[Sapper]

Do you really think that spending nearly a trillion dollars over the course of 10 years just to land a few people there is worth it? I can't even imagine how much colonizing it would cost.

$1 trillion is poposterous! The Apollo program only cost $70 billion to develope the hardware, all 18 missions (six of which were moon landings), Apollo-Soyuz, and the Skylab! Dr. Robert Zurbin has estimated as low as about $20 billion, plus $2 billion for each mission. Although, this estimate could increase. A colony would likely cost under $200 billion, especially with all of the new resources that would be channelled into the innovation and cultivation of the space program. Besides, this money far better spent on a Mars program than on porn! As I have said many times.

And how many Americans do you think would be happy living in a fascist or spartan state? Again, if your goal is happiness, you're going about it the wrong way. People must be free to choose their own path and learn from their own mistakes.

Essentially, emphasizing the Whole is good for humanity as a Whole. It may not necessarily be good for one particular individual, but that it is irrelevant. As factory jobs (followed by some creative jobs, such as teaching) are automated, the government will not have to make concessions to them. In fact, the government could kill off nearly any number of them without any loss of production, if the soldiers will it. However, everyone would be a soldier (what else would they do?), so disobediance would not occur. The people will have no choice but to accept this. Also, happiness does not come from obesity and dirty air. Please try to view things in the long term perspective.

My guess is that each person would end up with a pittance, barely enough to buy food.

Such a militarized society would be a "nation of barracks", and most of their needs would be taken care of for them, just like in the military today. Rebellious subjects' food, clothing, shelter, etc. could be merely taken away to force them to comply if necessary.

However, if you didn't, then no one has the right to sacrifice you.

Rights do not really exist. They are concepts.

If there were truly beneficiaries of a Mars's mission, then there would already be private project to provide this service and make a profit. There is no desire for it, mainly because we lack the current materials to do so economically. Sure we could build and maintain a base for a nice trillion or so dollars, but it will only shelter six, and will be nothing towards a true space colony.

To the collective mind of the masses, the research accomplished on Mars would not mean as much as a good porno of six pack. There is no desire to go to Mars because of the "immarurity" of the masses (e.g., "We've got more important things to worry about on earth!") Once again, Mars mission's will cost $20 billion initially, and $2 billion after that. The first Mars colonies will probably come into existence as soo nas 20-30 years after a first landing (provided we stay on track), and would house several dozen people. Terraforming could occur two-three centuries later, once tens of thousands of people (or more) are sustained on Mars. (See _The Case for Mars_, Robert Zurbin).

Without incentives they will be no work.

Punishments, and ultimately genetic engineering, cloning, merging of mind and machine, etc.

There is a massive biological difference between the cells of a body and the individuals of a population.

That is irrelevant. The point is that you either have to concede that smaller things combine to make bigger thigns (e.g., cells to form a body, or individuals to form a Whole, State, etc.), or that nothing actually exists accept protons, neutrons, and electrons (perhaps even smaller things).

[The Engineer]

A colony would likely cost under $200 billion, especially with all of the new resources that would be channelled into the innovation and cultivation of the space program. Besides, this money far better spent on a Mars program than on porn! As I have said many times?

The first Mars colonies will probably come into existence as soo nas 20-30 years after a first landing (provided we stay on track), and would house several dozen people. Terraforming could occur two-three centuries later, once tens of thousands of people (or more) are sustained on Mars. (See _The Case for Mars_, Robert Zurbin).

First off that is a horrible plan for bringing life to Mars. With our existing technology any space colony will be nothing more than an exorbitant camp ground. It would consume more resource than provide. It would just draw away resources and productivity from the society you wish to serve.

There are emerging technologies that would not only make colonies possibly, but very affordable. Atomic level engineering to produce synthetic materials and molecular scale machinery would open up possibilities beyond our dreams. In addition these materials could essentially be created through chemical synthesis with the reagents being any organic material, including trash in landfills. Even developmental costs are relatively low.

It would provide all that is needed to not only live on Mars, but to harvest its materials and the sun's energy to produce all the resource needed for autonomy. This area of science is of great interest to me, a subject I could discuss beyond the necessary scopes of this thread.

The main point from that aside is that one group's agenda is not always the perfect plan. They are more than welcome to follow through at their own expense, but not to drag down the production of country to yield such a failure. A free market would accomplish your Mars mission faster and more efficient than any national plan, as many independent projects would tackle the problem in a variety of ways. With their personal fortune and future at stakes, there would exist the incentives to fuel success.

As far as I am concerned you can do whatever you like, as long as I am not paying for it. If wish to start a not for profit corporation aimed at your plan, and get similarly minded individuals to fund it; then okay. If you wish to dedicate your life to this lost cause; that is okay also. You can even attempt to sway me to your side and gain my contributions, but you may not place a gun to my head and ask me to fund your mistake.

That is irrelevant. The point is that you either have to concede that smaller things combine to make bigger thigns (e.g., cells to form a body, or individuals to form a Whole, State, etc.), or that nothing actually exists accept protons, neutrons, and electrons (perhaps even smaller things).

You misunderstood my point. I did not say society does not exist, quite the contrary I showed it did. What I was showing is that society does not exist as an organism, but instead as an ecosystem. An ecosystem is an eventuality of multiple organisms interacting with one another. It has no conscious goals, nor was it formed as a higher god for each animal to submit unto. It is just an emergent system of interactions that we can observe, and such can go to higher levels. Ecosystems are a component of the biosphere once abiotic components are added in. Biosphere is planetary classification, and planets are the sub-units of solar system, which build the known universe, all of which can fall under the grand category of existence.

All of these systems exist as a mass of sub-units. They do not come together to form a super organism so that they may sacrifice themselves for its benefit. Instead their net interactions compose this system. One could say all that exist are subatomic particles or hit the other end claiming existence as an eventuality. It doesn't matter which way, because they are all correct, since the interactions of individual units build the higher system. Technically they all exist, but it is their nature that concerns us.

Essentially, emphasizing the Whole is good for humanity as a Whole. It may not necessarily be good for one particular individual, but that it is irrelevant. As factory jobs (followed by some creative jobs, such as teaching) are automated, the government will not have to make concessions to them. In fact, the government could kill off nearly any number of them without any loss of production, if the soldiers will it. However, everyone would be a soldier (what else would they do?), so disobediance would not occur. The people will have no choice but to accept this. Also, happiness does not come from obesity and dirty air. Please try to view things in the long term perspective.

Can you still not see what I have tried to show you? This is one man or one group's agenda, forced upon others to further that cause. Since the begging of civilization men have attempted to enslave one another to serve them. From the earliest tribes to Nazi Germany, men have attempted to carry out their desires through other bodies that they hold on a leash. These ideologies that some praise as the highest moral cause are nothing more than the modern equivalent to the obsolete chains, tools for enslavement. Tools that do not ensnare one's physical body, but the mind that control it.

You preach this totalitarian state simply because it would give your cause the necessary resources to carry out its plan. You have your own personal desires, and to see them fulfilled you will advocate any means. You will support any man who peddles a system that will reach such ends, regardless of the scheme. Can you not see it from the other side? What if another demanded your life's work to build the greatest porn collection the world has ever seen? Would you not rebel against this tyranny?

Yet you have no reservations against placing the shackles on others, men like myself. Just as the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, you will enslave any men needed so that you may see your pyramids fabricated. They do not serve society, for society is nothing more than a collection of individuals that interact. They serve the pharaohs ideal. Your Mars mission, through your totalitarian state, will no more serve "society", than the pyramids served those who toiled for their creation. It will only serve the slave driver's desires.

One man's agenda can never serve "society". Each individual knows his own desires, and only he can meet them. Society is not served through the enslavement of its constituting individuals to serve the ideals of an elite. Society is served by allowing each the freedom to reach their dreams.

[Sapper]

With our existing technology any space colony will be nothing more than an exorbitant camp ground. It would consume more resource than provide.

A base on Mars could be setup, capable of housing two dozen people, within 15-30 years of the first landing. Robert Zurbin discusses how present technology can be used to cheaply and efficienctly make use of Martian resources so that most of the resources will be able to be built there. See _The Case for Mars_.

There are emerging technologies that would not only make colonies possibly, but very affordable.

Yes, of course. Things can only become cheaper...

... but not to drag down the production of country to yield such a failure.

?

A free market would accomplish your Mars mission faster and more efficient than any national plan, as many independent projects would tackle the problem in a variety of ways.

The "free market" in no way has the man power, funds, resources, etc. of the national government. If the nation geared toward a Mars mission (one of many worthwhile goals) like it did for World War II ("guns before butter") than we could probably have a Mars landing in ten-fifteen years. Notice how the space programs are pushed by the national government, not corporations, at the moment. The profits of space are evident, but no company or tycoon is really risking thier money, etc. on it. Sure, they are doing some things with "space tourism", but that is a waste of resources -- space travel for entertainement when we haven't been past Earth orbit in 35 years!

...but you may not place a gun to my head and ask me to fund your mistake.

Of course I wouldn't have your permission to coerce you to do it, but beneficial policies are often unpopular. Coercion should be used on ignorance; the truly intelligent are or can be persuaded.

The State exists essentially to protect us from our own ignorance and irresponsibility. Humans created it. The State is losing track of its goal. I will revise my previous statement: Why does life have to have a purpose? It is a philosophical concept that really can't be proven. However, looking back at history, collectivism has been more productive than democracy and individualism (e.g., Hitler creating an empire from nothing in less than a decade, Stalin, Peter the Great, all enlightened despots, etc.)

This is one man or one group's agenda, forced upon others to further that cause.

It is, in the long run, beneficial for the group that has the cause forced upon them. If 99% of the world's civilians decided to stop producing food, does that mean that forcing these civilians to produce food is evil?

You have your own personal desires, and to see them fulfilled you will advocate any means.

These desires are in the long run beneficial to the human race as a Whole. I frankly DON'T CARE if one person, or even several thousand people, have to give up their masturbation time to get it done. That argument has NO EFFECT AT ALL on me.

What if another demanded your life's work to build the greatest porn collection the world has ever seen?

I suppose that if I could be convinced that it was worthwhile, and would assist humanity's evolution, than yes, I would do it.

Society is served by allowing each the freedom to reach their dreams.

That was a nice speach, but I frankly had a difficult time finding things that were grounded in pratical reality, rather than these high-minded, spiritual, cloudy ideals. Nearly this whole post was emotional nonsense that has no real place in anything other than propaganda.

[Liberal]

Sapper46123 wrote:

The State exists essentially to protect us from our own ignorance and irresponsibility. Humans created it.

The State is losing track of its goal.

I will revise my previous statement: Why does life have to have a purpose? It is a philosophical concept that really can't be proven.

The state is loosing it`s goal allright. The State is supposed to have only negative interference, to make sure that the freedom, the rights and obligations, the contracts between people are respected. This is what the Government is entitled to do. The moment when it crosses the line, and starts to interfere in the private sector, in the individualism, the State starts the process of enslaving the people by making choices for them. Where the freedom of choice is disabled or even permanently abandoned, the State becomes the master, and the people become slaves.

Sapper46123 wrote:

However, looking back at history, collectivism has been more productive than democracy and individualism (e.g., Hitler creating an empire from nothing in less than a decade, Stalin, Peter the Great, all enlightened despots, etc.)

People are individualist, and collectivism is unnatural to them.
Collectivism in the Soviet Union destroyed the economy. Hitler owed his success to the warfare industry. Russia before (and after) Peter the Great was a feudal state. I see little positive in this.
The individualism of the people is a guarant for their freedom. And freedom is what ensures the greatest prospect in history.

[Sapper]

The individualism of the people is a guarant for their freedom. And freedom is what ensures the greatest prospect in history.

Actually, great progress has occured very quickly due to totalitarianism, while it takes years and years to send a drug dealer to jail in America. (Do not take that the wrong way -- this is not about whether the drug war is right or wrong!)

[The Engineer]

The "free market" in no way has the man power, funds, resources, etc. of the national government. If the nation geared toward a Mars mission (one of many worthwhile goals) like it did for World War II ("guns before butter") than we could probably have a Mars landing in ten-fifteen years. Notice how the space programs are pushed by the national government, not corporations, at the moment. The profits of space are evident, but no company or tycoon is really risking thier money, etc. on it. Sure, they are doing some things with "space tourism", but that is a waste of resources -- space travel for entertainement when we haven't been past Earth orbit in 35 years!

The reason private industry has not grasped space colonization, is because it can not be done efficiently, yet. I have seen a synopsis of Zubrin's short-term plan, it is just another camping trip. A true colony is a long way off by his method.

I have already said a colony could be accomplished faster and cheaper. The technology is being developed and practical applications are not so far off. Once such techniques have been designed, a Mars colony will be just one of many eventualities, its grasp is beyond our current comprehension.

The current Mars mission is analogous to trying the cross the Atlantic before the advent of sale power. Sure men could create awkward and inefficient rowboat that could do the job, but it would be wasted time after they realize such a ship could barely stock the goods for the trip, let alone a civilization. After building this extreme seaworthy rowboat and equipping it with the necessary oarsmen, one could rejoice at the achieving trip despite is lack of practical use. In retrospect the whole project would have been a giant squander of resources once the sail took over.

The sail is on the way. Once space travel is economical entrepreneurs will create an industry to rival the oceanic transportation businesses of the past. Even your Zubrin speaks to the many economic benefits that a Mars's colony would have.

The free market forces people to be efficient. The valuable and limited resources of this world will not be wasted on super rowboats when it is one's own resources on the line. There currently is no demand to vacation on Mars for a couple hundred billion a trip, so the private industry will keep out, but the government does not need obey these rules of providing the consumers what they want.

The State exists essentially to protect us from our own ignorance and irresponsibility. Humans created it. The State is losing track of its goal. I will revise my previous statement: Why does life have to have a purpose? It is a philosophical concept that really can't be proven. However, looking back at history, collectivism has been more productive than democracy and individualism (e.g., Hitler creating an empire from nothing in less than a decade, Stalin, Peter the Great, all enlightened despots, etc.)

You seem to view the state as separate and infallible entity, like Hegel claiming the state was synonymous with god, and therefore was absolutely correct through divine intervention. But the state is just a bunch of elite individuals, even if their sole concern was to better every citizen's life they are still prone to error. It may be a shame when one man wastes the fruits of his labor, but it is a national disaster when a state wastes the resources of all. I could never trust my life and my future to another man's judgement, therefore I will not give him my means of sustaining life; my production.

Both the Soviet and Nazi empire that you claim as grand success stories are no more, the applications of your ideology have failed. No form of totalitarian government can ever work in the long run when competing against free nations. Their great productivity was fueled by a myopically guided distribution of resources for a single purpose. Unfortunately once the initial resources run out they are left with nothing to continue on. They waste all they have for short-term goals, and burn out in the long run.

No central planning arrangement can ever achieve the distribution of resources that occur in free enterprise. One of the most ironic parts I have always seen in collectives, is the nature of these distributions: a few men making the decision of how to use all the resources. In free enterprise all minds independently make small decisions allocating resources. In essences the collective society is ruled by the decision of a few individuals, while the free society makes a truly collective decisions with each guided by his own personal stake.

It is, in the long run, beneficial for the group that has the cause forced upon them. If 99% of the world's civilians decided to stop producing food, does that mean that forcing these civilians to produce food is evil?

If 99% of the world decided to quit farming, I would go into the agricultural business and become rich as hell. Other selfish individuals would join me, all out to cash in on the incredible profits to be gained from the shortage. In no time the original level of agricultural production would be reached as the system moved towards equilibrium. No need to force production, entrepreneurs would be in the fields with pitchforks before you even spoke a word. Such is the nature of a free enterprise; any desire will be met by some selfish pig out to for a profit.

These desires are in the long run beneficial to the human race as a Whole. I frankly DON'T CARE if one person, or even several thousand people, have to give up their masturbation time to get it done. That argument has NO EFFECT AT ALL on me.

But what if every generation cared more about beating their meat than the your future plan? Should each generation work simply so that their descendents can partake in the same toil for those following them? What value is life when all men are slaves working to the goal of maintaining such a life style for their heirs? I would prefer death to fueling the enslavement of mankind. How could one call this a moral goal?

You said early that life lacks a purpose. If it lacks a purpose then why are you working so hard for your means to advance it? If life is meaningless then why are we so viciously debating the condition under which we will serve this pointless time? Life has a purpose, but you seem to stray from any such discussion, from any deep intellectual arguments. You have made it obvious that such bores you greatly, and I will not open such a can of worms, but you cannot deny that life has value.

That was a nice speach, but I frankly had a difficult time finding things that were grounded in pratical reality, rather than these high-minded, spiritual, cloudy ideals. Nearly this whole post was emotional nonsense that has no real place in anything other than propaganda.

How wonderful, you have countered my strong discussion into the nature of this bondage with a blank out. Maybe next we can resort to name calling, after all what are intellectual debates but an advanced form of this childish behavior.

The least you could have done would have been to dissect my argument, and at least pretend to counter one part or another. You could have tried to break the analogy between the slavery of the past and that of the present, or even justified slaver by some mystical entity: nature, god, spirits, society, etc. Those before you have made great use of these masks and I actually enjoy pulling them off for all to see. I particularly enjoy how you have branded my words as "high-minded, spiritual, cloudy ideals", yet it is your argument that relies upon the mystical creature of an infallible state.

I can tell that you no longer care to discuss these matters if you are resorting to such antics. You have assumed your ideology and now are attempting to prove it. The lack of resolve is brining out such behavior, behavior I have witnessed far too many times. Go back to your castle suspended in the sky believing that your skyhooks will hold your lofty dreams above the reality that they defy. But do not fret when one day you see the truth: ideologies that defy existence can support no one, neither a world, a country, nor a man.

[Sapper]

The reason private industry has not grasped space colonization, is because it can not be done efficiently, yet. I have seen a synopsis of Zubrin's short-term plan, it is just another camping trip. A true colony is a long way off by his method.

We DO have the technology, and have had so for atleast twenty years. Zurbin's _The Case for Mars_ covers his plans for the first landing all the way to the possibilites of terraforming the planet. He has thought very long-term, far more than even NASA is doing. Not only that, one mission under his plan only costs $22 billion! America has spent over ten times that amount on military aid to Israel! More than that is being spent on Iraq! The national government has immense resources -- far more than any private corporation -- and could easily achieve a Mars landing within a decade!

I have already said a colony could be accomplished faster and cheaper.

Of course. Technology continues to develope and progress.

The current Mars mission is analogous to trying the cross the Atlantic before the advent of sale power.

Not at all. The current mission to Mars would be like using the sail, rather than waiting for airliners and transatlantic cruises to take advantage of "proft".

In retrospect the whole project would have been a giant squander of resources once the sail took over.

$22 billion for a Mars landing is in no way a waste of resources, whereas all of the more money spent on gas-guzzling SUV's and porno would be a "giant squander" of resources.

There currently is no demand to vacation on Mars for a couple hundred billion a trip

I don't care. It is more advantous for us to go to Mars than to not just because it isn't "profitable". That is the ignorance of the masses (who empower the government and the corporations) -- they don't see the long term advantages of going to Mars.

You seem to view the state as separate and infallible entity

Not at all. I believe the State to be a collection of individuals (like a regiment a collection of soldiers) and some actions can be good for the State as a Whole (space exploration) just like some actions can be good for a regiment as a Whole (better weaponry).

Both the Soviet and Nazi empire that you claim as grand success stories are no more, the applications of your ideology have failed.

The Nazi empire was destroyed because it was merely outgunned. Had this been the modern world, with the Nazi's being American rather than German, and the Soviet union not existing, the Nazi's could take over the world, or at least exist indefinetly. You could argue that it was Hitler's fault since he was foolish enough to ruin his country like that, but it was not due to the Nazi system that it collapsed. As for the Soviet empire, I was referring to Stalin, not his heirs, who did, admittingly screw up. But this was not due to inherent errors in the system. Stalin's death was not politically related.

Their great productivity was fueled by a myopically guided distribution of resources for a single purpose. Unfortunately once the initial resources run out they are left with nothing to continue on. They waste all they have for short-term goals, and burn out in the long run.

One of totalitarianism's benefits is the ability to direct resources toward goals, and relentlessly pursue them. They may not always be innovative (China was, Sparta wasn't), but they are incrediably better at applying technology (e.g., the tank existed before the Nazis, but they created the blitzkrieg). However, I don't know what you're talking about that they "burnt out" because of lack of resources.

If 99% of the world decided to quit farming, I would go into the agricultural business and become rich as hell.

I walked into that; I concede that to you. However, you would likely not be able to make enough food to feed the whole earth, and if the masses held firm... well...

But what if every generation cared more about beating their meat than the your future plan?

Then they'd just be stupid, and would have to put into their place.

Should each generation work simply so that their descendents can partake in the same toil for those following them?

Each generation should work so that they can improve their well-being as a Whole, and this will generally lead to a better future. Besides, working so your descendants can be happier than you were is a far better, IMO, application of your time and work than jerking off and getting fat.

If it lacks a purpose then why are you working so hard for your means to advance it?

My point was that you could do whatever you wanted with life. You could chose to progress it, or you could chose to live the life of a hedonist. You could be a monk, or you could commit suicide. The purpose of life cannot be proved.

Life has a purpose, but you seem to stray from any such discussion, from any deep intellectual arguments.

To be frank, that's because I life's purpose can not really be proved.

A: Life's purpose it to be happy.
B: Why?
A: Umm... I don't know.

C: Life's purpose is to sacrifice ones self for others.
D: Why?
C: I don't know.

E: Purple is the best color ever.
F: Why?
E: I don't know.

They're opinions.

How wonderful, you have countered my strong discussion into the nature of this bondage with a blank out.

"Forcing people to benefit themselves in the long run is bad, because every one is free, just because" is not a strong argument. It is based on "lofty dreams". I could be like Mussolini, and just blather on about how the State is a spiritual entity (like God), but I chose not to, because... well... its not provable.

[The Engineer]

I am gonna have to admit that we have allowed this discussion to drift off course. After dropping the political aspects involved, I am sure we could have a great debate into the technologies, time scale, and other factors involving the Mars Mission. But that it is not the main goal of this thread, so I will leave this fascination for a later time when we can put our difference aside to discuss pure science.

Rather than continuing this barrage of retaliating posts that just show our dogged trust in our ideologies, I say we should begin with our mutual beliefs. We can both agree that society exists, and that its sub-unit is the individual. We can also agree that through their combined effort men in society achieve more than men in isolation; that all of our great accomplishments result from this cooperation.

In fact I believe we share many similar views on a utopian society. A world of great accomplishment where men produce grand achievements, each a testament to the capacity of human ability; a civilization that is advanced beyond our wildest dreams; one that embraces technology to pioneer a path to an illustrious future.

A world devoid of parasites, individuals who's only desire is to live for false pleasures: television, porn, drugs, alcohol, food, etc. To be rid of the simpletons who live their life in constant pursuit of escape from their reality, a reality of filth that is the only substance to their existence.

I believe that if we were both to describe the eventuality that is our dream, the resulting effects, our dreams would have little, if any, major discrepancies. Our differences lie in our means, the methods we believe are justified in being practiced.

So as opposed to continuing this fruitless war, we should each begin by making a true case for our systems, why we believe our own to be superior. To get back on topic we should present our case for or against the supremacy of the individual. Then allow the discussion to continue, focusing not on a hostile debate, but on finding the true path to our utopia.

[Sapper]

Engineer,

This was a very necessary reversal.

Our utopia's are essentially the same, yes, and our difference is only in the means.

I believe the way I do because I hold that the masses are ignorant, that they cannot sacrifice physical pleasures to get things done. Beer, wealth, and sex is all I see in our society. I don't hold anything morally wrong with all of that, but I do hold that there are things that are far more beneficial than those things. Perhaps it is a "spiritual" thing, but I don't think so.

As I pointed out in one of my first posts in this thread, democracy has not solved the problems of deficit, space exploration (bleh...), the environment, overpopulation, etc. I derive this mainly because there is either not enough funding, or not enough interest -- not because we "can't do it". Education of the masses has not worked on a lot of things, recycling to drug use to teen sex. That has not worked. Often in schools, students' peer frown on the use of logic, and ignorantly boast back insults as if they were an adequate response to the antagonist.

If education is not working, force must be the only way to get things done (when dealing with ignorance, reasoning can be used on the intelligent). Since democracy lacks the ability to do this, authoritarianism (or totalitarianism) is the way to get this done.

I don't really care if the individual doesn't want to, or doesn't care enough, to make a sacrifice. I see no reason to allow, as an example above, have eight kids and put a strain on the environment (what if everyone wants eight kids?).

The Whole is the collection of individuals, with the sub-unit being individuals. If all of the individuals shared our visions of a utopia, and were responsible enough to act upon it, there would be no problem. However, what if their ideal world was one were they had all the power, and used to for wealth, women, and power? Those are not just, and they hurt everyone else, thus hurting the Whole. But if we take some, and then give a lot, through such things are environmental restoration/preservation, than how is that not good?

My system allows for progress of the Whole, and yours allows for individual progress. Some types of progresses are more beneficial, at least in the long run (need I bring up the story of the ants and the grasshopper?), than others. If an individual considers progress harming everyone else -- albeit indirectly -- why should we tolerate that?

[The Engineer]

The Social Concern for the Supremacy of the Individual

The case I am about to present is rather deviant from the standard methods generally employed to justify individual freedom. As opposed to a moral, biological, or other bottom up argument, I am going to take the position of my antagonist, a socialist, and using the common tenets of such morality prove free enterprise as a means to their end.

I would normally shy away from using this approach, instead only mention it as a resulting system that occurs when my advocated morality is practiced. I'd showcase it as an added bonus but not the justification. This time I will take the top down approach, assuming the goal of a sublime society that towers over all other potential systems.

First off I want to clearly define society. Society is the sum interactions of a certain group of individuals, from which a set of emergent properties arises. Characteristics that are absent in a sole isolated human being. What society is not, is a mystical beast existing separate of individuals, nor does it have a consciousness and thereby thoughts and goals of its own apart from its constituting components. As a deceiving metaphor, society is commonly given such properties, but such appearances all arise from interacting units, not the will of a grand leviathan.

With society as the highest concern, the greatest moral value is service to society, pronounced in the widespread euphemism of duty. As if with his birth given rights is an obligation to a certain course of action. To claim society as end, we must raise service to the means.

But what is service to society? If society is a collection of individuals, then the tribute must be paid to other constituting units of the whole. A man's action is judged solely on the benefits that others derive, to sum it up, "The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number."

Additionally no one may harm the society, to steal from the collective productivity, to become a burden that the society must carry. This has been carried to the extreme in early civilizations with the brutal murder of those who did not do their "duty".

It is on these tenets that free enterprise excels, by employs the tool of cooperation to carry out these tasks. In cooperation all parties must willingly agree, all must gain or they will not partake. All involved individuals will take their unique spot in the cooperation, and through division of labor and mutual trade, each man may concentrate his productive effort on a sole task.

Trade is essentially a massive cooperation. Each man takes a small part in a larger world, producing an efficient system. The fruits of his labors may be traded to others in return for his personal desires. The means of survival becomes the appeasement of another party's desires. The needs of one man become the means to another man's end. In essence each man becomes a servant to his brother, but not out of "brotherly love" or totalitarian state, instead through his own selfish desires.

The punishment for not cooperating is simple; they may not gain the benefits of the collective system. If one chooses not to meet the needs of others, then he may not expect them to service him. The defector may not take advantage of the great production that may be achieved through cooperative division of labor, and is forced to provide all his needs through purely independent and inefficient means.

This system created by a free enterprise harnesses man's internal desires, to turn him into a servant for others. No moral codes or massive military backing is needed to force compliance; instead his innate behavior will drive him into servitude of his brothers. The greater his wants, the stronger the force driving him to his knees to provide for the society. To use some of the greatest derogatory terms: One's greed serves another's need.

Of course one need not choose a wise "need." One could easily choose to make amphetamines the object of their desire. This does not invalidate the fact that they must still give to receive, but it does bring up a major point; men are free to choose their destruction. An individual may choose the vilest of desires, but in a free society he cannot invalidate the law that such can only be achieved through servitude. Let us welcome the crackhead's addiction, for with the barring of larceny his poor judgment has turned him into yet a grander provider. The drug has turned him into a machine that lives for a single purpose, the means to this being societies "needs."

The addiction need not be of chemical nature. Cars, prostitutes, gambling, and other costly obsessions all have the same effect, they create a craving that will drive them into providing. Their mistakes may damn them in they end, but the neglect is theirs and they are thereby entitled to the consequences.

A man who lacks any worldly desires is pointless to society, he will serve no one for there exists no incentive. It is such men, who pose the greatest risk for society; those who not even value their own lives, and see no reason to play into the system, resulting in a collective loss.

The result is a society that moves on truly collective decisions. Whatever is chosen, as the greatest desire, will be provided, the mass will move in the direction of the individual decisions. Should poor decisions occupy the majority, then such an enfeeble path will be plotted. Yet, what do the collectivist call upon as the judge of all actions: public opinion, and by this standard the path will always be correct.

Luckily society has internal mechanisms to deal with such idiocy. In a process similar to natural selection, those who make the extremely poor decisions, those leading the atrocity, will be the first to suffer and become a deterrent for others. Like a flock of birds on migratory route, those who attempt to deviate the whole into the path of a jet will be the first to accept the bloody fate, and thereby demonstrate the errors of their way for all to see. The junky on the street is a testament to such poor decisions, and will avert a greater number away from drugs than any anti-drug propaganda. The same is true for all poor decisions, although each to a varying intensity. One's error will cut them down leaving only the intelligent desires behind, society is ameliorated through such faulty mind sets.

Free enterprise is the means to the socialist end. It will bind men together tighter than any superficial belief system, for it harnesses their internal drive to hitch them together into a cooperating collective. It may be ironic that individual rights transform individuals into mutual servants, but that is why it works. It takes advantage of greed, desires, and the ego, as opposed to the futile attempts to fight them. Rather than shackle men to each other though force, they are lead to seek the bonds for their own benefit.

........................

I'll admit I may have gone slightly overboard on the terminology and emphasis employed on various parts, but the facts remain the same. As I stated before, this is what I would generally show as the result of individual rights, but not the justification. I would also use a different lexicon and stray away from any collective benefits for another audience. Take if for what it is, I know it is rather ruff and I plan to improve upon it through any constructive criticism. Anyone have any comment to offer?

[Liberal]

Sapper46123 wrote:

Actually, great progress has occured very quickly due to totalitarianism, while it takes years and years to send a drug dealer to jail in America.

I dissagree with this claim. If we look for example China, in the past, the greatest prospect of technology, trade and economy happened while the court didnt had absolute power. When the emperors started to controll the economy, China went into a self isolation that stopped the progress. At that time, the Western world started to prospere, in the period of the feudalism, when there was not a central power to control the economy and trade. Egypt, in the period of the first few dinasties, had a great prospect, but when the state socialism(some sort of socialism) was established, Egypt`s economi and trade stangated. Of course, we dont need to go so far in history to see that the totalitarism doesent bring prosperity, or even if it brings some, it`s only a partial and temporary. USSR at the time os Stalin forced it`s economy, and the industrialisation went on. But this was not to be for long. Soon, the economic problems in USSR caused the desintegration(together with some other factors as well).

[Sapper]

To make sure I have correct understanding of your essay, your main point would be: individuals will be compelled to work for each other ("The greatest good for the greatest number," as you said) out of necessity.

If this analysis is correct, than I could deduce this:

Z will happen when Y desires it out of necessity (see the notes section at the bottom of this essay).

This is true. Pornography was created because Y desired it. Expensive cars were created because Y desired them (and put enough money into it). The vaccine for small pox was created because Y desired it (and also put enough money into it). And even going to the moon was done because Y had a desire to do it, and mobilized the nation to do so.

However, what if Y does not desire Z, but Z would be eminently more beneficial to them than what Y desires now? Well, than Z (what is not desired, but extremely beneficial) will not occur. This is the very core of the problem.

The space program (Z) will only realize its full potential once Y desires it. Why would Y desire it? It could be because its "neat", to show superiority to other countries (such as China, although they are not advancing fast enough to cause this quite yet), or because of economic benefit. However, these potential desires may take decades and billions of dollars to achieve, so Y does not desire a space program, because Y sees no immediate benefit in Z, whereas X does provide an immediate benefit, and consequentially Y finds no reason to pay money for Z over X.

The space program thus suffers from insufficient funds (because most of the masses are typical Y's), and Z is not done, despite that the space program *could* eventually lead to tourism, new energy sources, medicines, cheaper prices, etc. Z takes resources away from X; Z does not provide benefits for Y for years and years, thus Z is sacrificed for X.

Environmental restoration (Z) does not get a high priority either, because Y is too lazy to take their garbage to a recycling bin, because Y does not think he'll make a difference, or maybe because corporate Y does not want to lose all of their business by converting to an alternative fuel source, etc. There could be many reasons. Y would rather spend the day doing something that "entertains" them, like watching sports or going out to an expensive restaurant in designer clothes, and eating fattening foods.

As discussed previously in this thread, this free market idea does not solve the overpopulation problem either. Even though Y is poor, Y continues to have more children than they can afford. While in the short term, this family consumes no more than they would consume if they were a three person family (although they will consume it quicker), when the eight children grow up, have a job and a family of their own, they will consume eight times (probably more) than what they did twenty-thirty years ago. Thus the environmental strain. Indira Gandhi lost his election in 1977 by attempting to enforce a one- or two-child policy. Authoritarian China achieves in areas they have real control over (Beijing, province capitals, etc.), mainly because they have the might to enforce it, without the risk of losing power.

Switching to alternative fuel sources is not on Y's high priority list, unlike scoring a date that evening, or catching the season premiere of Joe Millionaire. Sure, Y believes it is a good idea, but is not really enthusiastic about it. So gas prices get high, and Middle Eastern nations hold more power over us than they ought to. Y does not demand that a switch is made. Thus, if a supply interruption occurred suddenly (or if the resources began to peter out, skyrocketing prices), Y would not be able to continue his life style. With alternative fuel sources, however, such is not the case. Yet Y still does not demand that a switch is made.

Also, the corporate Y's do not demand a switch over because their multi-billion dollar oil industry would come crashing down, resulting in a loss of profit and jobs for many. The future corporate Y's (that would run a alternative fuel source company) do not have a say, as they do not exist, due to the present Y's selfishness.

Y does not demand that the budget deficit is rectified, mainly for two reasons -- Y would have to pay higher taxes (Reagan's victory over Mondale's "we're going to tax their asses off" to pay for the debt), and Y just doesn't care, since Y does not get direct benefits from paying the debt like X gives.

That is why I oppose this "free market" idea. The government should be able to skip the demand stage, but this cannot be done under either capitalism or democracy.

(I am not necessarily a socialist, although part of my ideology is socialistic. I have nothing wrong with someone working hard and becoming richer than other people; I just don't see why resources aren't used to for better purposes. The only way really to do this is to convince the masses [doubtful], or to force them.)

This seems to be the only thing we actually disagree on: Z will happen when Y desires it out of necessity. You ignore the possibility of the "X" factor.

NOTES

X = Item or activity that create short-term pleasure, but are either detrimental or cause no effect on the long run

Y = An individual, a group of individuals, the American public, or a corporation

Z = Item or activity that provides long-term benefits, often at the cost of short-term pleasures

[The Engineer]

Yes, individuals in society are notorious for poor decisions. From pornography, to drugs and alcohol, to popular fads, numerous resources are wasted in disgusting misuse. Such awful uses of our limited resources stem from poor decisions on an individuals level.

These decisions themselves are eventualities of the ideas that fill their heads. If one believes that owning the latest $200 jeans will benefits them more than the opportunity cost for that chunk of change, they will make the purchase. Each atrocity is a descendent to its own unique set of beliefs and ideas, which influence the individual's behavior.

But it is obvious that a belief need not be true. One can believe that designer clothing, LSD, cigarettes, disgusting videos, etc. bring benefit to them, while in reality the work they put into acquiring such items is greater than the objective benefits provided; they may even be funding their own demise.

The reason such ideas play any crucial role in society is that they can spread; from one mind to another. We see it every day, numerous fads of pop culture moving through society like a plague, only to fade into the shadow of the next trend.

The reason one accepts and acts on any idea is for some benefit. We take the effort to seek the information that we believe will influence our actions for the better. We learn how to cook, read, write, drive, diet, debate, etc. because of some betterment of life that we seek in implementing the ideas. One can observe the benefits another receives from the beliefs they follow enticing them to follow through. Ideas are constantly changing due to numerous variables: advances in science, combining old ideas, or just errors in copying that create a mutant strain.

Here is where the grim solution arises, through a negative feedback loop. Once an idea occupies enough of a population, all can view the results it has had. The idea "Do lots of LSD and tell all your friends", doe not seem to hold much appeal, as one can now witness the destruction such a belief brought. But "Buy low, sell high [In a much grander detailed strategy]", continues to flourish for the wealth it has brought many.

We are right now in the middle of such dynamics. Many crazes, including drugs and porn, are relatively new on the age of culture. Lots of individuals have taken the risk, and are practicing such beliefs. From the outside both of us can see that they have chosen the wrong beliefs, and from their tragedy will not make the same mistake with our limited resources. Had we not seen their example we may not have been as fortunate.

Basically in the long run poor ideas will die out along with their hosts. Some stubborn burdens, such as gods and racism, will stay with culture longer than others will. Such mental parasites are resilient by the strong rewards they promise their hosts (as well as other adaptations including faith and devotion, but I'll elaborate more elsewhere.) In the long run, those practicing other ideas, mainly science will come out ahead and lead to the demise of such ridiculous beliefs.

My main point is that many will make poor choices, but their acts will prevent others from the same errors. A countless number of individuals will bring great harm to themselves and possibly society as a whole, but in the long run they will essential serve the task of showing us the hot spots in the minefield of beliefs and ideas, revealing the path to utopia.

I will admit this isn't the greatest individual rights speech, if anything it may strengthen the case for a totalitarian government to some, as it can attempt to save a few morons. Unfortunately in the long run I fear it may just slow down the rate of progress. We may all leave the minefield in the attempt to find our home, but that leaves us stranded were we are, dreaming of greater future.

Side Note: The base concept of ideas is something I plan to elaborate more on elsewhere, so if it seems a little fuzzy I will try to clear it up, but this is not even the tip of the iceberg. I believe this area of science to be the future for society, regardless of the politics involved.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Capitalism doesn't respect the individual though.

All people deserve equal chances to make something of their lives, but capitalism unfairly gives more opportunities to those born rich.

That's an excuse. As a man you DO have free will because you have a mind. What you choose to do with it is entirely up to you, because noone else has the power to control your very thoughts, just the enviorment around you.

Despite "capitalism's slavery on paper", you could easily make it in life.. if you wanted.. your determination and self-esteem is what sets your place in this life, not what other's do. If you believe in the individual rights, then you believe that the individual can make a differance, if not in everyone then atleast in one's own life..

Martin Luthor King Jr is a perfect example of individualism done right. He was opressed, he was hissed and bood at, his freedoms were little and far between, and yet still he managed to be a legend, a beloved black man who liberate the nigro community. And he did it by peaceful means as well. Which is an applaudible act..

Why? Cause he gave inniative.. He didn't make excuses for his lack of freedom, he used his mind, his individualism, to do something about it.

Are you saying I can dodge bullets?

I'm saying Neo, when you're ready.. you won't have too..

[Sapper]

The space program (Z) will only realize its full potential once Y desires it.

In Pale Blue Dot (Wanders: An Introcution), Carl Sagan confirms what I have said throughout this thread, and in fact for years:

No one on Earth, not the richest among us, can afford the passage [into space]... There does not seem to be sufficient short-term profit to motivate private industry. If we humans ever go to these worlds, then, it will be because a nation or a consortium of them believes it is to its advantage -- or to the advantages of the human species.

My main point is that many will make poor choices, but their acts will prevent others from the same errors. A countless number of individuals will bring great harm to themselves and possibly society as a whole, but in the long run they will essential serve the task of showing us the hot spots in the minefield of beliefs and ideas, revealing the path to utopia.

I'm not so sure about that... people continue to do drugs, since the 70s, and society is only degenerating worse.

As for progress, I admit that totalitarian states are not necessarily the greatest innovators (some were some weren't). However, totalitarian states by far make the best use of current technology -- the Germans already had a rocket program, and tanks already existed, but it was the Nazis who really put them to use. Same for the Soviets. Soon, humanity will have mastery of the *basic* concepts of technology and science, and democracy will no longer be necessary to innovate.

[STA]

I belive in individualism, which isn;t common for a leftist, I was acctually rated more individual than some well known republicans on the PoFo quiz.