Paul A. Tanner III posted Dec 7, 2012 5:30 AM: > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:47 PM, kirby urner <SNIP> > Very simply this to all your above: You talk (and > personally involve yourself) a good game but in the > end, it's meaningless and useless and empty, for a very > simply reason: Your rhetoric tells me that in spite > of all this pretty sounding talk, you are against the > only things that would actually make things better, > these things being the laws that must be passed - the > public policy that must be implemented - along > the lines that I have been suggesting, some of this > being the laws and public policy that we in the US > started to abandon starting with Reagan (via enough > voters in the US being conned by the lies of > conservatism) even though these laws and policies > served us very well. > > That is, your total presentation is just more of the > morally-challenged inconsistency of conservatism, > like so many conservatives implicitly saying, "I'm > heavily involved personally in charity, and so it > therefore is OK or me to (1) be in favor of laws > and public policy that if fully implemented would > result in less happiness and more suffering and > premature death over the entire population, and (2) be > against laws and public policy that if fully > implemented would result in more happiness and less > suffering and premature death over the entire > population." > > (Regarding the "happiness" reference: See > > "Moral economics -> world's highest living standard > and greatest happiness" > http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=7633652& > tstart=0 > > for the truth, very heavily documented along with > very many links.) > I am not able to judge (as Paul is apparently able to) that "Kirby is against the only things that would actually make things better, these things being the laws that must be passed..." I do not believe Paul is correct when he claims: (Kirby's) "total presentation is just more of the morally-challenged inconsistency of conservatism, like so many conservatives"
I agree that *SOME* "things that would actually make things better (are laws that must be passed)..." - BUT these are NOT the *ONLY* things.
I agree that surely laws will have to be changed (from very fundamental levels indeed). I also agree that it may be quite difficult for many of us to perceive this kind of fact (that we need to change many laws; much of our thinking).
My question is: how, in even such 'nominal democracies' that are extant today, do we go about making people aware of such facts of our economic and social lives? By and large, we do not know how to do that.
How do people learn how to change their minds from the mindsets that have been drilled into them from early childhood? In general, we all find this kind of thing almost impossible to do.
Check out the attached document "How A Child Learns" for some thoughts on this kind of issue. It IS possible (AND necessary) to go much deeper on such issues - but I do not believe Paul has shown us any real (practical and usable) way forward. The Marxist/socialist paradigm has clearly led us as much down the wrong path as has the capitalist paradigm.
Check out the attached documents "Deep Logic" and "Some Missions of Interest" for some thoughts that are relevant in this context.
I must confide that it takes some (a very small amount of) learning along with some (a fair bit of) 'unlearning' in order to apply the tools mentioned to real-life issues.
The learning and the unlearning have to proceed in tandem.
And adults find 'unlearning' almost impossible to do successfully.