trc (04/21/83)
Response to ut-ngp!werner:
I seriously doubt that anyone could get any more information out of
"GOOD GRIEF" than that you disapproved of my note. I certainly did not.
Exactly which part of the note were you "good griefing" about?
With regard to the animated political cartoon:
The point of the story seems to be "Never think that you are
right about something if someone else thinks differently than you.
And even if you are sure you are right, (which you should never be)
dont demand that the other side refrain from imposing the results of
their views upon you." I imagine that the happy ending occurred when the
two sides agreed to compromise their own views in some manner. (Resulting
in a new "consensus truth" - truth modification by group vote.) And the
animator probably leaves at least one major premise unstated - that he feels
it is always better to be agreeable and get along, than it is to be right.
The real-world political thrust is also obvious - we should give
the USSR and similar countries the benefit of our doubt, even if they
appear to act criminally to us. We should not try to force other countries
into our mould. I agree with the latter, but not the former. I dont
think that pointing out flaws in another's philosophy is wrong, nor
is it wrong to insist that they not inflict the results of those flaws
upon others. (Since you think my views on Russia are wrong, I am sure
you will insist that I not inflict "my" nuclear war on you. Pacifists
in England must have argued similarly against opposing Hitler.)
Lest someone play "word-processor" on this note, perhaps
I should add a few words on what is wrong with the communist/socialist
political philosophies as opposed to the capitalist/objectivist philosophy.
Both of the former systems demand that individuals sacrifice themselves to
the ends of the state or of others. The fallacy of this can be picked
out by a child - as in the joke - "Mommy, why are we here on earth?"
"To help other people, dear." "...Then what are the other people
here for??!" Such a circular system is really an excuse, allowing
those advocating it to demand that others serve them.
The capitalist/objectivist philosophy explicitly declares that
individuals have rights (life, liberty, property), that arise from the
nature of humans, and that should not be violated. And it answers the
child's question with:
"Each of us is here to live his own life, for his own benefit."
Tom Craver
houti!trcmmt (04/25/83)
Tom Craver's repeated philosophy can be simplistically boiled down to "Do unto others before they do unto you" as opposed to what he claims is the socialist "Let's all help each other" (I know, Tom, you wouldn't paraphrase yourself this way, but that's how it sounds from here). I suggest Tom and anyone reading his notes should also read Hofstadter's article in the current Scientific American, on the Prisoner's Dilemma. It shows clearly that cooperation and what Tom calls "sacrifice" on behalf of others is on average beneficial to the sacrificer. In other words, as I have mentioned to Tom privately and to the net in general, ones own self-interest has to be seen in a rather deeper way than might be thought on the basis of "get what you can and let the devil take the hindmost". When everyone prospers, the richest are better off than when most are impoverished. Martin Taylor