Tea Parties

Status
Not open for further replies.
This was a pretty good video. Something CNN probably wont show.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd2tg8gxCDU"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
 


If you were selfless, you could not direct yourself to act specifically. You would feed kids in Africa over your own kids. You would help a poor person and not pay your own rent. It's not possible to remove self, without removing the ability to act.

ahh, here's where your logic is flawed...

being selfless means the destruction of one's ego... it does not mean one suddenly becomes retarded or unable of rational thought... stopping to help somebody change a tire is a selfless act, giving all your food away to others leaving you to starve to death is a stupid act... lacking ego does not equate to lacking direction or common sense, nor does it mean that you should make yourself suffer to benefit others...

I understand that you see charity and altruism in the economic sense and that is the basis for most of your arguments... however, I see altruism in relation to human suffering, which extends beyond economics...

also, I have had personal experience with selfless states of consciousness, so I'm not just talking out of my ass here, and it's not some mystical nonsense... before I got into IM, I spent several years meditating roughly 16-18 hours a day, during that time I experienced profound brain changes, clarity and awareness on a level that I didn't know was possible... being able to see one's ego and realizing that all suffering, desire, greed, hatred, etc. stem from that was life changing... so much so that it was the initial motivation for getting into IM, to make enough money to be able to change things and help some peeps... if I was doing this just for my own personal gain, I would have stuck to growing pot, gone full hippy and probably be holed up in a hermitage in the remote wilderness somewhere by now...

Rand comes off as a real bitch, but if people can grasp what she is saying at it's root, it makes perfect sense.

This is a fantastic interview. The best part is around 4:00 of the first video, and through to the first couple minutes of the second video.

I watched those videos and although she does make some valid points, she still fails to understand that man can exist without ego...

also, I would say her economic philosophy is flawed... unregulated financial products are partly to blame for our present economic downturn, so it would stand to reason that one can not have a completely unregulated economic system as it will give way to massive fraud and theft as our bankers have recently demonstrated...
 
being selfless means the destruction of one's ego... it does not mean one suddenly becomes retarded or unable of rational thought...
I disagree. I know there might be an element of us talking past each other with differing definitions, but a man who does not purposefully act, cannot be rational. Man acts with purpose.

stopping to help somebody change a tire is a selfless act, giving all your food away to others leaving you to starve to death is a stupid act...
But there is no underlying principle of human action under that. One act is ok, one is not. But both are selfless according to your definition, so we have to go beyond selflessness, and ask, what separates these two?

I say, that the person who gives all of their food away, is acting with no regard for their own self-interest. It's not stupid, it is irrational.

lacking ego does not equate to lacking direction or common sense, nor does it mean that you should make yourself suffer to benefit others...
I know what people mean by lack of ego, but they use it as a generalization to criticize all purposeful action. People who act violently that's irrational. People who don't share, that is irrational. People who act peacefully, and share are rational. Ego is not the problem. Man must have self-esteem (value his own existence) or he could not survive. So when people say, you need to lose your sense of self, perhaps your sense of being jealous, or envious. Maybe hateful or cruel. Lose your sense of what is bad. But do not lose your sense of what is good. In order to act rationally, we have to be able to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, pleasure and pain. When we lose the capacity to recognize those things, we act chaotically, like lemmings.

I understand that you see charity and altruism in the economic sense and that is the basis for most of your arguments... however, I see altruism in relation to human suffering, which extends beyond economics...
Economics is about understanding human action in a world of scarce resources. It is not about money. It is not about graphs and charts. It is about understanding how and why we make choices, whether to sleep in, or work late. Eat chicken or steak. How we rationally decide between A or B, given that in a world of scarce resources you can't always (or even ever) have both A and B.

I am imminently concerned with sustainability, peace, charity, justice and knowledge. I'm not in this for the bell curves and investment portfolios.

also, I have had personal experience with selfless states of consciousness, so I'm not just talking out of my ass here, and it's not some mystical nonsense
Like I said, I respect your positions and experiences. I find debates over theology, because it exists in the realm beyond tangible evidence, are difficult to conduct. I don't want to offend anyone's experiences, culture or beliefs. I hope you understand.
 
also, I would say her economic philosophy is flawed... unregulated financial products are partly to blame for our present economic downturn, so it would stand to reason that one can not have a completely unregulated economic system as it will give way to massive fraud and theft as our bankers have recently demonstrated...
The problem is not lack of regulation. The problem is that the banks have monopoly power through the Federal Reserve Cartel, and the government is wholly owned by the banks.

The FED claims to be responsible for the banks. So people don't pay attention to what their bank does, they deposit their money, and know FDIC will cover them. This is known in economics as a moral hazard. A false sense of security encourages people to take excessive risks.

The FED knew exactly what was going on with all of these banks, and did not act against them. The FEDs have access to the balance sheets of these firms 24/7. If individual investors were watching the banks, they would have seen the problems coming.

Same thing with Bernie Madoff. He was close personal friends with the heads of the SEC. So everyone invested with him, thinking, he's close to the SEC, so he must be a good guy to invest with. Meanwhile, he's running the largest private ponzi scheme in human history.

The American system is not a free market. The money is regulated. There are hundreds if not thousands of taxes. The tax code alone is 62,000 pages. There are over 10,000 federal crimes, most of them are oriented around property. You've got union law, minimum wage law, anti-discrimination law. You've got to register. You can be audited.

Banks are highly regulated. Medicine is highly regulated. Invention is highly regulated. Education is highly regulated.

Does that sound like freedom?

No one has been charged with fraud, everyone who committed fraud has been paid off, and Geithner, the #1 banking regulator as the Chairman of the NY FED, is now in charge of further defrauding the public.

So please, don't say it was a lack of regulation. This is straight up theft and fraud by criminals, and they are still getting away with it. Lack of regulation lets all of the private and public crooks off the hook, as though they simple-mindedly changed some laws by accident.

The free market punishes fraud and theft. It strips those people of their property and provides restitution to victims. That is not what is happening here. There is no justice. There are just more lies and more fraud. And that is why people are protesting.

They see the injustice and no one will speak for them, as the corporate media tries to paint them as crazies and their concerns as illegitimate.

Laissez-faire is a better system, simply because it is decentralized, and there is no monopoly regulator to bribe, coerce or infiltrate.

When you centralize power, you attract all corruption and evil to that location.

When you spread out power, there is no systemic risk because the system is modular.

That is the entire notion behind federalism. Diversify power, divide it amongst the people, amongst hundreds of elected representatives. That is the radical notion of human liberty. Let people rule themselves instead of letting only the criminal rule.
 
What hannah said. These people can't even coherently express themselves and their views. If there was ever a poster child for the ignorant American stereotype, this is it...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


Have you ever seen a liberal demonstration? How about the Obama bots that stressed the fact that their mortages were now going to get paid because Obama won. How about the mentally challenged dude that worked at Mcdonalds that praised god for being able to talk to Obama at a BO event. There are idiots on both sides. Why do liberals/bobots only point to the conservative idiots and not the thousands of fools that have showed up to worship BO.

Oh yea....hipocracy. The proven MO of liberals.

HOWARD STERN INTERVIEWS OBAMA SUPPORTERS - THERE ARE HUNDREDS MORE TO POST IF NEED BE

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqAiarOhC2U"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
 
So please, don't say it was a lack of regulation.

Matt Taibbi, the author of "The Big Takeover" which you linked to a few weeks ago believes it was lack of regulation.

The Dirty Dozen : Rolling Stone

He points out Greenspan saying that regulating CDOs would be a mistake; Phil Gramm for pushing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and for writing a law which exepted CDSs from regulation; Robert Rubin for pretty much the same thing as Gramm; Christopher Cox not for doing his job as a regulator; Henry Paulson for pushing for the removal of debt restrictions on financial institutions.

So 5 out of Taibbi's "dirty dozen" are on the list specifically for pushing against or not exercising(in Cox's case) regulation.

Should we conclude that Taibbi's analysis is flawed?
 
I disagree. I know there might be an element of us talking past each other with differing definitions, but a man who does not purposefully act, cannot be rational. Man acts with purpose.

yes... but my point is merely that man can act purposefully without ego... the concept that man without ego is somehow not rational or purposeful is flawed...

But there is no underlying principle of human action under that. One act is ok, one is not. But both are selfless according to your definition, so we have to go beyond selflessness, and ask, what separates these two?

I say, that the person who gives all of their food away, is acting with no regard for their own self-interest. It's not stupid, it is irrational.

seems like you're arguing in agreement with me now... maybe I didn't express myself fully... my point was one act is logical and rational, the other is illogical and irrational... that is what separates the two... perhaps I should have chosen my words better? I am not advocating irrational giving...

I know what people mean by lack of ego, but they use it as a generalization to criticize all purposeful action. People who act violently that's irrational. People who don't share, that is irrational. People who act peacefully, and share are rational. Ego is not the problem. Man must have self-esteem (value his own existence) or he could not survive. So when people say, you need to lose your sense of self, perhaps your sense of being jealous, or envious. Maybe hateful or cruel. Lose your sense of what is bad. But do not lose your sense of what is good. In order to act rationally, we have to be able to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, pleasure and pain. When we lose the capacity to recognize those things, we act chaotically, like lemmings.

I'm not criticizing purposeful action... merely stating that ego is the root of suffering, as negative things like jealousy and envy stem from ego... this causes suffering...

I agree that man needs self-esteem, in fact I remember reading about a study which measured one's self-esteem in relation to materialism (selfishness)... if I remember correctly they found that people who were more selfish and materialistic had much lower self-esteem than those who were more altruistic... took me a minute to find it, tho I thought there was a more recent study than this:
In Children And Adolescents, Low Self-esteem Increases Materialism

Economics is about understanding human action in a world of scarce resources. It is not about money. It is not about graphs and charts. It is about understanding how and why we make choices, whether to sleep in, or work late. Eat chicken or steak. How we rationally decide between A or B, given that in a world of scarce resources you can't always (or even ever) have both A and B.

agreed, to understand human action you have to first understand the human mind...

Like I said, I respect your positions and experiences. I find debates over theology, because it exists in the realm beyond tangible evidence, are difficult to conduct. I don't want to offend anyone's experiences, culture or beliefs. I hope you understand.

I'm not trying to debate theology, I'm merely trying to debate with logic and reason... much of what I speak of about the mind is being studied and explored in the realm of neuroscience now... brain scans of monks having shown some of the profound brain changes I've mentioned... first and foremost I believe in science, so if you can prove that my logic or reasoning is flawed and have facts to back it up, I will gladly accept that and change my views...
 
  • Like
Reactions: LazyHippy
The problem is not lack of regulation. The problem is that the banks have monopoly power through the Federal Reserve Cartel, and the government is wholly owned by the banks.

LogicFlux posted a better supporting argument than I could have in favor of the fact that loosened regulations are partly the cause of this mess...

all I will add is that the whole system is dysfunctional and needs to be reformed... the crooks are being rewarded instead of being punished and many of those responsible for this mess are running the show... thus bringing us back to the core issues of the tea parties and this thread...
 
Matt Taibbi, the author of "The Big Takeover" which you linked to a few weeks ago believes it was lack of regulation.

Hahaha - you're joking right? Matt Taibbi? This is who you get your economic analysis from? Oh my God...
 
Should we conclude that Taibbi's analysis is flawed?
Taibbi is right about who was involved and how it unfolded. His research is great.

He's wrong if he insists more government regulation is the answer.

There is a bad habit in the media, to present two false choices. More government regulation or less government regulation.

Why not privately regulate, and the government fulfills it's role of prosecuting fraud and violation of contract? That option is never discussed, because that option would be REAL CHANGE.
 
What a stunningly ignorant statement. I love people that just talk out of their ass with no clue what they're talking about. Here's the two deficits side by side, Bush's and Obama's.
Bush set the precedent. Bush set the precedent for every single thing Obama is doing. Not that Clinton was much better, but the prevailing point is that if you bitch about Obama, but supported Bush's prescription drug program (socialism) or No Child Left Behind (socialism) then you're a hypocrite.

Instead of deifying Bush, and demonizing Obama, why not argue against socialism and statism and collectivism no matter who does it?

The whole right-left paradigm is false. You have freedom and liberty, and you have tyranny and control. That's the real debate no one ever has.
 
What hannah said. These people can't even coherently express themselves and their views. If there was ever a poster child for the ignorant American stereotype, this is it...

Ah, yes...I see somebody's been watching their CNN like a good boy. These aren't 'legitimate' protesters, why they've been suckered and bamboozled into hysterical mobs by that evil right-wing FOX and the Republican Party!!! Why, I'll bet these mobs were simply hired by those evil right-wingers to stir up trouble!!

Uhhh....and if that's not the case, they're dumb and uneducated. Wait, that's the same insult. Ummm, I mean they're ignorant...wait, I can't really counteract their argument that this level of spending is unprecedented...(frantically flails around)....RACIST!!

Ahhh....much better...now that I've delegitimized, demonized and demeaned them, they are not worthy of consideration...now where was my remote I want to see David Schuster make a teabagging joke for the thousandth time..its good to know I can bask in my superior intellectuality!
 
seems like you're arguing in agreement with me now... maybe I didn't express myself fully... my point was one act is logical and rational, the other is illogical and irrational... that is what separates the two... perhaps I should have chosen my words better? I am not advocating irrational giving...
Outside of religion, I don't think we are far apart, but we probably have a definition of terms problem.

My point still is, selflessness covers both acts of giving. Selflessness is not necessarily a rational or irrational end unto itself. Rational, purposeful action is still necessary to make charity meaningful.

I'm not criticizing purposeful action... merely stating that ego is the root of suffering, as negative things like jealousy and envy stem from ego... this causes suffering...
Yeah. I just don't see morality as shun all self, and be above love and hate. I think the human condition is about our struggle to have a high moral character. To avoid the convenience of theft, for honest trade. To avoid insecurity which leads to the -isms (racism, sexism) and be tolerant.

We have value (as Rand would say, virtue) when we make the good choices. When we consciously choose good over evil. Virtuous action is a result of free will.

I'm not trying to debate theology, I'm merely trying to debate with logic and reason... much of what I speak of about the mind is being studied and explored in the realm of neuroscience now... brain scans of monks having shown some of the profound brain changes I've mentioned... first and foremost I believe in science, so if you can prove that my logic or reasoning is flawed and have facts to back it up, I will gladly accept that and change my views...
My problem communicating is my own. I am still trying to better my capacity to explain myself so as many people as possible can understand me. It's a process.

I'm not trying to win anyone over, I'm merely trying to defend what I understand. You guys might prove me wrong. This is how learning occurs.

Thank you for the conversation.
 
Bush set the precedent. Bush set the precedent for every single thing Obama is doing. Not that Clinton was much better, but the prevailing point is that if you bitch about Obama, but supported Bush's prescription drug program (socialism) or No Child Left Behind (socialism) then you're a hypocrite.

Instead of deifying Bush, and demonizing Obama, why not argue against socialism and statism and collectivism no matter who does it?

The whole right-left paradigm is false. You have freedom and liberty, and you have tyranny and control. That's the real debate no one ever has.

You're wrong. Even if someone were to support Bush's spending, they would still have a case that Obama's was much, much larger.

They would still have a case that Obama's taxes were higher than Bush. They would have a case that Obama taxed charitable donations compared to Bush.

Yes, Bush passed the initial bailout bill legislation, and who knows what might have happened if he remained in office. But he didn't. In the few short months since Obama moved in, he's outspent and out-taxed Bush. I'm sick of liberals whining 'But Bush did it too!' because he didn't - not to this degree. Take some fucking responsibility for the man you elected.

Oh yeah, and Matt Taibbi is a lunatic left-wing hack.
 
What a stunningly ignorant statement. I love people that just talk out of their ass with no clue what they're talking about. Here's the two deficits side by side, Bush's and Obama's.

Any President that subscribes to the Keynesian school of economics would be spending like a motherfucker right now. If McCain had won the deficit would also be huge in comparison to Bush's. If Bush had a third term, his deficit would be huge compared to his former deficit.

The side by side comparison of the Obama deficit to the Bush deficit is dishonest.

The only one's who can criticize this deficit with any credibility are non-Keynesians. At least they're not hypocritical about it.
 
LogicFlux posted a better supporting argument than I could have in favor of the fact that loosened regulations are partly the cause of this mess...
Partly, loosened, I'll give that rather than argue semantics.

I just get so incensed when people say the free market, or freedom has failed. The system is a state banking cartel under the FED, and managed by at least 3 bureaucracies (Commerce, SEC, Treasury), and 7 or 8 congressional committees.

There is not a lack of regulation. There is a lack of competition.

Government have never been able to control economies with laws. If they could, the Soviets would still be around, and Cubans would be wealthy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.