I was looking for something better than 'stupid people' since stupid tends to imply a lack of intelligence which many people do not lack. Maybe 'dull people' or 'dense people' would work, though I realize that some in the Gulch like to use pejorative references (probably in hilarious fun) in place of a persons name.

I reiterate that db's altruism argument is not germane to my argument. It is an obvious fact that most people do not always live up to their own ethical codes. Arguments regarding altruism rely on acceptance of a false guilt, whereas people who do not live up to their own ethical codes should rightly feel shame for not living up to such codes. Those who do not feel shame for not living up to their own moral codes by definition have no moral code. Such people are not worthy of my association.

I know you are looking for an adjective to describe this, and what I am suggesting is not an adjective. Nonetheless, Rand's description is the most appropriate: blanking out.

When was the last presidential election where your vote decided the contest? Oh, never you say. You say you have done the principled vote before and it went "nowhere." Where did your unprincipled votes go? Where will it "go" this time after you vote for Clinton, Cruz or Trump? Think about this please.

I have done the "principle vote", and I have done the pragmatic vote (albeit only once). The one pragmatic vote was so that John Kerry would not get elected. I did not want GW Bush to win either. In the end, my pragmatic vote in 2004 was a mistake.

Yes, unfortunately.

Your altruism argument is a non sequitur. Even though it is true, it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

I am just wealthy enough to be able to shrug. I likewise enjoy the invention process, but it is a costly endeavor as you correctly say.

Well, you are a creative person, give me your best shot and I will try my best to live up to it.

Indeed.

Why does gov't need political parties? A proper gov't must protect individual natural rights, protect against foreign invasion, and follow the rules for it laid down in the Constitution. The citizens of the republic choose those from within their own ranks to represent them, not professional politicians.

In a laissez faire capitalist market, to make things happen people and business make things happen or more importantly don't, based on true need or economics through individuals, benevolence associations, partnerships, contracts, and corporations--not political favors or influence.

We each get a vote, and rather than vote for someone who isnt going to even remotely win, I will vote for the best choice of the ones that CAN win. I have done the "principle" vote before, but its gone nowhere. And right now, a principled candidate has no chance of actually being elected in a philosophically challenged election.

Because using the mind is the hardest job of all.

So what? You are not buying a win ticket at the race course. Vote for the best candidate for a change.

the party has become a collection of "me-tooers" ...the other side of the counterfeit coin called "democracy in america" with the democrats on the other side...

yes, Irshultis (we need a nickname for you :)), you should live with Db. :)

it is recognizing how power and cronyism come to be. In a proper govt, those representing you in govt, would be seen as accountants or trustees/caretakers. They would be picked, not for their ingenuity/cleverness/popular ism, but their honesty and trustee nature. Why would you need parties? I think parties are useful for bringing resources to certain issues, disseminating information. But these things would decline under a proper govt

That is not as easy a question as you might think. Stephen Hicks’ Explaining Postmodernism (nothing on Burke in this one) is probably the best. My interest was fairly specific and most books are going to want to give you an overview of these philosophers and were not necessarily going to concentrate on what I was interested in.

A good source for overviews of these philosophers without getting bogged down in the details are youtubes, often by philosophy professors. You have to search for the good ones, but the goods ones get to the point quickly usually about a specific issue such as Hume on causation. I put together a list of some good youtubes on philosophy while Pirate was here. I can pass along these if you want.

Then academic/serious papers are my next source. I usually know what I am looking for once I have gotten to this step. Also there are a number of online philosopy wikis that are good. Generally one of these wikis will have a well laid out readable article on the philosopher or the issue, such as causation.

The comment didn't say anything about coming to the same bar more than once so I didn't consider it. But really? Not having a conversation about what table to sit at could destroy a relationship. Me and my friends do it any time when we go to a bar. The first person in the door walks to a table and we sit down. No one asks where to sit. And we don't need to discuss it. Of course if someone thought we would be better sitting somewhere else they could do that too. Just move. We do that. Sometimes there is 2 or 3 at one table and a few at another. Never been a big deal to us. If I had to have a conversation on where to sit every time we got together, I may reconsider the friendship. Just not important to me nor was it the point of the comment. :)

Its an old problem too.

While I know many here do not have any love of the bible, in 1 Samuel 8 there is a very good example of exactly what is hipping today.

The people ask for a king, the prophet says no, dumb and provides a long list of all the terrible things that will come about from a king. Paraphrasing the response, it is we want a king, we want to be like other nations and we want someone to think for us.

It amazes me that we see it today, and that it has gone on for likely as long as humans have lived.

Give people freedom and prosperity and in enough time they will choose slavery and poverty again in order to not use there own mind.