[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Happy Birthday, Portland!

[gepr at tempusdictum.com]

Jeme A Brelin writes:
 > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 gepr at tempusdictum.com wrote:
 > > Putting a libertarian in an admin/exec office is the _best_ thing we can
 > > do for our hippie-laden, soft paternalist, entitlement-promulgating,
 > > never-offend-anyone, no-negative-reinforcement,
 > > god-forbit-a-kid-ever-get-a-boo-boo,
 > > prevent-parents-from-raising-their-own-kids, multi-billion-dollar,
 > > holy-cow-theyre-wearing-pacifiers child day care agency.
 > 
 > I understand this is called "tough love".

No, not at all.  I don't love people I don't know.  (And I posit that
anyone who says they love people they don't know, especially those
they haven't even met, is either confused or lying.)

It's called "self-governance".  We don't have the resources to govern
even _most_ of human behavior.  So, trying to govern all the things
we're trying to govern with our public education system is obviously
going to fail.

The answer is to give people fishing rods and teach them how to use
those, rather than giving them fish.  Teach kids to be self-
sufficient.  One of the best ways to do that is by following the only
existence proof we have, evolution.  (Note that I'm not limiting this
to neo-Darwinian evolution.  I include the sound forms of Lamarkian
and all of the intra-individual forms, as well.)

Evolution works mostly by selection.  Select for and against 
specific behaviors.

 > I guess that means love for the rich and powerful and tough for
 > everyone else.

The rich and powerful will always be rich and powerful... and
people will always envy them.  This is a self-fulfiling prophecy
because even when someone _works_ their way out of poverty, they
then become the rich and powerful... thereby opening themselves up
to attack by those who are not, yet, rich and powerful.

Plenty of rich and powerful people fall and become poor and powerless.
But, perspectival arrogance prevents people from seeing them (no more
free media, no more envy, no more reason to follow them around and
pick on them).  But, it happens all the time.

So _NO_, this doesn't mean love for the rich and powerful and
tough for everyone else.  It means select for the things you want
to see more of and select against the things you don't want to 
see as much of.

I realize that you will pervert what I'm saying and take in some
strange direction without actually trying to listen to what I'm
saying.  But, it needs to be said anyway.  So, if you choose to brand
me compassion-less and cruel, then so be it.  But, it is not the case.
And I will not fight any attack you make to indicate that it is the
case.  In fact, this is the last time I'll defend this position.
The rest of my battle will be in the ontologically real domain of 
money and power.  If I win, then you'll be bitching about how rich
and powerful I am.  And that will be a good thing. [grin]

 > (You actually support negative reinforcement?  Punishment is
 > nothing but sadism for people with guilty consciences.)

Wrong again.  Negative reinforcement is expression just like any
other.  If my cat bites me because I'm picking on him or get too
rough when we're playing, then he is (successfully) using negative
reinforcement.  This happens every so often.  And I doubt that
he's a sadist or has a guilty conscience.

In fact, your email response to my last message is a form of negative
reinforcement.  If I had a deep-seated desire to be _liked_, then
hand-waving emails that try to mis-direct the point of what I said
would work and make me be a kinder, gentler, person... at least on
this mailing list.

Unfortunately, your type of negative reinforcement won't work in this
case.  If you had simply said: "We don't like your kind, here."  Then
that would have worked better as negative reinforcement. [grin]

-- 
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                           Hail Eris!
H: 503.630.4505                              http://www.ropella.net/~gepr
M: 971.219.3846                               http://www.tempusdictum.com