addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [furries-290] A Few Ambitions

From: Amaroq
Sent on: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:39 AM

From: Alex Maurin <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Thursday, August 30,[masked]:07 AM
Subject: Re: [furries-290] A Few Ambitions

On Thu, 30 Aug[masked]:11:09 -0400
Amaroq <[address removed]> wrote:

>Utilitarianism is a form of hedonism when balanced by scientific
>enlightenment. Unfortunately, Utilitarianism seems to be a scientific
>ideal that no actual human could ever obey. We'll see.

I'm more about individualism than utilitarianism. :P

>This depends on the drug. Not all drugs are bad, nor are all drugs
>necessarily harmful to you, or even against your actual self interest.

>What you are saying is, "what you want isn't necessarily what you need."

>Turning the precept of "Let the people decide for themselves" around,
>who determines that something someone wants ISN'T what they need? Why
>NOT allow the market to supply drugs to those who want them?

I don't focus on what they need, but rather what's good for them. And reality decides that. You can look objectively at reality and human nature and judge your desires against facts to decide whether your desires are good for you or bad for you. If all you desire is your next shot of heroine, then that's obviously objectively bad for you. If what you desire is the accomplishment of a great dream, such as being an astronaut, an actor, an architect, you can take an objective look at that and conclude that this dream will be good for you to follow. IE, it will lead to you living a good life. Living well.

Hedonism is pursuing what you happen to already desire, which may or may not be good for you. Enlightened self-interest is pursuing what you rationally think is the best life for you. The former takes what-happens-to-please-you as the standard and leads to suffering. The latter takes your life, your whole life, over its whole duration, as the standard and leads to true happiness.

>I should also note that I'm not truly a fan of dictatorships, because
>finding a good dictator is, as you said, impossible.

It isn't about finding a good dictator. Dictatorship in and of itself is incompatible with human nature. In order for people to thrive in a society, each and every individual needs the guarantee that the others will leave them free to pursue their own life. The mere existence of a dictator over them renders that guarantee null and void. If it's sometimes okay to make people do or pay for what you wish, against their will, then nobody is free. What guarantee will anyone have that you won't come up with more reasons to make them do what you want? We humans need freedom to thrive, and there needs to be a principled defense of freedom. We need to live by the idea that our rights are inalienable, and so are everyone else's. (Freedom from the initiation of force. Not "freedom" to be given things or "freedom" from the law of cause and effect. Freedom to act to the benefit of their lives, not "freedom" to do whatever they want to anyone else, etc. The kind of freedom the founding fathers intended.)

The claim that human nature isn't good enough for a dictatorship is like writing a piece of software that doesn't run and then complaining that the computer isn't good enough to run your program. The problem isn't the computer, it's the program. You didn't take the computer's nature into account when you wrote it. The problem with totalitarian social systems isn't human nature. It's that those systems didn't take human nature into account when they were designed. The best, most practical, and most moral system to ever exist is Capitalism. Because it's the system that gives everyone the guarantee that they can live their lives as they see fit, so long as they take cause and effect into account and are willing to enact the causes required to get the effect they want. It's the system designed to work with human nature, and it has allowed us to do wonderful things throughout our history. Look around you. Everything you take for granted depended on people being free to invent and produce those things. But that's only a secondary reason why Capitalism is good. The primary reason is that it allows everyone to pursue their own happiness. Mundanes and furries alike. Do you think in a totalitarian dictatorship, our country would be prosperous enough for us to enjoy furry conventions or spend resources on fursuits? Do you think we'd even be allowed to live if a dictator concerned with the collective "greater good" found out we were indulging in those things for our own individual pleasure, when that effort and resources could go toward the greater good instead? You think we're persecuted in a semi-free society. Can you imagine what it would be like for us under a dictatorship?

And even if we get a furry dictator over a society of furries... I hate to pick on KayFox again. But I'm gonna quote her message again.
"You indicated you want to come here, to our home, and divide this community up even more. I will have none of that. Leading the community should be about bringing people together, not about moving them apart."

When you take the whole as your standard of value rather than the individual, dissension is a threat, because disagreement can break the whole into parts. One of the things that's already been noted about the fandom is that it can be very cliquey. People gravitate together into a group or apart into separate groups based on agreements or disagreements. KayFox has good intentions. But you can easily see where it could lead if we got a dictator with those very same intentions. What we have now is much better. Where people CAN go their own separate way if they disagree.

Sorry for being long-winded. I have this way of making every subject I talk about into a big, moving speech. :P I have a passion for ideas. I find it irresistible to debate against ideas I think are bad and fight for ideas I think are good. I've been studying Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism for the past few years. So anyone familiar with that can see where I'm getting some of the ideas I've been putting forth in this thread. I almost hate to say that name though. Because when I argue the ideas themselves, people judge them on their own merit. But the instant I say "Ayn Rand" or "Objectivism", it quickly devolves into hate-mongering. But up until now, have I not been arguing very logically, for very positive and uplifting ideas? These are the kinds of ideas that I think can save the world from the path of destruction that we're currently on.

~Amaroq Wolf

> ---------------
> ~Amaroq Wolf
> ________________________________
>  From: Alex Maurin <[address removed]>
> To: [address removed]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29,[masked]:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [furries-290] A Few Ambitions

> I would tend to agree, Amaroq, that there's nothing wrong with what my
> dad calls "Enlightened Self-Interest."
> It means that although you recognize that all humans ultimately act in
> their own self interest 99.8% of the time or whatever, you can delay
> gratification, and IF you are patient enough to invest wisely, etc,
> you can actually improve the quality of life for many people by "You
> scratch my back, I scratch yours" type of deals.
> Business, and by extension, corporations, are not evil by definition,
> unless you're an agorist, who believes that chartering with a
> government automatically makes you evil as an extension of that
> government.
> No, Although direct electronic democracy can theoretically be a good
> thing, really, what we need is a GOOD dictator. The problem is "How do
> we find a GOOD dictator?" which leads to "How do we ensure the
> good dictator is actually a well-intentioned and competent person?"
> I'm hoping that a dictatorship that's informed by up to the
> millisecond news and information using a digital infrastructure for
> feedback on decision-making and clear representation by every
> significant group of society, we could build a REALLY EPIC
> Space-Faring society and culture which really would colonize the
> stars.
> Enlightened self-interest is not bad, only myopic ignorant greed is
> bad, where you ignorantly destroy your capital for short-term gains
> when and kill the goose that lays the golden egg, along with every
> cash cow. It's stupidity.
> No, what you do is collar the cash cows and gold-laying gooses, treat
> them nicely, but give them cell phones, insurance policies, and
> gps-tracking collars, and make them feel supremely safe and content to
> be in your household. Make them never want to leave.
> This is the smart thing to do.
> I do not know if I will ever make the kind of money that would be
> required to pay SpaceX to deliver the colonization equipment to the
> moon, but I'm damned if I'm not going to try. It's TOO COOL not to!
> Arx Ferae here on Earth, though, will probably start off as just a
> Furry Village within the Seattle metropolitan area. Start out as a
> collection of buildings, and eventually "colonize" an entire skyline
> condo building over time. Thing is, if I can make enough money, I
> could help people pay off their mortgages, which would enable them to
> do other things.
> We'll see.
> Actuary science is a pretty good career, but to make the truly big
> bucks, I need to see if I can't break into investment banking.
> Investment banking is buying and selling stocks and bonds, mutual
> funds and the like, raising capital for corporations, and the buying
> out and merging of corporations.
> Since the Glass Steagall Banking Act of 1933 was repealed in 1999, you
> can be ALL THREE: an insurance corporation, retail bank, and
> investment bank all in one, thus concentrating the wealth as much as
> possible
> So long as you are wise, responsible, and judicious with the money
> saved, concentrating the wealth in a single place like this is
> theoretically a good thing, in that you can then make bigger deals and
> give better rates to your clients.
> A cooperative bank is a good idea, and I'll certainly look into it,
> but I'm also looking at a hybrid system as well, where it's one third
> consumer's cooperative, one third worker's cooperative, and one third
> traditional joint-stock corporation.
> We'll see.
> I have not decided exactly what I want to do, but I'm considering the
> concept of a geek/hacker and furry-oriented credit union that
> eventually expands into a hybrid cooperative bank.
> It would make more money than game middleware, as much fun as that
> would be. No, why not reach for the stars?
> So basically, my TENTATIVE plan is to become a financial actuary, do
> that for about 10 years, build up money, then found a credit union
> oriented around artists, geeks/hackers, and furries, make that my
> niche to start out with, maybe even partner with DeviantArt or
> Electronic Frontier Foundation? Along the next 10 years, I'd
> eventually mutate the credit union into a hybrid semi-cooperative
> bank and insurance corporation.
> If I follow this plan, I would specialize in pet insurance, mortgages
> and loans for housing cooperatives, and merges and acquisitions
> related to cooperatives of any kind. I need a niche if I am to survive
> financially.
> So, we'll see how I'm going to make the money in order to reach for
> the stars, but even if I DONT end up being capable of colonizing the
> moon, I can still do a LOT of good, strengthening our culture and
> society here on Earth doing my utter best to try.
> On Wed, 29 Aug[masked]:56:56 -0400
> Amaroq <[address removed]> wrote:
> > There's something I want to say here that would probably be more
> > fitting as a response to the previous topic. But it would be
> > negative if I brought it up there, and positive if I brought it up
> > here, so I choose to do it here.
> >
> > Someone said that greed is one of the things that will destroy the
> > human race. But THIS is what greed really is. Just wanting something
> > for yourself. Having an ambition and following it. If you remove all
> > of the negatives that people always package in with that concept,
> > greed is really a good thing. Greed brought us every innovation we
> > have, and lifted our standard of living from the point where we were
> > dying in our teens and twenties to the point where we can relax on
> > over 100 degree days due to air conditioning, electricity, and we
> > have this amazing system called the internet, and computers that
> > we're using to instantly talk to each other right now. Etc etc etc
> > etc etc.
> >
> > People wanting something for themselves and working for it is what
> > lifted us up. Not what will destroy us. Whether it's Henry Ford
> > inventing the assembly line, or his employees working on it.
> > Everyone who wants something and works for it not only lifts
> > themselves, but lifts society up as a secondary consequence. So
> > dream big, and if you really think you can do it, pursue those
> > dreams. Who knows. You might be the, or one of the, people who does
> > finally bring the rest of us to the moon someday.
> >
> >
> > (It's not in a bank's greedy self-interest to lend to people who
> > can't pay it back. Because if the person doesn't pay it back, the
> > bank loses money. It's traditionally the bank's own ass on the line
> > when they lend, which means they have to be careful about who they
> > lend it to. But government guaranteed loans, the existence of the
> > Fed, and other interventions in the economy, made it so the banks
> > didn't have to worry about going under if they made bad loans.
> > Essentially, some goody two-shoes said "It's greedy and evil that
> > banks won't lend to people who can't afford it",  implemented a
> > government policy that makes it so banks can/have to lend to those
> > who can't afford it, and now we're blaming the banks instead of the
> > government, where the blame really lies.)
> >
> >  
> > ---------------
> > ~Amaroq Wolf
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Keeko <[address removed]>
> > To: [address removed]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 29,[masked]:17 AM
> > Subject: Re: [furries-290] A Few Ambitions
> > 
> >
> > I like the idea. XD It's not a bad thing to have such lofty goals, I
> > totally want to see moon colonies happen, and I wish you the best of
> > luck! On Aug 28,[masked]:04 PM, "Alex Maurin" <[address removed]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > And now for something completely different:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >What do you guys think about the idea of a lunar colony complete
> > >with hotels and condos?
> > >
> > >Would you consider moving to the moon?
> > >
> > >The colonies would probably be underground and pressurized, and the
> > >industry would largely the mining of titanium and exotic metals,
> > >and maybe even helium-3.
> > >
> > >Although helium-3 is theoretical, the titanium export would bring
> > >in the money necessary to build in enough manufacturing equipment
> > >and planetary support to construct additional pylons-- i mean
> > >factories on the moon, and allow us to build entire cities with
> > >multiple mining operations across the lunar surface.
> > >
> > >Something I'm going to shoot for with my degree in mathematics is
> > >to attempt building up enough capital to found a lunar colony.
> > >
> > >Yes, I know it's highly ambitious, but I have an actual shot at
> > >doing it.
> > >
> > >With a degree in mathematics, i can balance between finance and
> > >actuary science, and astrophysics and aeronautics.
> > >
> > >This way, i can make the money necessary to get the funding i need
> > >to actually put together a business plan to colonize the moon.
> > >
> > >I can see it now: low gravity bouncing fursuiters parading in a
> > >space hotel on the moon.. x3
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to
> everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> This message was sent by Alex Maurin
> ([address removed]) from Furlife. To learn more about Alex Maurin,
> visit his/her member profile:
> Set my mailing list
> to email me
> As they are sent
> In one daily email
> Don't send me mailing list messages
> Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] |
> [address removed]

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Alex Maurin ([address removed]) from Furlife.
To learn more about Alex Maurin, visit his/her member profile:
Set my mailing list to email me

As they are sent

In one daily email

Don't send me mailing list messages
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy