>Don't you yourself look to "higher authorities" on objectivism and neo-Tech
>for YOUR guidance? Looking to experts for guidance is a pandemic human
>strategy, and I reckon you do it as much as me, or any of the other Virus
>list-mem(e)bers. Give me evidence that you don't look to people you perceive
>as authorities or experts in your reply, please!
While I might pay attention to what objectivists or Neo-Techers say, I do not
look to them as higher authorities. I do my best to figure out reality directly.
Evidence? I was at an objectivist conference a year ago in which I got into a
heated debate with a group of objectivists when I claimed, based on my own
reasoning, that Ayn Rand was wrong about a few things (which I think she was).
Also, last year, on a mailing list like this one but for Neo-Techers, I figured
out on my own that a certain Neo-Tech idea was not technically correct and then
I brought up this point on the mailing list, (starting a flame war) with the
other NTer's. It turned out that the author of Neo-Tech admitted his error and
made corrections in his later publications. Also, when the OJ trial was going
on, from my perspective, based on what I saw, OJ was an innocent man, being
screwed by the State. But various Objectivist and Neo-Tech "authorities" whom I
respected claimed he was guilty.
>1 I think that most people in Europe, America, and Australasia DO
"support a purported
>higher authority such as big government to take care of them". Don't they?
>Prove conclusively to me that the populations of the USA, Britain, Australia
>and France (eg) DON't support big governments to take care of them, or prove
>that those countries are police states (Hint: this is probably easier)... or
>take back your point.
I agree with you. People everywhere have a tendency to look toward government
for help (which doesn't work).
> So, whether or not people believe in
>freewill, the processes deciding whether or not a police state arises are
>the same:
Snip
>Saying that people have to subscribe to one of these philosophies or the
>other, to me (feeling how I do about how human brains work), seems stupid.
Because I have accepted the axiom of consciousness, various conclusions follow,
such as the existence of free-will, an integrated system of ideas which connect
seemingly unrelated subjects such as free-will to politics, and that there is
only one other type of integrated system of ideas (although most people have a
mixture of the 2). You have not accepted the axiom of consciousness (possibly
since it hasn't been explained to you) so no such extrapolations would follow.
-David