Well, if the invention of money was inevitable once commerce in property
was established then I suppose the pursuit and concentration of money
was inevitable after capitalism was established and that is what you are
describing. And you are also correct in that it is not the final
solution. It occurs to me, though, that at least in one country money
was abolished and it was abolished immediately after a capitalist
government was overthrown. I certainly hope that future attempts to
abolish money are not as inept as that one. I am talking about the Khmer
Rouge. They abolished money by decree and at the same time they
abolished not only private property, but also personal property. Their
problem was that they did not even attempt to create the objective
conditions that would have made that work. The most important thing that
they did not abolish was the state. Of course they were in no position
to abolish the state anyway, but they used their own state apparatus to
issue enforced decrees that really need to await the abolition of the
state by withering away. The result was disastrous. Effectively they
were not even a left-wing regime. They were extreme right-wing in nature.
On 8/5/2016 11:59 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
I'll concede the point that, "once property relations had been
established and commerce in the way of exchanging property was
underway money was just about inevitable."
Nonetheless, that being said, my point was that the creation of money
went a long way toward removing us Humans from Reality. We not only
created money, but with it we created a false world in which this
money became as real as if it grew on trees and could be raked up with
the Fall leaves. Money, we came to believe, could solve all of our
problems and meet all of our needs. The trick was just to figure out
how to get enough of it. Today we have a sense that money will save
us from Climate Change. We believe that money will control nations.
Money, spent in the right places, will cure all of our health issues.
Our politicians are controlled by money. It is the center of their
political lives. They spend more time trying to collect money than
they do working for their constituents.
Money has become so much a part of our civilization that if it went
away everything we know and love would crumble. We are so controlled
by money that we have no sense of any other way to run our business,
the business of living in this world. And as far as money being the
most efficient method of doing business, if that is true, then the
vast majority of humans are getting short changed. Unless all people
can share in this efficient method of doing business, then money
really is not the answer.
But since I am just another mental plodder, I have no ability to think
far enough out of the box to come up with new and novel solutions.
I'm just not willing to accept that we have reached a final solution.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/5/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let me first back away from the label of objectivist. Objectivism was
the very poorly chosen name of Ayn Rand's philosophy. It has nothing to
do with being objective. With that said, once property relations had
been established and commerce in the way of exchanging property was
underway money was just about inevitable. It is just entirely more
efficient than barter. I remember when Ted was still with us and I said
that I was for the eventual abolition of money. He felt the need to tell
me that very thing about barter. That was an example of cultural myopia.
He could not imagine that property relations could be different from the
way he had always known it and if the could not be then I would not be
for the abolition of money. Nevertheless, given the objective conditions
under which money was invented I think it was a pretty natural outcome
and inevitable.
On 8/5/2016 11:18 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Frank, I'd enjoy hearing the arguments of those who believe the
development of money was a natural course of life.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/5/16, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
According to some objectivists that overlay is the natural course of
life
Frank Ventura
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 5, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If we agree that Survival of the Fittest is the single natural process
which has enabled all life forms to exist, then we Humans have done a
very naughty thing. We invented "Money"!
At that point we disrupted the natural flow by changing the "survival
of the fittest" to, "the Survival of the Greediest".
Of course, by money, I am including all the stuff we Humans have used
over the centuries for exchanging services. From the family who bring
three goats and a laying hen to the family of the bride to be, to the
Lord who took half the wheat from the field of his serfs, to Donald
Trump.
Of course with goats, chickens and wheat, we were still connected to
Nature. But once someone decided to cast a coin to represent those
goats, chickens and wheat, we moved away from the real world. We had
begun to create an overlay, a phony world, a world that the other
living creatures could not participate in. Thus, we told ourselves,
we were superior to all other life. With our phony coins we could
control other Humans, and with them, all life...we thought. One thing
we seem to want to forget is this inherent need to dominate. That
old, Survival of the Fittest gene that brought us to the place we now
occupy on Planet Earth. But instead of our healthiest, strongest,
most clever off-spring surviving to bring forth even stronger,
healthier and more clever products, we have come to judge one another
by the piles of phony coins we can amass. And we use this to control
others, rather than our brains and strength.
Remember the old saying, "Use it or lose it"?
If our focus has come to bear on those phony coins, what do you
suppose is happening to our natural health, or strength, and our
brain? Look about you. Notice how many strong young people are out
there? Or are they huddled behind a pile of phony coin, or pecking,
like pigeons, at the little screens and other toys that they have
traded some of their phony coins for. As a Nation, Americans are in
worse health than at any other time in our history. And what about
this great society we built. Sure, we're told by our Empire's
historians that the "Great Men", like Rockefeller and Morgan, built
this nation with their clever American ingenuity. But of course the
real work was done by the young, strong pioneers who labored in the
fields and mines and swung the hammers and hauled the bricks that put
this Land on the world map. But once again, those pesky phony coins
were used to convince the working class in this country that we were
strong because we were wealthy, and had such great men leading us
forward.
And here we are today, looking at deciding between two very wealthy
people, clever people when it comes to raking in those phony coins, to
choose which one is our new leader. Not by a natural selection that
might have produced a real leader, but by the power of those phony
coins that cover up the growing weakness of those who are only clever
enough to pile up the most wealth, and to use that as a power base to
control the rest of us.
The winner, in the long run, will be Nature. She always has the last
word. The time will come that all those phony coins will rot and rust
and become, once again, part of the Earth.
And we Humans will have missed our chance at real greatness. All
because we made a wrong turn and began pounding out little phony
coins.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/4/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't know if it is learned or innate, but when I say that examples
of
objective conditions are the money economy, the widespread use of
electricity and the existence of poor people and I am told that
instead
of objective conditions those examples represent mental illness and
are
ridiculous then I suspect the mental illness lies in the accuser.
On 8/4/2016 10:13 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Alice, Roger. This is like listening to Hillary and Donald slinging
shit back and forth. I haven't the foggiest as to what the real
issue
is, here. But from the sound of your "exchange" you won't be
speaking
to one another again. Well my friends, that is how wars begin.
Now, before you shoot me, your humble messenger, tell me this, are
your responses "learned behavior", or are they deep within our DNA?
If the former, then the two of you will be able to lick your wounded
pride and come back to discuss whatever point you were trying to
make,
but if it is deep within our DNA, let's just dig a hole and pull it
in
behind us.
Carl Jarvis
(A man who knows better than to attempt to be a peace maker)
...but just can't help himself.
It's that old Rehab Teacher Gene that just keeps on keeping on.
CJ
On 8/3/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, here are the three objective conditions that I used as
examples.
One, we live in a money economy. That means that people acquire
money
and spend it. Two, we live in a situation in which electricity is
used
and the use of that electricity effects most every aspect of our
lives
every day. Three, there are destitute people in this world and there
are
a lot of them. Now, you say that these conditions do not exist and
that
they are ridiculous extremes. If you really believe that then you
have
no idea what is going on around you. If you really believe that we
do
not use money, electricity and that there are no poor people then I
don't see how you can conduct your own daily life. Nevertheless,
though,
these conditions do prevail and they limit both what one can do and
what
one cannot do. If anyone is getting ridiculous it must be you for
denying these conditions. Now, let me advise you of something. If
you
do
not want to be insulted or be the recipient of offensive comments
you
really should stop using insulting language and offensive comments
too.
Every time you try to provoke me with obnoxious shitty attitudes you
are
just inviting the same thing toward yourself. Also, if you choose to
interpret the fact that I have called you out on your shitty
attitude
as
an insult and so the conversation is over then so be it. Your
insulting
obnoxious attitude is unpleasant to me anyway and I can do without
it.
On 8/3/2016 9:52 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
Tantrums? I don’t think so. Are you defining that as objective
conditions, too? Again, I don’t think so.
I understand objective conditions in exactly the way you state in
your
opening sentence.
Your examples do not represent objective conditions, because they
are
impossible extremes.
Living in the world without money would be extremely difficult, but
I
suppose it could be done if somebody, an unusual individual, to be
sure, really put his mind to it and established his own little
barter
economy. But money or barter, it’s still currency in some form.
Living without being touched in any way shape or form by
electricity?
I think that would be impossible, but if you care to outline some
harebrained scenario, have at it.
Making a decision to help every destitute person? That would be a
decision of a severely unbalanced mind, as, actually would the
above
two examples you used.
It’s the extreme, fanatical nature of the examples. To avoid money
as
much as possible, to avoid using electricity as much as possible,
live
off the grid as far as one can, or to help every destitute person
one
runs across in one’s own little corner of the world, fine, but the
extremes you outline are not possible objective conditions, they’re
not realistic, they are far beyond real extant conditions.
I ask you to craft your reply carefully, and if you say one
insulting
thing to me, this discussion is over. I will no longer tolerate
your
offensive comments. Your choice.
.
On Aug 2, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Alice, objective conditions are simply the conditions that really
prevail. They are independent of what anyone wants them to be or
believes them to be. They can be changed, though, and if the
current
objective conditions prevent certain actions then a directed
change,
whether it is hard or easy to effect, may make the desired actions
possible. What puzzles me is that I pointed to some objective
conditions that actually do prevail right now and showed how they
make certain actions, whether desirable or not, either impossible
or
very difficult to accomplish. Then I get from you that I am
referring
to mental illness, something ridiculous and things that have
nothing
to do with reality. That makes no sense to me at all. One of my
examples was how difficult it would be to continue existence in
the
present day world without acquiring or spending money. Do you
really
think that the money economy has nothing to do with reality? Or is
it
that you think that completely ignoring the existence of money
would
not interfere with your daily functioning. I do not understand how
you could possibly think that has nothing to do with reality. I
suspected that you had a different concept of objective reality
than
I did, but I could not imagine what conception would lead you to
say
what you did. So I asked what your conception of it is and you
reply
that you will not tell me and that I should tell you. If it is not
a
different idea about what objective conditions actually means then
I
am at a complete loss of what you could have possibly meant. It
made
no sense to me at all. Now, I can offer what I suspect. You have
taken a bit of a break from outright tantrums lately, but I
suspect
that this could be another tantrum showing up again. Rather than
jump
to that conclusion, though, I am trying to give you a chance to
explain yourself.
On 8/2/2016 7:53 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
ohhhh, nooooooooo…I’m not falling into that trap…
You tell me what it means, what you think it means, how you are
using, and we’ll go from there...
On Aug 1, 2016, at 8:16 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Alice, could you tell us what you think an objective condition
is?
I get the impression that you do not know what the phrase means,
but I don't quite see what you do think it is.
On 8/1/2016 6:41 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
The examples you giving have less to do with human nature and
more
to do with mental illness, because they are, dare I say,
ridiculous, extremes. The things you propose as what if’s also
have little to do with reality. They’re also, as you do point
out,
impossible.
But after proposing these things you restate your position that
objective conditions determine human behavior. Sonow having
rejected your proposals as demonstrating nothing, I’ll restate
my
position
that objective conditions do not determine human behavior or,
more
to the point of the original argument, they don’t determine
whether the negative or the positive sides of human thought
that
determines behavior will prevail, that in the same objective
conditions, an entire gamut of human nobility and human cruelty
can be observed.
What I offered as substantiation for my position are
observations
of very different human behavior existing in the same objective
conditions. What wins out? Cowardice or bravery? Altruism or
selfishness? Helping others or helping one’s self? Working
together, sharing available resources or grabbing all one can
get
for one’s self? Inviting strangers in to offer them shelter or
being only concerned with one’s self or even only with one’s
own
family? Giving things away to those in need or selling them? At
a
certain point, objective conditions and/or external,
unconnected
circumstances might determine who survives and who dies, or
maybe
even that everybody dies, no matter which choices were made,
no
matter who has behaved in which manner. But those choices will
also have influenced that outcome, at least in certain cases,
to
a
certain extent. On Jul 31, 2016, at 8:02 PM, Roger Loran
Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Okay, we don't have to go back twenty thousand years. Let's
look
at right now. What happens if you decide that you are not
going
to acquire or spend money from now on? No matter what your
proclivities might be what choice do you have? Or suppose you
decided that methods of electricity production have a negative
effect on the environment and so you will not use it. That
means
that you will not consume food that is produced with any use
of
electricity; you will not wear clothing that was produced with
any use of electricity; you will not live in a dwelling that
was
built with any use of electricity. How far will you get and
how
long will you survive? Or suppose you decide that it is your
duty
to take care of every destitute person. Once you give
everything
you have away to them and find that there are plenty of
destitute people left including yourself who is going to take
care of you? The point is that objective conditions have a
lot,
a
whole lot, to do with one's behavior. There are simply things
that one has to do and cannot do under certain objective
conditions and if those conditions are changed the range of
possibilities shift along with them. If there are things that
it
is desirable for people to do and other things that it is
undesirable for people to do then by changing the objective
conditions they will have no choice but to change their
behavior.
On 7/31/2016 4:22 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
My examples did not have anything to do with money per se,
but
OK, not money then, but the mentality and behavior described
is
fairly clear.
And really, how much relevance does 20,000 years ago really
have, particularly given the dearth of records, accounts, and
other assorted evidence that can tell the story in depth?
On Jul 31, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender
"rogerbailey81" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I would like to see you hoard money twenty thousand years
ago
when not only did money not exist but the concept of money
did
not even exist. The objective conditions just simply did not
allow for the hoarding of money and not much of anything
else
either.
On 7/31/2016 2:45 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
Both the better and worse sides of human nature prevail in
every objective condition you can name. The objective
conditions actually have the least effect on how people
behave. Some people who have every good thing imaginable
and
in excess are selfish pricks who wouldn’t throw a life
preserver to a drowning man, even if it cost them nothing,
whereas, although I know you scoff at this, others
establish
scholarships, foundations, support scientific research,
open
settlement schools, that’s not so common anymore, establish
libraries, and while none of these things significantly
diminishes their lives of privilege, it’s still preferable
to
keeping it all for themselves and ripping off those less
wealthy than they are. . Some people in the face of
unspeakable deprivation and horror will hoard everything
they
can get their hands on, and others will share whatever
little
they they have with others around them.
On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted
sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Just believing or not believing that the better sides of
human nature will or will not prevail does nothing to make
it
prevail or not prevail. If you really want those better
sides
to prevail it will be necessary to work to change the
objective conditions under which they operate. Recently I
came up with an example that I kind of like. That is what
do
you do if you want a stiff alcoholic drink in Saudi
Arabia.
I
am neither saying that the consumption of alcohol is good
or
bad. I am simply saying that the objective conditions in
Saudi Arabia are such that it would be extremely hard to
get
drunk no matter how much you wanted to. If you have lived
there all your life it is even likely that you will not
want
to get drunk or even think about getting drunk. The
trouble
with Saudi Arabia is that the sides of human nature that
that
society encourages and discourages are not the sides that
I
think should be encouraged and discouraged. The point
remains, though, that if you don't want certain behavior
to
take place you have to construct the objective conditions
such that it cannot take place and if you want other
behaviors to take place you have to construct the
objective
conditions such that they will be inevitable.
On 7/31/2016 10:11 AM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
As I said to Dick, cynic that I am, I can’t quite bring
myself to really believe that the better sides of human
nature won’t prevail, experience notwithstanding. There
are
many, many examples in which it does, despite many
people’s
tendencies to rip even those to shreds because they are
not
100% perfect.
And now, I’m going to do a little of that: you speak of
the
ethical humanist movement, but look at how shabbily the
New
York chapter treated you and your husband. Where were all
their admirable principles of equality and the positive
sides of human nature then?
On Jul 31, 2016, at 9:54 AM, Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Of course, humann nature is what it is. We have the
potential for altruism
and cooperation, and we have the potential for
aggression
and domination. If
we assume that every effort toward making our political
and
economic system
will end in failure because the negative aspects of
human
nature will win
out, then really, there's no point in trying anything
that
might improve
life for all of us. One of the things that I really
like
about the Ethical
Culture, or Ethical Humanist movement, is its emphasis
on
working toward the
kind of society that will encourage the positive aspects
of
human nature.
Miriam
