2 of 3
2
Capitalism: By-Product of Sexual Selection?
Posted: 18 February 2007 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Doug said:

Barry, I’d say your continued abrasiveness on this forum is, if anything, confirmation of a misanthropic analysis of human nature ...

You are hardly acting like the kind, pleasant Bonobo who you claim is our spiritual cousin.


Now Doug, you are taking advantage of my honesty. That last email was not abrasive, and my comments to this point, were matched with “smiley faces” to make sure no one misunderstood.  My last post might have been more honestly labeled by you as “a long sigh,” “a long Oy Vey of exhasberation” but with tongue lightly in cheek.”

The only reason the tongue was not firmly in cheek might be due to your dismissal and rude response to my quite serious Open Money post where you mocked the idea as “snake oil” and etc… Though it was certainly not a direct attack on me, the lack of seriousness to your post indicated what you thought of me posting the Open Money manifesto in the first place.

Doug said:

But that said, none of the people you cite is misanthropic: neither Pinker nor Wilson nor Dawkins. We’ve been through all this before, and you end up agreeing you’ve read them wrong, but a week later it’s all forgotten and you’re back to your usual tactics of slandering them with views they never held. That isn’t surprising to me, nor is the fact that you disagree with Brennen about de Waal ... you’ve consistently misread everyone you’ve cited here, not least of whom is Sober and Wilson. I’m sorry, Barry, but I just don’t trust any of your stated readings of anyone now.

I NEVER said I read Pinker, Wilson or Dawkins wrong on their take on human nature or the human condition.  I said I would have to read more to get a better idea of what Dawkins is saying lately which supposedly alters from his selfish gene mode of understanding humanity a la his ‘Atheists for Jesus’ essay.  Re Wilson, the only point I made about him was that I was glad he was rethinking Group Selection, but he still seems to have a misanthropic viewpoint of humanity (even if he is hopeful about environmental issues).  And Pinker is too obviously a misanthrope to even revisit his political comments. 

So I could not have “forgotten” anything I never thought or said.  I think you mis-read me! 

And why would it surprise you that I disagree with Brennen about ‘de Waal?’  Am I supposed to agree with what I don’t? 

And as for Wilson/Sober, I agree, I saw more of a David Buller in them than I got in the interview; but in later written dialogue with them, I was not as far off as I thought I was.  And if I was “reading” the work of Wilson/Sober wrong. or at least, not exactly right, that only proves that the apple does not fall far from the tree and Wilson/Sober are not as open to some evidence as others are.  There is no absolute consensus on any of this, so we have to go with the evidence as we interpret it.. And to me, Wilson/Sober are closer to the evidence than Pinker/EO Wilson… While Buller is closer still, and Dry/Hand and others even closer.  But this is all on other threads dedicated to science issues.

Doug:

As for the “real critique”, I’ve already given a bunch of them, which you’ve failed to respond to. Namely:  Who gets to decide what are “basic” and “non-basic” needs? Who gets to distribute these vouchers? Who gets to assure that no black market gets constructed?

Did you read the essay I linked to?  Fotopoulos answers these questions.  See where he talks about Participatory Planning or rotating committees ... (as in Parecon too, another brilliant system you poo-pooed).  Neither system is based on hierarchy which is what you seem to assume is needed.

Doug:

More’s the point, what happens when people decide they still would rather use money than these artificial “vouchers”? This is a recipe for the creation of a totalitarian state to control and distribute these “vouchers”.

Nonsense.  Why would anyone want to go back to money as it is - or capitalism either - when they are living in a much better life, more egalitarian society?  Personal profit or hierarchal leadership does not exist in Inclusive Democracy or Parecon; and when we create a society much healthier than our neo-liberal one we got now, no one in their right mind wound want to go back… And those who think they can be kingpins if they did go back, would not be allowed to by the population at large. 

Again, you cannot have a totalitarian state in a stateless, non-heirarchal society!

Doug:

Here are some more, along the same lines:

Who gets to take peoples’ money away? Who holds the weaponry and jails the people who refuse to hand over their cash? Who punishes the people who go on using cash substitutes?

Money has no worth outside of how the system is set up, so no one is taking anyone’s money away.  And the other questions all assume such a society would believe in punishment, weapons, or jails.  Think out of the box, Doug!

This is all more than I can post in these forums.  Take some time and read the Open Money link and the LETS link.  I am not advocating for them, just point them out because I think they are interesting examples of another way to do things… a more humanistic way.  They require lots of trial and error.  What I AM for is either a Parecon like society or an Inclusive Democracy.  Until you at least read the basics of Michael Albert’s work, or Robin Hahnel’s or Fotopoulos’ - or other anarchists and libertarian socialists - we cannot have an intelligent conversation.  It’s like I am talking about natural selection with someone who has no idea what evolution is and has never bothered to look it up.

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2007 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“Barry”]Doug:

As for the “real critique”, I’ve already given a bunch of them, which you’ve failed to respond to. Namely:  Who gets to decide what are “basic” and “non-basic” needs? Who gets to distribute these vouchers? Who gets to assure that no black market gets constructed?

Did you read the essay I linked to?  Fotopoulos answers these questions.  See where he talks about Participatory Planning or rotating committees ... (as in Parecon too, another brilliant system you poo-pooed).  Neither system is based on hierarchy which is what you seem to assume is needed.

He doesn’t answer a single one of them. Here’s the sum total of what he says on these “committees”:

“communities are co-ordinated through regional and confederal administrative councils of mandated, recallable and rotating delegates (regional assemblies/confederal assembly)”

I can’t believe how sophomoric this is. Who puts these committees together? How are they run? Who forces people to be members of them? (They are “mandated”). What happens with people who don’t attend, or have too much work to attend? What happens if the committee members are larcenous or incompetent? Do they have control over the police? How?

This isn’t any sort of answer. It’s hand-waving.

[quote author=“Barry”]Doug:

More’s the point, what happens when people decide they still would rather use money than these artificial “vouchers”? This is a recipe for the creation of a totalitarian state to control and distribute these “vouchers”.

Nonsense.  Why would anyone want to go back to money as it is - or capitalism either - when they are living in a much better life, more egalitarian society?  Personal profit or hierarchal leadership does not exist in Inclusive Democracy or Parecon; and when we create a society much healthier than our neo-liberal one we got now, no one in their right mind wound want to go back… And those who think they can be kingpins if they did go back, would not be allowed to by the population at large. 

Again, you cannot have a totalitarian state in a stateless, non-heirarchal society!

This is delusional, Barry. Nobody wants this sort of thing except Foutopoulos and you. And there would be blood in the streets when you tried to take peoples’ money away.

It bears repeating that social heirarchies are part of human nature, BTW.

[quote author=“Barry”]Money has no worth outside of how the system is set up, so no one is taking anyone’s money away.  And the other questions all assume such a society would believe in punishment, weapons, or jails.

When we discussed this stuff in the past you bridled at my calling it a sort of romantic utopianism. This is delusional utopianism, Barry. Once again, you are expecting to change human nature if you expect to eliminate crime. Just to take a single banal example, some percentage of your population is going to be sociopathic. What do you do to them? Some large percentage will steal, rape and murder. (I can’t believe I need to repeat this stuff).

What is more, it is pernicious. When people believe they are aiming at utopian systems, they are all too often willing to put up with (what they view as “temporary”) chaos and bloodshed to achieve it. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” was supposed to be a temporary phenomenon on the way to utopia at the other end. What ended up happening? The worst sort of totalitarian rule for decades, and perhaps a hundred million dead in the gulags of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

Yes, I know you will say that they were following a different system. But the mechanism was precisely the same. Aim at utopia and you will achieve totalitarianism ... because all you’ll think needs doing is to “educate” the populace that doesn’t agree with you.

Then when education fails to convince, worse things happen. As you said above: “those who think they can be kingpins if they did go back, would not be allowed to by the population at large.” The problem is, a significant percentage of the population—perhaps a majority—will always try to be kingpins. I hate to see what would happen when “the population” tries “not to allow this”. It’s a recipe for absolute disaster, on the back of some really incompetent economics.

I note that there were a number of additional problems I had with these systems which still remain unanswered, BTW.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2007 01:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Doug said:

He doesn’t answer a single one of them. Here’s the sum total of what he says on these “committees”:

“communities are co-ordinated through regional and confederal administrative councils of mandated, recallable and rotating delegates (regional assemblies/confederal assembly)”

I can’t believe how sophomoric this is. Who puts these committees together? How are they run? Who forces people to be members of them? (They are “mandated”). What happens with people who don’t attend, or have too much work to attend? What happens if the committee members are larcenous or incompetent? Do they have control over the police? How?

You read one essay and think you understand confederations, rotating delegates or anything else?  Fotopoulos has been writing for over 25 years and has shared in dialogue with others interesting in real democracy from M. Albert to Chomsky.  Will all due respect, who are YOU to call his work sophomoric? 

It is easy for capitalists - who think their system works and is the best system possible - to hand wave at alternative post-economic systems ... especially those people who have been on the “haves” end of capitalism.

The work of the folks I write about is not sophomoric, and all the proof needed is for anyone just to read.  On the contrary, capitalism is a cruel and inhuman system and has been known to be such since Marx’s time.  Stop defending insanity, Doug.

PS: What police?  There are no police (not as we know them) in anarchist societies.

Doug said:

This is delusional, Barry. Nobody wants this sort of thing except Foutopoulos and you. And there would be blood in the streets when you tried to take peoples’ money away.

Um, Doug, there are many more of us around than we two.. We may be your neighbor :wink:

And no one is taking anyone’s money away.  The more people bypass money with these other systems, and need money less and less, the more useless money will become.  We won’t have to take it away, people will be throwing it away!

Doug:

It bears repeating that social heirarchies are part of human nature, BTW.

Um.. no.  Not dominance hierarchies.  Besides, there is no universal human nature; there are multible natures via homo sapien and most of how we behave is in response to our environment.  Read your Harold Barclay, David Buller, and others. 

Oh, I forgot where you get YOUR notion of “human nature” from.

Nevermind 8)


Doug:

This is delusional utopianism, Barry. Once again, you are expecting to change human nature if you expect to eliminate crime. Just to take a single banal example, some percentage of your population is going to be sociopathic. What do you do to them? Some large percentage will steal, rape and murder. (I can’t believe I need to repeat this stuff).

Doug, you cannot believe you have to repeat such nonsense?  Neither do I!  Most crimes come from the environment, or do you think as a NY politician once said, that crime comes from criminals?  Look at where there is more crime (USA) and less crime (Japan/Canada) and even less crime and you will see crime correlates with authortarian states, militarism, racism, capitalism, etc.  You create a healthier society and crime goes bye-bye.  This is really quite elementary, Doug. 

As for the sociopaths, I am sure there are ways to keep people safe from them, and them safe from other people, other than our draconian criminal justice systems (which is really a criminal vengeance system), or prisons.  Man Doug, this stuff is basic to the Left… You are really too far right!

Doug said:

What is more, it is pernicious. When people believe they are aiming at utopian systems, they are all too often willing to put up with (what they view as “temporary”) chaos and bloodshed to achieve it. The “dictatorship of the proletariat” was supposed to be a temporary phenomenon on the way to utopia at the other end. What ended up happening? The worst sort of totalitarian rule for decades, and perhaps a hundred million dead in the gulags of the Soviet Union and Maoist China.

Um, first, communism was not a utopia.  Secondly, it did not work because the “waiting stage” was a Vanguard Party and Market Socialism. These things combined led to totalitarian in the USSR and China..  Now China is both capitalistic and fully hierarchal.. A real nightmare! 

Even social democracy did not last past the 1970’s because of market capitalism.

Doug:

The problem is, a significant percentage of the population—perhaps a majority—will always try to be kingpins.

More misanthropy and a misunderstanding of the human condition… 

As for more questions you may have, I am not fluent on ID or Parecon yet, why don’t you read more and even email the experts? 

Here are two more short essay toward your “education…” www.democracynature.org/dn/vol8/takis_transitional.htm

 

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2007 02:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“Barry”] Will all due respect, who are YOU to call his work sophomoric? 

All one has to do is read it.

[quote author=“Barry”]What police?  There are no police (not as we know them) in anarchist societies.

Dream on.

[quote author=“Barry”]Um, Doug, there are many more of us around than we two.. We may be your neighbor

Dream on.

[quote author=“Barry”] The more people bypass money with these other systems, and need money less and less, the more useless money will become.  We won’t have to take it away, people will be throwing it away!

Dream on.

[quote author=“Barry”]Most crimes come from the environment, or do you think as a NY politician once said, that crime comes from criminals?  Look at where there is more crime (USA) and less crime (Japan/Canada) and even less crime and you will see crime correlates with authortarian states, militarism, racism, capitalism, etc.  You create a healthier society and crime goes bye-bye.

Last time I looked, Japan and Canada had functioning police forces.

Dream on.

Frankly, reading this stuff makes me fear for your sanity. It’s the political/economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2007 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Doug quipped:

Frankly, reading this stuff makes me fear for your sanity. It’s the political/economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

Thanks for pointing out to all of us just how seriously we should take your comments on these matters.

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2007 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

Fotopoulos appears also to be an apologist for terrorism, accepting violence when it is done against innocents by his preferred people. As he said about the London bombings, “The average Briton has always been an oppressor”. One looks in vain here for any sort of condemnation of blowing up innocent bystanders on buses. Perhaps I missed it.

But that is perhaps not so strange, since it appears that the Greek paper he writes for, Eleftherotypia, is apparently known as a terrorist mouthpiece. Wikipedia says:

[quote author=“Wikipedia”]Other Greek left wing terrorist organizations, such as ELA, as well as smaller militant anarchist groups, also send their communiques exclusively to Eleftherotypia. Up to this day, when a bomb is set in Athens, the terrorists usually communicate with Eleftherotypia to claim responsibility for the hit on behalf of their organisation.
The newspaper became known for its policy of publishing the proclamations of such groups without criticism. Until 2001, they abstained from condemning terrorist attacks, including assassinations. Also, Eleftherotypia editors have been vocal in criticising counter terrorism laws throughout the world, Many perceive these as evidence that Eleftherotypia is supportive of terrorism. [1]
In November 2005, the Court of Appeals in Athens found the company owning the newspaper (Tegopoulos Publishing), the editor-in-chief Serafeim Fyntanides and another 2 persons guilty of slandering the Public Prosecutor of the trial of the 17N terrorist group, District Attorney Christos Lambrou. They were fined Euro 60,000 each to be paid to Mr. Lambrou.

<snip>

The newspaper has also hosted editorials which refer to Al Qaeda attacks as “the oppressed people’s struggle” against the “American empire”, which they characterised “the real terrorists”, “a beast”, “a tyrant” and “gangsters”.

Has Fotopoulos spoken out against any of this behavior? Talk about misanthropic—they are supporting the wholescale murder of innocent civilians!

I have no confidence that this man wouldn’t support violence to bring about his spoon-bending fantasies of a utopian future community. Of course, I hope that I am wrong, but reading some of his essays on his website gives me great pause.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 February 2007 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Doug:

You will look hard for anything you can say to discredit a person’s idea based on other things a person may have (or in this case) may have NOT said!  What happened to judging an idea on the merits of the idea itself and not on the idea-creator’s UNRELATED comments or failures to comment (on unrelated ideas)? Judge Inclusive Democracy and stop looking for terrorism endorcement!

On the idea of terrorism, though, are you talking about terrorism as big states like the U.S. or England mean it (any group or nation we don’t like who fights for their freedom with violence); or a more fair description such as any group or state which attacks others toward a political or economic gain.. which would make the U.S. a leading terrorist state, by the way! 

I think it is the latter. 

The U.S. has killed more innocent people (no matter what they call them) than any other state since 1945.  As journalist Robert Fisk says, the Muslims (one group of so-called terrorists) have been very gentle to the West over the last century considering the terrorism the West has perpetrated on them!

But what you may be really getting at is that killing innocents (which the American Revolution saw a lot of - the terrorists being the Colonists) should be immoral ... period. 

And I’d agree…

Unless… 

This essay ought to really bug you!

 

excerpt:

“You can make terrorism wrong by definition, as you can make profiting or anything else wrong by definition. It gets you nowhere. To advance in argument, you will now have to show, say, that what the Palestinians are engaging in really is terrorism as you have defined it. 

“Terrorism as more ordinarily defined may of course also be other things. It may be self-defence, resistance, resistance to ethnic cleansing, the struggle of a people for liberation, the struggle of a people for their very existence as a people.

“My book ‘After the Terror,’ which is on another whole subject, asked in passing about such things. It answered that the Palestine suicide bomber does have a moral right to her act of terrorism, and that the Israeli in the helicopter has no moral right to his act of state-terrorism. To clarify any such assertion of a moral right, this one comes to this: the Palestinian suicide-bomber was morally permitted if not obliged to do what she did—which very judgement has the support of a fundamental and accepted moral principle.” - Ted Honderich

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2007 04:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“Barry”]But what you may be really getting at is that killing innocents (which the American Revolution saw a lot of - the terrorists being the Colonists) should be immoral ... period. 

As usual, this is factually incorrect. American colonists during the revolution were scrupulously careful not to kill innocents. They believed it would tarnish their revolution, and they were right.

[quote author=“Barry”]“My book ‘After the Terror,’ which is on another whole subject, asked in passing about such things. It answered that the Palestine suicide bomber does have a moral right to her act of terrorism, and that the Israeli in the helicopter has no moral right to his act of state-terrorism. To clarify any such assertion of a moral right, this one comes to this: the Palestinian suicide-bomber was morally permitted if not obliged to do what she did—which very judgement has the support of a fundamental and accepted moral principle.” - Ted Honderich

This is immoral. Honderich should be ashamed of himself, as should you for promoting this sort of justification for murder.

So we have it that your vaunted holier-than-thou “humanism” following the idea that humans are like peaceful bonobo chimps is actually in bed with people who intentionally murder innocent civilians. The hypocrisy here is really breathtaking, Barry.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2007 07:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2007-02-18

This open money manifesto seems to leave out a few very important things about money. It strikes me as assuming that money is limited only by our ability to print it and that somehow it will maintain it’s value no matter how much we print. Addressing every item in this manifesto would make an incredibly long post so I’ll just point out a few things that just don’t make sense to me.

[quote author=“Barry”]
From OpenMoney.org.. Food for thought…

open money manifesto
The problems with money stem entirely from how conventional money is normally issued - it is created by central banks in limited supply. There are three things we know about this money. We know what it does - it comes and it goes. We know what it is - it’s scarce and hard to get. And we know where it’s from - it’s from “them”, not us.

Any amount of money can be printed, but the mere printing of it does not give it value. Whether a dollar bill represents an amount of gold or silver in reserves (which it used to do) or is just a piece of paper, ultimately, it’s value comes from what people do in exchange for it. I work hard at my job in exchange for money. I exchange the money I earn for products and services that are valuable to me. Many of the things I exchange money for are simply things I cannot make or do myself like toilets, and clothes and dental work, and bread. Sure, I could learn to do those and many more things but I would not be as good at making those products or providing those services as I am at the job I have now. This gives me the opportunity to specialize and do a few things well, therefore increasing the value of my work to the people that employ me and give me money in exchange.

So we have to scramble for money to survive, we are forced to compete for it, often ruthlessly. Intent on getting the most for the least, we strive for the best bargains, as individuals, businesses, non-profits, governments, and nations..

Hmmm. If you don’t compete for it, what then? Money should just be given to you because you exist? Where would money then get it’s value? Should we help the poor? Of course we should help our fellow human beings but it should never get to the point that people simply choose not to do or learn because the rest of humanity will take care of them. An overarching policy of “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” must have some reasonable limit or it becomes indistinguishable from slavery.

Yes there are poor people and there are wealthy people. Some wealthy people are good and some are bad. The same is true of the poor. Money is not the cause of good or evil in either case. People are. The amazing thing is that the money I am able to earn still has value in spite of the people that misuse, steal, and cheat with money elsewhere. Why does it have value? Because there are enough people willing to do productive work in exchange for it.

There is a character in the book Atlas Shrugged that eloquently addresses some misconceptions about money beginning with the often used phrase, “Money is the root of all evil.”

Here is a link directly to that character’s monologue:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826

I will make you a deal, Barry. I will read, with an open mind, the entirety of the Fotopoulos abstract to which you provided a link if you will read the Money speech. This is a bargain because the link I provided is considerably shorter and much easier to read than the one you provided. Deal?

 Signature 

Faith is not a substitute for morality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2007 08:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Doug:

This is immoral. Honderich should be ashamed of himself, as should you for promoting this sort of justification for murder.

So we have it that your vaunted holier-than-thou “humanism” following the idea that humans are like peaceful bonobo chimps is actually in bed with people who intentionally murder innocent civilians. The hypocrisy here is really breathtaking, Barry.

First Doug, enough with the Bonobos allready.  I said humans are more closely related to Bonobos than Chimps, but we are NOT Bonobos, we are humans.. and our lives are a bit more complicated.

You are attacking my morality as if I was a socialist who sold out to Stalin!  I think Honderich is right and quite moral.  He is not condoning murder - especially of innocents - any more than you or I. However, if you are a people whose only choice is to use such acts of violence to save your people from either genocide or completely horrible lives - and you have no military and would not be successful attacking the oppressor’s army - I would hope some poeple in your lot would have the fortititude to NOT walk right into the gas chambers. 

PS: There has been the killing if civilians (on purpose) since WWII, so its not exactly a new thing.. at least the Palestinians have a moral right to their particular situation.  What is America’s right in killing over 100,000 Iraqies?

Morality is not black and white.. and the truth is noisy!

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2007 08:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Here is a link directly to that character’s monologue:

 

I will make you a deal, Barry. I will read, with an open mind, the entirety of the Fotopoulos abstract to which you provided a link if you will read the Money speech. This is a bargain because the link I provided is considerably shorter and much easier to read than the one you provided. Deal?

I shall read it. But note that Fotopoulos and others are not talking about money the way you are or the way you say Open Money is.  Perhaps Open Money needs to be more clear (as Fotopoulos and others are), and I will let one of their leaders read these posts… Maybe he will want to comment here.

But again, I am more concerned with the big picture a la Parecon and/or Inclusive Democracy re these forums.

One quick glance and I still see this pro-capitalism Randian r-libertarians stuff is very much NOT what I believe.

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2007 08:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15343
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“Barry”] What is America’s right in killing over 100,000 Iraqies?

I never claimed there was any.

[quote author=“Barry”]Morality is not black and white.. and the truth is noisy!

I’m glad you said this, since it’s opposed to most everything you’ve said before here, where you excoriate all sorts of reasonable thinkers for supposed tiny moral flaws. At any rate, and FWIW, I agree with you.

But stop trying to justify the intentional, pre-meditated murder of innocent civilians. It won’t wash. If anything is a moral wrong, that is. And I hope we will stop hearing that Honerich and Fotopoulos are great moral geniuses from now on. They most certainly are not.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2007 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

Doug said:

If anything is a moral wrong, that is. And I hope we will stop hearing that Honderich and Fotopoulos are great moral geniuses from now on. They most certainly are not.

Says you.

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2007 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2007-02-18

[quote author=“Barry”]One quick glance and I still see this pro-capitalism Randian r-libertarians stuff is very much NOT what I believe.

...and so far the Fotopolous abstract bears little resemblance to what I think, but I am reading it and doing my best to understand the points. If we only read works by people with whom we already agree ....

 Signature 

Faith is not a substitute for morality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 February 2007 09:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  402
Joined  2003-09-24

...and so far the Fotopolous abstract bears little resemblance to what I think, but I am reading it and doing my best to understand the points. If we only read works by people with whom we already agree ....

My point is that I have read Rand and r-libertarian capitalist arguments before.. they are in far more abundence in this neo-liberal country than the humanistic stuff is.

 Signature 

Barry F. Seidman
Exec. Producer of Equal Time for Freethought

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2