Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jan 2000 22:33:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1583 times
|
| |
|
|
Here I go again!
James Brown wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 1. People aren't as lazy(1) as you think. Most people are industrious
> > and hard working, even in this screwed up society of today. It's only in
> > Legoland where the majority of buildings are police stations and rescue
> > bases. The vast majority of us real-figs work our tails off and look at
> > all we've produced! This has been a grand century, despite its problems.
>
> I disagree here, but I'm a cynical little punk. :) I think people in • general
> are only as industrious as they have to be. I don't think the mean is • quite
> as low as "lazy" tends to imply, but I do think the mean is too low for a
> system that relies heavily on individual participation and responsibility • to
> work on a large scale.
You cynic! :-) You are right - many peope are only as industrious as they
have to be. Does this mean I am a cynic, too? No. I think the purpose of
industriousness is for a person to be able to find pleasure in life.
Without some work there is no pleasure (at least I am saying thats how I
feel it should be, and I know at least a few who agree). No money, no food.
Enabling people to eat without working for it, or experience pleasure
without being industrious (same thing) is the problem. I believe a person
should only be permitted to feel the amount of pleasure he has made (by
producing) for himself. If he takes it from someone else it is wrong. If
it is given to him while someone else produced it, it is wrong (unless that
producer himself gives it freely). Many people now are quite comfortable
with being in the wrong, as it increases their pleasure, while it decreases
their industriousness, but that doesn't make it right. Making things right
is a noble and perhaps futile venture, but some of us like to think/talk
about it, and figure out ways to attempt to achieve it. Saying its
impossible, which may well be true, doesn't really help, since its only a
brain exercise, so far. I agree with Larry (how unusual :-) ) and think we
have done very well for ourselves in the past century, while I also believe
we could strive for a better 21st century...
I believe in the coming century, other countries will find a need to
change their ways to compete with America (or to keep up with our level - I
think they want what we have produced for ourselves for themselves). They
will probably become more like the US economically and politically, because
our system has proven itself. Our system has used its upper hand to its
advantage (similar to Bill Gates so called monopoly abuse), so it will
indeed be difficult for other nations to catch up or outperform the US. It
may occur to some madman that it is simpler to nuke us and rob whats left
over - people often choose the easy way out over the doing what is right,
but that doesn't worry me. America (as a system) itself needs to change and
grow, too. I hope America moves in a good direction rather than falling
back or moving the wrong way, and that ~does~ worry me.
> > 2. People are lazy because they are *enabled* to be lazy. There weren't
> > very many lazy people on the american frontier 100 years ago.
>
> Biased test sample. 100 years ago, there were lots of lazy people who chose • to
> stay where they were instead of going to the american frontier.
Invalid answer. 100 years ago, there were no slave owners, who we could
definitely call lazy. 100 years ago, there were no Federal income taxes,
used to redistribute wealth. Whether the American sampled lived "back home"
or on the frontier, there weren't many (nearly as many!) lazy(1) people.
The programs and legislation the government started during this century are
what now enable so much laziness. The legislation may have been necessary
at that pioint in time, as the need to end slavery was needed. However,
legislation can become outdated, and when it does it must be fixed. Adding
to something which is broken instead of fixing something that is broken does
not make things better or smoother (do you program computers?). IMO, it
makes things grow worse.
> > Set society up to ensure people suffer the consequences of their actions • and
> > you'll soon stop complaining about how lazy everyone is.
>
> This isn't the part of libertarian theory (disclaimer- as I understand it!)
> that I have a problem with. What I think is unworkable is the high level • of
> awareness the system asks of individuals. (yeah, I know - see point #3.
> Under my analysis, virtue "awareness" is required to be higher than you • feel
> is necessary.)
What you find unworkable in the theory, is what makes the world itself
unworkable. Awareness leads to happiness. Just ask Buddha. But seriously,
believing you are happy and being happy are two different things. Many
people have (intentional, subconscious) misconceptions of the world, which
they use so that they can feel happy (believe they are happy). I don't think
this self disception does them or the world much good. I think the self
deception enables them to "go along" but if more had better conceptions of
reality, there would be more true happiness in the world. Making others
aware is impossible. Showing them what you know and learning from others
increases awareness. Living in a world that encourages misconceiving
reality to a world that encourages awareness makes it difficult. Evil
supports evil. Good supports good. At least we still have free speech.
And I think we have more awareness than ever (compare to the dark ages -
more or less misconceptions of reality per capita?!). We have grown since
the Dark Ages tremendously, and we can continue to grow ~towards~ harmony.
At this point in time, I believe one of the biggest evils(1) in America, and
one we can/must fight is the overwhelming belief that one person has a right
to another person's property. I think that particular evil needs to be
stamped out (and I guess McCarthy did, too, FWIW, not that I like to compare
myself to him - he did that very incorrectly). Work on that first then onto
other things (and perhaps in the meantime). Its not easy, but so what, its
right. I think Libertarianism and similar views have had a very difficult
time getting exposure, but I think that with the growing internet, and other
trends, more people will become aware of more things, and more things will
change, in time, hopefully for the better.
> > It'll take time to shake off 60+ years of bad habits but it's doable. We • have
> > to break the "entitlement mentality". People aren't entitled to anything,
> > really, other than rights protection.
>
> Hmm. I think I'm entitled to anything I work for, and anything I'm given -
> assuming the giver worked for it (or that it was worked for somewhere back
> along the giving chain).
Even if it was taken, but not given with consent? I find that evil(1).
If you don't feel entitled to anything taken against someone's will, then I
don't find you evil (on that count - we all are, thats been said prior).
> > 4. Finally, constructive laziness as a vice is way overrated. It's
> > actually a virtue. We have constructively lazy people to thank for just
> > about every labor saving device ever devised. Edison was one of the
> > laziest people to ever walk the face of the earth. Thank goodness. Each
> > and every productivity improvement is basically an instant creation of
> > wealth, because now we can spend less time doing what we have to and
> > more on what we want to... I remain boggled that I had to work only
> > about an hour to earn enough to buy 3 (!!) portable CD players.
>
> Yeah, I'm a big fan of constructive laziness, too. I'll quite happily put • in
> several hours of work now to save me 5 minutes a day going forward. I • don't
> think, however that most people will transfer their constructive laziness • to a
> societal model unless it's made very clear that they'll get more out of it
> than they're putting in. People who raise the bar (like Edison) are also
> exceptions to the norm - no matter the trying, most people do not (IMHO) • have
> it in them to clearly conceive and execute the proverbial light bulb.
Of course not everyone is going to invent things, and nothing's wrong
with that. What would be cool though, is to allow those who do invent
things like light bulbs to keep their profit and not shame them for it.
Right now, there is more encouragement in the air for being a good football
player than for inventing things.
While Bill Gates says he "feels a little guilty" for all the money he
has, I don't believe him. I don't believe he enjoys giving the government
$billions each year, and I don't believe he is enjoying the lawsuit. Maybe
he is screwed up in the head (aren't we all?) and came into money a little
too fast ;-) as well as fame (albeit infamous to the majority,
unfortunately) and does feel some misplaced guilt. Maybe I would too, in
his shoes, but as a spectator I can see no reason for it - he has made the
world ~so much better~! And its paid him. Maybe he feels guilty for evil
things he did that helped him accrue so much money? That I would find quite
believable. If he feels guilt for being rewarded for a job well done, then
I pity him, because he shouldn't.
> James
> http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
(1) Lazy, evil. Strong words that do apply. No grey area. I've been
judgmental and thats my personal verdict. Being judgmental is part of being
aware, comes with the territory. No apologies.
--
Have fun!
John
The Legos you've been dreaming of...
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
"Censorship is yet another tool in the dumbing-down of America
by a power structure that relies on a populace too lazy or ignorant
to think independently." -Vanessa McGrady
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
