Ayn Rand
America’s inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism and with individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal.
“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 95
The religious and the authoritarian political power still believes in sacrifices! These believe that humans are made for some other purpose than their own pursuits, values and interests....one names the human;'s purposes as 'God", and the other acts as "God"!
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
In Light of Facism.....
In light of my other posts on Facism, I started thinking about how groups define themselves. Distinction makes for significance, importance, value, or some other defining characteristic. This is especially necessary when there has been a humiliation of some kind. Many scholars think that Hitler's rise to power was because of the German humiliation in WWI. Individual's within the group choose to associate with a particular group because of its value to them. I think this is how Relgions have developed by their group identifications and answers to the "Big Questions". The answers to these questions are assimulated into their personal views, values and understanding. And it makes them find significance before "Someone" that is not grounded in reality, as theirs is a lack of political power. But, it is no less true of political ideologies, as in Hitler's Germany.
Facism is an authoritarian governance based on such identification, and those in power control the resources of those within their group. All religious cults define and act in such ways, too. Early Christianity assimulated mystery cultish thinking and understanding; "sanctifying" the pagan to produce a "new Christian culture" that was maintained by the Church's theological commitments to these belief systems.
Facism seeks to identify its superiority in some way, usually with the nation-state and to prevent the moral decay of the nation. Such is what we see on the "Right" in their defense of the Christian Nation. But, it is no less true of theocratic governments such as the Taliban.
On the other side, is the left, who supports a redistribution of wealth and Marxist revolutionary ideology. While the Facists holds a "capitalistic veneer", Marxism is repulsed by the "elite". They want a level playing field. Some political scientists believe that Facism is the last resort of corporations to hold on 'to the ship", when corporatism is sinking. The compromise of private corporate power and government power is deadly for individual liberty.
The death of individual liberty is the point in Facism, as Fascists seek to allign socialism with corportatism. The collective hides behind a capitalistic facade. But, it is no less true of religious zealotry, such as the Taliban that seeks to allign the religous with political power.
I think the "Culture Wars" are about what America is to look like in the future. Is it going to be the defense of corporatism alligned with government power? Religious zealatry alligned with political power? or Socialsim alligned with political power? Instead of looking back and protecting the foundations of our society, we seek "a better way", which ends up underming what America has always stood for; individual liberty in his pursuit of Life and Happiness!
Facism is an authoritarian governance based on such identification, and those in power control the resources of those within their group. All religious cults define and act in such ways, too. Early Christianity assimulated mystery cultish thinking and understanding; "sanctifying" the pagan to produce a "new Christian culture" that was maintained by the Church's theological commitments to these belief systems.
Facism seeks to identify its superiority in some way, usually with the nation-state and to prevent the moral decay of the nation. Such is what we see on the "Right" in their defense of the Christian Nation. But, it is no less true of theocratic governments such as the Taliban.
On the other side, is the left, who supports a redistribution of wealth and Marxist revolutionary ideology. While the Facists holds a "capitalistic veneer", Marxism is repulsed by the "elite". They want a level playing field. Some political scientists believe that Facism is the last resort of corporations to hold on 'to the ship", when corporatism is sinking. The compromise of private corporate power and government power is deadly for individual liberty.
The death of individual liberty is the point in Facism, as Fascists seek to allign socialism with corportatism. The collective hides behind a capitalistic facade. But, it is no less true of religious zealotry, such as the Taliban that seeks to allign the religous with political power.
I think the "Culture Wars" are about what America is to look like in the future. Is it going to be the defense of corporatism alligned with government power? Religious zealatry alligned with political power? or Socialsim alligned with political power? Instead of looking back and protecting the foundations of our society, we seek "a better way", which ends up underming what America has always stood for; individual liberty in his pursuit of Life and Happiness!
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.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics
Government is the first and most important aspect to address in our world today, not poverty. Government is about individuality and responsible behavior. Governments which inhibit the individual's life is limiting life and one of the primary values of our country is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some think that poverty should be alleviated by population control. So, whichever way one views "world problems" there are no easy solutions, nor is one problem easily solvable.
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics is what I should have entitled my last post on Ethics, Morality and Universalism. Please see my last post.
Governments, Morality, Law and Ethics is what I should have entitled my last post on Ethics, Morality and Universalism. Please see my last post.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Responsibility, Respect, and Success
America measures performance, because America values results, goals, and productivity. The question should be, is America's values of production the best value? And according to whom and what? If these values are what is considered right and good, then who is setting the agenda, goal or result that measures the performance? America's value of work has been understood as the "protestant work ethic" and most Americans do not question this value, but assume it's value to our "common good".
People who value hierarchal leadership models, value submission, because then their goals can be attained in the name of training those who follow and perform their "duties". This model uses the other to benefit the organization, themselves, or both. I don't value those who think this way about themselves, as success should be measured by the muturality of the institutions and individual's attainment of their own goals. Of course, Americans can have the "luxury" of choosing their community, or job, because, we for the most part, are free to do so, as our country protects these values.
American "success" has been based on a capitalistic economic system that desires the most for the least, which some would understand as "good stewardship", but can be nothing other than a inverted greed, not just of money but of another's labor, efforts and life. I find that leaders in positions of power many times use their power to benefit their own interests, even when it devalues another's life and choices. Congress does this all the time in salary increases, while legislating or defending their constieunites. These are the "pork barrel" increases of the elite's power. It is their agenda that moves and shakes the nature of our country's history or institution's future.
I don't believe that others should determine futures but allow an open culture for change, choice and negotiation...whenever those in power rule through power by maintaining how and what is expected for their underlings to attain a "voice", without giving a "voice" to the "vision", there has already been an abuse of power because basically, it is not a free choice, but choices pre-determined...
Pre-determining another's future without fair open disclosure is not based on understanding any variable of opinion, value or position toward these goals, which only looks at and judges the specific behavior. No one would or should expect there to be a submission to abusive, or controlling leaders, whether spouses, supervisors, or governments. In our free society, we have the priviledge of leaving, questioning, and preventing further abuses of power.
People who value hierarchal leadership models, value submission, because then their goals can be attained in the name of training those who follow and perform their "duties". This model uses the other to benefit the organization, themselves, or both. I don't value those who think this way about themselves, as success should be measured by the muturality of the institutions and individual's attainment of their own goals. Of course, Americans can have the "luxury" of choosing their community, or job, because, we for the most part, are free to do so, as our country protects these values.
American "success" has been based on a capitalistic economic system that desires the most for the least, which some would understand as "good stewardship", but can be nothing other than a inverted greed, not just of money but of another's labor, efforts and life. I find that leaders in positions of power many times use their power to benefit their own interests, even when it devalues another's life and choices. Congress does this all the time in salary increases, while legislating or defending their constieunites. These are the "pork barrel" increases of the elite's power. It is their agenda that moves and shakes the nature of our country's history or institution's future.
I don't believe that others should determine futures but allow an open culture for change, choice and negotiation...whenever those in power rule through power by maintaining how and what is expected for their underlings to attain a "voice", without giving a "voice" to the "vision", there has already been an abuse of power because basically, it is not a free choice, but choices pre-determined...
Pre-determining another's future without fair open disclosure is not based on understanding any variable of opinion, value or position toward these goals, which only looks at and judges the specific behavior. No one would or should expect there to be a submission to abusive, or controlling leaders, whether spouses, supervisors, or governments. In our free society, we have the priviledge of leaving, questioning, and preventing further abuses of power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
