CDR: Nathan's fear of nothingness

[mmotyka at lsil.com]

Amusing.

>Here is my last post in this thread, because I feel that it is going
>nowhere:
>
Isn't that a CP thread hallmark? Is this a preview of item 2) ?

>My views are irreconcilable with those of the libertarians on this
>list.  Here's the way I view the world:
>
>       1) Life has no inherent value.  Our being here is random, and
>       there is no purpose to our lives.
>
All 100% true and anyone who disagrees is full of shit but you seem to
have missed subparagraph a) where people in their wonderful and
surprising variety have filled the void by assigning their own personal
values to their lives and the world around them. Values which they hold
dearly and do not have to justify to anyone unless they choose to.

>       2) "Human progress" is bullshit.  We are no further along as a
>       species now than we were in Plato's time.  Basically, we're
>       going nowhere fast.
>
Again, an accurate but useless observation. At least the accomodations
are good and we don't usually have to work on weekends and can get out
to the occasional ballgame or fishing trip while we wait for the
confirmation of our ultimate meaninglessness.

>       3) People have no essential "rights."  Rights don't exist.
>       This is a theme often found in the work of many modern
>       philosophers, such as Foucault.
>
Here we go again. 100% true and 100% useless. People have those rights
which they choose and are able to guarantee themselves either
individually or as a tribal group.

>       5) Taking all three premises above, the only way I can find to
>       evaluate what is right and what is wrong is "do what causes the
>       least pain."
>
Aha! Now we see the arbitrary values inherent in the system. Fleeing
from nihilism you have arrived at your current Pain Avoidance Value Set.
It is one of many possible sets. You would impose impose these values on
others as far as possible ( power thing ). Standard human behavior.
Nothing new or profound.

>       I guess this is basically pragmatism.  For
>       example, if raising taxes to 95% would feed everyone in the
>       world (I'm just speaking hypothetically), then I would advocate
>       this, because this would lead to less pain in the world.  (And
>       I don't consider some people having to sell their Ferraris
>       "pain." ;-)  Someone here said that each time taxes are raised,
>       we lose freedom.  So what?  First of all, what is "freedom"?
>       Second of all, what is so great about it that it should be
>       evaluated before everything else?
>
Arbitrary value set #1 vs. Arbitrary value set #2. Actually more of a
continuum where self-interest, and community interest ( and sometimes
looniness ) defines the camps and the players are free to choose.

>So I guess when people say "but by making the insurance companies pay
>for the medical care, you are stealing from them," my answer is "So
>what?"
>
Steal from them if you can but keep in mind that they will try to
protect themselves from your attempts to impose your arbitrary values on
them.

>I understand that this way of viewing the world is not shared by many
>on this list, so it seems that it would be damn near impossible for us
>to reach agreement.
>
yawn. Since when has Agreement of any sort been a desired outcome?

Mike