for the Libertarian argument that "big business is only corrupt when it uses the state to help it survive". But then she criticizes a lawyer whose philosophy is literally "gently caress you, got mine" and adapts to any situation without the help of others, focusing on his own self-interest. Would the lawyer be acceptable if he was also politically engaged and advocated Objectivism? Is his flaw the fact that he doesn't want to change the world to enable more people, who aren't as good at navigating a "broken" system as him, to acquire the wealth they deserve? If so, how is this not a form of "supporting the incompetent"- why are people who could succeed in Rand's ideal world, but not the current world, defined as "competent"? Does Rand accept the idea of "helping" others, only through indoctrinating them with her weird ideas rather than emotional or material support? Ultimately, after I read that passage, all I could think was "of loving course everyone on the train had one of those perspectives on life, since you went through a million diverse political viewpoints including some that are near-identical to your own!"

I suppose this leads back to the Koch brothers and their ideology. Having accepted that they genuinely believe they are helping the world through their ideology (helping bring about idealized "freedom"), like Rand, what is the difference? Aside from the rhetoric and tone being much different. Is it that they believe "freedom" would be beneficial for all classes, while Rand realizes the poor (undeserving in her opinion) will suffer? Is it that they are prepared to spend their money on scholarships and grants for disadvantaged kids? Do they believe it would actually help to "raise up" the disadvantaged, but strictly want to do it through private charity? Or is all that stuff just purely strategic, a PR move that also secures the person/institution that was given the money as a stronghold of Koch support?

Ed: thinking about the possible dichotomy here between support in the sense of "learning, being told the objective truth and taught to fend for yourself" vs. "material support" it's possible they just have different views on the whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" adage. You need food every day, so you can't actually teach a starving man to fish without also giving him food in the process. Koch brothers perhaps realize this and are willing to support young people financially for that reason. They just have a much higher standard of who is the "deserving poor" than normal people, repudiate the state's involvement in any way, and would not advocate support for anyone who screwed up again later in life and returned to poverty. I don't remember Rand's view on this, as I've read very little of her works first-hand.

I'll give this one a go. The most important thing about Objectivism is that it is not merely 'gently caress you, Got mine'! To use a terribly goony example, it is at a level beyond 'gently caress you, Got Mine', a 'gently caress you, Got mine' 2 if you would.

Objectivism is beyond pure libertarianism. Libertarians of the Mises variety believe that they are simply following 'logic' to its ultimate conclusion, taxation is theft because the government is illegitimate, government is illegitimate because you didn't personally agree to it. Ipso facto, taxation is theft.

Objectivism says gently caress sane logic. One of the primary concepts of Objectivism is that Existence exists and existence is identity, because you can't exist if you don't have features and characteristics that make up your existence. Identity likewise allows for conciousness, you are aware of yourself and by that you are aware of things that are not you. When you are aware of things that are not you, then you are concious and have reason. You can tell the difference between things, a leaf can't be red and green at once. A=A. :suicide:

Anyways, stupidity aside that stuff is actually important to explaining it. You=You and the fact that you are a concious entity with reason means that you should have morals. But what are morals? A code of values to guide choices and actions. Rand contends that the first question regarding what those values should be, is whether there should be any at all. You are you, and the fact that you are a living entity determines what you should do. Rand believes that there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence.

Moreover she believed that men were different from all other things in that we have free-will and reason. A dog eats because it eats, but a man must make a conscious decision to do what prolongs his life. Rand goes on to say that because you are alive, you have made the choice to be alive. Since you have made that choice, the only rational set of values is the values that put your life at the forefront, simply put man's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well being. This goes hand in hand with her belief in Egoism, that every one will do what is in their own self interest, because it is the most rational way to live their lives. To quote John Galt:

quote:

I swear�by my life and my love of it�that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Ayn Rand theorizes that since Reason is the means of knowledge and morality, it is necessary for survival and to shape the world as you want. The use or threat of force neutralizes reason and takes away choice, which means that the only way that people can 'properly' interact is through persuasion and cooperation.

Since the need to reason is key to achieve moral value, individuals have inviolable moral rights to act as they want and keep what they create. This means that they only believe in negative rights, that each individual has to refrain from violating the rights of others. These rights are the typical, life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Capitalism, by virtue of its individualistic nature, is the only system that recognizes these rights. Government can continue to exist because it is needed for the monopoly of force effect, but that is basically the only function she agrees it should serve.

So what does all of this have to do with the train? Well its what all the passengers have in common. Can you see it yet?

They disagree with her.

The one thread that goes through all the passengers is that they do

quote:

The man in Bedroom A, Car No. 1, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability is of no consequence, that individual effort is futile, that an individual conscience is a useless luxury, that there is no individual mind or character or achievement, that everything is achieved collectively, and that it's masses that count, not men. Denies the pure reason of the individual.

The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion 'for a good cause' who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others - to wreck lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of 'a good cause',which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by 'a feeling' -a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied soley on his own 'good intentions' and on the power of a gun. Suggests using the initiation of force, which kills reason.

The woman in Roomette 10, Car No.3, was an elderly schoolteacher who had spent her life turning class after class of helpless children into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil, and that a majority may do anything it pleases, that they must not assert their own personalities, but must do as others were doing. Denies the pure reason of the individual.

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No. 4, was a newspaper publisher who believed that mend are evil by nature and unfit for freedom, that their basic interests, if left unchecked, are to lie, to rob and murder one another - and, therefore, men must be ruled by means of lies, robbery and murder, which must be made the exclusive privilege of the rules, for the purpose of forcing men to work, teaching them to be moral and keeping them within the bounds of order and justice. Denies the pure reason of the individual.

The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill. Took part in the initiation of force in the form of a government loan. Alternately denies the inequality of men.

The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying 'frozen' railway bonds and getting his friends in Washington to 'defreeze' them. Took part in fraud, an initiation of force.

The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not. Denies the ability of others to make individual choices. Alternately takes place in the initiation of force via government work programs.

The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had "a right" to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not. Denies the ability of others to make individual choices. Alternately takes place in the initiation of force via government work programs.

The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery. Denies the pure reason of the individual.

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, 'I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.' Takes part in the initiation of force.

The man in Roomette 3, Car No. 11, was a sniveling little neurotic who wrote cheap little plays into which, as a social message, he inserted cowardly little obscenities to the effect that all businessmen were scoundrels. Tough, but likely that he cheapens his own reason by lying to himself about buisnessmen. Also Ayn Rand hates people with mental diseases/people who are weak in general.

The woman in Roomette 9, Car No. 12, was a housewife who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing, to control giant industries, of which she had no knowledge. Getting repetitive, but Takes part int he initiation of force.

The man in Bedroom F, Car No.13, was a lawyer who had said, 'Me? I'll find a way to get along under any political system.'Toughest of the bunch by far. Deserves to die probably because of his refusal to take any sort of objective moral stance.

The man in Bedroom A, Car No.14, was a professor of philosophy who taught that there is no mind - how do you know that the tunnel is dangerous? - no reality - how can you prove that the tunnel exists? - no logic - why do you claim that trains cannot move without motive power? - no principles - why should you be bound by the laws of cause and effect? - no rights - why shouldn't you attach men to their jobs by force? - no morality - what's moral about running a railroad? - no absolutes - what difference does it make to you whether you live or die anyway?. He taught that we know nothing - why oppose the orders of your superiors? - that we can never be certain of anything - how do you know you're right? - that we must act on the expediency of the moment - you don't want to risk your job do you? Denies pure reason. Initiation of force. Objective Morality. Ignores existence... jesus.

The man in Drawing Room B, Car No.15, was an heir who had inherited his fortune, and who had kept repeating, 'Why should Rearden be the only one permitted to manufacture Rearden Metal?'Denies the inequality of men.

The man in Bedroom A, Car no. 16, was a humanitarian who had said, 'The men of ability? I do not care what or if they are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the needy is concerned.'Initiation of force

These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas. As the train went into the tunnel, the flame of Wyatt's Torch was the last thing they saw on earth.

Suffice to say the problem with everyone on that train is that they are not objectivists, and thus they are not moral. They have given up their rational mind and in doing so have effectively chosen to die. The train is just one big lovely metaphor.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 05:06

Rexicon1: Oct 9, 2007; A Shameful Path Led You Here

Wait, so objectivism literally denies the morality of people who aren't objectivist? Holy loving poo poo. The leaps in logic required for that are mind boggling; epistemologically and otherwise.

What kind of infantile mind falls for this poo poo?

# ? Jan 16, 2014 07:36

Caros: May 14, 2008

Rexicon1 posted:

Wait, so objectivism literally denies the morality of people who aren't objectivist? Holy loving poo poo. The leaps in logic required for that are mind boggling; epistemologically and otherwise.

What kind of infantile mind falls for this poo poo?

... Me? Briefly?

Objectivists pretty much believe that the only moral guidelines that matter are objectivist ones. Anything else is irrational because Objectivist ones come from axioms and logic. It is a profoundly selfish and sociopathic belief system that appeals primarily to young, white males between the ages of 14-30, the same as libertarian beliefs in general. Fun fact, 94% of libertarians are non-hispanic whites, because in a lot of cases we want something to justify our privilege.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 08:01

Forgall: Oct 16, 2012; by Azathoth

Caros posted:

Moreover she believed that men were different from all other things in that we have free-will and reason. A dog eats because it eats, but a man must make a conscious decision to do what prolongs his life. Rand goes on to say that because you are alive, you have made the choice to be alive. Since you have made that choice, the only rational set of values is the values that put your life at the forefront, simply put man's primary moral obligation is to achieve his own well being. This goes hand in hand with her belief in Egoism, that every one will do what is in their own self interest, because it is the most rational way to live their lives. To quote John Galt:

It's as if a cancer cell learned to talk.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 11:38

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Rexicon1 posted:

Wait, so objectivism literally denies the morality of people who aren't objectivist? Holy loving poo poo.

Isn't it worse than that? I look at that and I don't see just a denial of their morality. It's a denial of their existences. They cease to be because they aren't objectivists.

Oh goddamn it. Now I'm getting FreedomWorks banner ads because of looking at this crap.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 15:14

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

When the fundamental axiom of a philosophy is that an objective reality exists, everything that follows is going to be really hosed up, keep that in mind.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 16:29

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

rscott posted:

When the fundamental axiom of a philosophy is that an objective reality exists, everything that follows is going to be really hosed up, keep that in mind.

Objective reality is what I subjectively think it is. It's like halfassed solipsism.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 16:42

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Well it also has the whole "being for self" negating the void thing going on, without a following negation of negation of "self for others".

Objectivism is a reification of selfishness. Selfishness as philosophy, as how to live. No selflessness,. That's easy to tear up. Just living tears it up because most people have selfless impulses they act on towards the people they love. I've stopped being really worried about objectivism being compelling in the long term consequently. If one loves others that contradicts objectivism as ones philosophy. That's why I think the difference between it and the other libertarian stuff is important.

Liberty as how to live just seems tougher to go after. It's radical freedom as how to live. Liberty as the means of knowledge and morality. To contradict it is: You are not free and are not free to take any action you will. I think they would use the word "constrained" to talk about that state (taken from Thomas Sowell and this one is on the Kochfacts reading list, it's in the dogma). They're arguing that more liberty moves individuals and society from a constrained state to an unconstrained state. In other words they are saying liberty takes one from sin to heaven. It's reified Liberty providing salvation. Hang on...

There it is. That's how the Buckley marginalized the Birchers. Don't immantize the eschaton. So the right does have a way to push the tea party nuts out, if they figure that out.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 18:43

Caros: May 14, 2008

BrandorKP posted:

Well it also has the whole "being for self" negating the void thing going on, without a following negation of negation of "self for others".

Objectivism is a reification of selfishness. Selfishness as philosophy, as how to live. No selflessness,. That's easy to tear up. Just living tears it up because most people have selfless impulses they act on towards the people they love. I've stopped being really worried about objectivism being compelling in the long term consequently. If one loves others that contradicts objectivism as ones philosophy. That's why I think the difference between it and the other libertarian stuff is important.

Liberty as how to live just seems tougher to go after. It's radical freedom as how to live. Liberty as the means of knowledge and morality. To contradict it is: You are not free and are not free to take any action you will. I think they would use the word "constrained" to talk about that state (taken from Thomas Sowell and this one is on the Kochfacts reading list, it's in the dogma). They're arguing that more liberty moves individuals and society from a constrained state to an unconstrained state. In other words they are saying liberty takes one from sin to heaven. It's reified Liberty providing salvation. Hang on...

There it is. That's how the Buckley marginalized the Birchers. Don't immantize the eschaton. So the right does have a way to push the tea party nuts out, if they figure that out.

Objectivism just denies that those 'selfless' impulses are anything of the kind. If you do something to take care of family, friends, or a loved one, you do it because it brings you personal satisfaction or otherwise contributes to your own well being. That said, you are absolutely right that Ayn Rand's creation is based entirely around selfishness. Since I stopped being a libertarian I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Ayn Rand came up with objectivism as a way to explain away and get rid of her own cognitive dissonance at the fact that she was a sociopath, and to make it publicly acceptable to be that way.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 19:04

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

rscott posted:

When the fundamental axiom of a philosophy is that an objective reality exists, everything that follows is going to be really hosed up, keep that in mind.

How do you figure that? "Reality exists" is the least controversial and most benign part of objectivism.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 19:44

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Strudel Man posted:

How do you figure that? "Reality exists" is the least controversial and most benign part of objectivism.

The whole A=A thing really breaks down once you understand that people perceive things differently based on their own experiences. How much does "reality exist" for the schizophrenic homeless man?

Basically it's "Everyone who doesn't see the world in the way that I see it is objectively wrong."

# ? Jan 16, 2014 19:49

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

WampaLord posted:

The whole A=A thing really breaks down once you understand that people perceive things differently based on their own experiences. How much does "reality exist" for the schizophrenic homeless man?

Basically it's "Everyone who doesn't see the world in the way that I see it is objectively wrong."

The schizophrenic homeless man seems an odd case to bring up, since he's genuinely misperceiving reality, and needs help for that reason.

Besides, there's a big gulf between "reality exists" and "absolutely everything is objectively true or false."

# ? Jan 16, 2014 20:27

rscott: Dec 10, 2009

You're missing a crucial word in what I said, the objective part.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 20:32

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

The only way to respond to pseudoscience or pseudoeconomics or pseudophilosophy is to just laugh it the gently caress out of the room.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:03

BottledBodhisvata: Jul 26, 2013; by Lowtax

Anyone who believes in objective reality has clearly never dropped acid.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:45

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Strudel Man posted:

The schizophrenic homeless man seems an odd case to bring up, since he's genuinely misperceiving reality, and needs help for that reason.

The problem with this is that the other half of Objectivism says "So gently caress anyone who doesn't see reality the same way as me." They'd be more than happy to write off the homeless dude, they wouldn't want to help him get back his ability to connect with reality.

Essentially, the argument of "reality exists" is just a dogwhistle for "gently caress poor people" just like everything else in that insane "philosophy."

Strudel Man posted:

Besides, there's a big gulf between "reality exists" and "absolutely everything is objectively true or false."

Objectivism doesn't recognize that gulf.

# ? Jan 16, 2014 22:49

Ogodei_Khan: Feb 28, 2009

The problem is not the claim that there is a reality that exists. It is the claim of special access to that reality that exists that cuts out any truth conducive processes or epistemic justification. It is the claim that there is a reality that exists and I have a special access to this reality in virtue of being rational. It is not even a issue of temporal access that they are making but about special conceptual access. It is not the issue of whether I was present to observe something that means I have access but whether I express a belief that leads me to certain conceptual claims/exhibits that access. That claim in practice amounts to agents express rationality and the only way to know they are rational is that expression in the first place. There is no check then on being rational and it becomes viciously circular. It appears like an old version of peripatetic ethics but it is not because it does not make use of the Aristotelian categories to separate that expression at the level of particular and at class of objects. Some other views like virtue epistemology allow for circularity but add truth conducive conditions or ethical conditions. Since objectivism lacks that you end up with a lot of problems. It is not like deontology either because they have maxims which function as truth conducive of conceptual integrity. For example, You cannot take a loan with no intent to pay it back for instance because the concept of loan necessitates that it be paid back. The maxim of treating people as ends and not means means is also important in a truth conducive sense. Edit: Clarified a bit.

Ogodei_Khan fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jan 17, 2014

# ? Jan 17, 2014 00:02

Weldon Pemberton: May 19, 2012

Caros posted:

I'll give this one a go.

Thanks for the explanation. What confused me about the lawyer is that is doesn't describe him actively doing anything Rand would disapprove of, merely his inaction regarding the political situation. I had this idea that not doing anything in the face of "evil" was considered morally neutral by Objectivists (but I may be getting confused with garden-variety Libertarians and their definition of "force"). What it seems like she's saying is that either a) he rejects her notion of objective reality, or b) he accepts it- but since he does nothing to promote it, he is effectively helping to obscure the reality.

quote:

Objectivism just denies that those 'selfless' impulses are anything of the kind. If you do something to take care of family, friends, or a loved one, you do it because it brings you personal satisfaction or otherwise contributes to your own well being.

For someone who hates Kant so much it's quite funny that she basically buys into his idea about any act of altruism that benefits the actor being false altruism.

Weldon Pemberton fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jan 17, 2014

# ? Jan 17, 2014 00:29

Caros: May 14, 2008

Weldon Pemberton posted:

Thanks for the explanation. What confused me about the lawyer is that is doesn't describe him actively doing anything Rand would disapprove of, merely his inaction regarding the political situation. I had this idea that not doing anything in the face of "evil" was considered morally neutral by Objectivists (but I may be getting confused with garden-variety Libertarians and their definition of "force"). What it seems like she's saying is that either a) he rejects her notion of objective reality, or b) he accepts it- but since he does nothing to promote it, he is effectively helping to obscure the reality.

For someone who hates Kant so much it's quite funny that she basically buys into his idea about any act of altruism that benefits the actor being false altruism.

Ayn Rand actually believes that altruism in and of itself is evil. You can't do something good for someone for no reason because that is denying the objective reality that you are the most important thing to yourself. Its a really hosed up belief system.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:13

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment I'm alive, I pray for death!

Caros posted:

Ayn Rand actually believes that altruism in and of itself is evil. You can't do something good for someone for no reason because that is denying the objective reality that you are the most important thing to yourself. Its a really hosed up belief system.

Between that, that "those passengers all had it coming" passage from Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's own personal obsession with serial killer William Edward Hickman,* it should come as no surprise that the pseudo-philosophy derived from her works is hosed up and insane.

*of whom Rand herself wrote that he had, "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman."

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:21

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

WampaLord posted:

The problem with this is that the other half of Objectivism says "So gently caress anyone who doesn't see reality the same way as me." They'd be more than happy to write off the homeless dude, they wouldn't want to help him get back his ability to connect with reality.

Actually it's worse than than that. They'd expect everybody else to totally abandon the homeless dude to his own devices. Recall that when Rand's husband came down with Alzheimer's she forced him to do mental exercises to get himself better.

Randists believe that an insane person is insane because they didn't want sanity badly enough. If they wanted to be sane they'd just work harder at it so we shouldn't help them. It's their own fault they spun off into madness anyway. Completely ignoring, of course, external factors beyond their control like genes that lead to chemical issues in the brain or brain damage from accidents. Chemical exposure can also gently caress up the brain, as can trauma.

Same thing with homelessness. A person can become or remain homeless through no actual fault of their own but Randism's philosophy on it is "deregulate everything, if they want to have a home they'll go get one." The problem is that Randism looks at everything in a vacuum, totally separate from external circumstances. If I'm sitting in my apartment and it suddenly gets flattened by an airplane that's somehow my own fault.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:21

BottledBodhisvata: Jul 26, 2013; by Lowtax

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Same thing with homelessness. A person can become or remain homeless through no actual fault of their own but Randism's philosophy on it is "deregulate everything, if they want to have a home they'll go get one." The problem is that Randism looks at everything in a vacuum, totally separate from external circumstances. If I'm sitting in my apartment and it suddenly gets flattened by an airplane that's somehow my own fault.

Strangely, that's a conclusion espoused by Buddhism and Hinduism, in line with the concepts of Karma, but it's drawn from a completely opposite philosophical assertion--that, as the external and the internal require one another to function, all seperate entities and seperate events in the universe suggest and contribute to a greater whole, a sort of cosmic singularity, which means that everyone is you and you are everyone and that compassion is the only sensible emotion/virtue to endorse. You should be compassionate because even the lowest of low creatures is wholly divine.

Ayn Rand probably wouldn't like Buddhism.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:46

ToxicSlurpee: Nov 5, 2003; -=SEND HELP=-; Pillbug

BottledBodhisvata posted:

Strangely, that's a conclusion espoused by Buddhism and Hinduism, in line with the concepts of Karma, but it's drawn from a completely opposite philosophical assertion--that, as the external and the internal require one another to function, all seperate entities and seperate events in the universe suggest and contribute to a greater whole, a sort of cosmic singularity, which means that everyone is you and you are everyone and that compassion is the only sensible emotion/virtue to endorse. You should be compassionate because even the lowest of low creatures is wholly divine.

Ayn Rand probably wouldn't like Buddhism.

I'm a Buddhist actually and yeah there's some major differences between Buddhism and Randism. Randism advocates jealously clinging to what you have and not sharing with anybody, ever because gently caress you, this is mine. I am a totally isolated, individual entity from the entire universe. Like you said, Buddhism is the opposite and encourages compassion.

The proper Buddhist response to a flattened apartment is "hey come crash over at my place, I'll help you through this poo poo." The proper Randian response is "why the gently caress did your stupid rear end live in a place that gets airplanes flying over it a lot? If you weren't such a lazy rear end you could afford to live in a safer place. Go sleep under a bridge you scrub, call me back if you can afford to pay me rent for my couch."

# ? Jan 17, 2014 01:54

Ogodei_Khan: Feb 28, 2009

Depending on the Buddhist sect there is also an allowance of paraconsistency to actions as well. They are things which are true and false at the same time but not excluded middle claims necessarily. Endorsement of paraconsistency in metaphysics does not really make sense because they lead to impasse. Paraconsistent relations occur at a epistemic level and point towards a metaphysical underpinning. In Buddhism that relation can point towards causal relations. Rand involves an intentional state, an intention or feeling towards things that is denied in Buddhism. Buddhism replaces that intuitional state with compassion as orienting the agent and replacing their intuitional state. Eastern Orthodox thought also has a similar view of dispassion that gives way to love as an intuitional state. In both cases the causal actions occur and move intentional states in different directions. Those intentional directions then lead to different ethical effects. Rand has a similar set up but there is no change in intentional state and just a correspondence between the state of affairs and intention. It also leads to her ethical claim as well. Buddhism and Eastern Christianity also have different views of causality that combine the mental and physical very differently from Rand if they are dualist. Both Buddhism and Eastern Orthodox thought tend to lead to that single causal chain because of their monist inclinations. Rand does not really have an equivalent to that because the causal relations of actions are not tied to those of world. In a way it be more like Shingon Buddhism, where certain words are supposed to have a causal connection to actuality. Rand still seems to lack that connection though. Reason exists as a set of objects that some have special access to. Their intentional mode of orientating themselves is always narcissistic and combined with the agent but yet still expresses metaphysical relations.

Ogodei_Khan fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jan 17, 2014

# ? Jan 17, 2014 02:20

Caros: May 14, 2008

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Between that, that "those passengers all had it coming" passage from Atlas Shrugged, and Rand's own personal obsession with serial killer William Edward Hickman,* it should come as no surprise that the pseudo-philosophy derived from her works is hosed up and insane.

*of whom Rand herself wrote that he had, "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman."

This one bears repeating. I didn't find out about this until Joementum posted it in... I think the bitcoin thread about two months ago. It really is the perfect example of what the gently caress is wrong with Ayn Rand.

Hickman wasn't actually a serial killer however. He killed someone during a drug story hold-up, but is most famous for murdering Marion Parker, a twelve year old kidnapping victim. Ayn Rand actually had a straight up crush on the man through much of her life, and one of her first novels was intended to be called 'The Little Street' and focused around the 'idea' of Hickman, which is to say, a man who gives absolutely zero fucks about what society thinks of him.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 02:24

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Browsing through discovery newsletters, They quote their father (the John Bircher) occasionally.

Discovery posted:

�In order to be successful it is necessary that you want to be. You must have the will to win." Fred Koch

The "will" talk implies some worrying/interesting things. They also tell a lot of stories about Fred Koch's life.

Also found general idea of annual revenues and growth of KII

Discovery posted:

"Ten years ago, Koch Industries had 15,000 employees and just over $35 billion in annual revenues. Today, it has about 60,000 employees helping
generate $115 billion in revenues. "

That puts KII in the revenues ball park of say Apple (Which does what 35 billion a quarter?).

I conjectured that they were trying spread MBM as a way to run governments found an explicit example of that type of argument:

Discovery posted:

If we use an MBM perspective to look at our country�s environmental decision-making, it�s not hard to see why so many policies and programs have failed to
achieve the desired results

He updated MBM definitions in one issue http://www.kochind.com/files/DiscoveryOctober2012.pdf, the ones I found interesting:

Discovery posted:

Integrity
OLD:
Conduct all affairs lawfully
and with integrity.
NEW:
Conduct all affairs with
integrity, for which courage is the
foundation.
...
Courage � which we define as the mental
or moral strength to venture forward,
persevere and withstand danger, fear or
difficulty

Change
OLD:
Embrace change. Envision what
could be, challenge the status quo, and
drive creative destruction.
NEW:
Anticipate and embrace change.
Envision what could be, challenge the
status quo and drive creative destruction
through experimental discovery.

So there is publicly available documentation of Mr. Koch fiddling with the exact wording of his MBM principles going back at least a decade. Also he's defining new terms (Courage) so as to fit them into the systematic five years after it was published! I think this is clear cut evidence that these ideas matter to him. One doesn't fiddle with a systematic for a decade if it's just a throwaway. And it's a bunch futsy changes too, he seems really into tweaking his word order. Also notice the addition of "through experimental discovery" to creative destruction.

Oh God, the newsletters have young Charles Koch stories. The parable of young C. Koch and the Oil Man:

Discovery posted:

When Charles Koch was in his 20s, he
attended a business function hosted by
his father. At that event, Fred Koch intro
-
duced Charles to a local oilman.
When the independent oilman politely
asked about the young man�s interests,
Charles began talking about all he was do
-
ing to promote economic freedom.
�Wow!� said the oilman, who was so im
-
pressed he wanted to introduce the young
bachelor to his eligible daughter.
But when Charles mentioned he was in
favor of eliminating the government�s oil
import quota, which subsidized domestic
producers, the oilman exploded in rage.
�
Your father ought to lock you in a cell!�
he yelled, jabbing his finger into Charles�
chest. �You�re worse than a Communist!�
It seems the oilman was all for the concept
of free markets � unless it meant he had to
compete on equal terms

That's a young Charles Koch parable published in the Discovery newsletter. I'm loosing my poo poo, here. I had to write that sentence like three times. I'm finding more too, the rest are slightly less parable-y, but it seems like there is a young Charles story or reference in most of the newsletters.

Discovery, Charles Koch posted:

I want my legacy to be greater freedom, greater prosperity and a better way of life for my family, our employees and all Americans.

There we go, there is the "if you join me we'll all get ours" thing, I was talking about.

# ? Jan 17, 2014 18:14

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Weldon Pemberton posted:

Can one of the people on here who used to be Libertarian/Objectivist explain what they thought was coherent about this, please. I'm not attacking you, I sincerely want to know. She criticizes people who accept humans are social animals and should support each other in some way. She criticizes a mother who disregards everyone except her family (a lot of right-wing people would advocate supporting their family, if not the rest of society, even some hardcore libertarians). She criticizes businessmen who exploit others (in the form of subsidies and government corruption) for their own gain. Which I suppose is her setting the stage for the Libertarian argument that "big business is only corrupt when it uses the state to help it survive". But then she criticizes a lawyer whose philosophy is literally "gently caress you, got mine" and adapts to any situation without the help of others, focusing on his own self-interest. Would the lawyer be acceptable if he was also politically engaged and advocated Objectivism? Is his flaw the fact that he doesn't want to change the world to enable more people, who aren't as good at navigating a "broken" system as him, to acquire the wealth they deserve? If so, how is this not a form of "supporting the incompetent"- why are people who could succeed in Rand's ideal world, but not the current world, defined as "competent"? Does Rand accept the idea of "helping" others, only through indoctrinating them with her weird ideas rather than emotional or material support? Ultimately, after I read that passage, all I could think was "of loving course everyone on the train had one of those perspectives on life, since you went through a million diverse political viewpoints including some that are near-identical to your own!"

I suppose this leads back to the Koch brothers and their ideology. Having accepted that they genuinely believe they are helping the world through their ideology (helping bring about idealized "freedom"), like Rand, what is the difference? Aside from the rhetoric and tone being much different. Is it that they believe "freedom" would be beneficial for all classes, while Rand realizes the poor (undeserving in her opinion) will suffer? Is it that they are prepared to spend their money on scholarships and grants for disadvantaged kids? Do they believe it would actually help to "raise up" the disadvantaged, but strictly want to do it through private charity? Or is all that stuff just purely strategic, a PR move that also secures the person/institution that was given the money as a stronghold of Koch support?

Ed: thinking about the possible dichotomy here between support in the sense of "learning, being told the objective truth and taught to fend for yourself" vs. "material support" it's possible they just have different views on the whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" adage. You need food every day, so you can't actually teach a starving man to fish without also giving him food in the process. Koch brothers perhaps realize this and are willing to support young people financially for that reason. They just have a much higher standard of who is the "deserving poor" than normal people, repudiate the state's involvement in any way, and would not advocate support for anyone who screwed up again later in life and returned to poverty. I don't remember Rand's view on this, as I've read very little of her works first-hand.

"Near" identical; that's all you need to be in order to be Ayn Rand's implacable enemy.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 02:21

Schizotek: Nov 8, 2011; I say, hey, listen to me!
Stay sane inside insanity!!!

Caros posted:

Ayn Rand theorizes that since Reason is the means of knowledge and morality, it is necessary for survival and to shape the world as you want. The use or threat of force neutralizes reason and takes away choice, which means that the only way that people can 'properly' interact is through persuasion and cooperation.

This is how I managed to be some sort of randroid socialist Frankenstein in my late highschool years. I felt that dear old Ayn was on the right track, but the personal biases formed during her life blinded her to the use of economical coercion as a means to deny somebody their ability to make a self rational choice. The ARI crowd absolutely loved me :v:

The Atlas Society crowd were curiously accepting of it. Nobody agreed with me but "open school of thought" and all, I guess.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 02:44

BottledBodhisvata: Jul 26, 2013; by Lowtax

Out of curiosity, can we perhaps bring up Stefan Molyneux here? He's growing in popularity and exposure thanks to appearances on some popular podcasts, and he's something of an odd duck. He's a super Libertarian who lives in Canada and has gone on tangents criticizing, say, the recent 75% tax on the rich put forth by the French Government (recently upheld by their courts).

Here's a link to his youtube page for reference: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w

Now, I'm not a philosopher professionally and I'm sort of astonished that it's still a job that exists, but I'm not necessarily sad to see it so. I am sad to see it in the form of Molyneux because he's bizarrely critical and deeply supportive of Rand, he's all on the "taxes are stealing" bit, he believes that taxation is coercion by force by the government and nobody would pay taxes if they didn't have to and all of that good stuff.

I liked him at first, because he does some pretty interesting analysis on the Snowden case, and I first came to know him through his write-up of the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman trial, which I think is pretty well-done. He's also very anti violence, since he keeps spouting on about "non-aggression principles" as if that's something I should be inherently aware of, and he's very critical of spanking children for reasons I can get behind. But then he's also anti-feminist, is convinced feminism is inherently leftist and, like racism, something designed by the state to keep the masses warring with each other so they can take advantage of our blindness and yadda yadda blah blah

Point is, he's growing increasingly more notable on the Internet and is a big voice box for Libertarianism at the moment, and he's definitely reaching out to the same sorts of people he is--i.e. philosophy majors--and I'd like to see some his poo poo put to bed, but I don't speak the language. Do any of your smarter, maybe more philosophy-literate goons have anything to say regarding him? I just watched a recent video with him discussing ethics or whatever with somebody and I swear to god, I barely understood any of it besides some sort of statement that the basis of morality is non-aggression and property rights and my eyes kind of glazed over.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 07:07

Caros: May 14, 2008

BottledBodhisvata posted:

Out of curiosity, can we perhaps bring up Stefan Molyneux here? He's growing in popularity and exposure thanks to appearances on some popular podcasts, and he's something of an odd duck. He's a super Libertarian who lives in Canada and has gone on tangents criticizing, say, the recent 75% tax on the rich put forth by the French Government (recently upheld by their courts).

Here's a link to his youtube page for reference: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w

Now, I'm not a philosopher professionally and I'm sort of astonished that it's still a job that exists, but I'm not necessarily sad to see it so. I am sad to see it in the form of Molyneux because he's bizarrely critical and deeply supportive of Rand, he's all on the "taxes are stealing" bit, he believes that taxation is coercion by force by the government and nobody would pay taxes if they didn't have to and all of that good stuff.

I liked him at first, because he does some pretty interesting analysis on the Snowden case, and I first came to know him through his write-up of the Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman trial, which I think is pretty well-done. He's also very anti violence, since he keeps spouting on about "non-aggression principles" as if that's something I should be inherently aware of, and he's very critical of spanking children for reasons I can get behind. But then he's also anti-feminist, is convinced feminism is inherently leftist and, like racism, something designed by the state to keep the masses warring with each other so they can take advantage of our blindness and yadda yadda blah blah

Point is, he's growing increasingly more notable on the Internet and is a big voice box for Libertarianism at the moment, and he's definitely reaching out to the same sorts of people he is--i.e. philosophy majors--and I'd like to see some his poo poo put to bed, but I don't speak the language. Do any of your smarter, maybe more philosophy-literate goons have anything to say regarding him? I just watched a recent video with him discussing ethics or whatever with somebody and I swear to god, I barely understood any of it besides some sort of statement that the basis of morality is non-aggression and property rights and my eyes kind of glazed over.

It is rather late, so I don't have a ton of time to go into precisely what is wrong with Stephan Molyneux, but I can give you a summary if you'd like. I'm going to preface all of this with the fact that I think Molyneux is a Quack. He is very good at putting on the airs of a deep thinker, but I honestly find his belief system to be very shallow and incredibly biased. Like libertarianism in general, you can usually find glaring errors or omissions in any of his videos just by scratching the surface.

First and foremost, the man is effectively a cult leader. I don't mean this in the 'ha ha I'm calling my opponent something bad' but in an almost literal sense. He convinces impressionable young people to listen to and donate to his podcast, and proceeds to bilk them out of more and more money offering perks and personal conversations and the like. This isn't bad in and of itself, but that he has a policy he calls "DeFoo" which stands for Depart Family of Origin. He believes that you should leave your family. It is all very Ayn Randish, and he holds a very firm hand as the 'leader' of his community.

This is all part and parcel of his rather sick ideology that you cannot in any way have a healthy relationship with your parents. As far as Molyneux is concerned, all children are abused by your parents, and if you listen to some of his daily shows, especially ones circa 2010, or his 'private' shows you'll hear the same garbage logic that you'd hear from a 900 number psychic. Did your dad hit you? How about your mom? No, well then they emotionally abused you, or sexually, or maybe they spoiled you. It is impossible to have a healthy relationship with your parents because everyone is abused by their parents.

Disassociate from your family, come join our collective of like minded thinkers and above all, give me money. Its hosed up. His wife, who used to join him as part of his podcast, was censured as a Psychologist for promoting "DeFoo" among various other things and no longer appeals on the show.

But even beyond that craziness, I can give you a bit of background.

Molyneux is a Voluntarist, which is a libertarian flavor that is also used pretty interchangeably with Anarcho-Capitalist, the kind I used to be. Voluntarists, as per their name believe that all human interaction should be voluntary and because of that they believe in the "Non-Aggression Principle"

The Non-Aggression Principle, in short, is that no one should be allowed to initiate force against anyone else, for any reason. This includes government agencies, which is where the idea of taxation being theft comes in. You don't agree to taxation, so they are in effect stealing from you, and more over the government has a monopoly on force and use that monopoly to aggress upon others to enforce laws that they may or may not agree with.

The reason for the non-aggression principle vary. Sometimes its Praexological, they believe that initiating aggression, for any reason is inherently immoral and should be stopped. Sometimes they believe it is a natural right, and sometimes its because they simply believe that following it will lead to the best outcomes for all people. Like Rand they all believe that Free Markets are the only moral economic system because anything else involves aggression or government in some form or another.

It can be a pretty convincing viewpoint to the right people. I was sixteen when I fell for it, mostly because I was pissed at what I saw as affirmative action and out of a desire I should be allowed to do whatever I wanted so long as it wasn't hurting someone. I've obviously since changed my mind since I'm more or less a full on socialist these days.

To debunk it all in one go is really hard, since Voluntaryism is a full on philosophy with a lot of moving parts. Good lines of attack are:

How do we get there? - Stefan proposes a lot of ideas and concepts, but they are all surface thoughts. Sam Seder had a debate where he took Molyneux to task over this issue, that Molyneux in particular has vauge ideas for how to run a libertarian world, but no suggestions for how to unwind our existing social structure. How do you deal with massive inequality for example?

Law and Order - Molyneux has an entity he refers to as a Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO) as the foundation for law in libertarian society. He did a piece on these in 2005 called Caging the Devil and I recommend you read it. It comes off as a 1984 Esque dysotopian nightmare in which if you do not have insurance with these private companies you don't get to eat, let alone live in society. Its really hosed up for a proponent of LIBERTY!

Focus on the Consequences - This is a personal favorite of mine since I'm very Utilitarian, where I view the Greatest good for the greatest number of people as the highest moral statement. Molyneux likes to play himself off as ethical so I recommend things like the man on the flagpole example.

A man falls from a building and catches the flagpole outside of your apartment window. You, for whatever reason, do not want him to come inside. Perhaps he is someone you do not like, or perhaps you can't be bothered. Whatever the reason, Voluntaryist theory says that man would be aggressing against you and your property by breaking, or even opening the window to enter your property. It is immoral for that man to save his life by doing something as small as entering your apartment without permission.

Another good example is to bring up the famous Murray Rothbard article about children. I however, recommend ignoring the low hanging fruit of the free flowing market of children and instead pointing out that by Rothbard's logic, you should be under no legal obligation to feed your child, since that would involve your infant child 'aggressing' against you.

Property - Private Property is a creation of the state. Its use and ownership is regulated by the state, and it is not, despite what they might argue, something that exists in nature.

I really could go on, but I think its is a pretty decent summary. Feel free to ask more questions about this nutjob.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 08:57

Ogodei_Khan: Feb 28, 2009

BottledBodhisvata posted:

Out of curiosity, can we perhaps bring up Stefan Molyneux here? He's growing in popularity and exposure thanks to appearances on some popular podcasts, and he's something of an odd
Point is, he's growing increasingly more notable on the Internet and is a big voice box for Libertarianism at the moment, and he's definitely reaching out to the same sorts of people he is--i.e. philosophy majors--and I'd like to see some his poo poo put to bed, but I don't speak the language. Do any of your smarter, maybe more philosophy-literate goons have anything to say regarding him? I just watched a recent video with him discussing ethics or whatever with somebody and I swear to god, I barely understood any of it besides some sort of statement that the basis of morality is non-aggression and property rights and my eyes kind of glazed over.

A thing that is not often talked about is how some philosophy departments and schools of thought have changed form and adopted a more conservative and libertarian guise. It is partially a reaction to the very recent critiques of intuition by people like Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols, the burst of sex scandals in older style philosophy departments and the creation of a blog that indirectly implicated a lot of people called what is like to be a woman in philosophy, has been leading to a reconservitization in older rationalist style views and not necessarily but sometimes political conservatism. Critiques of top down approaches in metaphilosophy, issues of empiricism versus rationalism, and issues of how to understand history and physics have created areas where it is more conservative. The creation of philosophy of information ( which is largely empirical) as well as the bleeding of affect theory because of the applications has lead to a lot of attempts to isolate those type of works or an attempt to hammer home older methods with older values. This sometimes amounts to a kinda of elitism that bleeds down and has adopted very conservative and libertarian guises. Some of the more older fashioned rationalist views also resonate with these views and mesh quite well.Further, demographically philosophy as a field is largely anglo, middle age or older and affluent, there views likewise are tending to mirror the politics of those groups in the US. Ethics and Philosophy of History being the exceptional fields with the most women. There are also not a lot of minorities either. Attempts are being made to correct this but there is an attempt to downplay it or outright fight it. An example of survey documenting some of the demographic trends in philosophy was done by philpapers and is soon to be published in the journal Philosophical Studies titled "What Do Philosophers Believe?" The other elephant in the room that is having a causal role in this conservatization is attempt to protect nepotism amongst certain schools and the reshaping of departments along the lines of that nepotism and along certain schools of thought. No one has studied that.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 09:43

Bel_Canto: Apr 23, 2007; "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo."

Ogodei_Khan posted:

A thing that is not often talked about is how some philosophy departments and schools of thought have changed form and adopted a more conservative and libertarian guise. It is partially a reaction to the very recent critiques of intuition by people like Joshua Knobe and Shaun Nichols, the burst of sex scandals in older style philosophy departments and the creation of a blog that indirectly implicated a lot of people called what is like to be a woman in philosophy, has been leading to a reconservitization in older rationalist style views and not necessarily but sometimes political conservatism. Critiques of top down approaches in metaphilosophy, issues of empiricism versus rationalism, and issues of how to understand history and physics have created areas where it is more conservative. The creation of philosophy of information ( which is largely empirical) as well as the bleeding of affect theory because of the applications has lead to a lot of attempts to isolate those type of works or an attempt to hammer home older methods with older values. This sometimes amounts to a kinda of elitism that bleeds down and has adopted very conservative and libertarian guises. Some of the more older fashioned rationalist views also resonate with these views and mesh quite well.Further, demographically philosophy as a field is largely anglo, middle age or older and affluent, there views likewise are tending to mirror the politics of those groups in the US. Ethics and Philosophy of History being the exceptional fields with the most women. There are also not a lot of minorities either. Attempts are being made to correct this but there is an attempt to downplay it or outright fight it. An example of survey documenting some of the demographic trends in philosophy was done by philpapers and is soon to be published in the journal Philosophical Studies titled "What Do Philosophers Believe?" The other elephant in the room that is having a causal role in this conservatization is attempt to protect nepotism amongst certain schools and the reshaping of departments along the lines of that nepotism and along certain schools of thought. No one has studied that.

Literally seeing this happen down the hall from me. One of my professors (who's got a courtesy appointment in philosophy) is trying to push back against this, but what on earth is one Buddhist lesbian Jew with impulses toward apophatic theology going to do against a whole cavalcade of smug "rational" white dudes?

# ? Jan 18, 2014 10:20

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

How do libertarians arrive at the conclusion that an economy, something which is created by society and is a reflection of society in its totality, is the natural order of things when government is also a creation of society?

# ? Jan 18, 2014 10:26

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Job Truniht posted:

How do libertarians arrive at the conclusion that an economy, something which is created by society and is a reflection of society in its totality, is the natural order of things when government is also a creation of society?

Repeated re-readings of the Declaration of Independence while under the influence of cannabis and P. cubensis.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 11:22

BottledBodhisvata: Jul 26, 2013; by Lowtax

Caros posted:

Property - Private Property is a creation of the state. Its use and ownership is regulated by the state, and it is not, despite what they might argue, something that exists in nature.

Well, don't animals have territories and dens and the like that they defend and live in? Could that not be considered a sort of private property, or is this something more complicated?

# ? Jan 18, 2014 16:05

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

BottledBodhisvata posted:

Well, don't animals have territories and dens and the like that they defend and live in? Could that not be considered a sort of private property, or is this something more complicated?

I have bigger teeth and sharper claws, so you don't have a den or a territory anymore. This is truly a preferable state of affairs.

# ? Jan 18, 2014 16:22

Hodgepodge: Jan 29, 2006; Can't post for 244 days!

BottledBodhisvata posted:

Well, don't animals have territories and dens and the like that they defend and live in? Could that not be considered a sort of private property, or is this something more complicated?

When a male lion takes over a pride, it eats all the cubs fathered by the previously dominant male.

The point being that while animals can act in ways that are analogous to human behavior, those instincts are a part of an animal's distinct evolutionary history and no more a precedent or guide to be emulated by humans than is the fact that they have (for example) 6" canine teeth or nearly a ton of muscle mass, etc.

Edit: A better analogy might be ants, which can (to degrees dependent on species), exhibit very "human" like social tendencies- building a common home, going to "war" with other ants, etc. But most ants are sterile, female drones who depend on their queen mating with a small stable of males prior to the establishment of the colony to pass on their genetic material. They are, in a sense, a gigantic collection of clones collectively caring for and defending their own biological family. The superficial similarities between human and ant society are dwarfed by the enormous differences in reproductive strategies and accompanying instinctive behavior which are responsible for the behavior of the respective species. Those differences typically make any attempt to draw an analogy between ant and human behavior into a post-hoc justification for whatever element of human society is being analogized, when it is more properly an example of parallel evolution in which each species develops some more or less similar feature within otherwise wholly incompatible frameworks. The ability to consciously reflect on and alter (or not alter) our collective behavior being a defining trait of our species.

Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Jan 18, 2014

# ? Jan 18, 2014 16:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 26, 2024 09:43

Eponymouse: Nov 2, 2013; Beneath the skin, we are already one.

Are the Kochs socially regressive too, or do they just stick to loving the poor?

# ? Jan 18, 2014 16:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's talk about the ideology of Charles Koch and its repercussions

«‹›11 »