From: QueeneMUSE@aol.com
Date: Fri Sep 08 2000 - 16:55:24 MDT
In a message dated 9/8/2000 3:08:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lee@piclab.com
writes:
> tell me
> specifically what it is you /do/ object to. Put up of shut up:
> tell me what's bad; don't just say "it's bad, but what you're
> talking about is OK".
Sigh.
This is like talking to someone with earplugs in.
One. More. Time.
I do not say bad. Good and bad are highly subjective.
Plus, I believe their are important nuggets of neccesary information lodged
between the 'mostly bullshit'.
I said:
Destructive:
Like Punk rock, which saw rock as pompous and arrogant and overblown; who's
sole goal was to dismantle the mechanism of that genre __ and this is
important, Lee:
>>>it is based on a diagnostic process that is fairly accurate. Rock *was*
beginning to be pompous and arrogant and overblown. To my surprise, because I
can hardly see why people would listen to it decades later, the punk
movement actually worked, leaving music in a state of sad disrepair.
Unfortunately young punkers then had no musical abilities to begin with. Now
they mostly play saddish country and western rockabilly. This is known as
deconstructive. It is one thing to be able to disgnos what is wrong with and
organism, it is another to be able to heal it.
Libertarians have yet to show me any solid evidence that their antigovernment
deconstructivist theories will actually work. I am a constructionist. I
prefer to make -- not break. And to be honest, I am not convinced that things
won't fall to shit under that kind of systemic breakdown. I don't hate my
life, nor the beautiful world I live in. I don't resent the people who get
more than their fair share. I love my planet and the lonely, silly,
irresponsible and nutty people upon it. What you propose though it makes a
good coffe table theory -- it will 'fuck things up' more than fix things.
Beuatiful one, I see much anger in your words as well, and while this doesn't
reflect on me personally, it also causes me some trepidation as to your
positivity and motives.
*Dismantling in anger what you do not know how nor care about enough to put
back together is destructive.*
Lacking in Compassion:
I am an advocate of a kind of love called "tough love". This means that in
some cases, I agree with some of the thoughts of libertarians. But-- I said
it before Lee, you look to me like you are always saying "tough shit" about
how anyone else feels, both in your social interactions and your political
ones. You don;t give a rats ass about me, you call me your enemy, you say
being rude is a tool -- you do not display a caring attitude about people.
There is a constant bitter nattering about how people don't deserve to share
anything you have, and this "stealing at gunpoint" attitude when tax time
comes around. That's one way of looking at it, but not the only way.
There is a general laissez faire - no pity- no sorrow - about the hurt
feelings of others.
In this as in all things, there are some good points that are brought to the
table: the support of capitalism as a self help tool, a strong feeling of
self ownership, a return to self responsibility, a belief in non-enabling,
legalization of drugs, freedom of choice and lifestyles. Many of these ideas
a valid and deserve a good ear.
But when difficult social and protection issues (crime and punishment,
institutionalized racism, indigent childcare, hospitailztion for the poor,
feeding and care of mentally ill, elder care, public transportation costs,
support for the handicapped, language anomalies, sexual abuse, etc., etc.)
are brought to bear, libertarians get pissed and won't talk about
complexities. It's either: I'm sick to death of being told: Oh, "it will work
itself out in the free market - or: Let them vote with their pocketbooks OR
Rich people will give money instead of the govt (yeah right) OR angry
spitfire and a total denial of the situation at hand.
Libertarians are tough, oh yes, but I fail to see the love shining in their
eyes.
TOUGH LOVE WITHOUT THE LOVE IS SIMPLY "Tough".
Lacking in Empathy:
Empathy and compassion are two different things. Compassion is pity. A
feeling of sorrow at other's plight. Empathy is the innate ability, hard
wired into us, to "feel another person's pain." We are born with it, most of
us, unless we are sociopaths. Developmentally, children who are neglected, or
traumatized or beaten, they lose this precious ability. Severely abused
children can hit another and not feel pain. A baby who is properly hard-wired
cannot do this.
What the abolishment of all social programs and taxes implies is that a
certain percentage of people will have to either get up and prove themselves
able to work, or they will not be able to. Since these theories do not allow
for us to help by passing laws or collecting taz money that protect and serve
the millions of handicapped and disabled and disenfranchised and
institutionalized and uneducated and malnourished and untrained and depraved
and criminal and undesirable and non-english speaking and illiterate and
hopelessly addicted souls... and we even go so far as to say it is
"unethical" to do so, I see no hope of making people get up and recover --
ie: be the way they "should" -self reliant.
And I really can't watch the decay and despair of the population above
without "feeling their pain". I really could not. When they suffer, so do I.
You seem to think it's you vs. them, I see us as the same.
SO you see... the crux of the paradox lies here:
I want to honor the parts of your chatter that will bring about change, but
totally disavow the parts that are destructive, mean and bitter.
Nadia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:52 MST