 |
Comments |
|
 | Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 1:15:37 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
The 401k issue was going to be nasty business just based on the differences in the size of the retiring and working generations.
Wait awhile 'till Obamacare also compounds this problem. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 2:46:37 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Kevin
E-mail: kevin_morrill(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://netprofitmotive.com
I have been socking away the maximum amount for about a decade now and always feared something like this might happen someday. I guess greedy tax evaders like me will get what's coming to them.
Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I think this issue is a powder keg. If Congress trys to loot 401(k)s, I suspect they will see a reaction similar to the Stamp Act of 1765. You irritate people who are thoughtful and have demonstrated they value keeping as much of their money as possible. It is one thing to slowly drain people's money pay check by pay check, entirely another to loot their life savings in one swoop.
Many politicians understand this, and so they'll take the slow road. 20 years ago when bans on smoking started, critics were laughed at when they said someday they'd be regulating the fast food. Well it's 20 years later and trans fats are outlawed in many places now. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 2:55:03 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Aaron Davies
E-mail: agd12(at)columbia.edu
save in gold. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 5:34:28 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
Paul: "(1) I want to put this issue on more Objectivsts' radar, since I predict it will heat up over the next several years."
I applaud your effort. For those who choose to be activists (philosophical, intellectual, or even political), my view is that it is crucial to:
- Specialize in some area that connects closely to one's highest values (such as one's central purpose in life).
- Work ahead of the crises and not chase ambulances.
- Practice making the most effective arguments now so that they will be ready when a particular crisis erupts.
There are many ways to produce long-term results:
- conceiving, planning, researching, and writing a book about the particular subject (recommended by Brook and Ghate in their Cultural Movements lectures).
- writing a focused weblog that addresses sub-issues and gradually builds an archive of reference information that will be at hand when a crisis (=media attention) erupts.
- becoming a speaker at the local or regional level, offering insights you have gained from your research.
- organizing a discussion forum in one's area of specialization and admitting only qualified, serious participants.
For some, there is one major drawback to these focused approaches. For some individuals, these approaches seem lonely. It means working outside the glare of the spotlights of daily news headlines. It means working quietly, steadily, and ruthlessly with little or no applause. So, if loneliness is a major issue, I would suggest not taking this approach--or taking action now to make sure one is accumulating associates, supporters, allies, and even friends all along. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 6:54:21 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Touching 401Ks would be like touching the third rail. It won't happen, at least not right away. However, what might happen is the prospective elimination of the Roth IRA and Roth 401K, which are funded with post-tax dollars rather than pre-tax dollars. Right now, these accounts are actually favoring the government, since they are getting the tax revenues now, and few such accounts have unrealized gains because of the market downturn. However, should there be a significant increase in the value of stocks and bonds over the course of the next 8 years, Congress might look at these balances, realize that under current law those gains will never be taxed, and change the rules. It will be the "boil a frog" approach. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 10:00:33 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"The 401k issue was going to be nasty business just based on the differences in the size of the retiring and working generations."
You can thank the contraceptive mentality and 50 million abortions since 1973 for that. Of course, Muslims aren't in favor of either and have large families (as do observant Catholics and Mormans)so we will eventually see here what is becoming increasingly common in Europe: Muslims becoming a majority in some cities, with sharia law on the horizon.
And you're worried about 401Ks?!
Of course, this presents an interesting scenario (granted, a distant and hypothetical one) wherein the working population of increasingly religious workers has to support the large population of white WASPS and secularists. Guess they'll rethink euthanasia..... |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 12:15:10 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"You can thank the contraceptive mentality and 50 million abortions since 1973 for that."
Translation: breeding unwanted children from unwilling parents is the cure for what ails Social Security.
Again, here is the synergy between Left and religion in eroding freedom. Were there no welfare state, this wouldn't be an issue -- and neither would the Muslims, whose children would readily assimilate into a vibrant Enlightenment culture, just as they did in the past when America at least approximated such a culture. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 12:41:27 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Chuck
E-mail: csalvi2(at)cox.net
URL: http://symbol-of-freedom.blogspot.com/
"If Congress tries to loot 401(k)s, I suspect they will see a reaction similar to the Stamp Act of 1765."
I agree with that. There are limits to what people will stand, and that, I think, would be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Why doesn't Congress just steal every family's firstborn child for slave labor, for the good of everyone else? As long as they are duly elected Congressmen, that makes it all legal and proper.
|
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 13:18:50 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Again, here is the synergy between Left and religion in eroding freedom. Were there no welfare state, this wouldn't be an issue -- and neither would the Muslims, whose children would readily assimilate into a vibrant Enlightenment culture, just as they did in the past when America at least approximated such a culture."
Tell me, when have Muslims ever assimilated into a "vibrant Enlightenment culture", and when has this country ever "approximated such a culture"??!!
And yes, having large families is the ultimate solution. Otherwise, since atheists typically have few or no children, you're relying on the large families of the religious to constitute or at least dominate the workforce. I think it will take some time for that to occur, mind you, but we have sen it happen in Europe. And it won't just be the workplace, but this disparity will eventually make its presence shown in government. Case in point: I saw a news item just a few days ago that described a town or city in Michigan (I don't recall the name) that has a population that is now 40% Muslim. The Muslims recently joined with the town's Catholics and Orthodox Jews to defeat a measure that would have granted legal protection to "sexual orientation".
I teach at a High School where the students mostly come from very large Catholic families. They see themselves as counter-cultural warriors: they want to have large families because they enjoy being in a large family, and like the fact that in so doing they are counter-culture. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 14:45:18 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: OistPostGrad
E-mail: post&Go(at)yahoo.com
"Tell me, when have Muslims ever assimilated into a "vibrant Enlightenment culture", and when has this country ever "approximated such a culture"??!!"
While it is true that Muslims have always been at war with the West, I would say, at least from my experience, that a healthy Western culture would assimilate Muslims and minimize if not outright eliminate (over time) the appeal of Islam. For example, in my school - which is very Leftist - the only Republican campus group was started and staffed almost entirely by Muslims (although they were very secularized). They loved America's Founding Fathers. I have encountered this on many occasions. If the West were strong and if the dominant philosophy was one of reason and individualism, I have no doubt that there would be a mass emigration away from religion - all of them. The solution to the "problem of the Muslims" is spreading a rational philosophy.
"Otherwise, since atheists typically have few or no children, you're relying on the large families of the religious to constitute or at least dominate the workforce."
This is just more demographic based argumentation which is so popular with Conservatives. It is true that today's atheists are mostly skeptics and relativists with a heavy dose of nihilism. Such people on average will see no benefit in having children. But all the problems we are seeing are due to the existence of the Welfare-State. With no Welfare-State there would be no "demographic problems." |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 16:30:46 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"While it is true that Muslims have always been at war with the West, I would say, at least from my experience, that a healthy Western culture would assimilate Muslims and minimize if not outright eliminate (over time) the appeal of Islam."
My question was not, "Do you think a healthy Western culture would assimilate Muslims", but was, rather, ""Tell me, when have Muslims ever assimilated into a "vibrant Enlightenment culture", and when has this country ever "approximated such a culture"??!!" So, you've merely given me a hypothetical and no reasons for putting much stock in it. Typically, people will at this point in the discussion roll out Turkey as an example, but the facts are that Turkey is also facing an increase in Islamic fervor and, a result, violence. And what does a "healthy" WEstern culture look like? Given the positions favored here on this blog, the "healthy" West you envision includes the availability of contraception and abortion, homosexual marriage (as well as other "rights" based on sexual identity), the emancipation of women, and the free and unfettered ability to trash the prevailing religion. Trust me, none of those things are going to fly with fervent Muslims, whatever economic and political system you might install. Sure, you may have some nice anecdotes from your school, but college is, after all, a rarified environment and the Muslims you know there hardly represent the typical Muslim on the street in the rest of the world.
As for my "demographic based argumentation", you can call it whatever you want (I call it recognizing facts), but you haven't done anything to refute the statistics showing the alarming "birth dearth" that has affected Europe so much. Look at modern day Amsterdam. Do a google search for "Britain sharia law" and you'll find a recent story about a British city council accepting, in principle at least ("in fact" is sure to follow) the application of sharia law. And I gave you the example of a town in Michigan with a Muslim population of 40% that worked with the local Catholics and Orthodox Jews to ban legal recognition of "sexual orientation" as a protected class. Those aren't hypotheticals, they're real.
Sure, you can hope for the end of the welfare state. So do I -- it is a disaster. However, it is far more likely that long before that ever happens, this country will become more religious (not less) by the mere fact of those demographics you discount. Neither is going to happen anytime soon, but my money's on the latter happening first. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 16:49:06 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Jean
E-mail: davematheny3000(at)comcast.net
Oh, one more thing:
" It is true that today's atheists are mostly skeptics and relativists with a heavy dose of nihilism. Such people on average will see no benefit in having children."
I have been around Objectivists for at least a decade now -- longer, if one counts my college years. I don't see any difference in their family size preferences than the "skeptics and relativists with a heavy dose of nihilism" that you mention. I don't know of a single Objectivist couple producing a large family (though I suppose there could always be one out there who has unaccountably married an observant Catholic, Orthodox Jew, or traditional Muslim). |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 16:55:47 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Doug
Excellent post Paul!
The possibility of the government looting 401(k) accounts is very real and very frightening. Needless to say, IRAs are also not safe from this madness. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 17:16:27 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Dana H.
Jean's fear of Muslim hordes taking over the country because of their higher fertility is based on the fallacy that ideas are heritable traits. But most children adopt the religion of their parents, you say? To the extent this is true, it simply means that they are intellectually passive. And history is not made by the passive majority, but by motivated, active minorities.
The real threat of religion in America today is not due to breeding rates but due to a motivated, active minority of Christian zealots doing their best to inject religion into our historically secular government. If we can handle that, any threat from immigrant Muslims will become a non-issue. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 18:10:33 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Jean writes:
**"Tell me, when have Muslims ever assimilated into a "vibrant Enlightenment culture", and when has this country ever "approximated such a culture"??!!"
First answer: during most of American history, up until the 1960's. Or are you going to tell me that there were no Muslims here until after the "peace and love" generation signalled liberalism's end?
Second answer: most of American history, up until the 1960's when the "peace and love" generation signalled liberalism's end.
History's interesting and useful. You should try studying some.
**"Given the positions favored here on this blog, the "healthy" West you envision includes the availability of contraception and abortion, homosexual marriage (as well as other "rights" based on sexual identity), the emancipation of women, and the free and unfettered ability to trash the prevailing religion. Trust me, none of those things are going to fly with fervent Muslims, whatever economic and political system you might install."
"Fervent" Muslims wouldn't emigrate to a society with such values. Good.
It's the ones seeking to *escape* such individuals who would come here... and even if they retain some of their old culture, their children likely wouldn't. Why stay in the intellectual cramped little world of religion, when the wide open world of free men beckons? That is why assimilation happens over a generation or two. Google "melting pot".
**"I have been around Objectivists for at least a decade now -- longer, if one counts my college years."
I see no evidence of this. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 18:12:45 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Jean
"Jean's fear of Muslim hordes taking over the country because of their higher fertility is based on the fallacy that ideas are heritable traits."
No, that is not what my concern is based on. The idea that ideas are heritable traits is indeed an erroneous one, and nothing in my post would indicate that I think that. So attack some other straw man.
My concerns are based on actual statistics and observable trends.
"And history is not made by the passive majority, but by motivated, active minorities." That can certainly be true. However, my example of the Michigan town shows that a motivated majority can do even more: in this case, a near majority (40%) of Muslims teaming up with Catholics and Jews to block legislation in opposition to their religious beliefs.
"The real threat of religion in America today is not due to breeding rates but due to a motivated, active minority of Christian zealots doing their best to inject religion into our historically secular government."
That history is not as neatly secular as you might like to wish. And I don't think it wise to dismiss the impact of the "birth dearth" so breezily...the Pill has no historic precendent, and its widespread use (and resulting drop in fertility rates in the West)is already presenting challenges in economics, where a diminishing pool of workers paying into a system have to carry a proportionately larger and larger group of retirees. That is a real concern, and does not even take into account the religious dimension. And if you think that "Christian zealots" are to be feared over Muslims, you are ignoring what happens to those mock Islam: they end up dead (just remember Theo Van Gogh). That's why it's easy for people to mock Christians: it doesn't take much courage to take on people who are supposed to pray for,and not kill, their enemies.
You're fooling yourself.
|
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 18:22:26 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Jean
"First answer: during most of American history, up until the 1960's. Or are you going to tell me that there were no Muslims here until after the "peace and love" generation signalled liberalism's end?"
America, up until the 60s, could by no stretch of the imagination be considered a "vibrant Enlightenment culture". Abortion was outlawed; the sale of contraceptives prohibited in most states (and even where legal, they were restricted to married couples); prayer was the norm in public schools; most businesses were closed on Sundays; homosexuals were in the closet; Archbishop Fulton Sheen's shows on TV were number one in the country, and a majority of Americans went to church weekly.
Of course there were some Muslims here. But their numbers were very, very small. The situation pre-60s is in no way comparable to the situation as it exists today. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 18:32:23 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Jean
"Fervent" Muslims wouldn't emigrate to a society with such values. Good."
Then why the situation in the Michigan town I mentioned? Why this story from Britain? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html
"I see no evidence of this."
I can't help but notice that you have quickly slid into an ad hominem attack. If you disagreed with my observation that I do not know of any large Objectivist families, by all means you can respond with evidence to the contrary. Short of actual stats, both my observations and yours are obviously anecdotal, but still there's no need to rely on insult -- or can you not disagree with someone in a logical manner?
|
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 18:51:23 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
Jean is a traditionalist. I can see it a mile away.
This is the argument that it was a vibrant Christianity that was responsibility for the rise of the West and that only a healthy, reinvigorated Christianity can defeat Islam. Also, Jean is trotting out the Conservative arguments that secularism can not support a vibrant society because if people live for nothing but themselves and do not hold something like family, God, or society higher than their own lives then they will never want to have large families; large enough to support a secure society. This is the Burkean, Kirkean arguments for tradition, family, God, and traditional (sexual) morality. In essence, sexual liberationism will kill a country by sucking the life out of it.
My guess is that Jean is a big Larry Auster fan as well Steve Salier.
And yet, some of what she says is true but the conclusions that she draws do not follow. The main conclusions (which have gone unstated) are that secularism is wrong and that some version of religious authoritarianism (although she wouldn't use this term) is necessary for a vibrant, self-sustaining culture. Thus, pre-60's America is held up as an ideal (or more ideal) because it was more religious, less sexually free (no abortion, no pill, etc), and - something which she has not stated yet but I am sure she will - predominantly white. I'm sure she would agree with the race-realists in arguing that mixed race cultures are doomed to fail thus the perils of non-white immigration.
I can say this from reading Larry Auster's blog frequently that traditionalists have well developed arguments that they repeat tirelessly. Jean has offered a few of them. These arguments while wrong have a lot of historical and social science details in them. Refuting them is not always easy. But fundamentally, the solution to multiculturalism is not religion, it is rational philosophy. The solution to the welfare state is not a racialist inspired "white Christian America" that operates behind a fortress America. The solution to Islam and unassimilated Muslims is not a reinvigorated Christianity but a ferocious foreign policy coupled with the elimination of the welfare-state and coupled with a rational philosophy disseminated through a pro-reason educational establishment. Demonizing secularism, abortion, contraception, sexual liberation, atheism, etc is not the solution, it is part of the problem.
And lastly, while it is true that America was much more religious pre-1960's, the most important element for the rise of America was not religion but the Enlightenment legacy which was always hidden under the surface of religion. Its post-1960s Post-Modernism that has finished Kant's assault against reason and that has paved the way for the minions of the Left and of Islam. As Objectivists know, a healthy vibrant culture is possible under atheism but that would require a rational atheism with an objective moral code; ie Objectivism. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 18:58:32 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
"Then why the situation in the Michigan town I mentioned?"
Because we are not the type of society that Jim alluded to. We are a society that is open to religion and to multiculturalism. That is not a rational society that would deter pious Muslims.
"I can't help but notice that you have quickly slid into an ad hominem attack."
Its not an ad hominem attack. Jim is pointing out that he sees on evidence of you being influenced by Objectivism. As I have argued above, you have implied agreement with secularism hating traditionalist arguments that oppose sexual freedoms - the "rights" in scare quotes that you referred to - and oppose freedom for homosexuals and argue for an invigorated Christianity. In short, you have revealed yourself as holding ideas inimical to Objectivism. So whether you have surrounded yourself with Objectivists or not, none of their ideas has rubbed off on you. Jim was right to draw attention to that. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 18:59:49 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
Sees 'no' evidence not 'on' evidence. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 19:20:18 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Jean
"This is the argument that it was a vibrant Christianity that was responsibility for the rise of the West and that only a healthy, reinvigorated Christianity can defeat Islam. Also, Jean is trotting out the Conservative arguments that secularism can not support a vibrant society because if people live for nothing but themselves and do not hold something like family, God, or society higher than their own lives then they will never want to have large families; large enough to support a secure society."
It's so amusing to see people attacking ideas and arguments that I supposedly hold, despite the fact that I don't hold them.
Not once have I advanced the idea that "only a healthy, reinvigorated Christianity can defeat Islam". Eh?
"Also, Jean is trotting out the Conservative arguments that secularism can not support a vibrant society because if people live for nothing but themselves and do not hold something like family, God, or society higher than their own lives then they will never want to have large families; large enough to support a secure society."
No, I'm not trotting that out. I have not said that secularism cannot support a vibrant society. I made the simple and factual observation that atheists typically have few or no children. I do think that the decline in fertility rates in the West is a problem, economically and religiously. So don't put an argument in my mouth that wasn't there to begin with.
"My guess is that Jean is a big Larry Auster fan as well Steve Salier."
I don't know them, or anything about them. Next unsupported assertion? Ah, here we go:
"But fundamentally, the solution to multiculturalism is not religion, it is rational philosophy."
I haven't posited the idea that religion is the answer to anything, let alone muticulturalism. You appear to be having an argument with an imaginary person. That's not healthy, you know.
"And lastly, while it is true that America was much more religious pre-1960's, the most important element for the rise of America was not religion but the Enlightenment legacy which was always hidden under the surface of religion."
I wasn't on the topic of the "rise of America" at all, but rather my initial question was, "when have Muslims ever assimilated into a "vibrant Enlightenment culture", and when has this country ever "approximated such a culture"?" Since you've just conceded that this country was, prior to the 60s, "much more religious", it doesn't seem as if the "Enlightenment legacy which was always hidden under the surface of religion" would constitute a "vibrant Enlightenment culture", but rather a hidden one. So, my question remains: when have Muslims ever assimilated into a "vibrant Enlightenment culture", and when has this country ever "approximated such a culture? After all, it was claimed, by a previous poster, that "Muslims would readily assimilate into a vibrant Enlightenment culture, just as they did in the past when America at least approximated such a culture". I'm just going to have to see if anyone is actually going to answer the question....
|
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 19:33:37 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Jean
"Because we are not the type of society that Jim alluded to."
Thank you! Yes, that is my point too. Earlier someone had claimed that ""Muslims would readily assimilate into a vibrant Enlightenment culture, just as they did in the past when America at least approximated such a culture". I had asked for evidence of this supposed period when Muslims did assimilate because America approximated such a culture. And, you've just made my point: pious Muslims are NOT going to assimilate into an Enlightenment culture. And they're already here.
"Jim is pointing out that he sees on evidence of you being influenced by Objectivism."
I never claimed to be influenced by Objectivism -- not have I claimed to be not influenced by Objectivism. It wasn't the subject of my sentence at all. To refresh your memory, I was making an observation on family size. Here was my observation: "I have been around Objectivists for at least a decade now -- longer, if one counts my college years. I don't see any difference in their family size preferences than the "skeptics and relativists with a heavy dose of nihilism" that you mention. I don't know of a single Objectivist couple producing a large family (though I suppose there could always be one out there who has unaccountably married an observant Catholic, Orthodox Jew, or traditional Muslim)."
|
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 19:41:22 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
"Given the positions favored here on this blog, the "healthy" West you envision includes the availability of contraception and abortion, homosexual marriage (as well as other "rights" based on sexual identity), the emancipation of women, and the free and unfettered ability to trash the prevailing religion."
This is traditionalist language but perhaps I was wrong about you being a traditionalist. Still the above quote illustrates that you are not an Objectivist and it illustrates that clearly.
"So, my question remains: when have Muslims ever assimilated into a "vibrant Enlightenment culture..."
My answer would be never as there has never really been a vibrant Enlightenment culture that wasn't diluted with religion. That awaits the future. I also don't know if Muslims have assimilated in any culture. My guess is that they haven't. Individual Muslims may have become Westernized but as a group Muslims have resisted secularization more than any other group on Earth.
I readily acknowledge that Islam is a problem and that it can only be fought off by a culture that does not hate itself and is willing to fight it as opposed to today's Leftist and Conservative surrender. The West did this under Christianity during the Middle Ages with Holy Wars and it did it later under the influence of The Enlightenment with military and economic superiority. The West became strong, Islam was left in the dust and could never challenge it. But today, the West has been gutted by Kantianism and everything it has wrought. Thus Islam is able to do its damage.
Lastly, demographics, while not fundamental, is not useless. I never said that. Its true, atheists don't have as many children as theists. My guess is that this will always be so because atheists will tend to be more intelligent and thus more successful and harder working. (Religions also have that "be-fruitful-and-multiply" element to them.) But I wouldn't state that as a certainty. This only underscores the importance of the spread of Objectivism because it is possible that religious people will come to outpopulate everyone else although this does assume that the children of the religious will themselves become religious, something which is by no means a certainty. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 21:05:58 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
Jean, I am curious. As has been pointed out you have written this:
"Given the positions favored here on this blog, the "healthy" West you envision includes the availability of contraception and abortion, homosexual marriage (as well as other "rights" based on sexual identity), the emancipation of women, and the free and unfettered ability to trash the prevailing religion."
Does this mean that to you a "healthy" West would include:
* The banning of abortion and contraception (how do we punish abortionists? Jail? Murder?)
* The prohibition of homosexual marriage (Should gays go "back in the closet" to use your expression?)
* That women should NOT be emancipated (Women back in the kitchen perhaps?)
* That individuals should NOT be allowed to trash (ie criticize) religion? (What's the punishment for Blasphemy that you would advocate?)
So what exactly is the "healthy" West that you envision? And what makes it healthy? |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 21:20:20 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
OK, people, what have all your posts to do with the subject of the future of Social Security?
If we are worried about a declining birthrate and its impact on the tax base to support retiring workers, one temporary solution is to open our borders. Bush II largely sealed our borders, mostly in the name of "fighting terrorism" or "national security," but in reality accomplishing very little of the latter. Whether a protectionist Democratic president and Congress will undo the damage done by the Bush administration is unlikely, but not outside the realm of possibility. |
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 23:40:01 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"This is traditionalist language but perhaps I was wrong about you being a traditionalist. Still the above quote illustrates that you are not an Objectivist and it illustrates that clearly."
No, it doesn't. I mentioned items that Muslims would not stomach, which are barriers to their assimilation. Based on my knowledge of the Objectivist positions on these items, I don't see assimilation of Muslims likely under the Objectivist idea of a "healthy" West, which an earlier poster thought would be able to assimilate them.
As for its relevance to Social Security: declining birthrates is an economic problem for the West because of the fewer numbers of workers paying in for an increasing number of retirees. It's also a threat for any dreams of a purely secular government -- Muslims, observant Catholics, and some Orthodox Jews do not use artificial contraception and so they tend to have large families. I've provided a link to an news article on the acceptance of sharia law in Britain, if you think the scenario far-fetched. I also mentioned the town in Michigan, where the Muslim population (40%) teamed with Catholics and Jews to ban legislation granting "sexual orientation" as a protected class. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:47:39 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: ObjectivistGuy
Don't feed the Christian troll guys. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 9:59:23 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Don't feed the Christian troll guys."
Good grief, you are paranoid. To have concern for the economic effect of a declining birth rate makes one a "Christian troll"? I can see that logic and intelligent conversation is impossible with those who only know how to launch an ad hominem attack. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 11:39:20 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
Jean,
You still haven't answered my question. Post #25. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 12:02:21 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Cecil R. Williams
E-mail: c1992w(at)gmail.com
I propose looking at SS from another point of view. Its nothing more than taxes that are part of the general revenue from which gov writes all the checks it writes.... Chewing over subaccounts in that general account is not productive.
The real issue of drastically increasing required tax revenues - as looting IRA, Roth, 401(k), etc. accounts - is the scepter of the post 2012 election drastic 'tax increase mandate.'
Objectivists consistently underestimate the university chair influence towards universal egalitarianism. In fact most can not even grasp the ugliness of this lifestyle. My personal experience with egalitarianism was in an orphanage when a youngster. There loved ones gave certain of us boys some coins for buying treats at the commissary. Personal possession of coins was prohibited and so the Floor Matron kept them for us, segregated by envelopes, each one duly marked with the owner’s name. Some of the boys had no loved ones who gave them coins so the Matron divided up all the coins periodically so that everyone could buy a treat. My anger as a pre-six year old was both intense and impotent.
Fast forward 60 years, and now the government is threatening to do the same thing with my retirement funds - a.k.a. Argentina. I deserve and enjoy buying a new car with cash and spending a week in Mexico every year after working frequent 30-hour days during my employment years. Having it taken away abruptly because gov needs to write checks spikes anger again I have not felt in all these years (Yes, I am aware that inflation does the same thing in small increments!)
My bottom line is that the evil of egalitarianism must be concretized and then attacked. Its the only defense against the masses chanting 'give me, give me now.'
Cecil R. Williams |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 14:22:16 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
"And, you've just made my point: pious Muslims are NOT going to assimilate into an Enlightenment culture. And they're already here."
You keep treating Muslims as monolithic, switching between just "Muslims" and pious/fervent Muslims, despite the fact that I drew the distinction between the two. Muslims in general, like any immigrant, will assimilate in a healthy Enlightenment society, but not necessarily in a Left-dominated one.
Fervent Muslims, on the other hand, do not emigrate to Enlightenment societies in significant numbers -- they would feel threatened there. The fear of Westernization is prevalent among them even to this day, indicating that they have not yet fully cottoned to the fact that the Enlightenment is nearly gone in America. However, they do know that it's been gone in Leftist Europe since the onset of World War I -- so that's where they *have* been emigrating for decades -- and observe the results there.
I stated that America was relatively healthy from an Enlightenment standpoint until the 1960's, when the rate of decay accelerated; the Left's co-opting of liberalism now complete, America is now a religious/Leftist society instead of Enlightenment/religious society as before, with all that implies for Muslim immigration and cultural vulnerability thereto. You have not addressed this claim.
The basic thing you are evading is that "secularism" is not a single doctrine, and that Enlightenment society, one type of secularism, is very different from -- and far more resilient than -- a Leftist secular society. The reason you evade it is because the former society is so resilient while embracing ***the availability of contraception and abortion, homosexual marriage (as well as other "rights" based on sexual identity), the emancipation of women, and the free and unfettered ability to trash the prevailing religion***" with no ill effects. Those things make it strong.
As for the rest of your hysterics: I noted that there is no evidence that you have spent any time with Objectivists, period (beyond trolling around here). Your parroting of conservative dogma about families and evasion/misrepresentation of my claims, indicates (but does not prove) that the people you were hanging around with either weren't Objectivists, or that your mind is slammed shut (or both). No ad hominem there -- the evidence says it.
"Don't feed the Christian troll guys. "
Normally I would agree, but this one is one of the increasingly numerous conservatives who are educated and practiced in the Leftist tactics of context-dropping and equivocation. Those need to be put on notice that the ramparts of the Enlightenment are not unmanned.
That being said, I'm going to stop here, as this is indeed off-topic and I do not wish to incur the wrath of our hostess. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 14:49:22 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
No worries about me, Jim. I don't object to wandering comment threads, just to totally out-of-the-blue, unrelated-to-anything comments. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:20:27 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Jean
"You still haven't answered my question. Post #25. "
Sorry -- so many posts, so little time. Here are your questions:
"Does this mean that to you a "healthy" West would include:
* The banning of abortion and contraception (how do we punish abortionists? Jail? Murder?)
* The prohibition of homosexual marriage (Should gays go "back in the closet" to use your expression?)
* That women should NOT be emancipated (Women back in the kitchen perhaps?)
* That individuals should NOT be allowed to trash (ie criticize) religion? (What's the punishment for Blasphemy that you would advocate?)"
None of those views reflect my position. I am beginning to wonder why so many of you are so willing to ascribe arguments and views to me that I don't actually hold. How old are you people? I'm wondering if this is a problem with basic reading comprehension. So, let me try again: I am, in fact, concerned about the impact, both economically and religiously, on the effects of the declining birth rate. This does not make me a Christian troll, or a traditionalist, or a conservative, just to mention three labels that have been assigned to me. I'm actually interested in the views of people here as to how those concerns might be addressed, but so far I can't get anyone to actually read and comprehend what I'm saying -- to the point that I'm beginning to think you have nothing to offer, which is disappointing.
My religious concerns about the declining birth rate do include what I view as a threat from an increased Muslim population, which is how this topic of a "healthy" West came up: a poster posited that a "healthy" West would assimilate Muslims. My contention is that it would not, and I then cited a number of practices that, in my estimation, Objectivists would think constitute part of a "healthy" society but that fervent Muslims would find objectionable (opposition to some -- not all -- of those practices are shared by observant Catholics and Orthodox Jews). I gave as an example the news item about sharia law being accepted, in principle, in Britain. I then cited the example of the town in Michigan with a Muslim population of 40%, where the Muslims joined with some Catholics and Jews to ban legislation giving legal protection to "sexual orientation". Instead of any thoughtful conversation about the problem, I'm having to constantly return to my own words and re-state them, as you all seem so able to find a Christian troll hidden in every sentence, ready to jump out at you like the bogeyman. Why don't you just read what I am writing more carefully before you launch into attacking positions I don't hold? |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:25:50 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Jean
"My bottom line is that the evil of egalitarianism must be concretized and then attacked. Its the only defense against the masses chanting 'give me, give me now.'"
You said it, bro! |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:50:07 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
Jean,
You did not answer my question. What are your opinions on abortion, gay marriage, women's emancipation, and blasphemy laws?
Should abortion be banned?
Should homosexual marriage be banned or prohibited?
Should women be emancipated? (broad term but you could elaborate what you meant when you mentioned it)
Should blasphemy or sacrilege be punishable by law (and if so, how severely)?
My guess is you will not answer these questions because that would reveal your religious views. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 15:57:59 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: Jean
"You keep treating Muslims as monolithic, switching between just "Muslims" and pious/fervent Muslims, despite the fact that I drew the distinction between the two. Muslims in general, like any immigrant, will assimilate in a healthy Enlightenment society, but not necessarily in a Left-dominated one."
No, I'm quite aware of the differences among Muslims. Of course I am generalizing to some extent, but then I am looking at trends, not tracking individual sects within Islam.
I see no proof of your assertion that "Muslims in general, like any immigrant, will assimilate in a healthy Enlightenment society, but not necessarily in a Left-dominated one." There is no historic precedent for you to point to. Nor is there any historic precendent to point to that gives us some idea of what the effect on a culture will be when most members contracept and limit their families, while the traditional religious do not. Look at Amsterdam to see how quickly a minority can become the majority because of this discrepancy. I can, however, give you examples that support my assertions that there's a problem with Muslims assimilating. I provided the link about the acceptance of sharia law in Britain as just one example that supports my assertion, and can provide you with many more such examples if you wish. Do you understand just how significant the acceptance of sharia law in Britain is??? And someone wanted to balance this with the example of some Muslim college students he knew who were pretty assimilated and liked the Founding Fathers?? And no, Muslims are NOT just like any other group of immigrants. The waves of Irish, German, and other European immigrants all came from cultures constituting a part of Western culture. There was no inherent discrepancy.
"Fervent Muslims, on the other hand, do not emigrate to Enlightenment societies in significant numbers -- they would feel threatened there."
Give me an example to support your assertion. When I think of an Enlightenment society, certainly I think of France: if you don't think Muslims emigrate there, or are assimilated there, you have had your head in the sand. Don't you recall the riots last year?
"I stated that America was relatively healthy from an Enlightenment standpoint until the 1960's, when the rate of decay accelerated; the Left's co-opting of liberalism now complete, America is now a religious/Leftist society instead of Enlightenment/religious society as before, with all that implies for Muslim immigration and cultural vulnerability thereto. You have not addressed this claim."
Then I will address it: Muslim immigration into this country during the period you describe as "relatively healthy from an Enlightenment standpoint" was virtually nil, not because it was an "Enlightenment" society (actually, as I've already pointed out, the Muslim immigrant back then would have found the society much more to his liking (abortion and contraception illegal; much more religiously observant; etc)than now. The reason for the large numbers of Muslim immigrants now has to do with matters quite unrelated to their assessment of our "Enlightenment" status, and instead is largely because of the utter chaos in their countries or regions of origin (Somalia, the MIddle East, etc.) So, first, I don't accept your idea that America pre-60s was an Enlightenment society (at least not socially), and I don't accept your other conclusions, as I don't think you have supported them.
"As for the rest of your hysterics: I noted that there is no evidence that you have spent any time with Objectivists, period (beyond trolling around here). Your parroting of conservative dogma about families and evasion/misrepresentation of my claims, indicates (but does not prove) that the people you were hanging around with either weren't Objectivists, or that your mind is slammed shut (or both). No ad hominem there -- the evidence says it."
Hysterics? My, I've touched a nerve...guess you're getting concerned that your argument lacks strength. Nor have I parroted any dogma, conservative or otherwise. And if you want me to give you the names of Objectivists I have known, I can provide you with names. But now you're simply getting into a side show, which conveniently covers your inability to provide evidence for your own claims. Nice try!!
"Normally I would agree, but this one is one of the increasingly numerous conservatives who are educated and practiced in the Leftist tactics of context-dropping and equivocation. Those need to be put on notice that the ramparts of the Enlightenment are not unmanned."
Hah! This is hilarious. I think I'll have to print out this exchange and give it to my students as a classic case of the course of a failed argument. Thank you for supplying me with class material.
|
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 16:26:05 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
As I said, Jean is a traditionalist. I don't believe his denials. And it should be noted by Objectivists that his arguments are sophisticated and have some surface plausibility. I have seen this countless times on Larry Auster's blog. I think he is wrong in every conclusion he draws, but it would take more than general arguments to show that. I also think this ultimately leads to a real in-depth treatment of the Enlightenment and what we mean by it.
The Enlightenment was far from perfect by Objectivist standards. It was mixed and Jim is right in pointing out that pre-1960s was an Enlightenment/religion mix. The conservatives are going to say America's cultural strength was due to religion not the Enlightenment. In a sense, our hands are tied here because no non-Leftist secular culture has ever existed (and it certainly isn't today's France Jean, get real. France is a Leftist dominated culture with no or few Enlightenment elements). So we can't point and say "see this is how a healthy Enlightenment culture assimilated Muslims or effectively dealt with all the demographic issues you raise". This is a disadvantage for us.
I don't wish to get into this any more with Jean because I am convinced that he is a Christian themed Conservative (possibly libertarian) and that he has no love for Objectivism. IMO, he's here to agitate; ie a troll. But for those that are interested in really seeing what the ugliest Conservative contingent believes in - the Traditionalists - I recommend that you Google up Larry Auster and visit his blog "View From The Right". He is a Paleo-Con on steroids. The traditionalist arguments revolve around racialism/race-realism/race-consciousness (IQ scores), militant anti-immigrationism (they make Bush look like an advocate of open borders), Christian literalism (sometimes, but extreme Christian authoritarianism nevertheless), demographic statistics, and a vicious anti-sexuality (I mean vicious, they argue that post-60s sexual liberationism is ruining the West by lowering birth rates and undermining the family).
The Traditionalist Conservatives / White Christian Nationalists have been marginalized so far but I would bet that they will have to be answered at some point in the not-so-distant future. I think they will cross the path of Objectivists in a more serious way then. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 17:21:44 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: OistPostGrad
E-mail: post&Go(at)yahoo.com
Jean,
I find some of the points you raise interesting but I wont interact with you unless I know where you are coming from. Are you a Christian Conservative? A Paleo-Libertarian? A Paleo-Conservative? Is your main point that immigration should be restricted? That Christianity is necessary as a base of society? That secularism is doomed to fail because it doesn't produce a fertile enough society? That Muslims should be prohibited from emigrating to the West? That birth control and abortion should be abolished?
Really, what is it ultimately that you are arguing for? If you answered the questions that have been put to you and my questions I would discuss the issues you raise further. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 17:33:17 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: Jean
" I think he is wrong in every conclusion he draws, but it would take more than general arguments to show that."
First off, it's "she", not "he".
Tell me, what conclusions have I drawn that are wrong? Let me spell out the very few conclusions I have drawn, and then you can tell me how they're wrong:
#1. The declining birth rate is a problem both economically and religiously. One example of the first, and the reason I brought this up at all, is the case of Social Security. One of example of the latter is the matter of demographics -- in particular, I am concerned that high birth rates of minorities that are hostile to Western civ do represent a threat. I gave a number of examples (acceptance of sharia law in Britain, etc.)that I see as evidence of that threat.
And the other conclusions I have come up with are.....are....very few. I have disagreed with the assertion that Muslims "would readily assimilate into a vibrant Enlightenment culture, just as they did in the past when America at least approximated such a culture," because I haven't seen any evidence for that. I also disagree with the idea that pre-60s America represented a "vibrant Enlightenment culture", and gave as evidence for that examples showing the very religious nature of the period. Since later someone describes Enlightenment society as "one type of secularism", that doesn't seem like a stretch. And, regardless of whether or not you agree with me about that, the level of Muslim immigration was negligible anyway -- not enough to prove your point.
Would you please be aware that pointing out facts or disagreeing with assumptions is NOT the same as advocating a particular view. I can disagree with the assertion that pre-60s America represented Enlightenment society by pointing out the religiosity of the time: that does not mean, as you seem to think it does, that I am favoring religiosity.
That I am concerned about declining birth rates does not, as you seem to think it does, make me one of the various groups or movements you've typed me as. "White Nationalist"???!!! Get a grip. I don't care what the color of an immigrant's skin is -- skin color isn't dangerous, ideas are.
Only one poster seemed to manage to resist the temptation to ascribe to me positions that I don't actually hold. That was post #26. There, the poster simply addressed the problem I was raising, and offered a possible solution (granted, he admits it's a temporary one, but at least he actually addressed the question). So far, none of the other posts have even bothered to do so but instead have wasted a lot of time and words, apparently incapable of understanding the difference between a rejection of a particular assertion, and the advocacy of its opposite. So, apparently one can't be concerned about the effects of a declining birth rate on the economy and on the secular state without being a Traditionalist Conservative White Christian Nationalist and whatever other "ist" is handy. (Are you unable to cope with the arguments of an individual? Are you only able to handle and respond to an argument if it comes from some "ist" group? I'm an individual, not a "something-ist".
Be that as it may, I guess I'm left to conclude that only poster #26 sees the birth rate decline as a problem. Ohhhh-Kaaaayyy... |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 17:38:51 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: Jean
Oh, I forgot:
"and it certainly isn't today's France Jean, get real. France is a Leftist dominated culture with no or few Enlightenment elements."
Actually, you're right. My bad: when I think of the Enlightenment, I do automatically think of France, its birthplace. And so in my haste I ignored the very dreadful Lefty France we have today. So, you are completely right and I offer my apologies. Though I would say that it has some Enlightenment features left -- its secularism, if not much else. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 18:27:03 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: madmax
E-mail: max34(at)wlcm.net
I've just conducted a search in the NoodleFood archives and found this post on abortion:
http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2008/08/preciousness-of-finite-exist ...
I vaguely remembered Jean from that discussion.
Jean, or Dave as "she" is also called, is militantly anti-abortion with views on sex that I find abhorrent:
"...the purpose of sex is to produce offspring and to cement bonds between the parents in order to best raise that offspring and thus perpetuate the species."
Couple this view of sex and abortion with his/her focus on demographics and Muslim immigration and we are dealing with someone in the cultural Conservative universe.
Also, she/he is quite belligerent. Here is her/his response to BrianS from that thread:
"Oh, my dear Brian boy, I like debate, but not with children. You get all...you know....messy. Those little gooey fingers that haven't experienced anything more distressfull in their little lives than not getting the present they REALLY wanted from ol'Dad. The little boy seething with resentment because the other boys pick on him because he's such a nerd: he'll show them; he'll be the one in charge someday, and he'll decide who's human and who's not!"
No good faith discussion is possible with him/her as scanning the abortion thread will reveal. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 19:40:16 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Jean, or Dave as "she" is also called, is militantly anti-abortion with views on sex that I find abhorrent:"
I never called myself "Dave". That's my husband's name, which is part of our e-mail address. Someone referred to me as "Dave", but only because they didn't bother to look at my name.
How am I "militantly" anti-abortion?? What makes my position "militant", versus merely anti-abortion? And I am anti-abortion. I'm gald you brought that thread up, because during that discussion it was automatically assumed I was religious, though my position was based on biology, not on religious beliefs. I'm anti-abortion because it contributes to a decline in birth rates, though obviously the contraceptive mentality is the largest contributor.
And my a"abhorrent" views on sex constitute the observation that sex produces babies -- wow! What a radical I am!
Once again, I notice the inability to address an individual's arguments unless that individual has a label. I love the idea that "I'm someone in the cultural Conservative universe" -- that would raise some guffaws from those who know me.
As for my supposed belligerency: I can be snarky, I admit. But I have to be provoked, and I would encourage anyone who is afraid of my bark or bite to look at what drew my ire.
But, of course, all of this is textbook evasion tactics: I take it, then, that the declining birth rate is not a concern of Objectivists (since you seem to think collectively and think of others collectively and not as individuals, I will lump you all together if that makes you feel better). OK. I think you're making a mistake, but then I'm an individual. I think we should figure out ways to encourage a higher birth rate (tax incentives? tax cuts? increases in personal exemptions? Those are all short-term solutions, but better than nothing. A dwindling supply of workers supporting an increasing supply of retirees is a problem, as far as I can see. But apparently that's not a concern of yours! OK, whatever. Or maybe you're so locked into to having to think collectively, that you can't recognize a problem unless it's one that Ayn Rand specifically addressed. I don't think she would have been so blase as you all seem to be. But, I am drawing hope from the fact that there are some sharp thinkers here, and maybe one of them can address my concerns and offer his/her opinion without turning me into a MIlitant Anti-Abortion White Nationalist Cultural Conservative Traditionalist. I don't think my views can be pigeon-holed so easily -- I can think for myself.
|
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 19:58:16 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
"A dwindling supply of workers supporting an increasing supply of retirees is a problem"
Only for a welfare state. None of this would have relevance under laissez faire. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 20:12:33 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
"I'm anti-abortion because it contributes to a decline in birth rates, though obviously the contraceptive mentality is the largest contributor."
So you are anti-abortion and anti-contraception and you are *not* religious. That's a new one. For me at least. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 20:57:43 mst
Comment ID: #46
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Only for a welfare state. None of this would have relevance under laissez faire. "
I certainly agree with that. I am completely for the elimination of the welfare state. However, I think the demographics will make the elimination of the welfare state less likely, and so I would like to see some intelligent discussion of how to address the demographic trends -- or are we simply going to end up facing the problems that Europe now faces? |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 21:02:31 mst
Comment ID: #47
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"So you are anti-abortion and anti-contraception and you are *not* religious. That's a new one. For me at least. "
I suppose it is rather unique. However, being female informs my view to a great deal: I think both abortion and contraception degrade women. But that's a whole other thread, completely unrelated to the economics of a decline in birth rates. The concerns that Paul raised in his initial post in regards to Social Security are quite real, and I, at least, see the decline in birth rates as a contributing factor -- and a large one, at that. But apparently my concerns are not shared here...ah well. |
|
| Friday, November 7, 2008 at 22:33:56 mst
Comment ID: #48
Name: Blue
Generally those demographic concerns you've mentioned aren't being seen as something to fight directly themselves by many people who support Objectivism because we do support individual rights, capitalism, that people have free will, et cetera. Demographics are a consequential issue, not a primary one in and of themselves. As has been mentioned of social security, getting rid of the welfare state in favor of capitalism fixes that issue and children don't inevitably take the same ideas as their parents either, so there's no point in engaging in a breeding war. (A little has been said about this issue in a past Noodlefood post dealing with the "quiverfull" religious people having as many kids as they can.) What we DO need to do is work on persuading the views of existing people, not make more people figuring they'll just fall in line automatically with whatever we could tell them as their parents. Besides, it would not be meeting our goals ultimately anyway to have a bunch of people who would support things that Objectivism supported accepting them just because that's what their parents told them. Objectivism isn't about dogmatic "because I said so" acceptance, it has as a strong part of it thinking for oneself and doing otherwise goes against Objectivism's tenets strongly and would likely do harm even just on basic political and economic ends too as great misunderstandings come about. As for your views of contraception and abortion however, being female informs my view to a great deal: I think both abortion and contraception would be degrading to women to make illegal or even just taboo. But that's a whole other thread, completely unrelated to the economics of a decline in birth rates -- thus I recomend come Sunday with the next open thread you can bring up that issue for discussion about your abortion/contraception and its relation to women there. ;) |
|
| Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 8:12:26 mst
Comment ID: #49
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
Blue,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is refreshing to read a post that does not contain invective, does not distort my views, and does not seek to plaster a label on me (the better, I suppose, to dismiss me).
I agree that getting rid of the welfare state eliminates the concerns about demographics that I have. I also agree that the decline in birth rate is not a primary, but a consequential issue: if we weren't compelled to support retirees (as well as a host of others)via Social Security, it would not be a factor in that discussion at least. I am simply not optimistic about eliminating the welfare state before the effects of these demographics come to a head (though perhaps that crisis will be a necessary step towards eliminating the welfare state).
Gotta run.
|
|
| Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 14:10:39 mst
Comment ID: #50
Name: New-Be
E-mail: SteelJaw22(at)yahoo.com
"..thus I recomend come Sunday with the next open thread you can bring up that issue for discussion about your abortion/contraception and its relation to women there.."
I second this. I would be curious to hear what a non-religious opposition to contraception sounds like and of what this implies for the rights of women. |
|
| Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 23:24:44 mst
Comment ID: #51
Name: Blue
Jean, no doubt getting rid of the welfare state (and the mentality that brings it about) will not and has not been easy or quick. (Really, even it Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a work of fiction which can make things easier than they may be in real life, they had to pretty much bring down the whole society finally before they could start convincing people on a wide scale of the need for individual rights, particularly including property rights.) However, in the mean time having lots of kids doesn't sound like it will help. What do you think it would do to help this whole social security business by people such as ourselves having more children and how? Do you believe this would somehow assure a higher percentage of the population would end up with ideas like our own and that way social security would come to be abandoned? That by pumping more workers into the system to pay for the more non-working people this would better our wellbeing? Something else? Rather than having more children, working to change the education system around I'd say would do much more good for our goals. Get it to emphasize thinking for yourself instead of accepting things just because your told to, really understanding ideas rather than just memorizing disconnected bits of information, and that ideas have, always have had, and always will have real world impact rather than just that there's some stuff people are made to tell you "just because" and that all that really matters in the end in practice is that narrow bit of technical information for whatever job you're going to do. These are the kinds of fundamental shifts in thinking that would really lay the ground work for us to make serious progress (without having to go the harder road of "stopping the motor of the world.")
Although I'm not those other people who have been asking you things like if you were a religious person or whatnot and so can't speak for them for sure, I think that the reason for that all has been not to accuse you and dismiss you, but to try to ascertain what you're saying and where you're coming from with it. If we know upfront what your positions are we can address them much more efficiently. Knowing what you DO believe also lets us know what you then do NOT believe so we can not waste time breaking down problems that weren't there to need doing such to in the first place. We know you aren't religious now for example, so neither now nor in the near future in this discussion will we find ourselves needing to clear some supposed intangible, immortal megalomaniac from obscuring the field. |
|
| Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 23:49:08 mst
Comment ID: #52
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
This all sounds like a collective benefit argument. "Assuming that social security continues, a few years down the road the elderly will be dependent on having lots of younger taxpayers to pay the taxes that support their benefits. So if you don't have a big family you're working against your own interests." The trouble is that if, say, Paul and Diana have a dozen kids, those kids' social security taxes will be paid into a pool that is split up among literally tens of millions of beneficiaries; the share of the payoff that goes to Paul and Diana will be negligible. They can't serve their own interests by having more kids or hurt them by having fewer. But if they have a huge family, and pay the costs of raising it, they will be hurting themselves economically to produce a benefit nearly all of which goes to other people. I would describe this as "the tragedy of the commons," but really, Ayn Rand described it earlier in the story of the downfall of the Twentieth Century Motor Compan.
There really is not much to be done about social security, except anticipate the train wreck and try to have some assets that will cushion the shock. Heroic individual efforts to bear large families won't change the overall demographic picture.
It would make better sense, accepting that it can't be gotten rid of, to change its operating rules. For example, raising the retirement age to 70 or even 75 would substantially lessen the demographic impact, and would even make sense: When Bismarck invented social security, he set the retirement age at 65 because few workers made it to 65, and those who did had only a few years ahead of them; now living to 75 is at least as common, and 75-year-olds are as functional as 65-year-olds were back in the day. Encouraging people to save privately would be beneficial, too, but it looks as if that approach may come under fire politically. Defending private retirement assets is going to be important. |
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 10:32:57 mst
Comment ID: #53
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"What do you think it would do to help this whole social security business by people such as ourselves having more children and how? Do you believe this would somehow assure a higher percentage of the population would end up with ideas like our own and that way social security would come to be abandoned?"
Thank you for another non-insulting post.
At some point, a poster accused me of believing that ideas are inheritable traits -- which, of course, is utter nonsense. In my experience, ideas are passed on most successfully if the ideas are clear-cut and if the ethic dictated by those ideas is a demanding one -- a challenge -- and is passed on by those who are passionate. Most Americans, despite their professed belief in God, subscribe to a fairly soft and fuzzy set of ethics, a bland and relativistic "I'm OK, You're OK" mindset. What I have seen as a teacher bears this out: observant Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and fervent Muslims are most successful in passing on their ideas and the resulting ethical framework (I would guess the same is true for the Amish and like communities, but their numbers are relatively small and I have no direct experience with them). The soft and fuzzy types aren't very successful, and their children tend to be sheep-like and absorb whatever the prevailing culture tells them to absorb (usually without a clue that they're absorbing anything). The same, I believe, would hold true for families of Objectivists: though obviously it's not a 100% sure thing, there is a better chance of those ideas being passed on successfully because of the "religious" aspect of Objectivism: the ideas are clear-cut and the resulting ethics are demanding. There is a correlation between the intensity and challenge offered and its staying power with children: those children who are raised with a challenge and purpose to their lives are more likely to carry on those ideas than those who are raised in the wishy-washy-relativistic-God-is-my-best buddy-and-I-like-angels mush of our culture. So, in that limited regard, the low birth rate of Objectivists is not a good thing, but even if even if every Objectivist couple had 12 kids there simply aren't that many Objectivists around to make much of a dent in anything. Most other secularists fall into the relativistic camp, and are thus virtually indistinguishable from their "happy fuzzy-wuzzy God" counterparts. So, though I think increased numbers of workers is necessary for Social Security (given the premise, for the purposes of this discussion, that it is to continue), that does not mean that I think that secularist views are going to be advanced by secularists having more children.
"That by pumping more workers into the system to pay for the more non-working people this would better our wellbeing? Something else? Rather than having more children, working to change the education system around I'd say would do much more good for our goals."
Pumping enough workers into the system to carry the weight of retirees would address the problem of Social Security. Does that mean that our "wellbeing" is being served? I think that you and I would both agree that it does not, in and of itself. Changing the education system is obviously a great idea, but there again you are running into a numbers problem: there aren't enough Objectivists to make much of a dent in anything.
I do think demographics are important, and I think they will eventually bring Social Security down. That is a good thing in and of itself, but the social upheaval preceding and following its demise is not necessarily going to bring about the end of all the institutions we don't like and the establishment of a system that we do like. Social upheavals are unpredictable, and it may just be that it is the group with the most members that survives (excuse the rather dramatic language!!).
|
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 10:36:08 mst
Comment ID: #54
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"It would make better sense, accepting that it can't be gotten rid of, to change its operating rules. For example, raising the retirement age to 70 or even 75 would substantially lessen the demographic impact, and would even make sense: When Bismarck invented social security, he set the retirement age at 65 because few workers made it to 65, and those who did had only a few years ahead of them; now living to 75 is at least as common, and 75-year-olds are as functional as 65-year-olds were back in the day. Encouraging people to save privately would be beneficial, too, but it looks as if that approach may come under fire politically. Defending private retirement assets is going to be important."
I agree -- those are good common sense suggestions. Thank you. |
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 13:09:15 mst
Comment ID: #55
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2
Jean writes, "it was automatically assumed I was religious, though my position was based on biology, not on religious beliefs."
This is the customary false flag flown by the more Jesuitical Christianists. There are many disciplines, perspectives and contexts in biological science, so if you need a false flag to fly, there are many to choose from. The embryo and the fetus have DNA, and therefore peptides and proteins, that are biochemically distinct. On the other hand, from the perspective of physiology, there is only one complete organism, that of the pregnant woman. Until the moment of birth, the cells of the fetus breathe through the pregnant woman's lungs, excrete through her kidneys etc, just like the cells of any other part of her body. So if one goes by physiology, the fetus is, until birth, a part of the pregnant woman.
Why pick the perspective of one discipline within biology over another - for example, of biochemistry over physiology? Because one corresponds to prior religious doctrine and the other does not. Those who are drunken with God often use the lamppost of science for support instead of illumination. It takes minds that have been stripped of their conceptual faculty, a not uncommon result of America's Pragmatist educational system, so be taken in by such a cheap and sordid trick.
It is nice to have such an unambiguous marker of what one is dealing with here. |
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 16:18:14 mst
Comment ID: #56
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Jesuitical Christianists"
Now, that's a new one -- I've never been called that before! I love it!
What else can you come up with? |
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 17:24:56 mst
Comment ID: #57
Name: OistPostGrad
E-mail: post&Go(at)yahoo.com
Jean,
If I read Adam correctly, he is saying your arguments amount to repackaged religion. I think this also because your view of human sexuality as revolving around procreation (thus anti-contraception) shares the same outlook as religion. But that is off topic to Social Security. If you want to explain to us sexually misguided Objectivists what a "rational" approach to sexuality, abortion, and contraception are -- one informed by someone who is a women and thus has greater insights because of that fact -- then by all means raise this subject in the open thread. It will generate debate to be sure. |
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 19:01:44 mst
Comment ID: #58
Name: Blue
Jean, being clear, decisive, and passionate rather than some wishy-washy shades of gray without doubt is more effective in garnering adherents. It is hard to get anybody to care about a bunch of stuff that amounts to, “Meh, it’s like, you know, whatever. It doesn’t really matter.” If it’s no big deal and doesn’t really matter, then nothing much is at stake and why should anybody care? We agree though that passion is not a weak area within those who support Objectivism. However, since supporters of Objectivism hold that the ideas we’re passionate about aren’t good to hold just because they offer a strong, clear view of life, how does that make it better for us to have lots of kids? We don’t think people take our ideas as an opportunistic grab at whatever passionate ideology strikes them first, like it is a race between us and religion on who will get there first and that’s what matters. We hold that this philosophy is demonstrably superior to other belief systems, be they wishy-washy or passionate other ones. This means as long as somebody is willing to give an honest effort at thinking, then it doesn’t matter if they already hold something like a passionate religious ideology when they come across the ideas of Objectivism because Objectivism will still win out as it is very much the more rational and beneficial ideology. That’s why I think education and advocacy are better routes to take: you can reach more people doing those things then you could ever have children. I do think if we can’t get social security taken away peacefully before imminent collapse, we should just let it collapse (and scream at the top of our lungs before, during, and after why it will, is, and did fall and what to do to prepare yourself for the fall and deal with the fall once it has come.) And though Objectivism may not be a very popular position to hold right now, I wouldn’t recommend counting it totally out of the game for ability to influence in the case of major turning points like the collapse of social security would be. There is that poll where Atlas Shrugged was the second most influential book for people for example, so even if we may not find all of Objectivism accepted suddenly, we could start making some significant headway, mayhap at least enough to convince people to start backing off the government enforced collectivist policies. And that would be a good start in the right direction, leaving us free to act on our own judgments without other people being allowed to forcefully interfere. Trying to have more kids than you otherwise would want to for the sake of supporting social security now sounds like we’re trying to put in a bailout plan for social security - making us pay high costs in our lives for other people’s screwing up with large government forceful interference involved in making that happen. |
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 21:42:40 mst
Comment ID: #59
Name: Jean
Blue,
Excellent and persuasive points. Thank you! |
|
| Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 23:37:38 mst
Comment ID: #60
Name: Blue
No problem. Glad to hear if my posts have helped clear this issue up some for you. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh
Comments
