GENIUS FORUMS

Pye,

I genuinely fail to understand your rejection of the notion of rights. You talk of a "rational" redistribution scheme - and I'll note that as Dave Hodges has pointed out, you have failed to identify any particular scheme - but what would such a scheme be based on other than the rights of the beneficiaries to that which is being redistributed? Do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying that I don't see how you can ever meaningfully get away from the notion of "rights".

You also talk of "withholding" as though you reject the notion, but withholding is as necessary as rights. Let's look at it your terms: necessity. If something is necessary for me to live, then it is only rational that I withhold that something from other people (lest I perish).

Pye wrote:

Jason wrote:Tell me, in your vision of a better future, would human beings continue the "get/keep scheme" over weaker animals and insects? Do the animals and insects get to be a part of this "redistribution?" Or do humans continue to use force to overpower animals and insects that get in the way of their plans?

Well then, once adjusted in perception and attitude, I imagine a bizillion ways and means that the conditions you state above could have more thoughtful address. Once one opens the door to this fundamental connectivity, one is finally inclined to understand, let's say, what bees do in support of life, rather than how fast they die under our swatters or cans of Raid.

I still don't have a clear and definite understanding of what you're proposing, with that in mind(for the rest of my post!):

My gut feeling is that a basic part of what you seem to be entertaining, and proposing, is a warm and fuzzy feel-good fantasy. You're engaging in this fantasy because you abhor coercion, domination, violence, inequality etc.

The reason I asked about animals and insects is because I don't believe that even in theory your scheme would really manage to escape the more "Darwinian" type of competitive existence. And I think the plight of animals and insects under your scheme might be one way to highlight this fact. Do you propose not building a house on a certain piece of land, because laying the foundations would lead to the mass killing of worms who have lived there for generations? Not cutting down trees because birds live in them?

Your desires and needs are liable to be at odds with the desires and needs of others, human or otherwise, especially given limited resources. One being supporting its life leads directly to the violation and destruction of another's life.

If you agree that some killing, violence, coercion and domination is necessary for life to continue, then how is the line drawn as to what exactly is necessary? It all threatens to tumble back down into 'might is right' territory.

Pye wrote:Once adjusted in perception and attitude, we might not have to have the forceful either-or scenario you mention above. Instead, all kinds of room to work for support of all kinds of existing things. Basic intelligence tells us it is not humans vs. others, but ecosystem from which we come, in which we live. A larger scope and understanding of cause and effect. What could be the objection to that, on any philosophical or practical grounds?

Ecosystems have thrived upon, and are even arguably built upon destruction, domination, competition and violence. Humans vs other isn't necessarily at odds with interdependence or the ecosystem at all. More like business as usual.

Pye wrote:

Jason wrote:I haven't read everything in this thread, but my guess, at the moment, is that you're something like a libertarian socialist.

This is bad practice, Jason, on two counts: Upfront, to try to conclude, whilst running alongside your own lack of conclusion (you haven't read everything here yet).

I didn't "conclude", I clearly said it was merely "my guess, at the moment." So I don't think it is bad practice, especially given how upfront I was about the uncertainty in my comments.

I was attempting to clear up and speed up transmission of your broad ideas. So far you seem to be slowly, and not very clearly, dribbling out your ideas in such a way that no one appears to be really sure what you're ultimately proposing. I was trying to herd the discussion toward more clarity and conciseness.

Pye wrote:And, secondly, I have been historically way out of sync with a number of libertarian views. There is not, as yet, a descriptor of thinking or party of thought to which I find myself fully aligned, but there are some worthy thoughts or two from many of them. It's a waste of time to do this, though. An agenda helmet on the head will always restrict the immediate view.

I used the qualifier "something like a libertarian socialist", which was part of "my guess, at the moment." I'd hardly say that's potentially presenting an "agenda helmet" that will "restrict the immediate view." I was just trying to get a rough idea of your position. You were fine with describing yourself as "so far from a rightwingconservative that the light from rightwingconservative cannot reach me", so you're obviously not completely averse to describing your position using sweeping categories.

Pye wrote:

Jason wrote:Since you also view humans as largely a blank slate, you think these political, economic and social changes would come about(or at least be sustained) through alterations of some of the basic psychological characteristics of humans - maybe the removal of aggression, competition, greed and selfishness for example. How close am I?

Actually, I was thinking of an appeal to reason, not this "removal" business (if indeed one could ever find the actual thing they want to remove). I'm pretty sure reason is the only thing that has had or now has any hope of affecting those [so-called] "a priori" features of aggression, competition, selfishness and greed. The same use of reason that people have assumed to have some kind of effect on their own aggression, competition, greed, selfishness, even sex-drive, as exampled on this forum here.

Aren't you really just saying that you envision using reason to do the removal then?

.


The Pye's Mind


-Jason-
You were fine with describing yourself as "so far from a rightwingconservative that the light from rightwingconservative cannot reach me", so you're obviously not completely averse to describing your position using sweeping categories.


-tomas-
Don't expect a reply any time soon.


PS - Gotcha



.