Episode-1674- Where Has Critical Thinking Gone — 7 Comments

  1. I remember watching a Bugs Bunny Cartoon on TV that was quite insulting to the Japanese. I had a Japanese friend in elementary school. Did I treat him badly due to this cartoon? No. I did as my parents taught me which was to be polite to others. (As polite as a kid in elementary school could expect to be.) I watched the cartoon but did not associate those caricatures on film with the friend I knew.

    The reason that film could be made is because the people who made it and the people who watched it already believed it was true on some level. If you ever wondered where Hitler got the idea that race mattered… now you know. He got the idea from the good old USA and Great Britain. He just took the ideas to the next logical step. And in fact, the USA was already force-sterilizing its undesirable citizens and rounding up undesirables “for their own safety”.

    A good book to read as a primary source for understanding the attitudes of those days is a science fiction novel that was made into a movie. The movie was pretty good and you can still see it occasionally on TV. However, by the time they made the movie, the thinking of the world had changed from the time the book was written. The book was written prior to World War 2 when eugenics was thought to be a good thing. The movie was made after it was shown by Hitler where eugenics led so the movie-makers excised those “bad parts”.

    The books are “When Worlds Collide” and “After Worlds Collide” by Philip Wylie and Edwin Balmer

    The story: When it becomes clear that the Earth will be destroyed it becomes equally clear that a project to build a rocket, an Ark, could save a few… enough to rebuild the human race. The questions are, “Who will go? Who are our best?” The books suggest the idea that some races are genetically inferior and it seems natural, and acceptable to entertain such ideas. It certainly was acceptable at the time it was written… 1933.

    The books are still in print in omnibus form under the single title: When Worlds Collide. I own a copy. I never want to forget.

    Alex Shrugged

  2. Jack, George Orwell was thinking of you.

    “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” George Orwell

    thanks, Steve

  3. One question I pose for anyone as Jack probably won’t have time to answer. It is an annoying question that I really want an answer to that is definitely in line with critical thinking and has direct relation to Jack’s statement that “taxation is theft of property”.

    Please don’t take this as some communist manifesto, because it is the opposite, it is the search for truth. I actually want to be proven wrong here.

    In my path to critical thinking I like to resolve all ideas from core concepts, so I ask what is the meaning or maybe the moral basis of property.

    For example, if I stole a shovel from your neighbor and then sold it to you, is it your shovel? If your neighbor saw you with the shovel and could prove that it was indisputably his shovel, would you give him his shovel back? Probably, as it is his shovel. Then you would attempt redress from me, the guy who sold you a stolen shovel. In the art world, I think this is called provenance.

    Now let’s look at land. You “own” 100 acres of land that was taken from native Americans by the US or possibly by your distant relatives who then later joined the US. If your property was invaded by Canada, then hopefully the US would send troops to protect you. In return for this service you pay taxes to support this one purpose of government that many people would agree with. Is that theft or is it part of the contract attached to the land that you eventually bought.

    There are places in the ocean that are shallow, but always under water. Several years ago someone found one and poured enough dirt on it to create an island. They literally created land. Sadly they were soon invaded by a neighboring island and kicked off, so that that island was added to the invaders country. Let’s say you bought that island and pay taxes to that nation. Who owns the island? If that government collapsed, could the original builders reclaim that land? I think so.

    Would it be fair to say that land is only truly owned by nations or others with the force to defend them? Any other ownership is just a contract between the buyer and the government who is the real owner.

    Again I ask that someone show the flaw in this logic as I hate the result.

    • @Richard –

      If you have something that you’ve acquired through your labor, or via a gift from someone else who has acquired it by their labor… and someone comes and attempts to forcefully take it from you… to retain ownership of the item, you will be required to respond with force.

      If someone steals your property, and sells it to someone else, it was not their property to sell, and it is returned to you. This is a social convention that exists for the same reason that a moral prohibition against theft exists, because it damages your personal and group well-being if it is allowed, resulting in the decay/destruction of the individual & the group.

      So, no. Ownership doesn’t = ability/willingness to use force. But maintaining ownership from an aggressor may require force.

      • So ownership cannot be encumbered. The return of stolen property is merely a social agreement between individuals to discourage theft.

        OK, makes sense, but onto land, once land is joined to form a larger governmental organization whether HOA, city or nation, isn’t that land in a way co-owned? Related in the way a piece of land whose mineral rights have been sold. There was a preexisting agreement or lien against the land that was disclosed in the sale.

        Isn’t this the same as if you owned an apartment in a building that came with building fees. Aren’t those fees just like taxes? Are fees also a theft of property?

        Or is it that one party can change the terms of the fees without your consent that makes it theft? (that sounds closer to correct)

  4. Speaking of perception, Five For Fighting isn’t a music group. It’s one guy. Record labels didn’t want to take on a new solo artist, so he gave himself the name ‘Five For Fighting’, he was now a ‘group’ and a label snacked him up.