Human rights has a liberal agenda, but no less than "the poor". While "human rights" appeal to liberalizing "rights languagde" to "all people". "The poor" is specialized political language. Both appeal to different "kinds" of pre-dispositions toward "the human/humane". But, without discrimination of one kind or another, one can't make his own rational choice, but be a pawn to emotive identification factors!
While the liberal like universal terms, the conservative likes defined terms according to neurological research. The best way to "sell" globalized government is to sell each on its own "language tendency" based on emotion/sentiment that breeds identification and motivates to heroic action.
While the liberal humanitarian might like U.N. intervention, the conservative intellectual wouldn't see this as "justified" because one can't make any claims to anything, without defining, limiting, discriminating, as to what is allowed in the "real world"....not the idealized one, which is the nation-state. Our nation must defend its right, not bring about the universal Utopia that is so often sold to manipulate others. Human rights, or "the poor" are the terms of appeal to human sentiment to universalize what might be to the detriment of rational choice about one's life.
Identification has to be an alignment in/with the agenda or goal of a certain group. Emotion or sentimental visions, or hopes of "ideals" are the undermining of individual choice, and rights. Alturistic concern is a "group's norm" so that the social goal of equalizing the playing field is made. This is what the "social gospel" proclaims. And it justifies its goals by the means of manipulating language to subvert "selfishness".
Moral claims are made under many guises and they mask demands of another's agenda, whether Church, State or a Dictatorial Leader. So, what is morality, except what one deems as one's own purposes, plans and goals in a free society under a Constitutional government. We must never give up our right to individual liberty!
Showing posts with label rational choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rational choice. Show all posts
Friday, April 1, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
One Cannot Objectify Anything, Other Than Liberty
Men are born free. Some believe that liberty should be limited, because man is innately evil. Others believe that men are not innately "evil" but uninformed, or ignorant. What is necessary for society is to "order" or structure society, so that society functions. Such "order" is delegating "roles" for individuals to "perform".
"Irrational believers" that maintain that men are innately "evil" because of a "fall" from "God", or 'grace", are prone to think that one must be "saved", but from what? Some believe that one must be saved from "hell", as God will judge those that have not accepted his "way of salvation" which cleanses from "sin".Others believe that one must be saved from onself, because men are basically selfish. These think that paternalistic "patronizing" leadership is what is needful.
While it it true that children must learn to "live in society", there does come a time when adults must take ownership of thier life. Ownership means that one purposes their own goals, and lives independently giving back to society. in whatever area one desires. We wouldn't want to continue to support adults living as "children", in dependence on governmnet,or "God", as passivity is not ownership. And such dependent societies are not prosporous, or fulfilling to the individual within them.
Becoming an adult does not mean that one is independent from being human, from having "common need" of survival, emotional support, encouragement, or help. But, it does mean that one has become self-directed and self-governed as to how and why one chooses to live their life, as they choose to do.
What one chooses has; everything to do with one's values, desires, and goals, and these are negotiable 'parallel universes" that one must navigate. So, one cannot objectify another's life, except to "dismiss it". We must all come to the conclusion that no one can live without "reasonable biases" in thier life commitments.
"Irrational believers" that maintain that men are innately "evil" because of a "fall" from "God", or 'grace", are prone to think that one must be "saved", but from what? Some believe that one must be saved from "hell", as God will judge those that have not accepted his "way of salvation" which cleanses from "sin".Others believe that one must be saved from onself, because men are basically selfish. These think that paternalistic "patronizing" leadership is what is needful.
While it it true that children must learn to "live in society", there does come a time when adults must take ownership of thier life. Ownership means that one purposes their own goals, and lives independently giving back to society. in whatever area one desires. We wouldn't want to continue to support adults living as "children", in dependence on governmnet,or "God", as passivity is not ownership. And such dependent societies are not prosporous, or fulfilling to the individual within them.
Becoming an adult does not mean that one is independent from being human, from having "common need" of survival, emotional support, encouragement, or help. But, it does mean that one has become self-directed and self-governed as to how and why one chooses to live their life, as they choose to do.
What one chooses has; everything to do with one's values, desires, and goals, and these are negotiable 'parallel universes" that one must navigate. So, one cannot objectify another's life, except to "dismiss it". We must all come to the conclusion that no one can live without "reasonable biases" in thier life commitments.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Economics and Choice
I just recieved an "invitation" to a conference on "socio-economics" that had attached a file about psychological/sociological questions concerning economics. It was interesting. And it got me thinking about the reasons of individual choice myself.
The article posed that there was no over-arching theory that unified all the facts about economic behavior, which I didn't find very surprising. Economic behavior seems to be at odds with "neo-classical theory".
Of course, there is suggestion that one's upbringing which not only includes one's personal family, but one's culture will determine what will bring about a "rational choice". The values "caught" or taught are internalized into the individual's cognitive frame of reference in decision-making. But, I question this "universal", because, our children were all raised with the same value orientation, but have vast differences in their "rational choices" when it concerns money decisions. So, are their differences due to their birth order, their personality, their peer group influence, or their genetic determination? And how are these understood in the "cut of the pie" (statistically speaking)?
I think that it is imperative to also include the "meaning of money" in a given familial culture. Was money the most important value for the family, or was it just a "means" to an end? And what was the end? Those who have been pampered materially, but impoverished in other ways, have attached certain "meanings" to money that other would not have and give the impression that they are materialistically motivated, but really, they are motivated more by what is meant by the "meaning or value" given to money. Was there a value of liberty, when it came to the choice about money?
Self-perception is also an avenue of exploration in economic behavior. Has the family of origin given a certain perception about the value of the individual due to its emphasis on money and its behavior toward the child in its monetary decisions? But, this variable must also consider the individual child's personality/temperament in economic behavior. Is the child's personality or pre-disposition toward money 'inherited" genetically, or environmentally?
I think that beginning with the assumption that all people will base their choices on economic gain, is short-sighted. There are other values that an individual might hold that are dearer to him. And this is the ultimate mistake of those studying such matters in the West. It is assumed that ALL individuals in the West will consider economic gain as the ultimate value. The unifying value of the West is not money, but liberty. And liberty is the "environment' of capitalistic enterprise.
Moreover, an individual will also change or prioritize certain values over the course of his life, depending on what he is facing, or has to consider. The complexity is astounding, when one begins to think about all the possibilties and probabilities for the individual, much less formulate a universal theory of a whole population. This is why capitalists argue that theirs is the most "productive" means of propering society. It allows the openness and opportunity of all possibilities and probabilities in a given population and individual choice.
The article posed that there was no over-arching theory that unified all the facts about economic behavior, which I didn't find very surprising. Economic behavior seems to be at odds with "neo-classical theory".
Of course, there is suggestion that one's upbringing which not only includes one's personal family, but one's culture will determine what will bring about a "rational choice". The values "caught" or taught are internalized into the individual's cognitive frame of reference in decision-making. But, I question this "universal", because, our children were all raised with the same value orientation, but have vast differences in their "rational choices" when it concerns money decisions. So, are their differences due to their birth order, their personality, their peer group influence, or their genetic determination? And how are these understood in the "cut of the pie" (statistically speaking)?
I think that it is imperative to also include the "meaning of money" in a given familial culture. Was money the most important value for the family, or was it just a "means" to an end? And what was the end? Those who have been pampered materially, but impoverished in other ways, have attached certain "meanings" to money that other would not have and give the impression that they are materialistically motivated, but really, they are motivated more by what is meant by the "meaning or value" given to money. Was there a value of liberty, when it came to the choice about money?
Self-perception is also an avenue of exploration in economic behavior. Has the family of origin given a certain perception about the value of the individual due to its emphasis on money and its behavior toward the child in its monetary decisions? But, this variable must also consider the individual child's personality/temperament in economic behavior. Is the child's personality or pre-disposition toward money 'inherited" genetically, or environmentally?
I think that beginning with the assumption that all people will base their choices on economic gain, is short-sighted. There are other values that an individual might hold that are dearer to him. And this is the ultimate mistake of those studying such matters in the West. It is assumed that ALL individuals in the West will consider economic gain as the ultimate value. The unifying value of the West is not money, but liberty. And liberty is the "environment' of capitalistic enterprise.
Moreover, an individual will also change or prioritize certain values over the course of his life, depending on what he is facing, or has to consider. The complexity is astounding, when one begins to think about all the possibilties and probabilities for the individual, much less formulate a universal theory of a whole population. This is why capitalists argue that theirs is the most "productive" means of propering society. It allows the openness and opportunity of all possibilities and probabilities in a given population and individual choice.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What I Hate to Think
What I hate to think is that God is reduced to the "common Gospel"...
or the "common ideal"....
What I hate to think is that man is reduced to obedience, instead of rational choice....
or "devalued part"....
What I hate to think is that the individual is only understood within his function...
apart from his function, he ceases to exist....
Christians need to cease being "Christian", giving advice, and having all the answers....and knowing what "the Kingdom entails", and what God's will for everyone is...
Christians need to learn how to be, before any "doing"....
As Christians are foremost humans and maybe when they understand how to be "more" human, then they will cease to be "Christians"....
And I will cease hating to think....
or the "common ideal"....
What I hate to think is that man is reduced to obedience, instead of rational choice....
or "devalued part"....
What I hate to think is that the individual is only understood within his function...
apart from his function, he ceases to exist....
Christians need to cease being "Christian", giving advice, and having all the answers....and knowing what "the Kingdom entails", and what God's will for everyone is...
Christians need to learn how to be, before any "doing"....
As Christians are foremost humans and maybe when they understand how to be "more" human, then they will cease to be "Christians"....
And I will cease hating to think....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
