Should protesters respect private property?

[J’raxis 270145]

Well, let me say this: If a person genuinely, truly, treated another person the way he wanted to be treated and it was unwelcome on the other person's part, then I think in that situation you would have what we call a misunderstanding. And if the person truly loves the other person, once he sees that the misunderstanding has occurred, he would take steps to rectify the wrong.

Alice tries to force Bob to do something "for his own good." Bob resists, and Alice rationalizes forcing it upon him by convincing herself, "if I were in his position, I'd want someone to help me like this. I'd thank him afterward." This is an all too common scenario.

I've a feeling even you have done the above, what with your notions of suicide prevention.

yes. I have been thanked afterward. 

Why was this an exception to your own statement that such actions are a misunderstanding, and a wrong that needs to be rectified?

[sandm000]

I could name dozens. Maybe hundreds. We are all human, we all share a common emotional makeup. I'm not so sure that it is wise to try to set up a "logical system of interaction" based on a single emotion. See below.

1) Just name 1 UNIVERSAL emotion other than greed through which we could develop and define a system of interaction that is objectively equal. (Or I'll try to do my best with the emotion you give me.
2) This is the second time you've dodged this point.

In your theory, anyway. But how's that working out for you? I don't see any indication in real life that Defenders of Rights slowly but surely start to outnumber Perpetrators. I think that, if anything, all experience hath shewn quite the opposite, that tyranny and oppression tends to multiply on itself. As your friend Ayn Rand might say, "check your premises."

My theory cannot be put into practice here in North America currently because there are group of thugs running around ensuring "equality" and punishing those who defend themselves and their property. I'm sure you've heard of the cases where criminals have sued homeowners because they were injured during the commission of a crime?  So because of the artificial construct of the government we are all forced into pacifism, and how does that work for me? Not so much, thanks.

Is it time to maybe start considering Jung? Jung believed that in addition to the external world that we perceive with our senses (things like trees, rocks, other people, water, etc, etc, etc) there also exists an external world that impinges on our psyche. I stress that these are external influences. In other words, they do not originate from within us, but come from without, just as truly as a tree or a rock is an external influence. Just as we interact with the so-called "physical" world, both shaping it and being shaped by it, so too we are both influenced by these external archetypes, as well as influencing them ourselves. And these archetypes are shared with the rest of the world, (the most famous example being the "collective unconscious"). So that we can be influenced by the psyches of others, as well as influence them with our own. Almost all of this takes place on a completely subconscious level.

So what are you putting out into the world? What archetypes are you nourishing? Because that, to me, is a much better question than "on what single emotion can we base an entire logical system of interaction." The times when someone is attacking you, in this life, are so rare as to be almost non-existent. I think I've been hit once in my entire life, and truth be told I deserved it. So what are you doing with the other 99.999999999999999999999% of your time when you aren't defending yourself? Because what you are doing in that time is going to have a much larger impact on your psyche than what you do on the exceedingly rare occasions when you're attacked. And if you spend that time polishing your guns, practicing for your chance to make the big kill in your moment of defense, thinking about how important your rights are, etc., if that's what your life is, then what archetypes are you sending out into the world. Suspicion of others? Isolation? Fear? Mistrust? Superiority of self over others? The Life of others has value only as they cooperate with my interests? Superior power is the key to my victory? Are these the values you want others to nourish? Keep in mind, you may personally have a philosophy which enables you to respect others rights, but that doesn't mean everyone you influence will. You're not going to get to enlighten and teach everyone who is influenced by your archetypes. You might not even meet them. If our world is violent, hateful, and cruel, what must the unseen thoughts be which are directing that world? And do I want to let that influence me, or do I want to try to change the tide?

Caleb

What and huh?  Are trees and rocks psychically impinging upon my awareness?

And I spend 99% of my time unarmed.  I was ain a fair number of fights as a child, but haven't had much opportunity as an adult. And all that is neither here nor there. 
The real question you want to get at is, how successful can my philosophy be if I have to be willing to use force to protect myself? (Am I feeding fear, and mistrust, and all those other things? Not intentionally. I blame the media for calling all guns bad.) Does evil exist? Will a pacifist be able to argue against evil, their voice their only weapon?  Will they succeed? Not as often as someone who is willing to fight evil when it attacks.  Caleb, you have value for me even though you do not subscribe to my philosophy.  People only lose value, in my philosophy, when they actively try to deprive me of my life. (or by extension my property, which I have traded a portion of my life for.)

[John Edward Mercier]

So what are you putting out into the world? What archetypes are you nourishing? Because that, to me, is a much better question than "on what single emotion can we base an entire logical system of interaction." The times when someone is attacking you, in this life, are so rare as to be almost non-existent. I think I've been hit once in my entire life, and truth be told I deserved it. So what are you doing with the other 99.999999999999999999999% of your time when you aren't defending yourself? Because what you are doing in that time is going to have a much larger impact on your psyche than what you do on the exceedingly rare occasions when you're attacked. And if you spend that time polishing your guns, practicing for your chance to make the big kill in your moment of defense, thinking about how important your rights are, etc., if that's what your life is, then what archetypes are you sending out into the world. Suspicion of others? Isolation? Fear? Mistrust? Superiority of self over others? The Life of others has value only as they cooperate with my interests? Superior power is the key to my victory? Are these the values you want others to nourish? Keep in mind, you may personally have a philosophy which enables you to respect others rights, but that doesn't mean everyone you influence will. You're not going to get to enlighten and teach everyone who is influenced by your archetypes. You might not even meet them. If our world is violent, hateful, and cruel, what must the unseen thoughts be which are directing that world? And do I want to let that influence me, or do I want to try to change the tide?

Caleb

But was the limits of your defensive moments because of pacifism? Or the fear of the perpertrator of a higher authority? Or even limited by their environmental conditioning?
Spend more time where governmental control and environmental conditioning stresses more aggression...

[Caleb]

1) Just name 1 UNIVERSAL emotion other than greed through which we could develop and define a system of interaction that is objectively equal. (Or I'll try to do my best with the emotion you give me.
2) This is the second time you've dodged this point.

It's not that I've dodged it. I just think it is kind of an overly simplistic way of trying to understand human behavior, and I'm not interested in trying to come up with a "logical system of interaction based on a single emotion." I think that is misguided. I don't know how to convey that to you without you thinking I'm dodging the question. It would be like if I asked you to name a color so that I could design a mathematical system based on it. I just think it's a colossal waste of time. I'm not an objectivist. Frankly, I'm not a fan of Rand. But if you insist, I'll name an emotion and let you try to work a system on it. Hmmmmm. Let's go with flatulence. A good case of flatulence can make you all teary eyed, so that's an emotion, right? 

My theory cannot be put into practice here in North America currently because there are group of thugs running around ensuring "equality" and punishing those who defend themselves and their property. I'm sure you've heard of the cases where criminals have sued homeowners because they were injured during the commission of a crime?  So because of the artificial construct of the government we are all forced into pacifism, and how does that work for me? Not so much, thanks.

Yes. That is the natural result of your system of self-defense, combined with your system of "rational self interest." People are lazy. It is far easier to hire someone else to do your self-defense for you (and just ignore them if they get out of hand, so long as you yourself are still pretty comfortable) than it is to have every man be for himself. Don't hate the system. It's yours.

What and huh?  Are trees and rocks psychically impinging upon my awareness?

Probably. Although as the higher life form, you are influencing them far more than they influence you. I'm not concerned with the rocks or the trees. I'm telling you that, just as the rocks and trees are real in the physical reality, your psyche exists for the most part in an equally real psychic world, and there are real external influences that are just as real as rocks or trees. And that is the thing that your worldview isn't even considering. And if you could see many of these influences with your eyes, you would run like hell. If you want to know whether it is the demonic or the angelic which is controlling most of humanity, then simply look at the results. Then decide for yourself what you want to control *your* life. I think that Jung was fond of saying (although it might have been someone else, but I think it was Jung) that the only thing scarier than dealing with the world of the psyche is ignoring it.

Does evil exist? Will a pacifist be able to argue against evil, their voice their only weapon?  Will they succeed? Not as often as someone who is willing to fight evil when it attacks.  Caleb, you have value for me even though you do not subscribe to my philosophy.  People only lose value, in my philosophy, when they actively try to deprive me of my life. (or by extension my property, which I have traded a portion of my life for.)

1) Yes, do you realize the implications of that?. 2) Yes.  3) Sometimes, more often then you would think. Curiously enough, many people are reluctant (for personal honor issues) to kill someone who isn't armed. 4) Whether you realize it or not, your Objectivism requires you to make a completely irrational choice: You must choose to love yourself, regardless of whether you are "worthy" of such love or not. Yet you see that that irrational choice is, in fact, completely rational on a wholly higher plane. I simply tell you that that same choice is also rational (on another wholly higher plane) to extend to others, whether they appear to deserve it or not.

[Caleb]

But was the limits of your defensive moments because of pacifism? Or the fear of the perpertrator of a higher authority? Or even limited by their environmental conditioning?
Spend more time where governmental control and environmental conditioning stresses more aggression...

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Caleb

[sandm000]

It's not that I've dodged it. I just think it is kind of an overly simplistic way of trying to understand human behavior, and I'm not interested in trying to come up with a "logical system of interaction based on a single emotion." I think that is misguided. I don't know how to convey that to you without you thinking I'm dodging the question. It would be like if I asked you to name a color so that I could design a mathematical system based on it. I just think it's a colossal waste of time. I'm not an objectivist. Frankly, I'm not a fan of Rand. But if you insist, I'll name an emotion and let you try to work a system on it. Hmmmmm. Let's go with flatulence. A good case of flatulence can make you all teary eyed, so that's an emotion, right? 

Flatus is a physical byproduct, not an emotion.  I asked you for a universal human emotion 3 times now, because you said there were dozens of them.  This makes three dodges.  I don't have to turn it into a system of universal interaction in order for you to pick a "color".

Yes. That is the natural result of your system of self-defense, combined with your system of "rational self interest." People are lazy. It is far easier to hire someone else to do your self-defense for you (and just ignore them if they get out of hand, so long as you yourself are still pretty comfortable) than it is to have every man be for himself. Don't hate the system. It's yours.

Please tell me how I hired the government to defend me from others and myself, granting them the ability to throw me in prison if I don't pay their bill?  Most companies, if you don't pay, stop working for you, they don't start working harder for you.

Probably. Although as the higher life form, you are influencing them far more than they influence you. I'm not concerned with the rocks or the trees. I'm telling you that, just as the rocks and trees are real in the physical reality, your psyche exists for the most part in an equally real psychic world, and there are real external influences that are just as real as rocks or trees. And that is the thing that your worldview isn't even considering. And if you could see many of these influences with your eyes, you would run like hell. If you want to know whether it is the demonic or the angelic which is controlling most of humanity, then simply look at the results. Then decide for yourself what you want to control *your* life. I think that Jung was fond of saying (although it might have been someone else, but I think it was Jung) that the only thing scarier than dealing with the world of the psyche is ignoring it.

Can we save this portion for another day? Or is it central to the original argument of allowing you to step in and intercede when people are commiting suicide.  Because I would have to argue against its reality, if I can't see it or feel it or hear it, I can't act on it rationally, so even claiming that a psychic world is influencing your decisions sounds a bit bizzare.

1) Yes, do you realize the implications of that?. 2) Yes.  3) Sometimes, more often then you would think. Curiously enough, many people are reluctant (for personal honor issues) to kill someone who isn't armed. 4) Whether you realize it or not, your Objectivism requires you to make a completely irrational choice: You must choose to love yourself, regardless of whether you are "worthy" of such love or not. Yet you see that that irrational choice is, in fact, completely rational on a wholly higher plane. I simply tell you that that same choice is also rational (on another wholly higher plane) to extend to others, whether they appear to deserve it or not..

So are you claiming that there is an objective standard for who "deserves" love and who doesn't?  And if I said "objective" earlier and this led you to believe I was an objectivist, I'm sorry that you are misinformed, by saying the word objective I was merely positing that there are things which can be held true without an observer.  A donut is a donut objectively, if it has chocolate icing it is a good donut subjectively (that is subject to my interpretation).  I am not a Randite, but I think she has a very easy to understand philosophy for the layman to digest. Describing it as she does in parable is perfect for people less willing to read Jung or Kant. 
If I actively try to go on living, is that loving myself?
Is loving myself wrong in your philosophy?
Is loving myself when I am not "worthy" of the love an affrontery to you?
What stops you from hurting me when I am not "worthy" of love?
If you refrain from killing the "unworthy" is that not an act of love?
If I am not "worthy" why do you give it?

[John Edward Mercier]

But was the limits of your defensive moments because of pacifism? Or the fear of the perpertrator of a higher authority? Or even limited by their environmental conditioning?
Spend more time where governmental control and environmental conditioning stresses more aggression...

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Caleb

Do you think your pacifistic approach limited the number of threats against your person, or the environmental (social)conditioning and fear of police/courts by those around you?

[Caleb]

Do you think your pacifistic approach limited the number of threats against your person, or the environmental (social)conditioning and fear of police/courts by those around you?

Well, that's actually two questions.

First, do I think a pacifist approach has limited the number of threats against me? Well, let me say this. I've never been a violent person. Even when I wasn't ideologically a pacifist, I still didn't spend any time thinking about how I would take someone out if they crossed me. It just wasn't something I spent time on. I *do* have a smart mouth, but other than that I'm fairly non-aggressive, and yes, I do think that being non-aggressive limits how many threats are sent my way. Aggressiveness breeds aggressiveness. "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger." (Pr. 15:1)

Do I believe that my pacifism undoes the social conditioning of others? To a very limited extent, yes. But for the most part, the current state of man is so far against it that it is like a single drop of water taking on the tide. For the most part, the beneficiary of my pacifism is me.

[Caleb]

Flatus is a physical byproduct, not an emotion.  I asked you for a universal human emotion 3 times now, because you said there were dozens of them.  This makes three dodges.  I don't have to turn it into a system of universal interaction in order for you to pick a "color"

I had thought that the little tongue in cheek comment would at least end that thread of the discussion. It truly is a colossal waste of time. And whether you call yourself an "Objectivist" or not, you are espousing the central tenet of their ideology. To wit, that human greed is the only worthwhile emotion for the purposes of making decisions. The classier objectivists will call it "rational self-interest". Those who annoy me will stick to their guns and continue to market full-fledged greed. Either way, it's a discussion I've had seventeen billion times, and I'm not interested in making it seventeen billion and one. I don't know how to (politely) say this any more bluntly. If you want a list of universal human emotions, here's a nice starter packet for you: http://www.guidetopsychology.com/emotions.htm

Please tell me how I hired the government to defend me from others and myself, granting them the ability to throw me in prison if I don't pay their bill?  Most companies, if you don't pay, stop working for you, they don't start working harder for you.

You may not have hired them. It doesn't matter because you are statistically irrelevant. Some of the people in your world (for the fun of it, let's say 10% maybe) will think on the matter and realize that it isn't in their best interests to have a government provide for their defense. The others, however, are stupid, or lazy, or just plain don't care so long as they are comfortable. They are caring for their own rational interest. And the cost, so far as they are concerned, is worth what they pay for it (whatever they see that cost as being.) It saves them having to buy guns, teach themselves how to defend themselves, and ensures that no gang or bully will overwhelm them. They've joined the winning team, and they are mostly happy about it. They may not agree with everything that their government does, but the cost of ridding themselves of it is higher than they want to pay. You're in the minority, and you can look out for your rational self-interest. But since you are in the minority, you will lose. And the more you push against the government that your fellow men want, the more you resist them, the more you will lose, because they are bigger than you and stronger than you. The only thing you have to have, to get this system that you have now, is 1) a belief that we ought to defend ourselves 2) people who act in their own rational self-interest, with little concern for the welfare of others. 3) a supply of people. And whamo, you have what we have now. You just disagree with the outcome, but you don't challenge the two premises. Notice that I am challenging both of the premises.

Can we save this portion for another day? Or is it central to the original argument of allowing you to step in and intercede when people are commiting suicide.  Because I would have to argue against its reality, if I can't see it or feel it or hear it, I can't act on it rationally, so even claiming that a psychic world is influencing your decisions sounds a bit bizzare.

Understanding that there is a world of the spirit is sort of central, yes, because a worldview that rejects that reality is woefully incomplete. It would be just the same as if I wanted to ignore that there are trees and rocks. It may seem bizarre, but the evidence is, I think, quite compelling, and I've come to accept that our world is indeed bizarre. The idea that your senses are the only window to the outside world is I think very dangerous (as I've discussed elsewhere.

So are you claiming that there is an objective standard for who "deserves" love and who doesn't?

No. I'm saying that everyone deserves love. And that you can't say that that isn't rational, because if you do, then you will be forced to apply the same standard to yourself.

I am not a Randite, but I think she has a very easy to understand philosophy for the layman to digest. Describing it as she does in parable is perfect for people less willing to read Jung or Kant. 

I think Rand would probably shudder at the implication that she was merely making Kant and Jung's ideas more accessible to the layman. She was presenting quite a different worldview from either Kant or Jung.

If I actively try to go on living, is that loving myself?

In some way, yes. Although other forces may be at work. it is possible to both love yourself and hate yourself.

Is loving myself wrong in your philosophy?

No. It is essential. But on the same principle, it must also be extended to others.

Is loving myself when I am not "worthy" of the love an affrontery to you?

No. It is those who try to reduce love to the rational principle who believe that love must be justified. I believe that love, by its very nature, must be given without qualifications, conditions, or exceptions. It is, therefore, both eternal and unconditional, and therefore cannot be earned. In short, it is not possible to be worthy of love, because love is a free gift of the one who chooses to love. When I speak of "being worthy" of love, I am trying my best to relate to your world (not my own) which seems to require some sort of rational principle for everything.

If I am not "worthy" why do you give it?

Because you need it.

[sandm000]

I had thought that the little tongue in cheek comment would at least end that thread of the discussion. It truly is a colossal waste of time. And whether you call yourself an "Objectivist" or not, you are espousing the central tenet of their ideology. To wit, that human greed is the only worthwhile emotion for the purposes of making decisions. The classier objectivists will call it "rational self-interest". Those who annoy me will stick to their guns and continue to market full-fledged greed. Either way, it's a discussion I've had seventeen billion times, and I'm not interested in making it seventeen billion and one. I don't know how to (politely) say this any more bluntly. If you want a list of universal human emotions, here's a nice starter packet for you: http://www.guidetopsychology.com/emotions.htm

Thank you, for finally providing your list of countless UNIVERSAL human emotions, since you don't want this to devolve into a philosophical debate about the worthiness of these other emotions as a basis for fair or just interaction, I won't go on about any of them and why I think they wouldn't work.

You may not have hired them. It doesn't matter because you are statistically irrelevant. Some of the people in your world (for the fun of it, let's say 10% maybe) will think on the matter and realize that it isn't in their best interests to have a government provide for their defense. The others, however, are stupid, or lazy, or just plain don't care so long as they are comfortable. They are caring for their own rational interest. And the cost, so far as they are concerned, is worth what they pay for it (whatever they see that cost as being.) It saves them having to buy guns, teach themselves how to defend themselves, and ensures that no gang or bully will overwhelm them. They've joined the winning team, and they are mostly happy about it. They may not agree with everything that their government does, but the cost of ridding themselves of it is higher than they want to pay. You're in the minority, and you can look out for your rational self-interest. But since you are in the minority, you will lose. And the more you push against the government that your fellow men want, the more you resist them, the more you will lose, because they are bigger than you and stronger than you. The only thing you have to have, to get this system that you have now, is 1) a belief that we ought to defend ourselves 2) people who act in their own rational self-interest, with little concern for the welfare of others. 3) a supply of people. And whamo, you have what we have now. You just disagree with the outcome, but you don't challenge the two premises. Notice that I am challenging both of the premises.

How can you even consider it the same situation, when the first premise (a belief that we ought to defend ourselves) isn't held by anyone who says "The police will defend me and my rights".

Understanding that there is a world of the spirit is sort of central, yes, because a worldview that rejects that reality is woefully incomplete. It would be just the same as if I wanted to ignore that there are trees and rocks. It may seem bizarre, but the evidence is, I think, quite compelling, and I've come to accept that our world is indeed bizarre. The idea that your senses are the only window to the outside world is I think very dangerous (as I've discussed elsewhere.

If I can't see it or experience it in any readily meaningful way, how can I even begin to bring what goes on in the spirit world into my rational decision making processes?
Should I eat that toast or will the spirit of the toast be angry isn't a meaningful question, nor is "is some other malevolent spirit trying to get me to eat that toast."
It looks like you are trying to dodge responsibility for your actions by claiming "da debil made me do it" when you claim that things in an unseen dimension are influencing your actions.

I think Rand would probably shudder at the implication that she was merely making Kant and Jung's ideas more accessible to the layman. She was presenting quite a different worldview from either Kant or Jung.

I wasn't saying that her ideas were the same as as Jung and Kant, but rather that her writing style is much more accessible.

[John Edward Mercier]

Social conditioning is toward pacifism. Societies don't deal with aggressive people well. Though I do believed my being perceived as a threat to others will cause an aggressive reaction. I feel the initiation of force is contained by social conditioning. I watch people that eat meat completely unable to watch, never mind participate, in the killing/butchering of an animal.

[MaineShark]

Why is it that "Christians" like Caleb are so utterly un-Christ-like?

Can anyone who has the slightest comprehension of the behavior demonstrated by Jesus imagine that he would ever behave as Caleb does?

Reading Caleb's posts reminds me intensely of reading things written and said by Huckabee.  Nothing but "I'm right because I say so," and total intolerance for anyone who doesn't toe his particular line.

Jesus would be very proud...

Joe

[Jacobus]

Why is it that "Christians" like Caleb are so utterly un-Christ-like?

Can anyone who has the slightest comprehension of the behavior demonstrated by Jesus imagine that he would ever behave as Caleb does?

Reading Caleb's posts reminds me intensely of reading things written and said by Huckabee.  Nothing but "I'm right because I say so," and total intolerance for anyone who doesn't toe his particular line.

Jesus would be very proud...

Joe

I've found his posts in this thread to be interesting and provocative, and his tone rather calm.  In this context, what does "total intolerance" even mean?  How do you suggest he behave toward ideas he disagrees with?

[Eli]

Sorry Joe.  I disagree with Caleb on almost every point but I wouldn't say he was behaving in an unchristlike manner.  Christ was a disagreeable pacifist with no respect for the state or for property.  Caleb is doing just fine based on that list.  I think Christ (if not apocryphal) and Caleb (if not a teatotaler) could easily sit down and have a friendly beer, granting the existed in a similar time and space.

Gack. California must be effecting my brain

[MaineShark]

I've found his posts in this thread to be interesting and provocative, and his tone rather calm.  In this context, what does "total intolerance" even mean?  How do you suggest he behave toward ideas he disagrees with?

I take it you missed the "libertarians are monsters" rant?

Sorry Joe.  I disagree with Caleb on almost every point but I wouldn't say he was behaving in an unchristlike manner.  Christ was a disagreeable pacifist with no respect for the state or for property.  Caleb is doing just fine based on that list.  I think Christ (if not apocryphal) and Caleb (if not a teatotaler) could easily sit down and have a friendly beer, granting the existed in a similar time and space.

I'll flat-out guarantee the opposite.  Those who actually live by ethical standards tend to be very disinterested in friendly banter with hypocrites who demand that others obey the rules they claim to live by, while violating those rules themselves.

I also doubt you would find Jesus going on about what wonderful people Hitler and Stalin were...

Joe