This is news to me, Hank. There is a distinction to note between an idealist and an ideologue. These men were the latter, plus brutal, vicious dictators, the very spawn of Hell.
I don't know how you could possibly interpret what I wrote as an endorsement or recommendation of suffering -- of pathos -- Hank. I was simply making an observation about the human condition. How could you spin it like that? Are you nutz?
Balance means sharing the wealth of the producers with those that do not produce, demanding "help," from those who make something of their lives through "actions," for the sake of those who make wrecks of theirs waiting for something to happen to them. Balance means sacrifice of the individual to any collection of looters, parasites, and thugs claiming to be "society".
Good grief, Hank -- are you joking? This is not what "balance" is!!!
...altruists, like Mother Teresa, who have never produced a single thing that relieved the suffering of a single human being, who are held up as "ideals." There is a reason why Mother Teresa's flourish in India, and Thomas Edisons flourish in the United States. It's called individual liberty, without which no other true ideal can possibly be realized.
Frankly Hank, I'm astonished at you. Talk about ideologues! If you actually believe this bunk, then I am completely at a loss to understand why you think you know what individual liberty is.
betty boop, I'm glad you and I share the same worldview.
I'll start out with the way I ended the other.
I know if you thought for one second any of your views or practices would harm another or were in any a way compromise with evil, you would immediately drop them. I know you believe you veiws are totally benevolent (and totally correct, of course, or you wouldn't hold them).
But, they are mistaken. Every failed society in the history of the world has been the result of trying to implement some variety of the views you hold.
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, [were] idealists....
This is news to me, Hank. There is a distinction to note between an idealist and an ideologue. These men were the latter, plus brutal, vicious dictators, the very spawn of Hell.
Of course they were evil, but they did not gain power by promoting themselves as evil. They did not say, "put us in power and we will be brutal, vicious dictators who will turn your world into a hell." No, they promised peace, prosperity, equality, and, except for Pol Pot, these were the ideals these leaders held and believed their ideologuies and policies would actually fulfill, at least in the beginning of their careers.
This is not what "balance" is!
You flatly repudiated, "an extreme preoccupation with the discrete, individual self," and said, "balance is needed." If strict individualism by itself is unbalanced, it must be balanced by some form of collectivism.
I made some more comments about liberty, but do not think they were edifying enough to repeat. This only I'll say, if I cannot feed myself and free myself, than I am no value to myself or to any other individual in society. Only if I am independent enough to live without a society, do I have a moral right to be part of a society.
Hank