[PLUG-TALK] How to be a good Democrat

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Tue Oct 21 01:41:55 UTC 2003


On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> Just as the courts are "supposed" to consider everyone innocent until
> proven guilty, I assume smart until proven silly.

The courts have objective standards such as findings of facts and findings
of law before a decision is made.  Your decision is arbitrary and based on
a subjective standard of "silliness".

> But all decisions ARE NOT APPROPRIATE.

Any decision can be considered appropriate if you modify your goals and
ideals to a convenient set.

> Some are downright stupid. Many are simply silly.

Right.  And when do you pass out the manuals so that a person can know
when they are being stupid and when they are being simply silly?

> All we have is our own scale.

Then it's bogus and should be abandoned.

> > I am absolutely NOT telling people how to behave.  I'm describing a
> > method of action that is consistent with the base assumption that
> > goodness requires forgiveness, love, and respect, and that should be
> > your guide.
>
> And you "suggest" that we should all conform to these standards.

I don't.  I just say that IF you want a certain kind of happy world, then
you should work from these base axia of goodness and respect and that
means a certain code of behavior.  If you behave in some other way, you
are working toward a different end.  Most of the time, people find the end
that is the real result of their actions to be undesirable and don't quite
see how their actions are bringing about this undesirable world.  That's
when they get upset and defensive.

> In so far as you berated Rich the other day for wanting to spam
> spammers.

He is only increasing the amount of misery in the world.  I don't believe
that's his goal, so I was trying to help him bring his actions more in
line with his goals.

> In my book, suggesting and telling are synonymous.

That's an error in your book.

> > > Isn't that arrogance on your part?
> > I'm open to discussion.  If you think there's a flaw in my reasoning,
> > let's hash it out.  If you think there are contradictions in my axia,
> > point them out and see if we can't refine them to reconcile.
>
> I'm always open to discussion.

It's not a contest.  You just asked if I was being arrogant when I
gave out my rationale for behavior that makes a better world.  I was
explaining why it was not arrogant.  It has nothing to do with you.

> > Now, I'm aware of basic "incompleteness", here, and I think that's just a
> > problem with the way the human brain works.  It's unfortunate that logic
> > itself is flawed.
>
> There's a difference. I don't think that "logic" in itself is flawed.

Then how do you explain Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem?

I interpret it to be a fundamental flaw in logic itself that makes all
logical systems either incomplete or contradictory.

But it is also my view that logic is a formalized description of human
thought processes which evolved to make enough sense of the world to
enable survival.  I don't think there's any reason to believe that such a
system must necessarily exactly mirror external reality.

> At the same time, I understand the species we are is not a logical
> animal.

We are THE logical animal.  Logic is a human invention.

> We can (usually) work things out logically. Will we? Most likely not.

We have no other mechanism.

> And in so doing, you point out (tell) the "proper" way of behaving, in
> your opinion. So, boiled down to it's simplest form, you tell people how
> to behave.

I tell people how I think a person should behave if they have certain
goals or assumptions.  I tell people that I think they're behavior is
contradictory to my goals and assumptions.  Oftentimes, I'll try to show
people why I work toward my goals and carry my assumptions in order to
share ideas and bring us all better understanding.

> > I think I'm constantly aware of the fact that I probably am wrong.  I
> > just don't know any better, yet.
> OK.

And since I don't know better, I have to act as though I am right.

> Well, that goes along with my idea that we're all insane to a degree
> too. Some are just more insane than others.

Well, if you mean that a "sane" person is one whose thought processes
conform to logic, then I'd say that we should pay close attention to those
insane people because one of them might be less flawed and more in line
with the mechanics of the universe than us sane folks.

> > Nobody's perfect; some just try harder than others.
> I would not want to be perfect. It would be exceedingly boring to be
> perfect. I started having a LOT more fun when I realized that. So I
> don't even try to be perfect any longer.

Do you really think you COULD attain perfection?  Talk about arrogance.

I recognize that I cannot ever attain perfection and so striving for it
will NEVER result in me being a boring, perfect person... it'll just make
me better.

So you don't try to do the best, most correct thing?  You knowingly and
purposely do stuff that is wrong and dumb?

> No, actually, it was the reverse. At one time I held humanity in high
> regard. Then I started listening to the collective song that humanity
> sings. I found that much of it was horrible to listen to. So I listened
> to the words. What they said just didn't make sense. Logically or
> otherwise.

I think that's a change in you.  You can work on yourself until you
understand that song and it is beautiful.  There are a few notes that
could be tuned more gracefully, but that's where you stand up and sing
louder to bring it all back in tune.

> > > Most people are just going through life without a clue.
> > That doesn't even mean anything.
>
> Why not? They're going through the motions. They get up in the morning,
> do things, and go to bed at night.

Well, that doesn't mean anything, either.

> They do this because that's what they were told is "normal".

You now know WHY MOST people do what they do?  You DO realize that you
don't really know this stuff and just use it because it fits in with the
worldview you'd like to have, right?

> > > Or, they are making decisions based on some notion of a higher calling
> > > that isn't born out in any sort of logic.
> > Assumptions are rarely born out of logic.  You need assumptions, or
> > axia, in order to construct a logical system.  The assumptions
> > themselves become the "higher calling".
> I said decisions, not assumptions.

Your decisions are based on your assumptions.  If you don't see the logic
of someone else's decisions, you're probably working from a different set
of assumptions.

> His argument was that this was the republican plank or something like
> that. I asked him for references to where this was stated.

Right, there's a Republican plank that says, "if someone is burning in
their home, let them burn".  I'm sure Russell Senior thinks that's true.

He was describing, by analogy, the "sink or swim" doctrine of the more
antisocial sects... particularly the right wing.

> > And again, there's no difference except your personal expectation of the
> > recipients' intent... which you can't possibly know.
>
> Not at first, no. But if someone makes a habit of taking hand outs,
> their intentions become clear.

You just make assumptions and draw conclusions without knowledge.  You
guess based on your own mode of thought.  You can never know the mind of
another.

> That's one of the things I agree with that Jesus supposedly said, "Give
> a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats
> for a lifetime."

That ain't Jesus.

According to <URL: http://www.joyinjesus.org/ > that's a "Chinese
proverb".

Nobody knows who said it or when.  It's just an old saying.

"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and
he will be warm for the rest of his life."

> So, I figure, in this instance, I'm in good company. Assuming, of
> course, that Jesus was real.

I don't think it really matters if Jesus was real.  A person could be in
good company with a good fictional character just as well as a real-live
dead one.

> > And what exactly do mean by "did it yourself"?  Are you saying that
> > finding a rich person and doing whatever they say for the ability to
> > eat is a noble and honorable way to live?  That's what most folks call
> > an "honest living" these days.
>
> I don't do "whatever they say". I have specific tasks, and they have
> specific expectations. My boss (and his boss, etc) are not rich. They
> have more than I do, this much is true. But they are not "rich by any
> stretch of the imagination.

You work more for their benefit than for your own.  The product of your
labor is not yours.  You are a machine to them.  You have certain inputs
and certain outputs and if those outputs do not exceed the inputs, you
will be shut down.

> But yeah, I see no problem with trading hours for dollars. It seems to
> work, and if done right, can result in much goodness.

What goodness comes of wage slavery?

> So you are saying that everyone (including those that are too lazy to do
> it themselves) deserve food and shelter?

I don't believe in the concept of "deserving" or "earning".  When it comes
down to it, everything is ultimately just appropriated by force.  You and
I pay for what another man has taken.

I do believe that it is evil to withhold something that you do not need
from someone who does.

> You should move to China.

If you think that, you have no idea what either I or China are all about.

> > The choice for most Americans is to find a rich cock and suck it in
> > order to get bread and water.
>
> You can start your own business. That's one example.

Charge people more than something costs and pay people less than they make
for you?

The purpose of starting your own business is to fuck other people over for
your personal benefit.  No thank you.

> Do you realize how self-perpetuating welfare is?

It's an economy like any other.  The purpose is to be self-perpetuating.

The fact is that our economy REQUIRES a certain percentage of the
population to be out of work in order to maintain labor market flexibility
(or, if you're more blunt about it, to keep the threat of joblessness real
for most people and reduce wages and benefits and discourage labor
organization).  In those terms, everybody who doesn't work is doing their
part to keep the economy going.  If they're playing a necessary role in
the economy, don't you think they deserve compensation?

> > And now you're a corporate dependent instead of a state dependent.
> > Lucky you.
>
> And I'm much better for it. I actually do something (accompish something
> beside creating more mouths to feed) and work for a company with people
> that care for the rest of humanity.

But do YOU care for the rest of humanity?  What do you DO at this company
that makes the world a better place?  What is this thing that you
accomplish that makes it all so worthwhile?

> The company I work for sponsors a local school, helps with lots of other
> projects around the area, and we're not even profitable yet.

Not until you land that government contract...

No company is profitable without massive state subsidy.

Private employment is just indirect welfare with grossly disproportionate
dispursement to the rich and poor.

> > Which other statements?
> I was thinking specifically where he talked about how if full democracy
> were to be implimented in England, an agrarian society would result.

I think you're mistaking your "founding fathes".  Madison and Jefferson
were very much supportive of a primarily agrarian society.

> In our case, as more folks get the vote, it becomes more and more
> muddled as to what "fair" is.

There's no such thing as "fair" in the wide world.  It's a personal
assessment.

> If private power is increasing, why are people working more for less and
> the rich getting richer?

Um, because it is the nature of private power to exploit people for its
own profit.  Private power is increasing, so wages are going down and
working hours are going up.  The rich are getting more power and using
that power to siphon away what little power the poor had left.

And something Jesus DID say (though the catholics won't admit it -- and
assuming whatever regarding fact and fiction), follows:

"Whoever has something in hand will be given more, and whoever has nothing
will be deprived of even the little they have."  -- The Gospel of Thomas,
41

> If private power were increasing, it seems to me that it would be
> getting better for all, not just the rich.

Why does that follow at all?  We're talking, after, all about private
power as an OPPOSITION FORCE to public power.

> It seems to me that democracy is INcreasing, and with deregulation,
> things are getting worse for the masses.

Deregulation is an increase in private power.  Regulation is the means by
which the public exerts power over the private strongholds.

> > Or are you simply saying that he's right about the purpose of
> > government because the rich have been getting richer as the government
> > gains power and becomes less beholden to the people as a whole?
>
> Which is it? Is private power or government power increasing?

Private power is increasing and replacing public power as the primary
mover of government.  Government is being taken away from the people and
put in the hands of unaccountable private tyrannies.

> Just out of curiousity, what would you do?

I would never take power over another human being.

> Would you spread everything equally among all the people?

An equitable distribution would be the natural effect of a policy of
goodness, charity, and forgiveness among people.

> What would cause anything to actually get done?

Things need to get done, so people would do them.

Why do you clean your house?  You don't get paid for it!  Why do you raise
kids?  That costs a FORTUNE and kids almost pay that back.

It is human nature to be curious and productive.  It is human need to
consume food and stay warm and healthy.  Things would get done because
things have to get done.

> Now, I would probably continue to work were I work, because I enjoy it.

I can't imagine why would need the place where you work.

> But the guy digging a ditch really has no insentive to continue working
> if he hates his job and he'll still get food, shelter, medical etc. for
> nothing.

Right, so he stops digging the ditch.  But it turns out we NEED ditches,
so someone will dig them.  I don't know that anybody would go out and dig
ditches full-time for forty years, but I would be happy to do it on
alternate Thursdays.

> How would you motivate those "unwashed masses" to do the jobs they don't
> enjoy?

Nobody wants to sleep in shit.  If the shit don't get moved, you gots to
sleep in it.  Hence, somebody will move the shit.

The NECESSARY jobs will get done and the UNNECESSARY jobs will not get
done.  It's a vast improvement over the way things are now.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list