GENIUS FORUMS

vicdan wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

vicdan wrote:hooray to losers sitting in their armchairs complaining about how the world is mean to them!

You mean people like Bertrand Russell? Yeah, you're right, he was certainly a tool.

he was gainfully employed, you fucking idiot, despite being a nobleman. He was also a world-famous mathelogician, and he won a Nobel in literature. He did not demand that society sustain him in his indolence.

He was an armchair social critic by any standards. I don't care that he was employed as an academic. Your standard for social legitimacy is 100% bootstrapped.

isn't it amazing how all these indisputably great philosophers didn't share your and Unidian's sense of entitltement?

Isn't it amazing how a mediocre philosopher (but great mathematician) was also an active advocate for social reform. It is irrelevant that he didn't happen to argue this one. It's also a logical fallacy to mention him.

.. No matter who you take -- Aristotle or Diogenes, Aquinas or Kant, Nietzsche or Sartre, Quine or Popper -- none of them proclaimed that the society owed them a living.

Maybe not, but which of them do you think might have argued it is better to let people die than modestly support them? Your position is, essentially, when all the pseudo-philosophic posturing is set aside, that you would rather see people like me and Nat dead than have society afford us a modest existence. That's your prerogative, of course. But I'm sure you'll understand if I can't agree.

To support my previous point, it might be worth nothing that I posted Freedom, Capitalism, & Work at Democratic Underground a while back, and it got a rather positive response. Despite the fact that DU is considerably more "mainstream" than I am and for the most part to the right of me on economic issues, I recall encountering only 1 or 2 critics out of a much larger number of readers. Progressives are generally at least sympathetic to my view, if they don't agree with it outright. The DU thread supports this, and I can probably dig it up if anyone is interested.

vicdan wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Don't be a dag, Victor. Those places are for people otherwise fiscally endowed who basically want to drop out of society. Yeah, all you welfare bludgers!, pack up all your belongings, hitchhike to your free land in hicksville and plant grass seeds with your hands.

Why not? people did it for centuries. What makes you unable to do so?

For one thing I totally lack the skill set. For another, I don't have to. For another, it doesn't suit my purposes. For another, I don't give a shit, personally, about the ethical dimension of my welfare recipiency. For another, I'm afriad of dirt. That stuff has rabies in it.

You'll do swell up until you begin to starve and are forced back on welfare. Two weeks, max.

So stay on welfare until your first crop comes in, and then you're good to go. Subsistence agriculture! Shit in the woods! no indoor plumbing! Ah, but you want the comforts...

Um, how do I afford the seed and farming equipment? Do they have DSL out there?

Dan Rowden wrote:Isn't it amazing how a mediocre philosopher (but great mathematician) was also an active advocate for social reform. It is irrelevant that he didn't happen to argue this one.

Sure it is. i am an advocate for social reform too, and it's also different from what you advocate. What is relevant is that even though unip roclaimed that work is antithetical to philosophy, I can't think of a single great philosopher who would advocate Uni's sense of entitltement, and precious few philosophers who weren't gainfully employed.

It's also a logical fallacy to mention him.

Nope. He is a datum, just like all other philosophers. Unidian claimed that work is incompatible with great philosophy, but the data -- the lives of various philosophers, including Russell -- conclusively proves him wrong.

Maybe not, but which of them do you think might have argued it is better to let people die than modestly support them?

Ah, the bait-n-switch! I am against 'modestly supporting' those who choose to starve. i think most of those philosophers would agree that letting those starve who choose not to work, is perfectly OK.

Your position is, essentially, when all the pseudo-philosophic posturing is set aside, that you would rather see people like me and Nat dead than have society afford us a modest existence.

No, my position is that you would rather sttarve than work -- i would merely do nothing to save you.

if you are drowning and i toss you a lifeline, don't expect me to jump in because you don't feel like holding on. if you starve in the wilderness and i give you hunting weapons, don't expect me to feed you if you rfuse to hunt. if you are starving because you consciously refuse to work, don't xpect me to feed you.

That's your prerogative, of course. But I'm sure you'll understand if I can't agree.

of course not. You want to coerce me into supporting your voluntary indolence. You will of course cry bloody murder if I suggest that we instead save your life by putting you into forcible work camp. Wouldn't that be compassionate, to prevent your dying of starvation?..

Dan Rowden wrote:Um, how do I afford the seed and farming equipment? Do they have DSL out there?

hahaha. yeah, you have an entitlement to a DSlLline too!

you are a tool.

Here is the DU thread. This is how actual progressives respond to my viewpoint. Note that the entire discussion remained rational in tone and opponents offered very little disrespect. Also note the number of readers who agreed without reservation, several of whom went the extra mile of recommending it for the "greatest threads" list.

That is how my ideas about employment are discussed with progressives. I think it's quite obviously very different from the reaction we've seen here from the social Darwinists.

vicdan wrote:Then don't. Start a small farm or a small business. Go into subsistence agriculture. Join a co-op or a commune. There are countless ways to survive without working for the corporate world.

Yes! This is the perfect example of a statement from someone completely brain washed by corporate culture. - "If you don't like it, get out!" Same thing I hear from drones when I criticize the Bush administration - "iF U hate uhmericuh than gte owut uf are cuntrey rarrrrrgh!!!!" They never actually rationally discuss the problem I am conveying to them.

vicdan wrote:Actually, yes, you can. You are just too used to the comforts of civilization.

Yes there are many things I like about civilization. I like meeting with other people, and I like having a hospital, fire station, and police station close by. This doesn't make my argument any less valid.

vicdan wrote:There are plenty of places around USA which will give land away -- just come and settle there!

Like Dan already said, you fail to respect the point a person makes. Point being we are in every way imaginable connected to the earth we stand on. How about you try to justify why anyone should have to purchase land from a bank?

vicdan wrote:hahaha, you fucking dumb loser. you didn't even look, didja? All you are interested is justifying yourself, not actually finding ways stay away from the corporate world. There are plenty of places in USA where you can have land for free.

Yeah the pilgrims tried that with the whole "lets move to the free land in the new world bit" to get away from the monarchies (old school corporations) of Europe. How did that work out for them? Even a revolutionary war and constitution couldn't stop the corporations from taking over the country. But let's assume everyone who despised corporations took your advice. How long would it take before the population in these areas grew to the point where the land was no longer free and the corporations began buying up huge plots of cheap land? A Wal-mart here, a factory there, not too long I presume.

vicdan wrote:So fucking learn! The information is easily available; but you don't want to learn, do you? you just want to whine.

Nice straw man. You are pretty good at those eh? Who said I did or didn't know how to do these things. My point, again, is that corporate culture penetrates every part of civilization in a destructive manner.

vicdan wrote:You are fucking yourself. Instead of trying to solve the problems, you pathetic loser, you just whine about how everything sucks. There are countless ways for a man or woman these days to live a life not dependent on the corporate world

Why should I have to adjust my life because you and the rest of society wants to continue playing the game of who has the biggest cock? It's only reasonable and fair that society provides me with some compensation for having to put up with your childish ego-centric ways. Can't you at least just admit you are an immature bigot who wont tolerate anyone who doesn't want to compete in his cock measuring contest?

Boy, that "loser" term is really flying around fast and furious, eh? I've seen that quoted over and over. That term is extremely telling in and of itself. In fact, it betrays a person's entire moral and social worldview, I think. "You're a loser and I'm not! I'm better than you, yay!" Could anyone expose and indict their own egotistical values more effectively?

It's also embarrassingly childish. Most people stopped shouting "loser" as a term of abuse after junior high, but hey...

BTW, apropos Uni quiting his essay on capitalism and work -- here is something i wrote in another forum, about what I believe:

What I believe

I believe we are free. There is no higher purpose, no absolute meaning, no cosmic justice. We only have ourselves and each other; our collective wits and strengths and will, and freedom, always and everywhere, freedom. There is no karma or final judgment, no life after death. Death is no more to be feared because we will cease, than we should fear the time before our birth when we didn't exist. We live out our years, making wise and foolish choices, sowing joy and suffering, as best as we know how -- and then we die, and there is nothing afterwards.

The Universe not only doesn't care, but to even speak about it caring or not caring is a category error. Universe simply is -- and within it, us, free to live our lives, to create and love, destroy and hate. We do not have higher meaning enveloping us, but we create our own. We can't help it -- we are, therefore we create. We exude meaning like trees exude oxygen; it is simply what we do, what we are. We are walking, talking, laughing, loving, world-bestriding generators of meaning.

And then we die.

But now, we live, and now, we are free: free to choose our future, free to embrace the existential void, lacking in any higher meaning or purpose or justice, and fill it with ourselves, our strength and will -- and also free to flee from it, to cower in its presence, whimpering for protection, filling it with our fears and weaknesses and delusions and flaws, oh, how many flaws!

I embrace my freedom. I revel in it. I am my existential void. FREEDOM, baby!!!

Nick Treklis wrote:Why should I have to adjust my life because you and the rest of society wants to continue playing the game of who has the biggest cock?

Why should the society accommodate iyou, while you are unwilling to accommodate it back?..

idiot...

That's how it always is with you people. Your whims and sloths and weaknesses must be accommodated by everyone else, but pan forbid someone ask you to accommodate the society instead! Narrow, myopic, animalistic selfishness of a slave.

It's only reasonable and fair that society provides me with some compensation for having to put up with your childish ego-centric ways. Can't you at least just admit you are an immature bigot who wont tolerate anyone who doesn't want to compete in his cock measuring contest?

hahaha. i don't give a fuck if you work, idiot. I just give a fuck if you demand that I support your voluntary indolence.

Unidian wrote:Boy, that "loser" term is really flying around fast and furious, eh?

if the shoe, fits, wear it, loser. You are one because instead of acting to solve your problems, you whine. You are a slave by choice.

Yes, that makes you an abject loser. Deal with it.

Not really, Victor. I'm a slave? One wonders how you figure that. Which one of us answers to a boss all day? LOL.

I took you off ignore because you're doing so poorly that it can't hurt anything to engage you. I'm not likely to lose my temper because these arguments just don't have any punch. It's all name-calling, posturing, and embarrassing advocacy of social Darwinism - in other words, a repeat performance of the previous employment thread at FP where you performed so poorly that the long-running "body snatcher" joke was coined. This kind of thing is just too weak and even comical to get angry about. Plus, your behavior in this thread has discredited you to the point where you're pretty much a non-threat, and even if I do lose my patience with you, I can't imagine it will do much harm.

As for that essay excerpt you posted, what can one say? All that reverential talk of "FREEDOM" and yet you care nothing about other people's freedom from being forced to comply with your value framework. You probably didn't realize when you posted it that you indicted yourself again. Oh well...

vicdan wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Isn't it amazing how a mediocre philosopher (but great mathematician) was also an active advocate for social reform. It is irrelevant that he didn't happen to argue this one.

Sure it is. i am an advocate for social reform too,

True, and I am generally a fan of your politics. On this issue you're just being all priestly and that is irritating.

and it's also different from what you advocate. What is relevant is that even though uni proclaimed that work is antithetical to philosophy, I can't think of a single great philosopher who would advocate Uni's sense of entitltement, and precious few philosophers who weren't gainfully employed.

Nat advocates for a system and a society where people are guaranteed life no matter what. Seems reasonable enough to me. If you don't like it then just pretend none of your taxes are directed to that part of the system just like I always pretended none of mine were being directed at politicians' absurd superannuation funds. As for the philosophers not gainfully employed - that's a total non-argument. We live in a society than can afford and accord. Most of them didn't. I'm sure Spinoza, who religiously rejected academic appointments on principle, would have preferred not to have caused himself a premature death grinding lenses. Nietzsche did all his philosophic work whilst living off a pension. Very civilised! Viva la pension!

It's also a logical fallacy to mention him.

Nope. He is a datum,

I though you said he was a philosopher. Make up your mind.

just like all other philosophers. Unidian claimed that work is incompatible with great philosophy, but the data -- the lives of various philosophers, including Russell -- conclusively proves him wrong.

Oh, now you're arguing something completely different. Damn, it's hard to keep up with you, dude. You keep moving the posts. See, here's the problem: your notion of who was and was not a great philosopher is very much opposed to mine. Therefore, on this point, we stand at an insurmountable impasse.

I am against 'modestly supporting' those who choose to starve. i think most of those philosophers would agree that letting those starve who choose not to work, is perfectly OK.

Fair enough. I don't. Boy, that was sure easy! Next issue.

vicdan wrote:You will of course cry bloody murder if I suggest that we instead save your life by putting you into forcible work camp. Wouldn't that be compassionate, to prevent your dying of starvation?..

Do they have DSL?

vicdan wrote:i don't give a fuck if you work, idiot. I just give a fuck if you demand that I support your voluntary indolence.

It's not about demands, it's about advocacy. If one can advocate a moral and pragmatic system such that people who find they cannot work through ethical or other reasons are not left to die, and that system is accepted, then there's no drama.

You can fight that system all you like, Victor. That's your prerogative. It's also ours to advocate it and to go so far as argue its necessity for any truly civilised society, given that such things are for us to define.

All that's really happening here is a battle over definitions. As the world turns.......

Ah, the bait-n-switch! I am against 'modestly supporting' those who choose to starve.

He always does this, guys. Don't fall for it. Ironically enough, he is the one actually carrying out the "bait and switch" by claiming that the voluntarily unemployed "choose to starve" or "choose to die," etc. I can assure you that the voluntarily unemployed never "choose" to do any of those things. They choose not to have jobs, which is something entirely different. Starvation and death are by no means necessary consequences of voluntary unemployment. We are no longer a bunch of ignorant chimpanzees huddled around a campfire. Starvation and death are consequences chosen by the society, which could eliminate them easily and at minimal expense anytime it so chose.

Like Victor, the current society does not so choose. Like Victor, it believes that the voluntarily unemployed should be allowed to starve and/or die, even if it can be easily prevented. Like Victor, it believes that this "freedom to starve and die" is morally preferable to the freedom to live even if one's values differ from those of the mainstream. Like Victor, it is regressive, immoral, and ignorant of truly meaningful human rights.

Victor's logic is like that of a tyrant who says to his subjects "you must cover yourselves in blue paint to receive food and shelter." When some refuse to do so, the tyrant declares "you have chosen starvation and death," and all the immoral, amoral, and slave-like among the crowd enthusiastically cheer.

Unidian wrote:Not really, Victor. I'm a slave?

Yup. You yourself called yourself as such.

One wonders how you figure that. Which one of us answers to a boss all day?

Not I. I am now a CTO of a small corporation -- a corporation which makes software that helps underperforming students get tutoring, incidentally.

I took you off ignore because you're doing so poorly that it can't hurt anything to engage you.

You took me off ignore because you are a wimp -- because you couldn't help peeking, and then you desperately wanted to respond, but couldn't do it without losing face. So you proclaimed that you took me off ignore, and then you felt a need to immediately invent a justification for your action, because you are too insecure to simply do what you want to, without inventing excuses.

As for that essay excerpt you posted, what can one say? All that reverential talk of "FREEDOM" and yet you care nothing about other people's freedom from being forced to comply with your value framework.

Ah, but you see, kiddo, nobody is forcing you! You are free to reject that framework, and choose directly between work and starvation, just as you would have been so free to choose a century ago or a millenium ago or ten millenia ago. Nobody is holding a gun to your head. You are no more being coerced by society, than you are being coerced by laws of nature -- less so.

You are simply redefining the term 'coercion' to mean 'Uni not getting what he wants', in the finest QRS tradition.

Dan Rowden wrote:True, and I am generally a fan of your politics.

You mean you like the politics of a fledgling Bill Kristol?!. Heresy!

Nat advocates for a system and a society where people are guaranteed life no matter what. Seems reasonable enough to me.

Not to me. I advocate a society where nobody suffers through circumstances beyond their control. I also advocate the society where each and every person is as free as reasonably possible to make their own choices, without imposing the consequences of those choices upon others.

Nietzsche did all his philosophic work whilst living off a pension. Very civilised! Viva la pension!

Yes, a pension he earned... you know, by working...

And while many philosophers would have surely preferred to not need to work (i certainly would!), I don't think many of them, if any, would take Uni's step to proclaim that the society owes them a living.

Oh, now you're arguing something completely different. Damn, it's hard to keep up with you, dude. You keep moving the posts. See, here's the problem: your notion of who was and was not a great philosopher is very much opposed to mine. Therefore, on this point, we stand at an insurmountable impasse.

Name me a few great philosophers (as you understand the term), who believed the society owes philosophers a living, and support your claims. Note that Diogenes was certainly not among them. Neither was Plato, as he believed that philosophers had a job to do -- a job of governing.

Unidian wrote:Victor's logic is like that of a tyrant who says to his subjects "you must cover yourselves in blue paint to receive food and shelter." When some refuse to do so, the tyrant declares "you have chosen starvation and death," and all the immoral, amoral, and slave-like among the crowd enthusiastically cheer.

The difference of course is that I neither provide the paint nor withold the shelter. I simply let you be -- and you can't stand it, you instead make demand of me. i do not create the circumstances which limit your choices. You have exactly the same range of choices you have had throughout the millenia. The only difference is that we, the people actually creating stuff, are getting better and more efficient at it -- but our improvement is not your detriment.

vicdan wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Nietzsche did all his philosophic work whilst living off a pension. Very civilised! Viva la pension!

Yes, a pension he earned... you know, by working...

He worked about 10 years then lived the rest of his life via a pension. This apparently is morally acceptable to you. Great. I worked 10 years too and will now live the rest of my life off a modest pension.

Phew. I knew I'd get your approval eventually! Viva la relief!

Not I. I am now a CTO of a small corporation -- a corporation which makes software that helps underperforming students get tutoring, incidentally.

Sounds like fairly worthwhile work in social terms. But do you imagine that being at the top of an organization means you answer to no one? You know better. You now answer to every consumer using the product.

But still, I'll grant it's an improvement over insipidly cowering in front of some manager all day. Congrats on that.

You took me off ignore because you are a wimp -- because you couldn't help peeking, and then you desperately wanted to respond, but couldn't do it without losing face. So you proclaimed that you took me off ignore, and then you felt a need to immediately invent a justification for your action, because you are too insecure to simply do what you want to, without inventing excuses.

Yeah, pretty much, except I don't really care about losing face. If I did, I wouldn't have responded to your material whenever I felt like it previously, which went against my repeated proclamations that I wouldn't dignify any of it with a response. But like I said, you're doing so lousy that I really don't care. I can afford to indulge myself a bit.

Ah, but you see, kiddo, nobody is forcing you! You are free to reject that framework, and choose directly between work and starvation, just as you would have been so free to choose a century ago or a millenium ago or ten millenia ago.

Sure, but it's not a century or a millenia ago. It's now, and we can do better than forcing people to choose between "work or starve." We can offer them additional options. We can do better, if we want to. It's what progress is all about. But you want us to stick with the same primitive choice we had 10,000 years ago in the cave. That's regressive. Very regressive.

You are simply redefining the term 'coercion' to mean 'Uni not getting what he wants', in the finest QRS tradition.

Nope. "Coercion" means applying pressure to cause people to act against their own wishes. That's the dictionary definition, and that's exactly what the "work or starve" choice you promote does.

The difference of course is that I neither provide the paint nor withold the shelter. I simply let you be -- and you can't stand it, you instead make demand of me. i do not create the circumstances which limit your choices.

You don't? Yes you do, and here's how - in your own words:

You have exactly the same range of choices you have had throughout the millenia.

Exactly, and that's because you refuse to support the creation of any new ones, despite the fact that it could be done easily and at minimal cost. Other choices are available, but you refuse to implement them. That is how you create the conditions which limit my choices.

The only difference is that we, the people actually creating stuff, are getting better and more efficient at it -- but our improvement is not your detriment.

Indeed, and you'd better do something to stop that constant improvement in productivity, because when it produces enough overall wealth, society will finally accept the existence of a leisure class. Horror of horrors! This could happen within as little as a century, you know - perhaps even sooner if the "singularity" or something like it occurs.

Unidian wrote:Sounds like fairly worthwhile work in social terms. But do you imagine that being at the top of an organization means you answer to no one? You know better. You now answer to every consumer using the product.

No, I don't answer to them, any more than I answer to my wife. I like helping people. I like making useful things. I like making the world a better place. You know, doing well by doing good.

Sure, but it's not a century or a millenia ago. It's now, and we can do better than forcing people to choose between "work or starve." We can offer them additional options. We can do better, if we want to. It's what progress is all about. But you want us to stick with the same primitive choice we had 10,000 years ago in the cave. That's regressive. Very regressive.

yeah, as regressive as not handing out free jetpacks to everyone because they are feeling oppressed by gravity.

Nope. "Coercion" means applying pressure to cause people to act against their own wishes.

Exactly. And i am not the one applying the pressure.

As I said earlier, if we are on a deserted island and I offer to give you a fishing spear out of the goodness of my heart, only to have you refuse to fish because you hate work, me not sharing my catch with your indolent ass in no way constitutes me applying pressure on you. The pressure is applied by your biology. I simply stand aside and shake my head in disgust at your weakness and your slave mentality.

That's the dictionary definition, and that's exactly what the "work or starve" choice you promote does.

See? This is exactly what i meant by your fears and insecurities making it impossible for you to actually think.

Unidian wrote:Indeed, and you'd better do something to stop that constant improvement in productivity, because when it produces enough overall wealth, society will finally accept the existence of a leisure class.

That will only happen when the said leisure class will not depend on expropriating others' work for their benefit -- i.e. when the production is fully automated. At that point, I won't give a fuck if you are the 'leisure class'. As i said, my problem is not with you not working, but with you demanding that others support you.

If you sit idle on the deserted island and fish fall to you from the sky, whatever. just don't demand that I feed you.

You are truly clueless, huh? you still think that this is about me hating unemployment... You have to think so, because otherwise you will have to face the fact that my opposition to your views is about freedom, not protestant work ethic.

The Immorality of the Greater Moral Good

by Dan "feed me or piss off" Rowden

I spent 10 years in the workforce, in the "system". I witnessed just about every human perversity possible within such an environment - things people deemed acceptable, if not normal, because it was part of the system. After 10 years I'd had enough. My leaving wasn't an expression of some petulant attitude - I had not long been promoted to production manager because of my aptitude, work ethic and loyalty - it was an act of emotional survival; no more, no less. Not merely my sanity, but my life was quite literally at stake. I knew I was not constituted for such a dynamic. My instincts and experience told me there was nowhere that I would be, given the mentality and values underlying everything. It was that that I had to work at. To this point, society has deemed my status worthy of support at a basic level.

Today my viewpoint is simple: the greater good of devoting my life and energy to making myself the wisest person I can be and making society as sane as possible, is a greater good than any conventional social ethic I may be violating thereby. So, the bottom line for me, even I toss aside various arguments for a better system and accept the point of view of Victor and others, is that I am entirely willing to violate one moral standard so as to meet a higher one. I am 100% at peace with that personal stance.

My only and ultimate moral question, remains: do they have DSL?