Economics discussion split from "What Beta is not"

[discojoe]

Beta and Gamma are equal and better than both Delta and Alpha, with Delta being the worst (except for Galen, of course )

The thing with Beta is that we need to be fed the proper beliefs and viewpoints, as we tend to take on the most visible of such points of view. Unfortunately, the most publicly and articulately expressed beliefs have been in support of big government, nanny-please-wipe-my-ass bullshit (aka socialism).

And it compounds. As more Betas are indoctrinated, the stronger the socialist absurdity becomes, because Betas are brilliant at articulately defending and promoting any point of view they happen to take up (e.g., Ronald Reagan, an EIE).

I began to support free market economics when I determined to understand the fundamental economic feasibility of Obama's social agenda. A wonderfully clear and concise book, written by a brilliant LIE, convinced me that Obama was a moron. However, I only read it because I am admittedly more objective than the average Beta and don't simply satiate my Ego block when it comes to causes of such enormity.

So what Betas need is a clear and articulate advocation of the proper political agenda -- namely, lassaiz-faire economics and small government. When this happens, we'll make it happen.

[stray]

^If they're inclined to draw upon trends, then what's up with the various Ni types who seemed..pretty much out of left field when it came to their visions for society? Like it seems there's more radicalism and revolution in Beta. Nietzsche comes to mind as a possible IEI (?). On the benevolent side, MLK Jr. perhaps?

Same goes for entertainers. Maybe Mercury and Bowie, for example?

And then, there are the completely batshit who seemingly didn't draw upon anything except lust and overactive imaginations. Jim Jones and Rasputin maybe?

[golden]

I began to support free market economics when I determined to understand the fundamental economic feasibility of Obama's social agenda. A wonderfully clear and concise book, written by a brilliant LIE, convinced me that Obama was a moron. However, I only read it because I am admittedly more objective than the average Beta and don't simply satiate my Ego block when it comes to causes of such enormity.

I downloaded that book at your recommendation.

So what Betas need is a clear and articulate advocation of the proper political agenda -- namely, lassaiz-faire economics and small government. When this happens, we'll make it happen.

So the issue I face in this matter is that religion/social values and economic/government structure issues have gotten intertwined. Care to comment on that?

[Pa3s]

Beta and Gamma are equal and better than both Delta and Alpha, with Delta being the worst (except for Galen, of course )

Is it because of the ?

Unfortunately, the most publicly and articulately expressed beliefs have been in support of big government nanny-please-wipe-my-ass bullshit (aka socialism).

That's interesting, I thought many revolutionary Communists and Socialist were Beta, especially in that propaganda book I've read. It was the (allegedly) real story about a young Communist during the Russian Revolution. He was a pretty obvious LSI imho.

[glam]

So what Betas need is a clear and articulate advocation of the proper political agenda -- namely, lassaiz-faire economics and small government. When this happens, we'll make it happen.

i would not support that shit.

[discojoe]

i would not support that shit.

My experience is that anyone who doesn't support it doesn't understand it. I have a robust grasp of both viewpoints, and free market economics is undeniably preferable to government oversight.

But really, I've never debated a single person over economics who actually understood both the history and the function of the market. In fact, now that I think about it, they haven't understood their own argument either, at least not beyond meaningless, cliché platitudes about "teh gr33dy man ni the bigb@d companie lol bill gaetes mirite." That is a fundamentally unsound, illogical, and absurd position to take if you're going to argue against pure capitalism.

[discojoe]

So the issue I face in this matter is that religion/social values and economic/government structure issues have gotten intertwined. Care to comment on that?

Ugh, this is a tangled quagmire of a topic, but whatever.

Religion is generally seen by liberals to promote and perpetuate religiosity, irrationality, and fear-driven tyranny. The irony of this is that liberalism itself -- or at least many of the various movements within it -- possesses these same qualities, especially anthropomorphic global warming activists, who bought in to all kinds of political propaganda and science so unsound that it bordered on comical. This movement was entirely irrational and overly reactive, an emotional response brought on by half-baked horror stories told by politicians who realized the marketability of the topic and how it could help them further their political careers. It engendered in liberals what they claim to reject: a belief founded in self-deceptive religiosity.

Moving on. I would argue that religious people, Christians in particular, are happier, more emotionally stable, and ironically, more grounded in reality that the overzealous hordes of atheistic liberals. The Christians I have known, especially the friends (lots of them) of my friend Tam, have all seemed happier, acted more kindly, and been all-around more pleasant than those non-religious people with whom I associate.

Part of this is that humans need to have a moral foundation, of which Christianity is a spectacular source. I think also that western civilization has been so stunningly successful because of its widespread adherence to the moral code of a loving, forgiving God, who brings order and stability to the universe, providing man with the confidence to generate endless productivity. This is in contrast with Islam, whose god is one of chaos and unpredictability who stifles innovation and snuffs out ambition. Look at all the contributions of Christian civilization versus those of Islamic. The vastness of their difference cannot be overstated.

So I believe that religion is already incorporated within our society. The idea of natural law (i.e., natural rights to property, etc) arose from the minds of Christian scholastics during the middle ages, many of whom were the first to expound basic economic principles of supply and demand, scarcity, wants, etcetera. The legal system we adopted from English common law was itself the ancestor of Roman law that had been canonized during the first millennium and passed on through the Renaissance and following centuries. The idea that Christianity need be separate from the operations of government via the beliefs and actions of its bureaucrats is essentially a lost cause, and I think that's a good thing, because Christianity is the foundation of modern day ethics, the notions of natural rights, personal freedom, and so on.

Liberals are too quick to discard the wisdom of the past on no more than a whim and replacing it with some untested new policy that they believe everyone must follow. That is the quintessence of arrogance and foolishness. Like Edmund Burke said, you should replace an existing system only if the new one is sustainable. That's why he supported the American revolution, but not the French.


EDIT: Can a mod move the economic stuff to a new topic so that Ezra's doesn't get completely hijacked?

[stray]

Even when possible Beta Christians come to mind, it still seemed like there was a sense of the revolutionary and radical. Upheaving a lot in society and then replacing it with something new. Martin Luther comes to mind as a possible ESTp (and Calvin an ISTj).

[Pa3s]

Martin Luther comes to mind as a possible ESTp (and Calvin an ISTj).

Luther was ISTj as far as I know. I'm pretty convinced of that.

[stray]

Luther was ISTj as far as I know. I'm pretty convinced of that.

Fair enough. Tbh, I just picked ESTp because he looks like the Filatova drawing. He was definitely "merry" though.

[Beautiful sky]

Beta and Gamma are equal and better than both Delta and Alpha, with Delta being the worst (except for Galen, of course )

[ashlesha]

he types you beta, remember?

[golden]

Ugh, this is a tangled quagmire of a topic, but whatever.

Religion is generally seen by liberals to promote and perpetuate religiosity, irrationality, and fear-driven tyranny. The irony of this is that liberalism itself -- or at least many of the various movements within it -- possesses these same qualities, especially anthropomorphic global warming activists, who bought in to all kinds of political propaganda and science so unsound that it bordered on comical. This movement was entirely irrational and overly reactive, an emotional response brought on by half-baked horror stories told by politicians who realized the marketability of the topic and how it could help them further their political careers. It engendered in liberals what they claim to reject: a belief founded in self-deceptive religiosity.

Moving on. I would argue that religious people, Christians in particular, are happier, more emotionally stable, and ironically, more grounded in reality that the overzealous hordes of atheistic liberals. The Christians I have known, especially the friends (lots of them) of my friend Tam, have all seemed happier, acted more kindly, and been all-around more pleasant than those non-religious people with whom I associate.

Part of this is that humans need to have a moral foundation, of which Christianity is a spectacular source. I think also that western civilization has been so stunningly successful because of its widespread adherence to the moral code of a loving, forgiving God, who brings order and stability to the universe, providing man with the confidence to generate endless productivity. This is in contrast with Islam, whose god is one of chaos and unpredictability who stifles innovation and snuffs out ambition. Look at all the contributions of Christian civilization versus those of Islamic. The vastness of their difference cannot be overstated.

So I believe that religion is already incorporated within our society. The idea of natural law (i.e., natural rights to property, etc) arose from the minds of Christian scholastics during the middle ages, many of whom were the first to expound basic economic principles of supply and demand, scarcity, wants, etcetera. The legal system we adopted from English common law was itself the ancestor of Roman law that had been canonized during the first millennium and passed on through the Renaissance and following centuries. The idea that Christianity need be separate from the operations of government via the beliefs and actions of its bureaucrats is essentially a lost cause, and I think that's a good thing, because Christianity is the foundation of modern day ethics, the notions of natural rights, personal freedom, and so on.

Liberals are too quick to discard the wisdom of the past on no more than a whim and replacing it with some untested new policy that they believe everyone must follow. That is the quintessence of arrogance and foolishness. Like Edmund Burke said, you should replace an existing system only if the new one is sustainable. That's why he supported the American revolution, but not the French.

I might reread what you posted and comment further later, but I suppose a lot of this comes down to personal experience. You've related yours; mine have been nearly the opposite. A handful of endless examples ... I grew up in the Bible Belt and was regularly treated very poorly by a lot of so-called Christians. My stepfather is a Bible thumper who pulls odd scriptures out of the Bible to harass my mother. When she was diagnosed with life-threatening cancer a few years ago, he told her it was God's way of punishing her.

I've been physically harassed by right-wing Republicans (shoved and slapped with a rolled-up newspaper) merely for being a very quiet member of the media among them. I have a great aunt who thinks a priori that I'm a POS for not being a churchgoer, though she is partially under my care; meanwhile, another family member who is incredibly narcissistic and manipulative can do no wrong in her eyes because he is a professed Christian. On and on and on.

I have known some very nice Christians, too. But it seems like shitty Christians bother me more than shitty seculars because of the greater hypocrisy.

After a lifetime so far of tons of ongoing bad experiences with Christianity, I'll not be allying myself with any political party that aligns itself overtly with religion.

[Creepy-male]

Beta and Gamma are equal and better than both Delta and Alpha, with Delta being the worst (except for Galen, of course )

I see it in functional terms; Ne vs Se

Se is great at determining decisive action based on current circumstances
Ne isn't as great because it focuses too much on imagining the future

the most publicly and articulately expressed beliefs have been in support of big government, nanny-please-wipe-my-ass bullshit (aka socialism).

Lol I think people want a system which provides social services (military, police, healthcare, etc) to them and others... but largely they end up feeding big government which is incredibly in-efficient and beurocratic about providing these.

So what Betas need is a clear and articulate advocation of the proper political agenda -- namely, lassaiz-faire economics and small government. When this happens, we'll make it happen.

Yea, well I think small government isn't purely the problem. It's in-efficiency, the current system is large, bulky, inflexible, rigid, hierarchal, and so forth. Once a small more advanced system is developed things will work better.

Part of the problem though is that people bloat the government up with too many responsibilities that are impractical in both the social and economic spheres. Its hard to stop that process though because of how embedded certain people are that keep it that way for personal interest.

The biggest adversity I think to the system is personal interests infecting the political process, and part of how these get infected into the system are the media/lobbys. Essentially the government becomes a tool for influential people with media/lobbyists to manifest their own personal agenda. Since there are many personal agendas competing over media influence the system becomes a trash heap of personal agendas and complicates an architecture which was originally effective and elegant.

[Beautiful sky]

Te's are more aware of what the present resources are, so what you're saying is applicable to Se is really to Te. Acting based on the knowledge of these resources is also Te.

[Creepy-male]

Militant fundamentalism runs rampant on both 'sides' IME. The demise of the former religions has only given way to Atheistic Scientism and the Church of Statolatry; forming yet another wave of theocratic peril, thanks to dogmatic 'academics' who constitute little more than a 'modern' priesthood. This is hardly an improvement and there's certainly nothing secular about any of it.

Actually if you think about it, no one really honestly gives a shit about academics, people go to church and read the bible, people don't go to university to feel "holy" and they don't read academic journals.

What replaces Christianity is the media in the modern time, people get their "ideology" from the media I would say.

The whole problem with priesthood isn't the religion that the priests are part of or whatever, its trying to give people packaged ideologies like happy meals and distributing them, then having its members dogmatically claim that this packaged ideology is the only thing worthwhile, because they are dependent on it and fear facing nihilism without this pre-packaged product.

In a better system people would be able to provide there own source of "spiritual" health through the develop of a subjective and individually understood ideology and not one pre-packaged and distributed by authority. In fact I tend to think that's what was more or less intended by the concept of "freedom of religion". I think a more highly evolved society, the role of the "church" will shift to forums of ideological expression and emotional support, which will inevitably spawn a new series of pitfalls and challenges but will be a step forward from the current practice of pre-packed ideology supplied by authority.

[golden]

Militant fundamentalism runs rampant on both 'sides' IME. The demise of the former religions has only given way to Atheistic Scientism and the Church of Statolatry; forming yet another wave of theocratic peril, thanks to dogmatic 'academics' who constitute little more than a 'modern' priesthood. This is hardly an improvement and there's certainly nothing secular about any of it.

Although I've had my own issues with the particular kind of mindlessness entrenched in academia, having been present at both Democratic and Republican conventions, I can say that there has been no Karl Rove for the Democrats to stir up vast hordes of frightening zealots and center them as a core constituency that must be pandered to.

As I've mentioned before, I don't like either party and hate feeling that a vote is a mere choice of a lesser evil. I'm increasingly inclined to quote-unquote throw my vote away on some outlier candidates and focus on local politics and nonpolitics.

[silverchris9]

Part of this is that humans need to have a moral foundation, of which Christianity is a spectacular source. I think also that western civilization has been so stunningly successful because of its widespread adherence to the moral code of a loving, forgiving God, who brings order and stability to the universe, providing man with the confidence to generate endless productivity. This is in contrast with Islam, whose god is one of chaos and unpredictability who stifles innovation and snuffs out ambition. Look at all the contributions of Christian civilization versus those of Islamic. The vastness of their difference cannot be overstated.

I'm not 100% sure about that. Christianity (or people who call themselves Christians) have done some pretty fucked up shit if we're counting contributions both positive and negative. And I don't know much about the "cultural fecundity" of Islam, but I do think they preserved the books of the ancient philosophers (although you could still get a decent amount from quotations in books by church fathers, I suppose).

So I believe that religion is already incorporated within our society. The idea of natural law (i.e., natural rights to property, etc) arose from the minds of Christian scholastics during the middle ages, many of whom were the first to expound basic economic principles of supply and demand, scarcity, wants, etcetera. The legal system we adopted from English common law was itself the ancestor of Roman law that had been canonized during the first millennium and passed on through the Renaissance and following centuries. The idea that Christianity need be separate from the operations of government via the beliefs and actions of its bureaucrats is essentially a lost cause, and I think that's a good thing, because Christianity is the foundation of modern day ethics, the notions of natural rights, personal freedom, and so on.

Liberals are too quick to discard the wisdom of the past on no more than a whim and replacing it with some untested new policy that they believe everyone must follow. That is the quintessence of arrogance and foolishness. Like Edmund Burke said, you should replace an existing system only if the new one is sustainable. That's why he supported the American revolution, but not the French.

+50. Like Nietzche says, Christianity is the foundation of "slave morality" in the west. And guess what? We LIKE slave morality.

OTOH, the French Revolution... may not have been practically necessary, but it WAS necessary idea/zeitgeist-wise.

[tcaudilllg]

I love that we are being primed for 6.8% unemployment now in the media. It's really super.

Oh well, you know what they say: the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

[Beautiful sky]

Go away.

When you arm yourself with facts, don't these become like arsenal in an argument? Then how is it that Te is not being aware of the resources?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes. That is why you must go.

It would be better if you were less rude...

[golden]

He is less rude.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I agree that Maritsa can be rude in her own way on a rather regular occurrence...but apparently attempting to stifle debate by ordering someone out of a thread is on a somewhat different level. Honestly, I find it difficult to spell out particular peeves to people who are regularly "rude", without somehow bringing into question why I did not equally tell someone who was similarly rude around that particular time, but who in the long-term, is not generally rude.

[Gilly]

BAD DJ. Religion is the source of many of the world's problems. There are better ways to inculcate positive values and outlook.

[Simon Ssmall]

BAD DJ. Religion is the source of many of the world's problems. There are better ways to inculcate positive values and outlook.

+1

Not to mention I wouldn't call god from the bible as all loving and forgiving.

[Creepy-male]

BAD DJ. Religion is the source of many of the world's problems. There are better ways to inculcate positive values and outlook.

+1

Not to mention I wouldn't call god from the bible as all loving and forgiving.

The old testament God of Christianity is the analogue to other gods such as Zeus and Odin.

The "Divine King/Father/Patriarch" Archetype.

I think mainly it exists as an expression of people's need for some transcendental ideal of justice. However part of the problem is its easy for people to project their own ideas onto this archetype of "god" and then go around self-righteously claiming it to be divine law.

Scientific Aetheism becomes popular because apparently self-righteousness is eliminated when people are open to the possibility that their understandings of things could be potentially flawed or disproven.

Although what I've noticed is that as scientific aetheism becomes more and more popular, science is starting to gain "authority", ego, and self-righteousness. I think in general the problem is human.

Two problems characterize it...

• People don't want to face life's difficult questions and go through painful feelings of nihilism and so forth, so instead they immediately flock to pre-packaged ideologies to alleviate their potential suffering.
• People want to disseminate this ideology as correct, because they are insecure of differing ideologies because it means they could be potentially wrong, which makes them face the feelings of nihilism again.

I think in any case the solution isn't forcing people to suffer nihilism, but to allow people to have the freedom to find meaning in what resonates true for them. Part of that is people being able to undergo questioning of their beliefs, instead of allowing their insecurities run rampart. I mean something that is true, is true, regardless of whether you acknowledge it as such or not... so its not like questioning invalidates true things, it only allows people to pursue truth, and questioning can exist only in a free society.

[Absurd]

Subterranean hates me.

Say you love him. Love conquers all.