Just having fun combining the subjects
in the title.
Followup to a bunch of videos and comments.
*RESPECT*
Reference video:
Challenge 2: Yeah, Weed could be considered Bad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V8veXZaUqM
*
Video to show you:
Penn - Tolerance Is Condescending
"Respect... You're wrong... both say it to each
other."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM
specifically:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM#t=4m15s
4:15 - 5:10
*PLANNED OBSOLESENCE*
Reference video:
Steve Jobs - A Profitable Contribution For All
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrsQcFrMO0M
*
Some videos that talk about this; I probably
don't agree with much of what they're saying,
but it's a clear phenominon. The main difference
is that I think they have the cause down wrong;
they're going to advocate more government
regulation, which is only going to make things
worse.
Videos to show you:
Planned Obsolescence, Perceived Obsolescence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2KLyYKJGk0
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (Planned Obsolescence)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTdseBKbWAE
Pyaramids of Waste (part 1/5)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtCTFz14Rc8
Planned Obsolescence Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bxzU1HFC7Q
Planned Obsolescence Conspiracy A Lot Bigger than Light Bulbs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh-KLQfS4X8
Reference video:
But, don't you thrive on negativity?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HejqnNz_ya0
*
Video to show:
[your video,
stop with the negativity. plz dont be mean]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWZcLPhTotE
[your video,
Weed is actually bad for you...]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XrQ6cMe7M
*
Marijuana - A Gateway Drug - Impairs Cognition & Judgement / Anti-Marijuana Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN7uMitPHVY
marijuana is NOT a gateway drug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOJpnvov31w
Marijuana Study: Exit Drug, Not Gateway Drug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7jokjamyjg
Joe Rogan - Marijuana the Gateway Drug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23EIXqHCju4
Marijuana Two-Minute Truths: Gateway Myth (MPP-TV)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9-xOTsIhZk
weed the gateway drug? Documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uneij4Oeh2E
Is Marijuana A Gateway Drug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWIAmuhl7UM
Marijuana Use and Heroin Addiction: The Gateway Drug Theory - The Terrible Truth (1951)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5aKEB0hT74
Johnny drama Weed is a gateway drug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FDp18WzkGk
FBI director gets schooled on marijuana legalization
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0TQ1uOn3k
Marijuana #1 Gateway Drug...You check the Facts!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO0Z0bmnu_I
*
DMT:
DMT: The Spirit Molecule Teaser
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOg5SWXddzU
DMT the Spirit Molecule Tryptamine of Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIWKmlvtzBQ
The Spirit Molecule - Ayahuasca - DMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8keAxXUU58
DMT trip RECORDED with Facts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlRuM_YBSxk
pt.1 of 9 - DMT: The Spirit Molecule - CoSM Premiere (2010) w/ Interviews and Q&A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1DTaple61I
Rick Strassman - DMT the Spirit Molecule
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpakOiuDZ7g
DMT - The Spirit Molecule Documentary 1/5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQEqM3Ixa44
DMT The Spirit Molecule - CoSM Premiere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMOC44vby9g
DMT - The Spirit Molecule
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQf9rn96CRQ
DMT - The Spirit Molecule - Documentary Interviews - Part 1 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV4f4pv3Qqg
[There is some overlap in links when I did
the search terms. I have skipped over
the redundancis to only include links
that I had not referenced before.]
"Weed Causes Memory Loss"
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=weed+causes+memory+loss
http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/facts/drugsmarijuana?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=weed&utm_campaign=2011_Marijuana&utm_content=Barter
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803123240.htm
http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm
http://www.drugaddictiontreatment.com/types-of-addiction/marijuana-addiction/scientists-discover-how-marijuana-causes-memory-loss/
http://ask.metafilter.com/65428/Shortterm-memory-loss-continues-12-days-after-I-smoke-marijuana
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-20125822/solved-why-pot-smoking-causes-memory-loss/
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain
http://drug.addictionblog.org/does-weed-cause-memory-loss/
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2648/still-smokin-what-are-the-long-term-effects-of-marijuana
"weed is bad for your lungs"
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=weed+is+bad+for+your+lungs
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_bad_is_marijuana_for_you
http://forum.grasscity.com/seasoned-tokers/332580-how-bad-smoking-weed-your-lungs-actually.html
http://www.dailystrength.org/health_blogs/dr-orrange/article/is-smoking-pot-really-bad-for-you
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2007/nov/29/marijuana_better_your_lungs_toba
http://www.marijuana.com/surveys-polls-questions/101661-marijuana-bad-you.html
http://www.squidoo.com/MARIJUANAFACTS
"you can go blind from smoking weed"
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=you+can+go+blind+from+smoking+weed
http://www.marijuana.com/medicinal-marijuana/25725-going-blind-after-smoking.html
http://isitnormal.com/story/i-went-blind-for-2-minutes-when-i-smoked-weed-23765/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message203169/pg1
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Alternative-Therapies-/effects-of-smoking-marijuana-and-being-diabetic/show/419248
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/archive/index.php/t-239948.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090630131434AAJYnNt
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/78920/98_Year_Old_Man_Been_Smoking_Weed_Since_1936/
http://www.greendragonsoda.com/
http://www.growsystems.com/2011/01/how-to-grow-marijuana-dont-touch-your-plant-tip-of-the-day/
http://www.hulu.com/watch/209545/super-high-me
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150244385577948&id=259027927947
"weed causes brain damage"
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=you+can+go+blind+from+smoking+weed#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=weed%20causes%20brain%20damage&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=5048dfd409056b82&biw=1366&bih=643&pf=p&pdl=500
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090202175105.htm
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20080506-17437-2.html
(be aware, this one has "porn" on it)
http://weedsmokersguide.com/marijuana-brain-damage-long-term-effects/
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_myth8.shtml
(this one has an annoying pop-up)
http://www.drugpolicy.org/facts/drug-facts/marijuana-facts
http://drug.addictionblog.org/does-marijuana-cause-brain-damage/
http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/does-marijuana-cause-brain-damage/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071008204921AAEyDg4
http://norml.org/library/health-reports/item/norml-s-marijuana-health-mythology
"weed causes cancer"
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=you+can+go+blind+from+smoking+weed#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=weed+causes+cancer&pbx=1&oq=weed+causes+cancer&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=440140l440140l2l440662l1l1l0l0l0l0l419l419l4-1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=5048dfd409056b82&biw=1366&bih=643
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm
(annoying pop-up) http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-08-18/health/9808_18_marijuana.cancer_1_lung-cancer-marijuana-cigarettes-smoke-tobacco-cigarettes?_s=PM:HEALTH
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0598.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070504073841AAvQmgW
http://www.legalize.com/nocancer.htm
http://drugabuse.gov/ResearchReports/Marijuana/marijuana3.html
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2007/apr/18/cannabis_doesnt_cause_cancer_it
http://drug.addictionblog.org/does-weed-cause-cancer/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW6TU2vZe_Y
http://cancer.about.com/od/smokingandcancer/f/marijuana.htm
http://infohemp.com/science/can-marijuana-cause-cancer/
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271/smoking_marijuana_does_not_cause_lung_cancer/
"using cannabis oil to cure cancer"
https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=you+can+go+blind+from+smoking+weed#hl=en&sa=X&ei=CS24ToGsKeWwiQKKr6BG&ved=0CCYQvwUoAQ&q=using+cannabis+oil+to+cure+cancer&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=5048dfd409056b82&biw=1366&bih=643
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnR8sL3vOc4
http://www.hongpong.com/node/1081
http://www.naturalnews.com/033757_cannabis_oil_cancer_cure.html
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2009/04/thc_gives_cancer_cells_the_mun.php
http://kaabi.hubpages.com/hub/Hemp-Oil-Cancer-Cure
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/08/29/skin-cancer-patient-says-oil-from-medical-marijuana-is-a-cure/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1383240/Boy-brain-cancer-cured-secretly-fed-medical-marijuana-father.html
http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=497
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31Nuj_AvTg
https://www.greenpassion.org/index.php?/topic/23071-use-cannabis-oil-to-treat-animals-with-cancer-anyone-help/
http://medicalmarijuana.com/experts/expert/title.cfm?artID=86
http://www.medicalmarijuanablog.com/benefits/cancer-medical-trial.html
http://www.421flavors.com/468/cannabis-oil-succesfully-used-to-cure-skin-cancer-video/
http://www.topicalinfo.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=762
http://santacruz.patch.com/articles/cannabis-oil-fights-cancer
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080410073847AAb6zYx
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/what-if-cannabis-cured-cancer/
http://hightimes.com/lounge/hager/7258
Monday, November 7, 2011
Sunday, October 30, 2011
I Couldn't Resist - Three Meta-Topics
I couldn't resist. I stopped for about 5 minutes, and I can only think about the meta-topics of the last post and the comments or thoughts that could result from it.
1. Blogger posts, one at a time, not like story.
2. Personal reference, not exactly understandable.
3. Is this book or blog?
Those are the meta-topics, in their keyword form; in the form where I can short-summarize them and give you a vague idea as to what I'm going to talk about.
1. I'm writing this as blog posts. Do I revise them? Do I note the changes? Would that make reading the post cumbersome? Should I just repost it? But wouldn't that make my blog look messy? And how can I write a book like this, supposing that that's what it's going to turn out to be, while also talking about how it is that I'm going to write it? Isn't that boring? (lol Because, of course, seeing the struggle is extremely boring and isn't the basis of many novels and movies.) I guess not. What I'm worried about is that I'll want to revise the wording, and that will mess everything up. Well... better to write something about worry about editing it, than to not write and not even have that option, I suppose.
2. I used a lot of personal references that people might not recognize or understand, and I skipped a lot around the subjects; I didn't transition as well as I'd've liked to. How do I revise that without wiping the post clean and starting again, and how does that not make for writing being impossible? Where do I add the transition? Using brackets ("[" and "]")? [If I want to add something, should I add this sort of note, and then include the date at the top or bottom? Or would that be unnecessarily confusing? (10-30-11) No, it would just be annoying. But I like having those date references... I just don't want them displayed so prominently? Maybe I could change the font and such to make them less annoying and less noticeable. 10-30-11. Yeah, that looks good. I might just do that.]
... But what if I want to get rid of some text? What do I do for that? If it's deleted... it's sort of gone. And if there's a lot of text I delete... Maybe I could make it smaller, like the date, so it would both not take up as much room, and still be there. [Like this. 10-30-11.] (The date is included so you and I know when I considered it obsolete.) Yeah. That might work. But what if it's a long string of text? An entire section that I want to delete? I'll copy and paste this paragraph and experiment with it:
[... But what if I want to get rid of some text? What do I do for that? If it's deleted... it's sort of gone. And if there's a lot of text I delete... Maybe I could make it smaller, like the date, so it would both not take up as much room, and still be there. Like this. Yeah. That might work. But what if it's a long string of text? An entire section that I want to delete? I'll copy and paste this paragraph and experiment with it. 10-30-11.] Hm. I guess that'll do.
3. "Is this a book or a blog?"
By this I mean, how exactly can I be writing a book through blogging it? Is it that I take out the "book" parts when I'm finished, and string those together? I guess that's indeed what it would be. Let's try it! (This applies to both "books" - the genius and creativity one, and the dystopia one.)
1. Blogger posts, one at a time, not like story.
2. Personal reference, not exactly understandable.
3. Is this book or blog?
Those are the meta-topics, in their keyword form; in the form where I can short-summarize them and give you a vague idea as to what I'm going to talk about.
1. I'm writing this as blog posts. Do I revise them? Do I note the changes? Would that make reading the post cumbersome? Should I just repost it? But wouldn't that make my blog look messy? And how can I write a book like this, supposing that that's what it's going to turn out to be, while also talking about how it is that I'm going to write it? Isn't that boring? (lol Because, of course, seeing the struggle is extremely boring and isn't the basis of many novels and movies.) I guess not. What I'm worried about is that I'll want to revise the wording, and that will mess everything up. Well... better to write something about worry about editing it, than to not write and not even have that option, I suppose.
2. I used a lot of personal references that people might not recognize or understand, and I skipped a lot around the subjects; I didn't transition as well as I'd've liked to. How do I revise that without wiping the post clean and starting again, and how does that not make for writing being impossible? Where do I add the transition? Using brackets ("[" and "]")? [If I want to add something, should I add this sort of note, and then include the date at the top or bottom? Or would that be unnecessarily confusing? (10-30-11) No, it would just be annoying. But I like having those date references... I just don't want them displayed so prominently? Maybe I could change the font and such to make them less annoying and less noticeable. 10-30-11. Yeah, that looks good. I might just do that.]
... But what if I want to get rid of some text? What do I do for that? If it's deleted... it's sort of gone. And if there's a lot of text I delete... Maybe I could make it smaller, like the date, so it would both not take up as much room, and still be there. [Like this. 10-30-11.] (The date is included so you and I know when I considered it obsolete.) Yeah. That might work. But what if it's a long string of text? An entire section that I want to delete? I'll copy and paste this paragraph and experiment with it:
[... But what if I want to get rid of some text? What do I do for that? If it's deleted... it's sort of gone. And if there's a lot of text I delete... Maybe I could make it smaller, like the date, so it would both not take up as much room, and still be there. Like this. Yeah. That might work. But what if it's a long string of text? An entire section that I want to delete? I'll copy and paste this paragraph and experiment with it. 10-30-11.] Hm. I guess that'll do.
3. "Is this a book or a blog?"
By this I mean, how exactly can I be writing a book through blogging it? Is it that I take out the "book" parts when I'm finished, and string those together? I guess that's indeed what it would be. Let's try it! (This applies to both "books" - the genius and creativity one, and the dystopia one.)
It's Time: Genius and Creativity
It's time. I've meant to do this, I've been meaning to do this, but there's no better way to do it... than to do it! Do what? This is what: start a blog about genius and creativity. I figure I might as well start my juices flowing on the blog where I am essentially writing nothing. And guess why I'm writing nothing: because I think that genius and creativity are something too lofty for me to talk about! And that's why I haven't really written anything here recently: because the very route to more writing (writing about creativity and genius) has been the very thing that I've shunned.
So, this first post is me overtly talking about that block, and although it's mainly for myself here, perhaps it will benefit you as well. I really don't know, but I need to do this anyway, for my own sake and sanity. And really... no one is reading this anyway, so it's the least risky spot to experiment on. I'm free to try out whatever!
So: why the hell do I want to write about genius and creativity? My life has been fairly consumed with the question of what makes someone creative or a genius. The reason? The world didn't look like too much fun, didn't look like it was doing well... so I asked myself,
"Who or what would be the best way to solve for this?" And then a thought occurred to me:
"Hey, if anyone can solve this stuff, wouldn't it be the geniuses?" So started this now approximately 10-year journey.
I devoured books, even before I was researching genius. One of the first big impressions I got was that of Plato and Socrates. I think someone on a plane recommended that I read "The Apologia" - I forget why they thought I'd like it - and so I got it and read it. Loved the hell out of it, adopted the method, used it on myself ruthlessly, and had a blast! When I started researching genius and creativity, I had the advantage of my local library having an online catalog. On more than one occasion did I frustrate the librarians, and that's because I was going through books on genius and creativity like they were candy... Ok, I kid. They WERE candy! And HEALTHY candy, too! Right? Am I right? Yeah? No? Poo on you.
After all these years, the book that still is prominent in my mind when I think about this is "Touched With Fire" by Kay Redfield Jamison, and you can see the Amazon link below:
I'm not sure I could point to a single best book on the subject. I can certainly recommend, as I just have with one example above, books that I found enjoyable or enlightening, but ultimately, I maintain, this is my personal perspective on the matter. I'm very picky with what books I read; I generally only read those that are what I consider "good enough" to be read the whole way through, and your tastes may differ from mine. As well, even though I keep copious records of all books that I read in full, I didn't read all of the books that I've researched for genius in full, so I would have to refer to my personal notebooks (because I would associate based on the books and try to figure stuff out, so the better books are referenced in them). I have over 30 journals. That's a lot of work. I suppose I should just start going through them, and I may just do that. After all, I've started this blog - and this part of the blog - so why not go the next step and start building?
I owe some thanks to both G+ and Debbie Lattuga:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102287555349832013091/posts/cTikrTVV1Li
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KLnXjqKL5g
So I'm starting now, no funding needed. If people enjoy these writings, and if I enjoy writing them, then we have a nice little relationship going, and possibly a business. What partially amuses me about this is that I've always written for passion, and now here I am, writing for both passion and possibly money. But you don't write for money. You write for passion, and then the money comes. The reason for this is that others share or enjoy your passion. And people want to see passion. Well, I don't necessarily know; that's just what people keep telling me. I guess talking about this stuff will show to me if they're right or not.
So... I'm noticing that I keep starting my sentences with "So"... so I'm going to note that and vary them up. Why? Because I'm also a writer, unofficially. That is, I love writing. Which means that I'm picky as hell about grammar, syntax, repetition, and so forth. Some have called me a grammar nazi. Sometimes I call myself that. Either way, I love words, whether they be from books that others have written, posts and comments, or my own writing. And, as I said up above, I've written a damn lot: at least 30 journals. I say at least for two reasons:
1. I've lost count (although, I'd say I'm at 35 at this point?).
2. I've transitioned to making videos more often than I write.
What does writing have to do with genius and creativity? Look back on that question again. Hello? Read the question to yourself. Do you see the problem with the question? OK, let's see, then:
-Shakespeare
-Wordsmith
-Abraham Lincoln (Gettysburg Address)
-The Founding Fathers
-and many more
I've always dreamed of having made a book. Literally. I can't remember a time when I didn't want to have a book out there that was written by me. I've tried several times to start writing a book, and they've all marvelously failed. Recently, I've come to realize that, I think, what I've been critically missing is that a good story requires a model. By this I mean that you need to create a world. What you then do, is give a tour of that world with writing. Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Atlas Shrugged, and so forth - all these great novels or movies are based on having a model of the reality already present, and we're given a tour of that reality.
It is interesting that there are specific formats that we recognize in relation to creativity:
Sculpting, painting, writing, speaking, modeling.
What is common to all of those is outward expression. A personal journal is not an outward expression until the person is dead and the journal is looked at. An idea that sprouts in your mind that you don't write down, paint into being, or talk about with others, remains but an idea. You need to start somewhere, like I am here, writing this post. What kept me from starting this (assuming it'll go somewhere, which, of course, is an investment risk, although I need to do this anyway, so the risk is not very substantial) was the thought that I needed to put it all up right away. And since I consider what I have right now to be a work-in-progress, would I publish something that I have not yet finished? Of course not! And so... I've never started putting the ideas together in the written format. Well, I have, but not in a cohesive way, which is the way I meant.
And so, where I'm starting, is that I'm writing a book. Perhaps two. One of those books (that I'm hopefully going to finish with this new technique) is going to be a dystopian novel centered around sexuality. The other... might be the text that you are reading. Yeah, that would sure be nice if that happened. I have no idea if it would or will.
By definition, much of what I write here is stolen material (ah yes, the creative person's motto), material which I read from somewhere else and have, unfortunately, forgotten the source of (because I've waited so long to start), though I may express the ideas in my own way. I source whenever I can, not because I don't want to be sued or something stupid like that, but because having the original source and being able to see it in relation to the others sources, as well as the combination of the ideas, means that cohesive and coherent discussion regarding the ideas - since we have the referents - can be had. How can understanding be had or science be done otherwise?
In July of 2006, Wired posted an article called "What Kind of Genius Are You?", starring David Galenson:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html
The key thought of the article is that there are experimentalist geniuses, and conceptual geniuses. Experimentalist geniuses peak later in life, and conceptuals, early. Regardless of when the peak it, however, both of them made works that are considered valuable:
"For some artists, the curve hit an early peak followed by a gradual decline. People in this group created their most valuable works in their youth – Andy Warhol at 33, Frank Stella at 24, Jasper Johns at 27. Nothing they made later ever reached those prices. For others, the curve was more of a steady rise with a peak near the end. Artists in this group produced their most valuable pieces later in their careers – Willem de Kooning at 43, Mark Rothko at 54, Robert Motherwell at 72. But their early work wasn’t worth much."
I've found myself going more and more towards video. At first, this was a delight, because it meant that I could, from afar, learn social stuff, conversation, cohesion, and the like. Then it became a sort of addiction, and I figured that I'd eventually come back to reading and writing more. Not so. Now, I come here, nostalgically, wishful, and longing to do again what I used to do every day in my journals. And it appears that I'm finally starting to do just that. And boy, is it a welcome change! I'm not saying here that video is something to be avoided. I'm saying that I've (and probably many people) put myself out of balance, in a sense... becoming Twitterized, and it's been a very slow process to going back to a slower pace, something necessary for creativity and deep thought, in my opinion.
I want to write more, but I should also take something of a rest. It's part of the my new understanding of the necessity of resting a bit before you feel the need to rest, plus that of making a model of the reality, and then letting yourself tour the model when some day-dreaming of a way to express the idea happens. And it will, if you're enjoying yourself. And how can you enjoy yourself if you're not taking time to rest once in a while?
Thus, the more accurate way of putting it would be: I want to write more, so I'm going to take a rest. It's the principle that I've used in junction with the dystopian novel. Right now I'm focusing on creating the model. Then I'm going to take the day-dream parts that I've gotten so far, and string them together. That way I don't feel the pressure to write the whole damn thing in one sitting, or have it be linear. Perhaps I could write a linear novel in a non-linear way? I have no idea - I've never even written a linear one!
So, this first post is me overtly talking about that block, and although it's mainly for myself here, perhaps it will benefit you as well. I really don't know, but I need to do this anyway, for my own sake and sanity. And really... no one is reading this anyway, so it's the least risky spot to experiment on. I'm free to try out whatever!
So: why the hell do I want to write about genius and creativity? My life has been fairly consumed with the question of what makes someone creative or a genius. The reason? The world didn't look like too much fun, didn't look like it was doing well... so I asked myself,
"Who or what would be the best way to solve for this?" And then a thought occurred to me:
"Hey, if anyone can solve this stuff, wouldn't it be the geniuses?" So started this now approximately 10-year journey.
I devoured books, even before I was researching genius. One of the first big impressions I got was that of Plato and Socrates. I think someone on a plane recommended that I read "The Apologia" - I forget why they thought I'd like it - and so I got it and read it. Loved the hell out of it, adopted the method, used it on myself ruthlessly, and had a blast! When I started researching genius and creativity, I had the advantage of my local library having an online catalog. On more than one occasion did I frustrate the librarians, and that's because I was going through books on genius and creativity like they were candy... Ok, I kid. They WERE candy! And HEALTHY candy, too! Right? Am I right? Yeah? No? Poo on you.
After all these years, the book that still is prominent in my mind when I think about this is "Touched With Fire" by Kay Redfield Jamison, and you can see the Amazon link below:
I'm not sure I could point to a single best book on the subject. I can certainly recommend, as I just have with one example above, books that I found enjoyable or enlightening, but ultimately, I maintain, this is my personal perspective on the matter. I'm very picky with what books I read; I generally only read those that are what I consider "good enough" to be read the whole way through, and your tastes may differ from mine. As well, even though I keep copious records of all books that I read in full, I didn't read all of the books that I've researched for genius in full, so I would have to refer to my personal notebooks (because I would associate based on the books and try to figure stuff out, so the better books are referenced in them). I have over 30 journals. That's a lot of work. I suppose I should just start going through them, and I may just do that. After all, I've started this blog - and this part of the blog - so why not go the next step and start building?
I owe some thanks to both G+ and Debbie Lattuga:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/102287555349832013091/posts/cTikrTVV1Li
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KLnXjqKL5g
So I'm starting now, no funding needed. If people enjoy these writings, and if I enjoy writing them, then we have a nice little relationship going, and possibly a business. What partially amuses me about this is that I've always written for passion, and now here I am, writing for both passion and possibly money. But you don't write for money. You write for passion, and then the money comes. The reason for this is that others share or enjoy your passion. And people want to see passion. Well, I don't necessarily know; that's just what people keep telling me. I guess talking about this stuff will show to me if they're right or not.
So... I'm noticing that I keep starting my sentences with "So"... so I'm going to note that and vary them up. Why? Because I'm also a writer, unofficially. That is, I love writing. Which means that I'm picky as hell about grammar, syntax, repetition, and so forth. Some have called me a grammar nazi. Sometimes I call myself that. Either way, I love words, whether they be from books that others have written, posts and comments, or my own writing. And, as I said up above, I've written a damn lot: at least 30 journals. I say at least for two reasons:
1. I've lost count (although, I'd say I'm at 35 at this point?).
2. I've transitioned to making videos more often than I write.
What does writing have to do with genius and creativity? Look back on that question again. Hello? Read the question to yourself. Do you see the problem with the question? OK, let's see, then:
-Shakespeare
-Wordsmith
-Abraham Lincoln (Gettysburg Address)
-The Founding Fathers
-and many more
I've always dreamed of having made a book. Literally. I can't remember a time when I didn't want to have a book out there that was written by me. I've tried several times to start writing a book, and they've all marvelously failed. Recently, I've come to realize that, I think, what I've been critically missing is that a good story requires a model. By this I mean that you need to create a world. What you then do, is give a tour of that world with writing. Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Atlas Shrugged, and so forth - all these great novels or movies are based on having a model of the reality already present, and we're given a tour of that reality.
It is interesting that there are specific formats that we recognize in relation to creativity:
Sculpting, painting, writing, speaking, modeling.
What is common to all of those is outward expression. A personal journal is not an outward expression until the person is dead and the journal is looked at. An idea that sprouts in your mind that you don't write down, paint into being, or talk about with others, remains but an idea. You need to start somewhere, like I am here, writing this post. What kept me from starting this (assuming it'll go somewhere, which, of course, is an investment risk, although I need to do this anyway, so the risk is not very substantial) was the thought that I needed to put it all up right away. And since I consider what I have right now to be a work-in-progress, would I publish something that I have not yet finished? Of course not! And so... I've never started putting the ideas together in the written format. Well, I have, but not in a cohesive way, which is the way I meant.
And so, where I'm starting, is that I'm writing a book. Perhaps two. One of those books (that I'm hopefully going to finish with this new technique) is going to be a dystopian novel centered around sexuality. The other... might be the text that you are reading. Yeah, that would sure be nice if that happened. I have no idea if it would or will.
By definition, much of what I write here is stolen material (ah yes, the creative person's motto), material which I read from somewhere else and have, unfortunately, forgotten the source of (because I've waited so long to start), though I may express the ideas in my own way. I source whenever I can, not because I don't want to be sued or something stupid like that, but because having the original source and being able to see it in relation to the others sources, as well as the combination of the ideas, means that cohesive and coherent discussion regarding the ideas - since we have the referents - can be had. How can understanding be had or science be done otherwise?
In July of 2006, Wired posted an article called "What Kind of Genius Are You?", starring David Galenson:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html
The key thought of the article is that there are experimentalist geniuses, and conceptual geniuses. Experimentalist geniuses peak later in life, and conceptuals, early. Regardless of when the peak it, however, both of them made works that are considered valuable:
"For some artists, the curve hit an early peak followed by a gradual decline. People in this group created their most valuable works in their youth – Andy Warhol at 33, Frank Stella at 24, Jasper Johns at 27. Nothing they made later ever reached those prices. For others, the curve was more of a steady rise with a peak near the end. Artists in this group produced their most valuable pieces later in their careers – Willem de Kooning at 43, Mark Rothko at 54, Robert Motherwell at 72. But their early work wasn’t worth much."
I've found myself going more and more towards video. At first, this was a delight, because it meant that I could, from afar, learn social stuff, conversation, cohesion, and the like. Then it became a sort of addiction, and I figured that I'd eventually come back to reading and writing more. Not so. Now, I come here, nostalgically, wishful, and longing to do again what I used to do every day in my journals. And it appears that I'm finally starting to do just that. And boy, is it a welcome change! I'm not saying here that video is something to be avoided. I'm saying that I've (and probably many people) put myself out of balance, in a sense... becoming Twitterized, and it's been a very slow process to going back to a slower pace, something necessary for creativity and deep thought, in my opinion.
I want to write more, but I should also take something of a rest. It's part of the my new understanding of the necessity of resting a bit before you feel the need to rest, plus that of making a model of the reality, and then letting yourself tour the model when some day-dreaming of a way to express the idea happens. And it will, if you're enjoying yourself. And how can you enjoy yourself if you're not taking time to rest once in a while?
Thus, the more accurate way of putting it would be: I want to write more, so I'm going to take a rest. It's the principle that I've used in junction with the dystopian novel. Right now I'm focusing on creating the model. Then I'm going to take the day-dream parts that I've gotten so far, and string them together. That way I don't feel the pressure to write the whole damn thing in one sitting, or have it be linear. Perhaps I could write a linear novel in a non-linear way? I have no idea - I've never even written a linear one!
Friday, September 2, 2011
Looking at the Fuzzy Flaws of Libertardianism
This is a response to another blog's post:
"THE FATAL FLAWS OF LIBERTARIANISM"
http://aphelionv.tumblr.com/post/8471021788/the-fatal-flaws-of-libertarianism
It is not a defense of libertarianism, as I don't consider libertarianism a coherent philosophy. It is commentary on the reasoning of the post.
I will start from the beginning:
"I see a disturbing trend going on in the United States right now, it includes a legion of people aligning themselves with Libertarianism(and Paleo-Conservatism). I’m not sure if these people know anything about it beyond the fact that Libertarians claim to embrace social freedom, but I really suspect these people dont know what economic freedom really entails, and how its actually somewhat contradictory. Also, this post will cover multiple topics, so be patient."
So, now we have the context of concern. I am not familiar with the term "Paleo-Conservatism".
A quick google search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
yields this definition:
"Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for a conservative political philosophy found primarily in theUnited States stressing tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity."
Since I am not familiar with "anti-colonialism" or "anti-federalism", I'll also look those up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
"Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
"Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.""
There are multiple elements at play here, and accordingly, it is unclear which of these is worrying.
Let's continue:
(defining freedom)
"First, let me define freedom with the following source:
Mkay. Next part.
"The social aspect of libertarianism is not something im against at all, its a good thing to be open minded about letting people live the life they want, assuming it doesnt hurt anyone else. However, the idea of economic liberty falls short because property rights are a state institution, and they are not objective rights that exist with or without the state."
Now, here we have a problem: the idea of property. Especially, property rights. The problem is the lack of a concise explanation as to what property rights are / what property is, and what the state is.
It might be surprising that I consider "rights" to be a term that is for slaves, and accordingly, a useless term if one is talking about freedom. I have made a video on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCBxJ1RUCmU
What I'm wondering is if you consider the very conception of property to be a state institution.
You continue on with examples:
"For example, if you take libertarianism to its extreme (anarcho-capitalism) you have no state at all, and everyone is supposed to be able to live the life they want to live right? Well that certainly sounds utopian! Speaking of utopian, lets talk about communists for a second, what if a bunch of people decide that they dont believe in capitalism, and are now communist. The stock answer anarcho-capitalists give is that they can start a commune. But how? Would they have to own the land first? Well how does that make sense? Theyre communists! They dont believe in property rights. So if they are going to live like communists, theres a good chance that they will impede on what you think are your property rights, without having a moral issue over it. If they cant be communist, then how can they live the life they want, and how can they be free? More importantly, how the FUCK is this anarchy?"
How do you define The State?
I define The State as an entity dependent on the involuntary taking of resources (taking people's resources without their consent) from a collective group; that is, dependent on taxation. The question that follows from this is akin to,
"So, when you have no God and no Objective Morality, everyone is supposed to just be able to live the life they want to live, right? Well what about the immorality this or the immorality that? Surely you don't want that. You can't live without God because then you'll have immorality -- it would certainly be Utopian to think you could be moral without God!"
And then you go onto, "don't believe in capitalism anymore" -- How do you define capitalism?* It sounds like you're using capitalism the way that I use corporatism, inwhichcase it is indeed a contradiction to say, Anarcho-Corporatism. It's a contradiction of terms, and I suspect that's what anti-capitalists means when they say that. But, I don't know. Perhaps we could get into a long discussion about that, with you focusing on how the proletariat are oppressed by corporations, and me agreeing with you, and trying to explain how using more regulation from The State doesn't solve the problem because corporations are in bed with The State, thereby making all regulations pointless, because they're bypassed by corporations through lobbying and the such. Corporations are nearly synonymous with The State, although that's more of a poetic term, and fringeelements does a better job of explaining this in
A Hundred Epiphanies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AScfnJfb-8
*I see capitalism as synonymous with "free market".
Communists see the problem of The State, but don't realize it's The State that's causing all of the problems, and so they advocate a tyranny of the many -- that is, everyone is The State, essentially. The means of production is owned in common, regardless the effort that the capitalist -- that is, the maker of the means of production, put into making the items. I'm not saying that the capitalist is more important than the workers, and indeed, after the initial making of the things, the capitalist has received his profit, and he will slowly start getting less and less of it because his innovation is being absorbed into the culture and competition equalizes his initial monopoly of being brilliant and having people be not used to the idea yet, since that he's making a lot of profit signals to others that it would be in their interest to also make that product, breaking the initial monopoly.
The rest of what you say in this part doesn't make any sense to me. I can mainly comment on the attitudes of communists, which is that they have a lot of cognitive dissonance and are biting the hand that feeds them -- namely, the employer and the means of production. If you take over someone else's work, what's the motivation to innovate and make more things? I'm not defending corporations here, which is unfortunately the universal current form of pretty much all businesses.
Onto the next part:
"In addition, what if I dont accept that purchasing something is a legitimate way of obtaining ownership(without addressing whether or not you DID purchase it in the first place, and whether or not the proof you have is legitimate)? am I just shit out of luck? The reason this matters is because anarcho capitalism and libertarianism advertise themselves as freedom, but as ive demonstrated, you have to be a a libertarian or a.capitalist to live in that society. We have two different protocols of ownership(or lack of) that cannot coexist with one and other."
If you don't accept that exchanging items of value for other things of value is a legitimate way to obtain items, then you're going to have to either make your own or have items given to you, although we're basically left with making everything yourself, since having items given to you likely falls under the category of illegitimate, unless it's done within a commune that you might be in (gifting culture, for example), although there might be disagreement between these such people, so that's an open question still. It is not impossible to live without exchanging items of value for other items of value. Hermits and other such people do this, have done this, and will continue to do this. It is one of many ways of doing things. I myself don't prefer it, and many others don't prefer it. I like the luxuries that I have, such as the computer I'm typing this on, and other things.
I don't understand how whatever anarcho-capitalism is jives against... Well, whatever. Simply put, communists are scary mofos who don't understand that they're being idiots.
"At this point it should be clear that the very right of owning property is merely a state institution(This explains to those who may not understand why, that anarchy is socialism, and not capitalism). Without government, nobody owns ANYTHING(thus defeating “anarcho”-capitalism)."
At this point it is clear to me that you need to read this post to you and respond to it so we can clarify where we stand in relation to each other. You've basically said what I asked in the beginning --
"What I'm wondering is if you consider the very conception of property to be a state institution."
The answer appears to be "yes".
And I suggest you watch fringeelements' A Hundred Epiphanies video.
Can you differentiate between people agreeing that someone owns something (inter-subjective consensus), or is everything a matter of The State?
I define ownership with homesteading, not legal tender that makes universal declarations that have absolutely no effort put into them.
"I own the moon,
Signed [some of my buddies]"
does not mean that I own the moon. And if you don't like that, fuck off? Again, watch fringe's video.
Actually, I'll continue on, since I'm guessing you'll refer to things further in on that blog post.
"The next topic i’d like to cover is on exploitation. This seems to be a common theme among those who decry capitalism, and for good reason!
Lets start with a less harmful version of it, and get the bloody stuff later. Would you do 8 dollars worth of work for 4 dollars, or how about 16 dollars worth of work for 4 dollars, 32? 64? No you say? Why not? Getting ripped off right? I mean, you COULD do it, but theres no real reason to do so. Lets imagine a scenario in which you sell food. You make the food, and you sell the food, but you dont own the business. You are paid 4 dollars an hour, and each food item costs 4 dollars. It should be noted that libertarians tend to believe in the profit motive, so with that being said your profit margins fall apart immediately upon selling any food item within one hour. The more you sell, the better the CEO does, but the worse you do. You still get paid 4 dollars, and their rate keeps growing, despite the fact that YOU are the one doing the work."
Who are you to say what people value?* Who are you to say that to someone starving, $4 is far better than $0 for not getting the job because of the EXPLOITATION of it, and so minimum wage is instated, since that job is worth, actually, $16, and so you're "protecting the workers" by not allowing them to work unless they get paid that minimum amount? Result? They don't get hired!
Without minimum wage, when they do get hired for that Exploitative amount, they get a more comfortable life, start checking around for better jobs, and soon the employers need to offer better stuffs -- usually a higher wage -- to keep them around.
*I'm being facetious. I hate that phrase, "Who are you to...?"
With corporations, however (which pretty much all businesses today are, btw), they can get bailouts from The State to keep up running, and the minimum wage laws mean they simply keep switching out people (because they get better at the job and therefore can reasonably ask for more pay, which is how they then improve their lot in life, as explained before), and so the burden of what you thought you were putting on them - the businesses - actually ends up making things worse for the workers.
"One may argue that the CEO’s job is more difficult, and thus its more valued. However, how could the business survive without the people who make and sell it? Technically speaking, the business could survive longer without a ceo, just selling and making food with everyone getting a cut. Maybe it wouldnt be as efficient, but a CEO alone cannot make a business work."
Explained above.
"after the initial making of the things, the capitalist has received his profit, and he will slowly start getting less and less of it because his innovation is being absorbed into the culture and competition equalizes his initial monopoly of being brilliant and having people be not used to the idea yet[. S]ince he's making a lot of profit[, that] signals to others that it would be in their interest to also make that product, breaking the initial monopoly."
(slightly redone because I realized I phrased it slightly poorly)
"Now onto the bloody stuff. This is a main reason why I abandoned libertarianism in favor of socialism. Lets say you own property, and you live next to a rich person, and I do mean rich, I mean fucking rich. This rich guy wants your land, he hates you, he hates the fact that you throw parties in the middle of the night, he hates your loud dog, whatever. Now under libertarianism, theres technically nothing he can do about this, or is there? Considering that hes “fucking” rich, he could simply buy the land around you forcing you to stay on your property, which essentially makes you a prisoner. This can result in two conclusions:"
Interesting scenario.
Wait... how are you a prisoner again? "Forcing you to stay on your property"... how is that resultant from "buy the land around you"? Why can't you leave? You can't cross his property? My guess is your answer is pointing to the piece of paper - he bought it and he can enforce you not going on his property; that anarchists or whatever support violently enforcing property rights? Rights come from The State, and thus are a contradiction to the anarchists/anti-statitist/blahblahblah ideology. I quite agree that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance for/from anarchists on this.
"also, an employer can fire you for any reason under the sun."
Mhm:
"With corporations, however (which pretty much all businesses today are, btw), they can get bailouts from The State to keep up running, and the minimum wage laws mean they simply keep switching out people (because they get better at the job and therefore can reasonably ask for more pay, which is how they then improve their lot in life, as explained before), and so the burden of what you thought you were putting on them - the businesses - actually ends up making things worse for the workers."
"THE FATAL FLAWS OF LIBERTARIANISM"
http://aphelionv.tumblr.com/post/8471021788/the-fatal-flaws-of-libertarianism
It is not a defense of libertarianism, as I don't consider libertarianism a coherent philosophy. It is commentary on the reasoning of the post.
I will start from the beginning:
"I see a disturbing trend going on in the United States right now, it includes a legion of people aligning themselves with Libertarianism(and Paleo-Conservatism). I’m not sure if these people know anything about it beyond the fact that Libertarians claim to embrace social freedom, but I really suspect these people dont know what economic freedom really entails, and how its actually somewhat contradictory. Also, this post will cover multiple topics, so be patient."
So, now we have the context of concern. I am not familiar with the term "Paleo-Conservatism".
A quick google search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
yields this definition:
"Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is a term for a conservative political philosophy found primarily in theUnited States stressing tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity."
Since I am not familiar with "anti-colonialism" or "anti-federalism", I'll also look those up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
"Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
"Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination.""
There are multiple elements at play here, and accordingly, it is unclear which of these is worrying.
Let's continue:
(defining freedom)
"First, let me define freedom with the following source:
the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>"Mkay. Next part.
"The social aspect of libertarianism is not something im against at all, its a good thing to be open minded about letting people live the life they want, assuming it doesnt hurt anyone else. However, the idea of economic liberty falls short because property rights are a state institution, and they are not objective rights that exist with or without the state."
Now, here we have a problem: the idea of property. Especially, property rights. The problem is the lack of a concise explanation as to what property rights are / what property is, and what the state is.
It might be surprising that I consider "rights" to be a term that is for slaves, and accordingly, a useless term if one is talking about freedom. I have made a video on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCBxJ1RUCmU
What I'm wondering is if you consider the very conception of property to be a state institution.
You continue on with examples:
"For example, if you take libertarianism to its extreme (anarcho-capitalism) you have no state at all, and everyone is supposed to be able to live the life they want to live right? Well that certainly sounds utopian! Speaking of utopian, lets talk about communists for a second, what if a bunch of people decide that they dont believe in capitalism, and are now communist. The stock answer anarcho-capitalists give is that they can start a commune. But how? Would they have to own the land first? Well how does that make sense? Theyre communists! They dont believe in property rights. So if they are going to live like communists, theres a good chance that they will impede on what you think are your property rights, without having a moral issue over it. If they cant be communist, then how can they live the life they want, and how can they be free? More importantly, how the FUCK is this anarchy?"
How do you define The State?
I define The State as an entity dependent on the involuntary taking of resources (taking people's resources without their consent) from a collective group; that is, dependent on taxation. The question that follows from this is akin to,
"So, when you have no God and no Objective Morality, everyone is supposed to just be able to live the life they want to live, right? Well what about the immorality this or the immorality that? Surely you don't want that. You can't live without God because then you'll have immorality -- it would certainly be Utopian to think you could be moral without God!"
And then you go onto, "don't believe in capitalism anymore" -- How do you define capitalism?* It sounds like you're using capitalism the way that I use corporatism, inwhichcase it is indeed a contradiction to say, Anarcho-Corporatism. It's a contradiction of terms, and I suspect that's what anti-capitalists means when they say that. But, I don't know. Perhaps we could get into a long discussion about that, with you focusing on how the proletariat are oppressed by corporations, and me agreeing with you, and trying to explain how using more regulation from The State doesn't solve the problem because corporations are in bed with The State, thereby making all regulations pointless, because they're bypassed by corporations through lobbying and the such. Corporations are nearly synonymous with The State, although that's more of a poetic term, and fringeelements does a better job of explaining this in
A Hundred Epiphanies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AScfnJfb-8
*I see capitalism as synonymous with "free market".
Communists see the problem of The State, but don't realize it's The State that's causing all of the problems, and so they advocate a tyranny of the many -- that is, everyone is The State, essentially. The means of production is owned in common, regardless the effort that the capitalist -- that is, the maker of the means of production, put into making the items. I'm not saying that the capitalist is more important than the workers, and indeed, after the initial making of the things, the capitalist has received his profit, and he will slowly start getting less and less of it because his innovation is being absorbed into the culture and competition equalizes his initial monopoly of being brilliant and having people be not used to the idea yet, since that he's making a lot of profit signals to others that it would be in their interest to also make that product, breaking the initial monopoly.
The rest of what you say in this part doesn't make any sense to me. I can mainly comment on the attitudes of communists, which is that they have a lot of cognitive dissonance and are biting the hand that feeds them -- namely, the employer and the means of production. If you take over someone else's work, what's the motivation to innovate and make more things? I'm not defending corporations here, which is unfortunately the universal current form of pretty much all businesses.
Onto the next part:
"In addition, what if I dont accept that purchasing something is a legitimate way of obtaining ownership(without addressing whether or not you DID purchase it in the first place, and whether or not the proof you have is legitimate)? am I just shit out of luck? The reason this matters is because anarcho capitalism and libertarianism advertise themselves as freedom, but as ive demonstrated, you have to be a a libertarian or a.capitalist to live in that society. We have two different protocols of ownership(or lack of) that cannot coexist with one and other."
If you don't accept that exchanging items of value for other things of value is a legitimate way to obtain items, then you're going to have to either make your own or have items given to you, although we're basically left with making everything yourself, since having items given to you likely falls under the category of illegitimate, unless it's done within a commune that you might be in (gifting culture, for example), although there might be disagreement between these such people, so that's an open question still. It is not impossible to live without exchanging items of value for other items of value. Hermits and other such people do this, have done this, and will continue to do this. It is one of many ways of doing things. I myself don't prefer it, and many others don't prefer it. I like the luxuries that I have, such as the computer I'm typing this on, and other things.
I don't understand how whatever anarcho-capitalism is jives against... Well, whatever. Simply put, communists are scary mofos who don't understand that they're being idiots.
"At this point it should be clear that the very right of owning property is merely a state institution(This explains to those who may not understand why, that anarchy is socialism, and not capitalism). Without government, nobody owns ANYTHING(thus defeating “anarcho”-capitalism)."
At this point it is clear to me that you need to read this post to you and respond to it so we can clarify where we stand in relation to each other. You've basically said what I asked in the beginning --
"What I'm wondering is if you consider the very conception of property to be a state institution."
The answer appears to be "yes".
And I suggest you watch fringeelements' A Hundred Epiphanies video.
Can you differentiate between people agreeing that someone owns something (inter-subjective consensus), or is everything a matter of The State?
I define ownership with homesteading, not legal tender that makes universal declarations that have absolutely no effort put into them.
"I own the moon,
Signed [some of my buddies]"
does not mean that I own the moon. And if you don't like that, fuck off? Again, watch fringe's video.
Actually, I'll continue on, since I'm guessing you'll refer to things further in on that blog post.
"The next topic i’d like to cover is on exploitation. This seems to be a common theme among those who decry capitalism, and for good reason!
Lets start with a less harmful version of it, and get the bloody stuff later. Would you do 8 dollars worth of work for 4 dollars, or how about 16 dollars worth of work for 4 dollars, 32? 64? No you say? Why not? Getting ripped off right? I mean, you COULD do it, but theres no real reason to do so. Lets imagine a scenario in which you sell food. You make the food, and you sell the food, but you dont own the business. You are paid 4 dollars an hour, and each food item costs 4 dollars. It should be noted that libertarians tend to believe in the profit motive, so with that being said your profit margins fall apart immediately upon selling any food item within one hour. The more you sell, the better the CEO does, but the worse you do. You still get paid 4 dollars, and their rate keeps growing, despite the fact that YOU are the one doing the work."
Who are you to say what people value?* Who are you to say that to someone starving, $4 is far better than $0 for not getting the job because of the EXPLOITATION of it, and so minimum wage is instated, since that job is worth, actually, $16, and so you're "protecting the workers" by not allowing them to work unless they get paid that minimum amount? Result? They don't get hired!
Without minimum wage, when they do get hired for that Exploitative amount, they get a more comfortable life, start checking around for better jobs, and soon the employers need to offer better stuffs -- usually a higher wage -- to keep them around.
*I'm being facetious. I hate that phrase, "Who are you to...?"
With corporations, however (which pretty much all businesses today are, btw), they can get bailouts from The State to keep up running, and the minimum wage laws mean they simply keep switching out people (because they get better at the job and therefore can reasonably ask for more pay, which is how they then improve their lot in life, as explained before), and so the burden of what you thought you were putting on them - the businesses - actually ends up making things worse for the workers.
"One may argue that the CEO’s job is more difficult, and thus its more valued. However, how could the business survive without the people who make and sell it? Technically speaking, the business could survive longer without a ceo, just selling and making food with everyone getting a cut. Maybe it wouldnt be as efficient, but a CEO alone cannot make a business work."
Explained above.
"after the initial making of the things, the capitalist has received his profit, and he will slowly start getting less and less of it because his innovation is being absorbed into the culture and competition equalizes his initial monopoly of being brilliant and having people be not used to the idea yet[. S]ince he's making a lot of profit[, that] signals to others that it would be in their interest to also make that product, breaking the initial monopoly."
(slightly redone because I realized I phrased it slightly poorly)
"Now onto the bloody stuff. This is a main reason why I abandoned libertarianism in favor of socialism. Lets say you own property, and you live next to a rich person, and I do mean rich, I mean fucking rich. This rich guy wants your land, he hates you, he hates the fact that you throw parties in the middle of the night, he hates your loud dog, whatever. Now under libertarianism, theres technically nothing he can do about this, or is there? Considering that hes “fucking” rich, he could simply buy the land around you forcing you to stay on your property, which essentially makes you a prisoner. This can result in two conclusions:"
Interesting scenario.
Wait... how are you a prisoner again? "Forcing you to stay on your property"... how is that resultant from "buy the land around you"? Why can't you leave? You can't cross his property? My guess is your answer is pointing to the piece of paper - he bought it and he can enforce you not going on his property; that anarchists or whatever support violently enforcing property rights? Rights come from The State, and thus are a contradiction to the anarchists/anti-statitist/blahblahblah ideology. I quite agree that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance for/from anarchists on this.
"also, an employer can fire you for any reason under the sun."
Mhm:
"With corporations, however (which pretty much all businesses today are, btw), they can get bailouts from The State to keep up running, and the minimum wage laws mean they simply keep switching out people (because they get better at the job and therefore can reasonably ask for more pay, which is how they then improve their lot in life, as explained before), and so the burden of what you thought you were putting on them - the businesses - actually ends up making things worse for the workers."
Monday, July 25, 2011
(description for video) Assholes Can Think Deep Thoughts, part 3
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)