|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2010 8:45:32 GMT 10
The values of the founders were the values of the Enlightenment, which is reflected in Masonry itself - the recognition of the primacy of the individual. Rather than a matter only concerning the US, I would say, rather, that it is a matter concerning the whole of mankind. Or, are you saying that the rest of the world does not recognize or deserve the freedom of the individual? While the US selected some Enlightenment values and took them in one direction, emphasising man as an individual entity, in Europe the entire compass of Enlightenment philosophy led away from feudalism in another direction, emphasising man as both an individual entity AND as a social entity, arguably becoming expressed through progressive Socialist policies, with Marx advancing neo-Enlightenment ideals (flawed by a fixed and overly optimist view of Human Nature). For example, please consider Hobbes (died this day 1679, see today’s quotes), Rousseau and Hegel. I suggest that Freemasonry, with its emphasis on the Mystic Tie of Brotherhood, the three great pillars on which it said to be founded — Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth — and with one of the first tests applied being that of charity for those less fortunate than one’s self, sits better within the full compass of Enlightenment ideals (hence our philosophy being described as “Humanistic”).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2010 8:48:28 GMT 10
In fact, it was the British crown that was profiting unfairly off of the labor of the colonists, by levying unfair taxation and restricting free trade. Pretty much as I said — Well done!
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2010 8:52:47 GMT 10
No, it is an equal opportunity in that an individual can go as far as he can by hard work and education. That another wishes to achieve less is on himself. It is not a proper function of government to redistribute one man's wealth to another to compensate for circumstance, often self-created. No one "wishes to achieve less." Where cycles of poverty can persist in some families for generations, clearly there is not equality of opportunity for those family members. Why, in one family, do even its most promising members generally and repeatedly fail, while in another family, even a dull, delinquent son can become President? Nepotism and cronyism are rife in the US, contributing to it having the highest disparities of income and wealth among developed nations.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2010 8:57:52 GMT 10
Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of living—and of thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive activity.
“For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 25 Bryan, you already know my opinion of Rand’s deeply flawed philosophy. How ironic that an anti-intellectual like her should entitle a work “ For the New Intellectual”!? We read of its reception: No wonder she needed a “new intellectual,” the old ones saw through her nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Dec 4, 2010 9:49:00 GMT 10
The values of the founders were the values of the Enlightenment, which is reflected in Masonry itself - the recognition of the primacy of the individual. Rather than a matter only concerning the US, I would say, rather, that it is a matter concerning the whole of mankind. Or, are you saying that the rest of the world does not recognize or deserve the freedom of the individual? While the US selected some Enlightenment values and took them in one direction, emphasising man as an individual entity, in Europe the entire compass of Enlightenment philosophy led away from feudalism in another direction, emphasising man as both an individual entity AND as a social entity, arguably becoming expressed through progressive Socialist policies, with Marx advancing neo-Enlightenment ideals (flawed by a fixed and overly optimist view of Human Nature). For example, please consider Hobbes (died this day 1679, see today’s quotes), Rousseau and Hegel. I suggest that Freemasonry, with its emphasis on the Mystic Tie of Brotherhood, the three great pillars on which it said to be founded — Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth — and with one of the first tests applied being that of charity for those less fortunate than one’s self, sits better within the full compass of Enlightenment ideals (hence our philosophy being described as “Humanistic”). Philip, you do understand that charity as we understand it, wasn't what is was all about 300 years ago, however I would like to point out that I personally fall about halfway between you and Max on this, I see sense in both sides and some rubbish on both sides, but combine both your views, the better parts, and I think that is the ideal, in my view anyway, and hey Max, no need to shoot me either ;D
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2010 10:27:46 GMT 10
Philip, you do understand that charity as we understand it, wasn't what is was all about 300 years ago,
however I would like to point out that I personally fall about halfway between you and Max on this, I see sense in both sides and some rubbish on both sides, but combine both your views, the better parts, and I think that is the ideal, in my view anyway, and hey Max, no need to shoot me either ;D Re charity: Do you mean, it involved more than money and was indeed a warm and intimate response to another's needs? If so, I agree. Re your halfway point: you may be comfortable with this masonic quote I have just posted elsewhere on the forum: The Scottish Rite And Extremism:Certainly, I discountenace Communism and Anarchism believing them to be impracticle and are often perversely used as fronts for totalitarian politics. Likewise I discountenace fundamentalism, as may be apparent from my oft repeated themes here. Practical Socialist policies can and should be encouraged, to the extent that a society can reasonably afford them, to mitigate against systemic biases in our socio-economic sytems. Significantly ALL developed nations have some Socialist policies, including the US. I have already detailed some countries with strong Socialist policies which enjoy strong Capitalist economies.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2010 17:00:29 GMT 10
[/size][/quote] Communism is like prohibition, it's a good idea but it won't work
Will Rogers, Tsalagi humorist
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 4, 2010 17:24:41 GMT 10
The values of the founders were the values of the Enlightenment, which is reflected in Masonry itself - the recognition of the primacy of the individual. Rather than a matter only concerning the US, I would say, rather, that it is a matter concerning the whole of mankind. Or, are you saying that the rest of the world does not recognize or deserve the freedom of the individual? While the US selected some Enlightenment values and took them in one direction, emphasising man as an individual entity, in Europe the entire compass of Enlightenment philosophy led away from feudalism in another direction, emphasising man as both an individual entity AND as a social entity, arguably becoming expressed through progressive Socialist policies, with Marx advancing neo-Enlightenment ideals (flawed by a fixed and overly optimist view of Human Nature). For example, please consider Hobbes (died this day 1679, see today’s quotes), Rousseau and Hegel. I suggest that Freemasonry, with its emphasis on the Mystic Tie of Brotherhood, the three great pillars on which it said to be founded — Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth — and with one of the first tests applied being that of charity for those less fortunate than one’s self, sits better within the full compass of Enlightenment ideals (hence our philosophy being described as “Humanistic”). Charity is best distributed through private means. There is no barrier to helping those less fortunate, even in Rand's philosophy. It is simply not government's function to do so for you. It is something that should be done because one wishes to, not because one is forced to, which is what confiscation and redistribution of income under threat (in the form of "progressive" income taxes) of imprisonment by governmental authorities really is. It is telling that, in this country at least, those who are classed as "conservative" give to charity at a rate much, much higher than those who are classed as "liberal/progressive." The "liberal/progressive" faction favor confiscation of personal wealth through high taxation to be doled out by a governmental bureaucracy, which leads to inefficiency and lends itself to abuse and fraud. There are numerous examples of this, easily found. I'd like to point out that the term "liberal" has been hijacked by the progressive left, and in it's original meaning applied to those who, like myself, favor a vision of Jeffersonian/Madisonian constitutional democracy, in which limited government and maximum individual freedom are paramount. That being said, there is nothing to prevent the state governments from providing a social safety net, such as you favor. In fact, this is the intent, under federalism - this is one of the powers reserved to the states, by the constitution under the Tenth Amendment. It is my argument, and that of many others, that the usurpation of powers by the federal government, by unconstitutional and extraconstitutional means, must be curtailed and power restored to the states and the people, where it belongs. What sense does it make for a state to be forced to send it's revenue to a centralized bureaucracy to be doled back out, a dribble here and there, to the very states from whom it was taken in the first place? Local and state governments know their citizens and their local conditions far, far better than some apparatchnik in Washington D.C. with a fancy degree. Also, people having more of their own hard earned wealth results in higher rates of charitable giving and a better chance of that private charity being directed where it will do the most good.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Dec 4, 2010 17:33:05 GMT 10
Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him. His success depends on the objective value of his work and on the rationality of those who recognize that value. When men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that win in every field of human endeavor, and raise the standard of living—and of thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive activity.
“For the New Intellectual,” For the New Intellectual, 25 Bryan, you already know my opinion of Rand’s deeply flawed philosophy. How ironic that an anti-intellectual like her should entitle a work “ For the New Intellectual”!? We read of its reception: No wonder she needed a “new intellectual,” the old ones saw through her nonsense. Go to the source itself, rather than rely upon the rantings of the "intellectuals." The progressives would, naturally vilify and ridicule such an individualistic vision. Most responded arbitrarily, without reading the works themselves, as a knee-jerk reaction. I've read reviews of Atlas Shrugged which were written when it was first published in 1957, and it is obvious the author had not bothered to actually read the novel. Ironically, Rand's fictional novel reads like a prophetic revelation when compared to the asinine proposals rammed through this last congress. I would suggest obtaining a copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, by Leornard Peikoff, and investigating it for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 4, 2010 21:17:11 GMT 10
That being said, there is nothing to prevent the state governments from providing a social safety net, such as you favor. In fact, this is the intent, under federalism - this is one of the powers reserved to the states, by the constitution under the Tenth Amendment. It is my argument, and that of many others, that the usurpation of powers by the federal government, by unconstitutional and extraconstitutional means, must be curtailed and power restored to the states and the people, where it belongs. What sense does it make for a state to be forced to send it's revenue to a centralized bureaucracy to be doled back out, a dribble here and there, to the very states from whom it was taken in the first place? Local and state governments know their citizens and their local conditions far, far better than some apparatchnik in Washington D.C. with a fancy degree. Also, people having more of their own hard earned wealth results in higher rates of charitable giving and a better chance of that private charity being directed where it will do the most good. The States, particularly in the deep south, have been part of the problem, especially for African-American communities. Consider voting rights, anti-lynching legislation and policies of desegregation.
|
|