Must See Documentary for anyone claiming to be a Conservative/Libertarian

[N.O.Bronco]

Really everyone should take the time to see this.

part 1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=the+trap+bbc

Part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=the+trap+bbc

Part3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=the+trap+bbc

BBC did a very thorough documentary into the modern foundations in which Conservatism/objectivism/Libertarian rose from. From the Cold War and John Nash with Game Theory to the present day and Clinton. And shows its effect on society today, very fascinating stuff.

[W*GS]

That you use "Conservatism/objectivism/Libertarian" shows you don't understand either of the last two, certainly. Objectivism and libertarianism are not variants of conservatism.

Too bad the BBC didn't document the relationship between Stalinist and Maoist communism and today's lefties and "progressives" - that would be quite straightforward.

I found some discussion of Curtis' documentary on "blairwatch", and from what I could determine, he created threads rather haphazardly and wasn't terribly convincing that selfishness is the cause of our problems today. Stepping back a bit from what I could gather from people who had watched the show, it seems like Curtis is basically arguing for the Platonic ideal - wise philosopher-kings in charge, without all the messiness inherent in democratic systems. I'll pass.

[N.O.Bronco]

Originally Posted by W*GS

That you use "Conservatism/objectivism/Libertarian" shows you don't understand either of the last two, certainly. Objectivism and libertarianism are not variants of conservatism.

Too bad the BBC didn't document the relationship between Stalinist and Maoist communism and today's lefties and "progressives" - that would be quite straightforward.

I found some discussion of Curtis' documentary on "blairwatch", and from what I could determine, he created threads rather haphazardly and wasn't terribly convincing that selfishness is the cause of our problems today. Stepping back a bit from what I could gather from people who had watched the show, it seems like Curtis is basically arguing for the Platonic ideal - wise philosopher-kings in charge, without all the messiness inherent in democratic systems. I'll pass.

not really buddy, in fact not at all.


But it does show where your philosophy falls apart under scientific scrutiny and even John Nash. In which Game theory the prisoners dillema and other things that formed the base of all those things in the modern business world that permiated to libertarianism and objectivism actually doesnt reflect the true nature of humans.

So maybe instead of being a ditto head you should watch it and judge it yourself, then come back here and we can argue from there. ;

And yes economically you all share a lot. And the underlying principal that everyone is selfish and only cares for himself, still holds at each one of your bases. so that is why it is relevent to all those that identify with it.

[N.O.Bronco]

Just checked BlairWatch and I find nobody disputing the mans claims other then one economist said he coulda gone further into detail(but understood why he didnt).

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

not really buddy, in fact not at all.

Apparently what Curtis prefers is an enlightened bureaucracy taking care of us all, as our inherently (wrong) selfish nature prevents us from doing the Right Thing. I'll pass on someone else knowing what's best for me.

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

But it does show where your philosophy falls apart under scientific scrutiny and even John Nash. In which Game theory the prisoners dillema and other things that formed the base of all those things in the modern business world that permiated to libertarianism and objectivism actually doesnt reflect the true nature of humans.

Libertarianism predates game theory and even John Nash. As for "doesnt reflect the true nature of humans", libertarianism's basic premise of maximal practical freedom is far closer to the "true nature of humans" than the bossiness and nanny-ness of leftism.

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

So maybe instead of being a ditto head you should watch it and judge it yourself, then come back here and we can argue from there.

I'm not terribly interested in a TV show about political philosophy. I'll stick with treatises like Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" and Nozick's devastating reposte, "Anarchy, State, Utopia". TV is great for soundbites and simplifications, but for intellectual topics, it tends to fall flat-screen.

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

And yes economically you all share a lot.

Sorta like "liberals" and "progressives" share a lot with socialists and Communists?

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

And the underlying principal that everyone is selfish and only cares for himself, still holds at each one of your bases.

Sigh. At least libertarianism recognizes that such a principle exists, as opposed to the various flavors of leftism, who seek to eliminate it, via force as required, from our brains. A mace is an effective tool to do so, and leftists have never shied from using it as they see fit.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Libertarianism predates game theory and even John Nash. As for "doesnt reflect the true nature of humans", libertarianism's basic premise of maximal practical freedom is far closer to the "true nature of humans" than the bossiness and nanny-ness of leftism.

That's absurd. The overwhelming majority of anthropologists would argue that it is mankind's social behaviors, not individualism, which has allowed him to succeed as a species for millions of years. In nature, individualism is a dead end. America's founders may have incorporated the political freedoms of individualism in our founding documents, but when they signed the Declaration, Ben Franklin pointed out, "Now we shall all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

That's absurd. The overwhelming majority of anthropologists would argue that it is mankind's social behaviors, not individualism, which has allowed him to succeed as a species for millions of years. In nature, individualism is a dead end. America's founders may have incorporated the political freedoms of individualism in our founding documents, but when they signed the Declaration, Ben Franklin pointed out, "Now we shall all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."

There's lots of strawmen being slaughtered by the lefties here...

Individualism doesn't mean "I got mine, **** you". Individualism means that each of us decides how best to live our lives, with the caveat that we can't unreasonably violate the right of others to the same. Working together to achieve agreed-upon goals isn't a violation of this premise in any way. Indeed, individualism fosters genuine cooperation, as opposed to the coercive "cooperation" mandated by collectivism.

For some reason, those who believe in the (bogus) first definition seem to think that this inherently bad belief is somehow absent from the anointed Wise Ones. Their touching adherence to elitism and collectivism is truly a dead end, as the 20th century proved.

Why the collectivists and their leftist variants skip right over the tens of millions of dead innocents that resulted from the fullest flowering of their philosophy ever seen in human history is an interesting discussion...

[yavoon]

appears to be a good thread to separate out the commies from the liberals. I like the idea that the commies will be more open in their campaign against individual freedoms.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

There's lots of strawmen being slaughtered by the lefties here...

Individualism doesn't mean "I got mine, **** you". Individualism means that each of us decides how best to live our lives, with the caveat that we can't unreasonably violate the right of others to the same. Working together to achieve agreed-upon goals isn't a violation of this premise in any way. Indeed, individualism fosters genuine cooperation, as opposed to the coercive "cooperation" mandated by collectivism.

For some reason, those who believe in the (bogus) first definition seem to think that this inherently bad belief is somehow absent from the anointed Wise Ones. Their touching adherence to elitism and collectivism is truly a dead end, as the 20th century proved.

Why the collectivists and their leftist variants skip right over the tens of millions of dead innocents that resulted from the fullest flowering of their philosophy ever seen in human history is an interesting discussion...

And what you so deftly, and consistently, ignore is that the self-same "fullest flowering" of Rightist philosophy was personified by Hitler and the rest of the 20th century fascists. Talk about building straw men.
Argument by extreme is a waste of time. If I say, a society should pitch in as a whole to create a much stronger education system than any small community group, or neighborhood group, possibly could, you'll reply, "Stalin killed 30 million people!" Useless.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

And what you so deftly, and consistently, ignore is that the self-same "fullest flowering" of Rightist philosophy was personified by Hitler and the rest of the 20th century fascists.

Fascism and Communism are not opposites. Both are collectivism taken to its logical end.

Fascism was not free-market capitalism and individualism - it was the state-controlled economy and anti-individualism.

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

If I say, a society should pitch in as a whole to create a much stronger education system than any small community group, or neighborhood group, possibly could, you'll reply, "Stalin killed 30 million people!" Useless.

Well no, I wouldn't say that.

However, I would note that "society should pitch in" obfuscates the reality that the public education system is funded by taxation (which isn't voluntary) and that the current education system is far more akin to indoctrination of mediocrity than anything else. I'd hardly call it a shining example of collective action - and if it is, well, it's pathetic.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Fascism and Communism are not opposites. Both are collectivism taken to its logical end.

Fascism was not free-market capitalism and individualism - it was the state-controlled economy and anti-individualism.

Fascism and collectivism have nothing in common whatsoever. The corporations that existed under Hitler, many still in existance today, made out like bandits. They certainly profited from the fascist state and especially, its use of slave labor. The cooperation of corporations with the state is contained within the very definition of the word, "fascist."

In a collectivist society, everything belongs to the citizenry at large. Of course, that's purely theoretical as there has never been a true collectivist society in history, only sham dictatorships (USSR, China, N. Korea, Cuba) that pretended to the ideal. IMO, Marx was a highly unrealistic utopian. The level of consciousness required to sustain a true "communist" society has never existed, and likely will never exist. The first premise, that all individuals within the society would be considered equals in every possible way, is probably unattainable by human beings.

I prefer the American Founders concept of humanity: Imperfect beings struggling against each other to forward their own interests and desires, and forced, by the very nature of the republic's machinery, to compromise and build consensus, with no single individual, or group, able to seize ultimate power.

The libertarian philosphy is no less utopian than the communist, in that they believe that if you strip away all the machinery, the unencumbered individual will somehow miraculously blossom. He won't. He will struggle to dominate his environment to the exclusion of his rivals. Those who win will do so on the carcasses of the losers. That's what the crazy monkey does. Libertarianism is basically just one, big, giant game of king on the mountain.

Well no, I wouldn't say that.

However, I would note that "society should pitch in" obfuscates the reality that the public education system is funded by taxation (which isn't voluntary) and that the current education system is far more akin to indoctrination of mediocrity than anything else. I'd hardly call it a shining example of collective action - and if it is, well, it's pathetic.

I made no mention of our current, failed education system. I was referring to the "idea" that a society might engage in a collectivist action without becoming a "communist" society. You agreed above: Working together to achieve agreed-upon goals isn't a violation of this premise in any way.