The liberal/religious axis

Posted by deleted 8 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
4 comments | Share | Flag

It has become clear that liberal politicians have found a friend in the cause of assisting Syrian refugees. Recent posts all point to the fact that the Socialist Democrats do not believe in radical Islam as a primary threat, but, rather, as a derivative one whose dependent factor is either "social justice" or "climate change". That man has been made to deal with climate change since the beginning of his kind, and now uses heating oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, or other forms of power is beyond their mental scope. Further, it is clear that these liberal politicians believe this will all go away when their result, i.e. equality of results, is implemented. However, the reason the liberal politicians can purport this theory is their belief that socioeconomic devaluation gives rise to extremism, and not to a faulty ideology. They seem to believe that it is any number of actions, from US-led coalitions' response to terrorism to Israeli occupation of the West Bank which "cause" these issues. Notice the lack of resources argument does not apply to groups funded by large Saudi conglomerates. (Saudi has some of the world's largest oil reserves.) But that doesn't seem to matter. It is the apparent Kantian duty for the West to raise up the physical level of existence for the refugees without ever considering the possibility that the underlying philosophy prohibits such a thing from happening. To put it plainly, materialism has given license to fundamentalism to undermine the same foundation the West. That is why it is critically important to re-read the mystical premise behind the behavior seen on both sides of the fence - material and spiritual mysticism.
SOURCE URL: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/mystics_of_spirit_and_of_muscle.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 4 months ago
    I like the excerpt from Galt's speech, but I don't know what it has to do with these issues.

    I'm one of the non-socialist Democrats who believes in assisting Syrian refugees and that radical Islam is evil but not a primary threat. Criminals always have a story about why they're the good guys no matter how horrific acts. I want to catch them and put them in jail and ignore their story.

    Climate change is a real threat, but I think of it more as a time-value of money problem than a threat. Future costs are balanced against preventative cost we pay now. It's complicated because there are multiple options and the exact amount of the costs are far from clear.

    I didn't understand the thing about anthropogenic climate change existing since the beginning of humankind. At one point we may have been down to a million individuals living a hunter-gatherer existence. It's seems obvious that supporting 7 billion people living affluent lifestyles has more environmental impact.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      Why Democrat? Fossil fuels helped us out of poverty. It's not about denying climate change, it's probably happening, but to what extent and more important, at what cost do we "prevent" it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by edweaver 8 years, 4 months ago
        The climate has always been changing. :) So has the narrative. When I was in school they were talking about global cooling because in the 70's it was cooler in America. Then the 80's came along and there was a drought in which it was warmer so the narrative changed to global warming for the 90's. When the predicted warming did not happen the message became climate change. They can now use this softer, less specific term to blame everything about the climate. Be it tornado's, the extra ice on the south pole, the polar vortex of North America, a volcano in the ocean, an earth quake, etc, etc, etc, it is all caused by climate change.

        When we consider the fact that 90% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year is naturally produced and would not change no matter what humans change, I think the bigger question is at any expense, even if we stopped burning all fuels, could we impact the climate at all? I say no.

        But that opens many more questions. Even if we could change the climate by a degree or 2, what would the price be? How many people would die because of lack of heat or air conditioning. How much more soot would be in the atmosphere since we would need to go back to burning more wood & coal to heat houses and businesses. Wood and coal emits CO2 as well so the reduction in CO2 would be reduced. What about the lost productivity. I could keep going with this list.

        Maybe if we quit burning wood, elephant dung, coal and all other sources of heat for cooking and warmth we could change the temp a degree or two. Burrrrrr, at least where I live. There would definitely be less people on the planet.

        The truth is, if people really study this subject with reason to proves to be a politically made crisis, not a human made problem. But it does little good to argue with the products of our school system. Most have drank the cool aide. I tried to have this discussion with a friends 8th grade daughter and she would have none of it. They are starting them early.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 4 months ago
        That's why I call it a time value of money problem. In engineering we often get problems where we could buy some equipment that would cut costs each month for the next 60 months. You amortize those monthly benefits at certrain rate of interest to distill them into a single present-value number.

        It's not trivial when you're looking at a series of payments now to prevent a series of uncertain costs in the future.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo