Damn socialists
The Indy had an article in this weeks edition about "net neutrality". In this article the author, Fiona Morgan, regurgitates all the usual socialist garbage about how Big Bro needs to protect us poor Proles from the evil Barons of capitalism - except she gets a bit creative, and coins the term "Technobaron". Anyways, I wrote a fairly long letter to
( Read more... )
It's very admirable to see you speaking your point of view to the public, whatever the view and public.
The writing style and references seem intelligent and informed.
I think you can get away with your "The United Soviet States of America". Mostly, because that's the type of terminology found throughout the Indy's article's, which also hurts their credibility.
Their target audience being the more "hippy", commune-ist, anti-capitalist, vaguely-informed population. People who don't fully understand the implications of what they support, but think that it sounds nice: the Idealistic. I fall into this category on issues I don't know as much about, as it is the ideal (peace, happiness, sharing, etc.) without research. This ideal may later be that which underlies the hoped-for end result of a realistic plan of action, though often enough the realism is lacking. Not to say that the spirit behind such drives is bad at all. As well, it can be quite difficult to say which is worse between those and the people offering bad soultions or the same solutions that haven't worked.
I'm back and forth on the taxation issue. Some people do have ungodly amounts of money and taxes which barely affect them could be substantially beneficial to many. Ignoring that happiness is not monetary, thus, why should we need their money? To raise their taxes is moving toward the more socialist society. I don't think the government should be telling us what to do with our money if we haven't volunteered willingly to such. Though, I think there is more of a problem with what the government is already doing with all the money they take from us, as well as, the money they take from no-where-land. Creating more debt and making our currency less valueable.
I don't know the quickest way to that self-governing idea. Was it Jefferson that was quoted with the idea of the people in government paying their own money to run it, not collecting pay from the people, governing because that's what they want to do, and only having authority over those who choose them to, others choosing their own preferred officials, etcetera.
To end my babble, your input has made me question my previous thoughts on this net-neutrality issue, if only to re-inforce the idea that a revolution is sorely needed, if anything is to be done at all.
Reply
Also, I do realize that a lot of people who support these kinds of laws have good intentions, which is why I feel it necessary to educate them. Good intentions are nothing unless you educate yourself about the reality of a situation, and so many people will just fall for any sorry line so long as it sounds nice and fluffy or idealistic.
As for "Some people do have ungodly amounts of money and taxes which barely affect" this is bullshit. The top 1% richest people in america pay 50% of the federal income tax, and the top 5% pay 2/3 of the total income tax. It's just silly to say they aren't "paying thier fair share". But this is a moot point, as I feel that taxation is simply theft organized by the institutionalization of conquest over the people and property in a certain territory.
a revolution is sorely needed, if anything is to be done at all.
Amen.
Reply
Reply
Not to mention the creeky cultishness surrounding her and her books...
Anyways, glad you stopped by, and sorry you got banned.
Reply
Sorry about the Rand stuff, you sounded rather libertarian, which has a lot of Rand (individual rights) in it. I still would recoment Rand's Intro to Object Epist. It has the power to valdate cardinal thinking, she explains how cardinal numbers and cardinal concepts have the same kind of certainty, as opposed to ordinal numbers and thinking.
Reply
Reply
She was a jerk when it came to being over protective of her ideas. I am putting important ideas on the net in the hope of their being seen for their value. If someone understands and goes with an idea, we all gain. I love the net.
Reply
The second, I would advise that one be careful when promoting a spotty philosopher without pointing out the spottiness, as some weaker minds might think that if the philosopher was right in one aspect, they might as well be right in others; this is dangerous as I feel many of Rands philosophies, esp. her political ones, are just off base enough to cause contradictions and lead one off in the wrong direction.
Reply
Did you know that she discovered a relation between epistemology and mathematics that unites them at their base making each reliant on the other for consistency. Very much like double entry bookkeeping.
Reply
A page with a plethora of links
Another list of criticisms
Reply
Reply
There is nothing "spotty" about "reason".
When did we actually start talking about reason? I was talking about the writings of a person. I agree the pure reason is not spotty, but your statement assumes that Rand is purely reasnable and I posit that there are (at the very least, potential) flaws in her arguments.
Why I'm Not an Objectivist cuts pretty deep into the fundamentals if you ask me. It cuts down into Rands (Aristotles) conception of universals and particulars, as well as her conception of free will, etc.
Anyways, I'm tired of talking about Rand, almost all Randians seem to be able to do is assert that she is right without explaining or discussing the issues, like this recent conversation I had with someone who simply refused to even discuss the issue, let alone consider the possible alternative ideas.
Reply
Leave a comment