From: James Daugherty (daugh@home.msen.com)
Date: Sun Aug 13 2000 - 08:08:43 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Daugherty" <daugh@home.msen.com>
To: <LA-AGORA@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2000 8:54 AM
Subject: Rand and the Reality of Self-Sacrifice
Bloom's recent book _Global Brain_ has numerous
examples of how the individual is programmed by the
social organims for self-destruction in service of the
group....
Rand never accepted the naive individualistic premise
that "everyone" works for their self-interest. On the contrary,
she always argued for the reality of self-sacrifice, in her view, the
primary factor in the success of tyranny.
What confuses the issue is that any successful action,
even a self-sacrificial one results in some measure pleasure
even though vastly more substantial pains may also result
either simultaneously or later.
James--Voice Mail/Fax: (248) 354-8051
james@alpinenterprises.com
Fee Book Searches:
http://www.alpinenterprises.com/search.html
Free Stock/Mutual Fund Charting and Evaluation Tools!
Free Financial Planning Tools! Great Deals on Software,
Health Supplements, Music, Videos, Toys, Magazines, MORE!
http://www.alpinenterprises.com/prjframe.html
*******************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Goddard" <igoddard@EROLS.COM>
To: <LA-AGORA@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: Various Boltonian Trollisms
At 07:38 AM 08/09/2000 -0700, Craig J. Bolton wrote:
> >
> >
> > IAN: Well stated, but how do you know that the
> > assumption does not match the real world? Let's
> > go back to my question: If the goal of human
> > action is not an endeavor to make oneself happy,
> > then what is it? Simply declaring that the claim
> > that the goal of human action to maximize happiness
> > is a fallacy does not tell us very much. Where
> > are some examples of people not behaving in a
> > way they believe will maximize their happiness
> > under the circumstance they find themselves?
>
>Ian, either you're not reading or you're not thinking.
>Savant's point and my clarification of that point are
>about logic, not about the empirical truth or falsity
>of a premise. Indeed, you can't get to the "empirical
>truth or falsity of the premise" question if you start
>out with the ASSUMPTION that everyone is always selfish.
IAN: When Savant dismissed the claim that
the goal of life is to make oneself happy,
she dismissed the claim per se, which I
read to say that its false both logically
and empirically. I guess the hypothesis
that all people behave with their self-
interest as the priority can't be tested
because some people assume that it's true.
Okay, so it's false and we answered that
(like I'm going to keep asking Bolton for
any examples that might support his claims).
> >> This is increasingly amusing. Several months ago, when I
> >> was "picking" on poor Ian by pointing out his latest
> >> absurdity and his utter lack of credible support for it
> >> [I believe that it was his claim that the latest flu
> >> outbreak was REALLY testing by the federal army of
> >> germ warfare techniques],
> >
> > IAN: Craig, you know perfectly well
> > I never made any such claim, rather I
> > forwarded such a claim made by William
> > Thomas, then I debunked main parts of
> > his thesis. You know that, and yet you
> > continue to make such false claims. What
> > you say leads readers to believe these
> > falsehoods: that Thomas's claim is an
> > "Ian theory," that Craig debunked that
> > theory, and that Ian is promoting it.
>
>
>Ian, I'm simply not going to play this
>silly game with you. You forwarded the post.
>When I attacked it, you extensively defended
>it, to the point of claiming that I was
>demeaning one of the purported professional
>sources cited in the post. When I suggested
>that we forward the theory you were defending
>and your defenses to that source and ask him what he
>thought about them you quickly got off the
>subject. You see, Ian, my memory is not as
>selective as yours. [Also, I archive these
>discussions for future reference - a fact
>you should take account of in your next
>"I never said that"...]
IAN: Who cares about your archive? It's online:
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora.html
Now you can support your implication that
the claim that the Govt is spraying the flu
is a theory that was created by Ian Goddard.
Now you can also prove that you debunked the
claim. But the sad fact is that almost every
counter you raised against the Thomas claim
was shown to be false. For example, you argued
that the Govt would NEVER spary toxins on the
US population, which is why you had to smear
the doctor who was covering the many times
that the Govt DID spray on US populations.
> > IAN: If you have any actual argumentation as
> > to why the flashes are gunshots, please cut
> > the relentless smear jobs and present it.
>
>Ian, I'm really not interested.
IAN: Of course you're not interested in
defending your claim. When have you ever
been interested in defending one of your
claims? I've had to ask you over and over
to defend your claims... one grows weary!
>I do find it "interesting"
>that I first heard this claim from a Waco survivor a few
>months after the events and long before anyone knew about
>the FLIR tapes, but it could all be coincidence. Whether it
>is or not, however, it doesn't much effect the bottom line
>conclusion that the BATF decided to put on a publicity stunt
>rather than doing their job, that they screwed it up [as they
>do all the time], that a lot of people died as a result and
>that none of the BATF officials are in jail but a number of
>their surviving victims are serving long terms in jail.
>
>Given those facts I fail to see the legitimate reason for
>you obsession with this topic [other than the usual "I
>want to promote Ian at any cost" reason].
IAN: Craig, whatever I do you will smear me. I happen
to oppose bullsh*t. You might think it preferable
to allow libertarians to run around spouting provable
falsehoods about the Waco FLIR... that's your problem.
You started smearing me on the basis that you feared
that the ideas I consider would harm the libertarian
reputation, now you smear me for taking on proven-to-
be false claims that have infected the libertarian
camp. The only consistency in your actions is that
you want to smear me for any reason you can concoct.
------------------------------------------------------------
GODDARD'S JOURNAL: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
____________________________________________________________
Asking the "wrong questions," challenging the Official Story
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:25 MST