Philosophy Now Forum

Should be obvious which side I'm on.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:55 pm I'm not a philosopher.

Other folks can define it for themselves.

Me: I take care of me.

Still waitin' to see how the gap between communitarians and libertarians can be closed.

When governments fail, people are forced into self reliance, and it is a sad result of 1000 years of Law that the power of communities are broken, and people are forced to deal with organized groups, like corporations as one against many... Our society feeds on individuals, and so encourages individualism; and this- with loneliness like a disease, and the need to connect and feel connected obvious to all.. We buy off the rack.. No matter what ayn rand said, the individual is a myth, and in no good sense... We have had examples of feral children, and they can achieve no more than childish mental development because without language, -an element of culture that no individual materially contributes to- no one can think, or use concepts.. Culture is knowledge and the individual without knowledge is merely an animal without the ability to contribute to society... Consider the rare genius.. He or she, may with superior intelligence, if it is educated be in a position to add something to the quality of social living.. Without culture, they are no more than an animal.. Consider that society, communities, and primarily democracy are defensive in nature because defense is best effected with organization, understanding, and communication.. The individual is a victim.. The individual is a sitting duck.. Primarily, individualism is a false philosophy built around a myth.. It is appropriate that in our society our heroes are all outlaws.. Even Chump as a hero to many is demonstrably a sexual predator, a fraud, a cheat, a bankrupt and a liar... It is not in spite of these qualities that he was elected, but because of them.. Everyone understands that individuals are outlaws.. Social people never put themselves before others.. Criminals always do..

Yeah, pretty much everything from When governments fail to Criminals always do is incomprehensible, communitarian claptrap.

Certainly none of it closes the gap I mention up-thread.

In fact: it widens it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:45 am Here's the conundrum (for you, not *me)...

Some folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as all-encompassing (let's call these folks communitarians). Other folks see the 'good' that may extend out of gov as minimal (let's call these folks libertarians).

Bridge the gap between these two.









*I see very little 'good' comin' out of government and my happiness is my business and no one else's

There is a big difference between the government, government; and Our government.. Where the people are alienated from their labor, they are also alienated from each other, and from the Government.. In a democracy the people can have what ever good they are themselves capable of providing.. With our system, we need to petition the government in some way to get them on the side of the people when they would prefer to support an abstract good, as in good for the economy, or good for the country, but if something is good, but not good for the people then it is not really good at all... Democracy where it has existed in small communities has been the people organized for their own good.. Guided by principals, on might suggest minimal good is good enough.. Another guided by principals say the power to do good is unlimited in Government.. Principals are axioms.. They work while they work, and that they work adds confidence in their correctness.. No one should let principals do their thinking.. If good will come out of government it has to be on purpose; and good is not a hypothetical good, but a practical good... As one English Jurist put it to a struggling attorney: There are no imaginary cases.. In fact, there are no ideal societies or ideal governments.. And the world has seen the tyranny of the ideal.. Millions have been murdered for an ideal good by Idealists.. Fascism, and communism, and capitalism are all idealistic... Their good was an abstraction by which they measured and judged humanity as less than perfect.. Instead, all ideals should be measured against the welfare of people.. Great.. You have a great ideal.. But if people are dying in droves because they don't equal your ideal, then your ideals are false.. Considered as medicine, First do no harm..

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:51 pm Yeah, pretty much everything from When governments fail to Criminals always do is incomprehensible, communitarian claptrap.

Certainly none of it closes the gap I mention up-thread.

In fact: it widens it.

Obviously, you are seeing something I am not because the opposites in your mind that need resolution, or reconciliation are neither opposites to me or in need of reconciliation.. Both for example take Government as alienated from the people, as a separate entity from the people, and while this may be fact, the Constitution begins with: We the People.. The founding fathers did not openly imagine a megalithic government hiding behind walls of security as aloof from the spirit of the people as the Sun King was... Democracy is not an abstraction and is in no sense Ideal.. It is a practical solution.. The people express their will, and the government pulls the levers, and what make democracy possible in our age as it was is small communities is communication.. We once needed representation... Representative government was the place for the national conversation, but no more.. Our conversation is here.. We can talk with anyone in America through the internet.. We have no need for representatives who can be corrupted faster than we can send them..

Just trying again...

It depends on whether you want to live in a civilised society or one where you need strong security systems and to keep a gun by your side at all times.

There are countries that provide almost nada, such as Papua. It is more dangerous than Somalia, which also has almost no government support services.

If people are left destitute they do not all conveniently lie down to die. Rather, many struggle to survive with breakins, shoplifting, muggings and kidnapping. The more people you leave out of society, the more saboteurs you create. The more people who are left out, the more daring the saboteurs become, bolstered by the others.

Then, finally, when the chaos becomes too great there will be a government crackdown requiring military control, and there lies the final natural state of a society that provides no care or welfare. However, if welfare systems are too lax then cycles of poverty are encouraged, and permanent toxic underclasses.

So it's not a matter of what services are needed but to what extent each is needed for a given society at a given time. Ideology must always fail in this because these steering controls must be regularly tweaked to adapt to changing circumstances; the capacity to adapt will be increasingly important now with such rapid changes.

This here...

Both for example take Government as alienated from the people

...is our stumbling block, I think.

As I see it: communitarians aren't alienated from government. Communitarians love government and want more of it.

Folks like me: we see government as a currently neccessary evil, one to be get under boot, restrained, limited, made to obey.

The communitarian would like most or all of the items I list in my opening post provided by or through government.

Folks like me want government limited to minimal police, minimal courts, minimal millitary.

As for the gap I asked you to bridge: it can't be bridged (my request was, is, impossible to fufill).

Government shouldn't be a servant, because government should consist of all people

Don't panic, Henry, your dream appears to be on the way.

I don't think you need to lobby for the billionaires whose interests you are effectively representing. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of controlling our societies on their own, at least it's working for them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:55 pm Folks like me want government limited to minimal police, minimal courts, minimal millitary.

Yeah... get the dirty hands of guverment out of education, welfare and medicare... or transportation and highway regulations, import/export duties, building codes and road building and road repairs... the country would be better off, MUCH better off without a single fucking paved road or without stuffing our little nips with stupid ideas like what are the components of water and how much is seven times eight. (Okay, the answer is forty-two, as we all know it.) Oh, and let's not forget the benefits of piling all your human waste and other refuse in your bedroom and kitchen.

You are a dreamer, Henry. Thank goodness you are an extreme minority in your idealism.

trokanmariel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:47 pm Government shouldn't be a servant, because government should consist of all people

Corollary:

The who-is-who of religious philosophy: is god to serve mankind, or is mankind to serve god?

What if it's a flip-flop situation, like client-server systems in IT? I never understood that concept, anyhow.

000000000000

If guv is to serve all people, and all people are the guv, then people should be self-serving.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:57 pm Should be obvious which side I'm on.

As I read more and more of your posts, you're obviously in the "slowly starve to death sinking into his own bile" side.

Easily done, once guv gives up all its functions, save for upholding the law of the land and securing our borders and invading other countries, or in the least, bombing the shit out of them.

Greta wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:03 am Just trying again...

It depends on whether you want to live in a civilised society or one where you need strong security systems and to keep a gun by your side at all times.

There are countries that provide almost nada, such as Papua. It is more dangerous than Somalia, which also has almost no government support services.

If people are left destitute they do not all conveniently lie down to die. Rather, many struggle to survive with breakins, shoplifting, muggings and kidnapping. The more people you leave out of society, the more saboteurs you create. The more people who are left out, the more daring the saboteurs become, bolstered by the others.

Then, finally, when the chaos becomes too great there will be a government crackdown requiring military control, and there lies the final natural state of a society that provides no care or welfare. However, if welfare systems are too lax then cycles of poverty are encouraged, and permanent toxic underclasses.

So it's not a matter of what services are needed but to what extent each is needed for a given society at a given time. Ideology must always fail in this because these steering controls must be regularly tweaked to adapt to changing circumstances; the capacity to adapt will be increasingly important now with such rapid changes.

Great post, Greta. I fully subscribe to these ideas, and ideals.

Well, obviously, all of you are right...

Human beings can't thrive unless they're being told what to do.

Individual initiative and agenda is meaningless, or even counter-productive, if not in service to the WE.

The notion an individual should self-rely and -direct is outlandish, out-dated, and at odds with the public weal.

Community, not the individual, is paramount.

From each, to each, according to ability and need (with the politburo settin' the standards)

How could I have been so blind!

social justice is due to every welfare advocate who doesn't give every penny they have to the benevolent state...

-Imp