10

New York mayor wants total government control over private property within the city

Posted by  $  CBJ 1 week, 6 days ago to Politics
64 comments | Share | Flag

"I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too."

Another example of Atlas Shrugged becoming reality. If the mayor of New York had said this during Ayn Rand's lifetime, I think she would have left the city.

Also see:
http://nypost.com/2017/09/05/a-plea-t...
SOURCE URL: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/bill-de-blasio-in-conversation.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 week, 5 days ago
    But of course, that's what commies do. As for cities...they are dangerous disempowering creations.
    Once the cities and city states were for protection from the outside world but these days, we need protection from the cities.

    They probably should be just places to visit but not for living there...but then again, I'm just a New English country boy and would naturally be prejudice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 week, 5 days ago
      Fortunately technology is rendering many of the advantages of cities obsolete. Teleconferencing and online shopping, for instance, can be done from anywhere.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 1 week, 5 days ago
    Scumbag. The majority of people of NY get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, the 2 looting wolves eat the 1 innocent productive sheep. And AS prophesy is reality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
      I wish it would just be faster, so that we can start recovery. Why wants to live in a declining society.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Abaco 1 week, 3 days ago
        No. It must be slow and subtle to keep the addled masses from noticing...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
          I agree with that for sure. So does that mean that when the socialist system crashes that the people will revolt (hopefully) as in AS?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ScaryBlackRifle 1 week, 3 days ago
            They only certainty with societal collapse is that it once again leaves that society fully open to domination by the powerful. The US would be very vulnerable not only to warlords within, but to warlords without.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
              Maybe is we can properly assess blame for the collapse this can be averted
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ScaryBlackRifle 1 week, 3 days ago
                That only works before the collapse. I think we can see most of the elements already. Yet, because we (choose to) feel constrained by law we are loath to attend to them.

                Slavery was once legal and slaves among the most law-abiding residents.

                We were indoctrinated into an orderly "law and order" society and are loathe to recognize when the old paradigms have failed. The world you and I inhabit haschanged a great deal from the even the world we were born into.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
                  Oh yes !! Now there are no limits to government powers like there were before
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ScaryBlackRifle 1 week, 3 days ago
                    Actually, the same limits to government power still apply ... but we, for generations, have been too timid to enforce them.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
                      This is just an impression rather than a statement of fact. Since the mid 60’s it seems that when problems come up in our country, the government is not constrained by the constitution anymore. All possible fixes are on the table now compared with 50 years ago- seemingly with no bounds
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
                        That started long before the 1960s. It is a consequence of Pragmatism and its Progressive politics. There are no principles on principle. Anything is regarded as an acceptable "tool" for whatever they think will "work". When it doesn't, they do it over again in another form.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 1 week, 2 days ago
                          I think u are right actually. For did whatever he wanted. I wasn’t really aware of issues like these before the 60’s. I was just commenting on the changes I noted in the last 50 years or so. It’s unsettling as this bubble is going to burst
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 2 days ago
                            We have to read about the earlier phases because we weren't there! But what you observed for yourself since the 60s is fact, not just an impression. And not only is it an unsustainable, unstable bubble, they are progressively making it worse.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by term2 1 week, 2 days ago
                              The swamp is just spending and spending. The bubble will burst for sure, but no one seems to know just HOW or WHEN it will burst
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 1 day ago
                                It could continue in gradual deterioration or something could trigger something more dramatic. But that is on average. Individuals are hit harder depending on their circumstances, as you know from your own experience.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
        Socialist failure does not lead to recovery. Following the same collectivist-altruist premises leads to endless variations of the failure. Collapse of society is not the method to recover the country.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
          I suppose that is true, but total societal failure does tend to open peoples' minds to new ideas such as capitalism and freedom.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
            No, it doesn't. Collectivist failure all over the world has not stopped the consequences of the bad premises continuing to spread and be repeated. If better ideas based on reason and individualism are not formulated, spread, and learned there is nothing for anyone to be "open to", and without understanding they reject them when they are encountered out of fear and from the confusion caused by the inconsistency in the swamp of mixed premises.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
              The ideas based on reason and individualism are ALREADY out there, and have been for like 50 years now (since Ayn Rand). There is some very powerful emotional pull to collectivist ideas for pretty much all time that seems to overtake reason. The USA is an anomaly, and seems destined to disappear into the swamp.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 week, 3 days ago
                Ideas being vaguely "out there" is not enough. Of course the basic ideas exist -- in books and in the minds of a small minority. Most people know nothing about it and are not in any practical way finding out, nor will they if present trends continue in education, the media and the professions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 1 week, 3 days ago
    Steps up on soapbox to shout message to mayor:

    May all your wealth be confiscated and spread about for the greater good. After all, you didn't make that so why should you have it.

    Message delivered. Steps down from soap box.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Ben_C 1 week, 4 days ago
    DeBlasio is dumb as a box of rocks. People who can afford $2,000,000. condo's can live anywhere and take their tax base with them - and they will. The Bernie people will vote for him then crab like hell when their quality of life falls to the lowest common denominator - and it will. This is exactly why we have an electoral college. The Forgotten People had their say last election and will do it again.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
    "If the mayor of New York had said this during Ayn Rand's lifetime, I think she would have left the city."

    She lived during the Red Decade and heard it many times. She would have left the city if she thought the people there would go along with it, and she did -- she died: she said that she felt fortunate that she was old enough to not to have to live through what was coming.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 week, 4 days ago
    I have wondered why Ayn Rand thought that New
    York was so great a city. Maybe because, from what I hear and have read, you don't need a car very much to get around.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
      It was the center of commerce, finance, publishing and a lot more, with a sense of life and bustling continuous activity supporting it. NYC was at one time a magnificent achievement. But that doesn't mean you should personally prefer to live in a city; her husband would have preferred to stay on the ranch in California.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Domminigan 1 week, 4 days ago
    The absolute immorality of it all.
    If a condo is something you desire; Is not a $2M condo something to aspire to? It should create a pull, a drive to do one's best. Wonderful things are to be desired, to be worked for. The comforts and delights of the world should be a reward for furthering the abilities of your fellow man, a golden stone on the pathway of life.
    How have the desirable fruits of one's great labor and effort been twisted into a reason for contempt and reason for their demise?
    Truly; how on this earth have we allowed that to happen?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 week, 4 days ago
    This s glimpse of what proponents of the UN Agenda 21 think. Government ownership of all properties, with the population clustered in a few massive supercities. The idea is to allow the rest of the land to return to its natural state.

    The concept claims to provide the most services to the people in the most efficient manner possible. However, humans did not evolve in these conditions, and the rat warren conditions instill a degree of hostility. Pandemics go through densely packed populations like wildfire. Absolute dedication to system maintenance is necessary, or the whole place quickly becomes a sewer. Natural disasters result in massive casualties compared to a population spread over more territory.

    The sensible solution is to spread the U.S. population over more territory, not less. Take advantage of distributed power, telecommuting, online shopping, remote delivery, online education. Smaller communities are more friendly and personal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Susanne 1 week, 4 days ago
    You make this sound as it's something either new or unusual...

    Zoning laws. Hell, ALL governments enjoy and exploit this control over it's "citizens"... And if this wasn't bad enough... Go ANYWHERE there is a HOA, and try to paint YOUR property an unapproved color, or build a fence of an unapproved material... your "benevolent" HOA board (frequently self-appointed) will be happy to fine you for daring to challenge their socialist order... all for the good of the neighbors and neighborhood, natch!

    That's why I'll never live in a place where HOA's and CCR's are the law of the land. Sadly, most new homes have a self appointed board of control to tell you how to live your life that you are REQUIRED to pay into, that can fine you when you fall afoul of the latest social constraints on your property...

    If I were to go to, say, Portland, Oregon (it could just as well be Boise, Idaho or Dubuque, Iowa), to a historically residential neighborhood, buy up a few lots, and knock down the old Victorians with the intent on putting up a coal burning artisan steel mill... Residential Zoning? I'll show them - I'll ignore it. Ha ha ha...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 week, 4 days ago
      I don't know that much about HOAs. If you move into an area where they have one, and if you own the land you're on, can you just ignore their rules as long as you don't join up? Or does the HOA have some legal power over the neighborhood just by being there?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Susanne 1 week, 3 days ago
        Sadly, they're part of the CCR's attached to the title (another bit of bureaucratic deviousness IMO) so when you buy, you buy with the knowledge these leeches are there, and of your obligation to obey their dictum.

        Yes, you are required to be a member, pay their dues, AND follow their rules. And they can hold you both civilly legally liable and in some cases criminally liable... and it holds up in court.

        What amazes me are there are people who love them - because "they'll keep the property values up, and go after those rulebreakers"...

        Personally - I have NO use for these lecherous leeching socialists... Whoever gave them the authority of Stalin, in whatever evil way possible, should be shot.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
    What bothers me is how slowly the socialist decline will be. Years and years of continually declining freedoms, goods, and services. Look at the trek Venezuela is on. Socialism just uses up the pent up wealth in a society and then it collapses. Its going to take a long time in the USA- a lot longer than I will live.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 week, 4 days ago
    "...I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs...."

    What about the people who need a $2,000,000 condo? Don't they count in his world?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ScaryBlackRifle 1 week, 3 days ago
      I think that, if you lock yourself in a socialist bubble you tend to hear those words a lot.

      But, coming from every community? That's a lie.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 1 week, 3 days ago
        DeBlasio like so many politicians and professors has bought totally into Marx's Manifesto "...Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

        1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes..."

        The really frightening part is that enough New Yorkers agree with him and will no doubt re-elect him.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 week, 5 days ago
    Wow. If you go to the article, it is not taken out of context. The surrounding comments are about how he doesn't like private property and how he would like to limit building new high-end properties and high rents. This just stops new construction, leading to higher prices.

    He says if he has his way, city gov't would control everything. That doesn't make new places to live appear or make people wanting to live there disappear... wait, it actually does make people move away.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
      For the record -- DeCommio on New Yorkezuela City:

      "What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

      "I’ll give you an example. I was down one day on Varick Street, somewhere close to Canal, and there was a big sign out front of a new condo saying, “Units start at $2 million.” And that just drives people stark raving mad in this city, because that kind of development is clearly not for everyday people. It’s almost like it’s being flaunted. Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality."

      "There’s two ways to address it: Ask more from the wealthy in terms of their obligation to society, first and foremost from taxes. Or raise wages and benefits for everyday people."

      "The problem is the top end. In very few ways can we address the rampant growth of wealth among the one percent. The state and the federal government have the power to do that... It frustrates me greatly that we don’t have the power here to tax the wealthy in this city."

      "it’s quite clear that some of the same forces that held back New York City for a long time are now affecting our nation. And they’re not going to be around too much longer, in my opinion, but for a brief and sad moment that negative, hateful, divisive tabloid culture, the same culture that vilified the word liberal, effectively, became too ascendant. It’s now crashing on the rocks. And it’s going to be replaced by something very different."

      "I admire Elizabeth Warren. I admire Bernie Sanders. I admire Chuck Schumer"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 week, 4 days ago
        Set aside the morality of it, whether gov't could effectively control all aspects of real estate, and whether such control could lead to any desirable outcomes. Just consider what he wants. He mentions nothing positive. He is not asking for everyone something like all families of four to have 1200 sq ft and to live within a 1 mile of schools and 2 miles of work. He's not asking for protections for people who can't pay their rent because of illness or job loss. Nothing in this quote even mentions a benefit of gov't control. Look at the paragraphs:
        1. He wants more gov't control without mention how that helps anyone beyond those calling the shots.
        2. He wants to deny people expensive condos with no mention of how this helps anyone.
        3. He mentions raising wages. Maybe he's about to talk about something positive.
        4. No, he wants to tax people more, with no mention of how that helps.
        Maybe we're supposed to imagine that gov't would use the power and money he wants it to have for good, but he never comes out and says it.

        Even if he said it, it wouldn't make it moral or workable, but at least I would be able to see where's he coming from.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
          He said he wants minimum wage controls, maximum rent controls, and a vague promise of "trying to get things done for them", which in their mentality means 'benefits', but all of it amounts to egalitarian nihilism dragging everyone down towards a lowest common denominator while controlling everything in sight because he thinks "they’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality." And that is his biggest nihilistic 'benefit' of all: 'protecting' , i.e., preventing, people from thinking for themselves as a matter of fundamental principle and regardless of what else life is like as a consequence. That is the immorality of it, which can't be set aside.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
      People should just stop moving and living in NYC. THAT would reduce rents for sure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 week, 4 days ago
        "People should just stop moving and living in NYC. "
        If they set up a "very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality," they may get that result.

        I think if only people who "would love to have a very, very powerful gov't" involved in their daily lives moved someplace, it would be almost empty.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 week, 4 days ago
          I wonder about that really. a LOT of people have brainwashed themselves into thinking THAT would actually be utopia. Look at the explosion of people just "giving" to the homeless people who are obviously in that position just to get freebies. "Stronger Together", Medicare for everyone, "The best in people is self sacrifice".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 1 week, 4 days ago
    the residents of new York city have since its inception, I recommend reading "island at the center of the world" by a guy named "shorto" a history of the nyc area since 1515 or so when the dutch settled there. the residents never cared whose government they lived under just so long as the could conduct business. the book is incredibly interesting since I grew up there. they have never changed their attitude so even if they are ruled by commies (they are basically socialists now) they do not care. also consider that the bulk of the population today comes from all over the world so they are no free so they don't give a damn again so long as they can make money.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 4 days ago
    All I can say is that I honestly would love to see it happen on such a grand scale just so we could watch the collapse. There are some lessons people can't learn by reading history - they insist on failing themselves to learn it. I'd like to let it happen (to some degree) just to point to it for others contemplating the same thing about how truly BAD an idea it really is.

    Then again, the determined progressives will just say "Yeah, but I'm not like them. I could make it work." Idiots!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
      People learn by understanding the proper principles, not be staring at either history or a recent collapse. There are a lot of good people in New York who would be badly hurt by the pointless collapse you would love to watch.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 4 days ago
        People only learn what they want to - be it correct principles or not. And they have two sources for that learning: themselves or the stories of others.

        Many people simply refuse to invest in the study of others' actions and the consequent repercussions. They insist on experiencing those things for themselves because they want to believe that somehow they are special: that they are different from everyone else to such a degree that the laws of nature do not apply to them. This applies to everyone to some degree but progressives make this self-exception into a policy. As such, only the blunt 2x4 of reality has the force necessary to jar from them the rose-colored glasses they strap to their faces all the while proclaiming that they have the most open of minds.

        Of course I don't wish ill on others. But tragedy is often the only opportunity under which a truly open approach to life may be instigated in many people. And I would rather give them the chance to change their ways through tragedy than see them condemned by their own rebelliousness and ignorance.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 week, 4 days ago
          Principled understanding is not learned from "stories" and does not suddenly spring out of "trajedy". Seeing that something is wrong does not tell anyone what is right.

          If you don't want to "wish it on others" then don't write "All I can say is that I honestly would love to see it happen on such a grand scale just so we could watch the collapse."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 4 days ago
            "Principled understanding is not learned from "stories""

            I'm not sure where you think learning comes from then. Books and the written language are for the primary purpose of propagating the stories and learning of others. The vast majority of everything learned came not from you, but from others. Good grief, why did Rand write Atlas Shrugged if not to give us the opportunity to read it and study it? Is it not a story? Yes, it is.

            Failure teaches us to reevaluate our hypotheses (Thomas Edison discovered hundreds of ways not to build a lightbulb). Death teaches us how beautiful and valuable life is (communism wouldn't be such a crime if it weren't responsible for mass murder). Sickness teaches us the value of good health (Pasteur researched vaccines to combat smallpox). The pains, travails, and difficulties of others can either be instructive to us or not, depending on whether or not we choose to learn from them. What is the phrase so applicable here? "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."


            "If you don't want to "wish it on others" then don't write "All I can say is that I honestly would love to see it happen on such a grand scale just so we could watch the collapse.""

            I wrote that tongue in cheek, but unfortunately it's hard to project that via the medium of a forum.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 week, 3 days ago
              This is not a matter of discovering everything oneself versus learning from others. You are equivocating. Knowledge does not consist of "stories". That is the mentality of anti-intellectual activists on both the left and right emotionally manipulating people through "narratives", "anecdotes", and "stories".

              Concepts and principles are not absorbed instantaneously. They take time to discover, validate, absorb and integrate, whether on one's own for some of it or learning previously discovered knowledge from others while sorting it out from the mixture and nonsense in circulation.

              No one discovers the proper principles of morality and politics or how to properly understand history out of the collapse of a society -- even if it wakes them up and leads them to question anything they previously accepted. Knowledge does not come by revelation after experiencing a disaster; all that tells you, if anything and if you already have any decent standards at all, is that something went wrong, not what, why, or how, and not what is the proper course.

              Figuring all that out while learning to reject the falsehoods takes time, effort, and objectivity. With all that is already happening in the country and in the world, if anyone still needs a motive to begin to rethink his mistaken beliefs, let alone go in the right direction, a collapse will not help him.

              No, rational people do not need "death" and "sickness" to appreciate life. Anyone who can see that choices make a difference, and therefore appreciate what he has and wants without wallowing in sickness and death. Goals achieved and the possibilities show what is of value, not death. Life that is proper to man in the face of choice, not stagnation or death, gives rise to the need for a science of ethics. That fundamental alternative does not tell you what is proper for man or what values to seek and appreciate.

              The problems that rational people have solved throughout history do not explain how they got the solutions. The time-consuming focus and creative effort of rational thinkers who know it is right to think and act independently causes the solutions, which do not spring out of the original problem, let alone the "pains, travails, and difficulties of others", just because they are there. Throughout most of history problems were not solved. Our focus is on achieving value and what that takes, not avoiding death by adopting an effortless revelation in response to fear and destruction.

              And no, communism isn't "such a crime" just because it's practitioners committed mass murder. It is a moral crime at its root for its subjugation and sacrifice of the individual to the collective as a matter of principle, not a moral ideal that went bad in implementation. Understanding that and what is possible to man and how to achieve it takes more than looking at the graves in shock.

              The notion we often see in the 'tea party' movement and here on this forum that the way to 'salvation' is to go on 'strike' and otherwise bring the country down in a collapse so people will 'wake up' and pursue the right course is terribly mistaken and profoundly anti-intellectual. It is not something to relish -- with or without backtracking and claiming it was only humor -- and it was not what Ayn Rand advocated or intended Atlas Shrugged to be as a political 'strategy'.

              The dominant philosophy of a culture determines over time what it becomes and what politics it creates. Reforming the philosophy of the country to understand and adopt reason and individualism, in all their facets, is the only way to reform its politics. There are no shortcuts.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 1 week, 3 days ago
                Knowledge absolutely can and does reside in stories - in histories. That is how we pass along what we have learned to others. Society would not progress were it not able to build on the learning of prior generations. Case in point: the American Indians. They relied on verbal history to pass along their lifestyle and traditions, but left almost no written history and certainly didn't advance scientifically. Contrast that with Europe, where even before the advent of the printing press books were treasured items and paper was one of the preeminent inventions precisely because it allowed for the documentation and promulgation of thought! How many inventions and inventors have gone by the wayside simply because their thoughts were never documented and shared with others?

                "Concepts and principles are not absorbed instantaneously."

                You've never had an "A-ha!" moment in your life have you? Where things just "click" and the light bulb turns on? I feel sorry for you because its an immensely gratifying sensation. My son can look at advanced mathematical principles and instantly grasp how they are useful. He can tell when to use matrix multiplication and when to use a Fourier transform in his programming while I stand behind him in awe. Just the other day he looked up a paper on different types of 3D rendering algorithms and in under five minutes (just long enough to skim through the paper) had told me in which situations each one was best. He has a talent for it. I've seen others who are so mechanically inclined that they can tell you what is wrong with an engine (and how to fix it) simply by listening to it despite having no previous experience with that kind of vehicle.

                I would actually argue that concepts and principles certainly may be understood instantaneously provided the individual has the mental acuity and proclivity to the topic. I would argue (contrary to your assertion) that learning is on a scale for everyone and further that there is a scale for every different kind of topic which is individual to that person (and its called intelligence). Any kind of arbitrary assertion that one categorically may not learn and absorb knowledge as fast as their neurons will fire originates from the ivory tower intellectualist who is afraid of true genius - not reality.

                "Knowledge does not come by revelation after experiencing a disaster..."

                Then you are missing out on all kinds of learning opportunities. That's all I can say. I know many people who specifically credit a disaster or crisis with changing their lives for the better. There are others who use them as excuses to justify doing exactly the same things they have always done. What do we call this? Ah, yes: the victimhood mentality. Those who are self-aware and independent take ownership of the situation and their response to it - no matter what it may be.

                "if anyone still needs a motive to begin to rethink his mistaken beliefs, let alone go in the right direction, a collapse will not help him."

                You've never really helped anyone work through a real tragedy have you, like the unexpected loss of a job, a severe illness, death of a relative, etc.? You stand to the side. Motive is an evaluation of a proposed path and the value which following that path brings to one's life. Motive is absolutely key to changing one's ways. I have worked with people (and been one of those at times) and often a time of tragedy is what spurs one to re-evaluate one's premises and motives. They finally realize because something went wrong that they need to change and look at something from a different perspective. No, it isn't the ideal way, but it is by far the most common way.

                You keep trying to look at thing as if everything is cerebral and people are idiots to not see the truth. Here's a little point of observation: in general, people have to have the truth presented to them in a time in which they are open to accept it (motive) before they will seriously consider it simply because of inertia. People are creatures of habit not only in action but in thought. It takes something out of the ordinary to overcome that inertia and (perhaps) set the ship on a new course. And the greater the inertia the greater the magnitude of event needed to overcome it.

                That is why our nation is where it is: inertia. Progressivism didn't become the norm overnight - displacing the traditional liberalism that pervaded this nation only a century before. Progressive idealists have been working for more than a century to influence society and through what tactics: the media and education institutions. Why these in particular? To push their stories and their ideas.

                Why did Hitler write "Mein Kampf" or Karl Marx "The Communist Manifesto" or Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals"? Why did Ayn Rand write "The Fountainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged" or Stephen R. Covey "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People"? What about the Bible, the Torah, and the Qu'ran or any number of other books?

                Why? To push their stories and their ideas.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo