HPCT and Ayn Rand

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
81

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.31.0920)]

Martin Taylor (2003.12.30.1429) --

Rick Marken (2003.12.30.1020)

I think you've put your finger on what I think may be the essential
difference between PCT and libertarian thinkers like Rand (no relationship
to Rand Corporation, thank goodness). To the Rand types, autonomous control
is an _ideal_. To the PCT types, autonomous control is a _fact_.

What a wonderful posting, Rick.

Thanks so much, Martin. I appreciate it.

A very happy New Year to you, and even to those who did not notice how
wonderful my posting was. Maybe they'll notice it next year;-)

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

82

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.31.1259)]

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.31.0818 MST)]

Unless you believe that there is a Great Referee in the Sky (who seems to
be out to lunch), it is, unfortunately, those with the greatest wealth and
power who decide who gets to keep and increase their wealth and power.

I'm not sure this is an accurate picture. We _bestow_ power on people,
sometimes through positive actions and sometimes by negative ones. When less
than 10% of the eligible voters come out on election day, what can you
expect from government? People are generally apathetic and as long as their
little worlds are secure they could care less about the greater good, and
I'm not talking about the wealthy here. There is and was a reason why the
founding fathers did _NOT_ want a democracy. Both Jefferson and Madison
feared (and I'm afraid, it's coming to pass) the power of the majority, and
felt that ultimately in a democracy the people in power get to vote for
whatever they want. In this case, their fear did not reside in a majority of
wealthy individuals but with coalitions of voting special interest groups.
The electoral college was specifically set up to avoid any one populous
state from dominating the national elections, and Our Constitution was
written to protect the rights of the minorities. That is why we are supposed
to be living in a democratic _REPUBLIC_, not a democracy, ruled by
popularity polls on a weekly basis. As you say, our country is supposed to
be based on a set of laws (Our Constitution), abided to by all, not by the
whims and whimmsies of any current voting 'majority'. Our current Surpreme
court thinks it's ok to set aside the Constitution when it deems it
expiedant. _THAT_ is scary. I didn't vote for any judge to make my laws.

The
only remedy I can see is for public institutions to develop which are
specifically designed to prevent concentrations of wealth and power.

How do you propose to do this? Socialism certainly doesn't prevent the
establishment of an elite class.

The
United States Constitution went a good distance in this direction, but the
principles need to be clarified and developed even further.

No, I think we need to actually live by the Constitution. When you bestow
the kind of power and influence on the federal government like we have you
are going to wind up in trouble.

I say principles, not laws. One principle that might limit wealth and power

in

the long run: anyone who sells or otherwise abuses a position of trust is
automatically disqualified from seeking or holding any position of trust.
This amendment would apply to governments, businesses, not-for-profits,
churches, prisons, and all other organizations in which a few people are
responsible for the well-being of many.

This sounds wonderful. Who gets to write the rules? And what guidelines are
used to make the rules.

Only one small problem: how do you get such an amendment passed, when

those

who control the machinery are the ones who would lose the most by it?

_WE_ control the machinery. Our sovereignty ultimately resides in _EACH
INDIVIDUAL_. The people who 'control' the machinery are our politicians, who
get voted in with less than 10% of the eligible people voting. So you are
right about one thing Bill. The power _DOES_ reside in only a handful of
people, except it ain't the wealthy or 'powerful' (whoever they are) it's in
the people who actually vote.

Marc

83

[From Bill Powers(2003.12.31. 1307 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2003.12.31.1259)--

_WE_ control the machinery. Our sovereignty ultimately resides in _EACH
INDIVIDUAL_. The people who 'control' the machinery are our politicians, who
get voted in with less than 10% of the eligible people voting. So you are
right about one thing Bill. The power _DOES_ reside in only a handful of
people, except it ain't the wealthy or 'powerful' (whoever they are) it's in
the people who actually vote.

I agree that the people are supposed to be in charge. But the rich and
powerful, in whom you don't seem to believe, can buy the suppression of
laws that are against their interests and the passage of laws that increase
their power, and buy up communication media which determine what the
sovereign people know, and in uncountable other ways manipulate the social
system to keep themselves exactly where they intend to be: on top. Maybe
you think that doesn't happen.

Of course I would be all in favor of getting more people to exercise their
sovereignty. It's hard to see how to do that.

Best,

Bill P.

84

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.31.1558)]

Rick Marken (2003.12.31.0920)

A very happy New Year to you, and even to those who did not notice how
wonderful my posting was. Maybe they'll notice it next year;-)

At the top of my list of New Year's resolutions is to remember to
notice how wonderful Rick's postings are. I expect all of you to remind
me if I lose sight of this goal.

And Congratulations, Jeff. Occasionally the right thing does happen.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

85

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.31.1537)]

[From Bill Powers(2003.12.31. 1307 MST)]

I agree that the people are supposed to be in charge.

Bill, we have given our soverienty over to our politicians. By allowing
these people to make careers (our founding fathers would be aghast at this
prospect) out of what should be public service, we allow these politicians
to 'lead us' and they do so by following the polls. You want to get
something done? Conduct a poll that shows an important voting block wants
something or is opposed to something and you'll get some action. The reality
of the situation is that people just don't care _until_ something happens
that affects _their_ personal freedoms.

Bill, I live in a largely Democtatic congressional district. People here,
like in a lot of places, vote _party_ line. My neighborhood is largely
Jewish/Italian. If Adolph Hitler ran on the democratic ticket, he would get
elected to any office he ran for. It's real sad but true.

But the rich and
powerful, in whom you don't seem to believe, can buy the suppression of
laws that are against their interests

Sure they can. _IF_ we let them. Exactly how do they buy the suppression of
laws? If I am willing to sell my vote, who is the villian here? How do you
make virtuousness a requirement for citizenship?

and the passage of laws that increase their power,

Hey, I haven't given _my_ soverienty to my politician. Have you? But I'm
afraid I'm going against a very strong tide.

and buy up communication media which determine what the sovereign people

know,

Really? Exactly what powerful men control the internet?

and in uncountable other ways manipulate the social
system to keep themselves exactly where they intend to be: on top. Maybe
you think that doesn't happen.

No. maybe you think it happens more often then it really does. Politicians
get elected to get elected again and again. They don't elect themselves, and
they aren't allowed to declare themselves Lord and master, so indeed it is
us who provides these people the means to remain in power.

Of course I would be all in favor of getting more people to exercise their
sovereignty. It's hard to see how to do that.

Sure, and I'd like to get more people interested in PCT, but we have the
same problem with both Bill. People have other ideas and are reluctant to
change. In both cases it's _very_ unfortunate for _all_ concerned.

Here is hoping we are a bit more successful in our attempts at getting
people to do more of both in 2004.

Marc

86

from [Shannon Williams (2003.12.31.1758 CST)]

>From [Marc Abrams (2003.12.30.2254)]
Sure, Why not? If a perceptual belief system is turned into a set of
reference conditions (e.g. Islamist extremists) PCT will 'prove' it

correct.

You cannot have an 'correct' or 'incorrect' reference level.

You don't "prove" it correct. You recognize what a person is controlling
for.

Once you recognize what a person is controlling for, you can:

    a. strive for a win-win environment
    b. identify inconsistencies in a person's references. He may possibly
change them.
    c. recognize how much a person's references conflict with yours, and so
recognize when action such as war or the death penalty is needed.