Thursday, December 06, 2007


I read two posts yesterday that I found of great interest. They are both from bloggers on my blogroll. I feature blogs that are of interest to me, for whatever reason, and make no attempt to display only blogs written by individuals with whom I agree wholeheartedly. I read everything. I digest, I learn. I expect everyone to make their own decisions. It is not my job to think for anyone. Nor, of course, is it anyone else's job to think for me.

The two blog posts are Sanuk is not a four-letter word and He says that like it's a bad thing. They serve to illustrate just how far apart we can be as human beings in terms of what we expect from life and, more importantly, what we are prepared to give to earn what we expect as our due.

Life is complicated. Life is sometimes unfair. It is how we deal with life's ups and downs, its frustrations, its tragedies, that define us. Go... read the two posts. With which do you identify? Or do you see yourself at least partially in each?

To anyone who reads here regularly, it won't be any surprise that I agree with one of the bloggers more than the other, but I respect the right of any individual to think and believe whatever they wish, as long as it doesn't infringe somehow on my own legitimate rights or cost me money.

Go forth and learn.


  1. Atavist you couldn't have chosen better. For my part, Chani's post had me shaking my head in agreement more than the "liberal's" statements, although he made some good points. Thanks for enabling me to go forth and learn.

  2. Well, I must admit that I certainly liked this passage from Jeff's article:

    The world could use a dose of the Non-Aggression Principal, especially here in the West where our governments spend a lot of time telling the rest of the world how they're supposed to live their lives and shitting all over other people's rights to self-determination; undertaking actions most of us disagree with and doing it in our names.

  3. Catmoves: As a libertarian (or classic liberal, before the term 'liberal' came to mean what it does today) all Mark wants is to be responsible for himself and to be able to keep his money. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

    Chani: The libertarian "Non-Aggression Principle," is the cornerstone of the libertarian philosophy and it is exactly what, naturally, everyone who is against capitalism or libertarianism ignores. That is the point that Mark is making and he is absolutely correct.

    Nice to see you here, by the way.

  4. My ex and I used to discuss the NAP frequently and I do like it. Can't help but think the world would be a much better place if people did allow others the freedom to be who they are and what they want to be ~ as long as they are not harming someone else.

    To a degree, that was one of the points I wanted to make with my post. The brainwashing and the exploitation are definitely a problem for me. Perhaps at some point, I can write a post about that and tie the two concepts together.

    Staying out of someone else's head and not brainwashing them for self-interest would definitely fall under the NAP, in my opinion. :)

    Thanks. It's been a while, eh? :)

  5. Chani: There is a lot that goes on in the world that is unfair and unjust. I guess my big problem with reactions to all this stuff is, like Mark, that it is laid at the feet of capitalism and 'the almighty dollar' or 'greed' or other generalizations that simply aren't completely accurate. There is no pure capitalism anywhere in the world that I know of. Real laissez-faire capitalism (where there are no government-enforced regulations or artificial monopolies) need affluent, well-informed customers and happy, fairly-treated employees.

    There are no simple solutions, but dialogue among individuals and a willingness to listen to others with opposing views is a great start.

    Yes, it has been a while. I appreciate your input and dialogue, as always.

  6. Um, about the work ethic thingie - I believe people who live an unproductive existence can never be fully self-actualized and never experience the true breadth and fulfillment of life.

  7. phlegmfatale: I agree. I think that we need the focus and determination and the responsibility for self. However .. I do tell my son that it is not how much money he will make that will make him happy but how much he loves his job or business. If you enjoy going to work every day, you have it made.

  8. Still can't figure out what TG means by Sanuk, but by the photo, I gather "catchin' some Zs".
    Capitalism, is NOT free enterprise. It is a cheap, superficial counterfeit, just as altruism is to charity. If the true economy of Adam Smith was allowed to operate, ANYONE could become prosperous by their own labor. Under capitalism however, one must constantly brown-nose, cowtow and jump through all the hoops of the bureaucrats and pull-peddlers in order to keep less than half of what they earn!
    As to the delusion that the Protestant Reformation in particular, and WestCiv in general are responsible for the dangerous and terrible notion one should earn one's own keep, I pin that one on common sense...a reality conveniently evaded by emotionalists!

  9. Galt: Whenever I use the term 'capitalism,' laissez-faire is implied. You're right -- managed economies (or what passes for capitalism in our societies, don't qualify.

    At the personal level, I personally don't care if anyone works or not -- as long as they don't send me the bill for any budget shortfalls, resulting from their choice, via taxes or any other extortive means.

    We are all different and I can live with that. My position to those who want to live alternative lifestyles is very simple: Leave me alone to live my life and I'll leave you alone to live yours. Don't ask me to support you and I will never ask you to support me.