Something For Nothing

[henry quirk]

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others.

Good socialist doctrine. Of course if one thinks the purpose of one's life is for the sake of, "social progress," one ends up believing society (other people) exist for their sake.

A wrong premise always results in a wrong conclusion.

That isn't what Bastiat meant, and you know it.

[RCSaunders]

If you haven't figured out the meaning of your existence by the time you are fourteen, you never will.

Yes...fourteen-year-olds are known to be repositories of much wisdom.

Most fourteen-year-olds are like most adults who never figure out what they are living for. My point was not that most fourteen-year-olds have figured it out, but, if by that time they have still no idea what they are living for, they never will, as evidenced by most of those who post on this forum. If you think the purpose of life is some profound mystery only philosophy or religion can solve, you are among them.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think the purpose of life is some profound mystery only philosophy or religion can solve, you are among them.

Well, I'm not fourteen. I guess I lack their insight.

[RCSaunders]

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others.

Good socialist doctrine. Of course if one thinks the purpose of one's life is for the sake of, "social progress," one ends up believing society (other people) exist for their sake.

A wrong premise always results in a wrong conclusion.

That isn't what Bastiat meant, and you know it.

The consequences may not have been what he intended, but all economic theories are based on the belief that some social/economic method will produce a right kind of society, making the primary value, society, not individual human beings. It's the fatal flaw in all social/political/economic ideologies.

He was also wrong about human nature. It is not infected with some flaw or inborn, "inclination," to any particular behavior, and labor is no more, "pain," than eating or making love. Productive work, in fact, is the most enjoyable and satisfying of all human activities rewarding both in the performance of it and in the consequences. Everything has a cost and requires effort and pain is sometimes a cost of achieving or acquiring something of greater value and reward.

If that is not what he meant then he expressed himself poorly, because it is what he wrote means.

[henry quirk]

[RCSaunders]

If you think the purpose of life is some profound mystery only philosophy or religion can solve, you are among them.

Well, I'm not fourteen. I guess I lack their insight.

It's no great insight. Is the purpose of your life:
a. to live and enjoy your life, or,
b. to suffer and die?

There's another way to understand the same thing.

Is your life:
a. something you do and make what you can of, or,
b. something that happens to you that you must endure.

Seldom as explicitly, but always by implication, most people's view of life is "b." They do not love life. They confuse their fear of death with a love of life.

[simplicity]

There's another way to understand the same thing.

Is your life:
a. something you do and make what you can of, or,
b. something that happens to you that you must endure.

Seldom as explicitly, but always by implication, most people's view of life is "b." They do not love life. They confuse their fear of death with a love of life.

It is both. Life is difficult for all people. Just the same, you play the cards you're dealt the best you can and live life without fear. After all, what's the worst that can happen...death? Then, all your problems are solved.

[Immanuel Can]

If you think the purpose of life is some profound mystery only philosophy or religion can solve, you are among them.

Well, I'm not fourteen. I guess I lack their insight.

It's no great insight. Is the purpose of your life:
a. to live and enjoy your life, or,
b. to suffer and die?

Well, you can says so; so says the Materialist, the Physicalist, the Atheist, as well. But it's arbitrary.

If one hasn't, by pure choice, closed the door on God, that doesn't follow at all.

[Belinda]

You won't have much time to spend, "finding a meaning for your existence," when your existence is spending all your time washing your clothes in the river by pounding them with stones. If you haven't figured out the meaning of your existence by the time you are fourteen, you never will.

So says the washing-machine materialist.

What do you eat? Poems?

I am as aware as anyone of the ecological impact of what I eat and buy.

[simplicity]

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, ...

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=32456

There are certainly many folks out there who would fit nicely into the above category, but there are also many others who seem to understand that you get out of life EXACTLY what you put into it.

[Skepdick]

I believe the goal of obtaining, "something for nothing," is the greatest driver of human socio-pathological behavior. People will literally do EVERYTHING...lie, cheat, steal, de-fraud, frame, extort, injury, murder, and even slaughter on a mass scale to these ends. And the kicker is that most folks seem to accept this as the simply the price of admission.

I am certain that few would argue against the notion that our kind has a ways to go. Until we can get beyond this deranged desire to covet what is not ours, over-all human progress will be severely retarded.

What you seem to be pointing out fundamentally is that some people are playing a zero-sum game, where others prefer win/win; or at worse win/not-lose outcomes.

There is a conflict of paradigms in your reasoning. Humans innevitably exist in two paradigms: the physics paradigm which is a zero-sum game with its conservation laws; and the social paradigm which is nett-gain (what we, humans call value-creation) is possible.

As humans we covet what we covet. Whether anything is "ours" or not... that's all debatable. Ownership is an abstract idea.

But if we do subscribe to the physics paradigm, one cannot ignore the principle of least effort as a rational/pragmatic way of attaining one's goals.
As social creatures, we best make damn sure that the choice which requires least effort/cost coincides with the right choice.

[RCSaunders]

So says the washing-machine materialist.

What do you eat? Poems?

I am as aware as anyone of the ecological impact of what I eat and buy.

I wasn't talking about the pseudo-science, "ecology." I mean, if what you eat (wear, live in, drive, (or anything else humans use to live), are not, "material," what are they? You make it sound like material concerns are some kind of fault.

[RCSaunders]

Well, I'm not fourteen. I guess I lack their insight.

It's no great insight. Is the purpose of your life:
a. to live and enjoy your life, or,
b. to suffer and die?

Well, you can says so; so says the Materialist, the Physicalist, the Atheist, as well. But it's arbitrary.

If one hasn't, by pure choice, closed the door on God, that doesn't follow at all.

If you believe in God, life has no purpose? Who knew?

[Skepdick]

If one hasn't, by pure choice, closed the door on God, that doesn't follow at all.

I flipped a coin on God and then closed the door on him because the coin said so.

Does that count?

[RCSaunders]

There's another way to understand the same thing.

Is your life:
a. something you do and make what you can of, or,
b. something that happens to you that you must endure.

Seldom as explicitly, but always by implication, most people's view of life is "b." They do not love life. They confuse their fear of death with a love of life.

It is both. Life is difficult for all people. Just the same, you play the cards you're dealt the best you can and live life without fear. After all, what's the worst that can happen...death? Then, all your problems are solved.

I cannot agree that the purpose of life can be both. Certainly there are elements of both in however one lives their life. Things happen to everyone. The difference is in whether the things that happen to someone are the recognized consequences of one's own chosen actions or the unexpected consequences of one's failure to consciously choose their actions. It's the difference between those who take responsibility for their life and those who blame their every failure and unhappiness on everything but their own choices.