Re: FT now fascism (!?)
- --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
>Granted, but you could make both, and the divergence would eventually be more relevant at a further point, in policy proposals beyond LVT/UIE (bar the child-thing). IMO ofcourse.
> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "k_r_johansen" <kjetil.r.johansen@> wrote:
> > Walto and Roy's discussion is entirely tangential to LVT,
> Maybe not "entirely." Depends on whether supporters make a utility or a natural rights foundation for their views about why LVT is best.<
The way I see it is that there are uncontroversial natural rights in the bottom: right to life, liberty, property, and we want to add land to that. Over and above that, it's mostly utilitarian, but some of the utilitarian action may infringe on natural rights.
> > Now you have to look at thing from the wider perspective, and with a touch of common sense. Roy and Walto's long-winded discussion should be separated from the actual policy proposals.Yes, in the end we've got practical proposals and their merits. There's always an opportunity to review these in the light of philosophical foundations, some will always come up with some strange patterns.
> That, I agree with. I think you can go a very long way without ever needing to get to those foundational issues. Most people will agree or not without delving into any of that kind of stuff.<
>It mostly matters to political theorists (and who really cares about THEM?).<I'd say us LVT-folks are enough at the fringe to be called political theorists at this point ;)
> I agree that David tends to hyperbole at times, but, in fairness, some of Roy's rhetoric seems to me to invite exactly that kind of response. I mean, aren't you also made a little uncomfortable when he starts singing his social darwin and extinction songs?<I'll admit I haven't spent that much time reflecting on your debate, probably because 1. There's a slight chance that your mutual form of debate actually creates some strange outcomes and statements, 2. I'm not uncomfortable with darwinism in the realm of biology and 3. it's only "social" darwinism if you are making proposals that in any way try to mimick, "help along" or achieve goals believed to be inherent in Darwinism. On 3., I don't see that LVT/UIE can be mistaken for social darwinism in any shape or form.
- JDK,Those who survive are presumably the fittest to survive for the "fittest" just describes those who have survived.With regard to your last sentence – Stalin got there first.Harry
********************The Alumni GroupThe Henry George Schoolof Los AngelesTujunga CA 90243(818) 352-4141********************
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 9:54 AM, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:Evolution is not really: the survival of the "fittest" It is just survival of that which survives. Evolution is a way of describing the process of how variation within a population will lead to variation eventually of species. There are plenty of genes along for the ride which are not particularly "the fittest".Yes the survival of the two apostolic lungs of Christianity (Catholics and the Eastern church) despite its massive weakness and in fact embracement of weakness of the god who becomes human and is rejected and put to death is a puzzle and crazy on its face. It drove Nietzsche crazy (well that and syphillus drove him crazy). It also drove the communists crazy too. Massive defense? How many tanks does the church have?Jdk
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 16, 2012, at 11:26 PM, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:
--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.
Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.
Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.
One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.