Want an honest evaluation of Filipino/Philippine culture? Visit the following site:
http://www.geocities.com/benign0/

and lets discuss here!

Galing!

Binatukan yata ako ng...katotohanan?

hey benignut! expanding our horizons, i see. that's a good new year's move.

That's right. You should check out my What's New section for a complete list of forums I am participating in.

Nice to see you are true to your form even while back up "on the hill". Do the mods here tolerate the kind of behaviour you engage in back in PEx?

Get Real Philippines!!

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: benign0 ]

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: benign0 ]

for some reason, people here in A.net are better behaved than in PEX or peyups.com --it's probably the layout and coloring. at peyups.com, bans are doled out as often as porrige.

one thing though, the culture here in atenista might not be conducive to a 31-page thread. just my observation

Yes, we have the attention spans concurrent with noblesse oblige.


Biro lang.

I'll just have to come around to bump this thread up once in a while then.

Hmm. So Peyups has a new forum eh? Maybe I'll drop in for a visit.

Get Real Philippines!!

This should gain more exposure. This neo-conservative, realist slant on things is quite refreshing. This site stands for personal responsibility and not for the usual left-wing spin of blaming the west and the rich for the misery of pinoys. Common sense and a positive realist attitude must take root to rescue the fast-shrinking archipelago.

not the west and the rich per se but rather their misdeeds, that tend to affect the rest of the country negatively. there's plenty of common sense and realism to be found here. and you have no call to worry about land area. the archipelago is definitely not shrinking.

GET REEL PHILIPPINES!!!!

Care to cite a few examples of this common sense that you say exist within the archipelago?

Get Real Philippines!!

look at me. i don't let other people's stupidities get to me. i'm flourishing in rotten philippines and loving every moment of it.

oh but i do have frustrations. i'm frustrated that the fertility rate per nubile female is still 3.0X. i want to bring this down to less than 1.8X and maybe maintain the country's population to a manageable 20 million. i want to eradicate all types of mysticism (read: religion). i want to eradicate all these crazy regionalists and nationalists. i want to stamp out racism.

But that's the whole problem isn't it. We're so numb to said "stupidities" that we just live with them and consider them to be acceptable facts of life instead of ranting about them (at the very least).

Get Real Philippines!!

wrong. there should be more people like me and less like you. but don't despair. you're still young. you should be able to squeeze yourself into the 20 million cutoff before it's too late.

In reality there are very few like myself. There are more people who grandstand about "what they do for the country" and very few who pause to gain a clear understanding of the problem itself. Result -- one big implementation gone wrong (ask any veteran of disastrous ERP implementation projects), and the Philippines is one such failed project.

Analyse what you just said a while back (see below to refresh your memory):


You are "flourishing in rotten philippines". You forget that you are not representative of the ordinary Filipino who subsists on $700 a year. And you claim you are "loving every moment of it". Of course you do. Yours is probably a lifestyle made possible by cheap labour. Nothing wrong with that as long as you don't confine measurement of the nation's progress by citing how increasingly comfortable life as a member of the Philippine elite is becoming.

You also set down a set of wants -- all macro in nature yet you advocate individual action; which is fine -- if we are talking about personal issues here (which are mostly addressed simply in the conduct of our personal day-to-day lives). We are not talking about personal issues though. We are talking about cultural issues on a national scale -- for discussion's sake (this is a discussion forum, right?).

So the fact remains: I do not disagree that there are in fact more people like you. So why is it that the nation continues to fail?

Get Real Philippines!!

the trouble with you is you insist on living in the glorious age of empire. i'm not so worried about the philippines as i am for myself and the air i breathe. haven't you heard? there are no more economic cul-de-sacs anywhere. we're part of the global economy. that's bad news for people who still expect anything out of the word 'philippines'. and while THIS part of the world economy could still experience a reversal from its current trend, it won't matter.

you are correct in saying my income classification separates me from background filipino levels. however, i am adopting a universal strategy that can can also be adopted by even the poorest wage-earner. so if people will just mind their own businesses, and not step on others, you will see that your get real platform has no legs on which to propagate. so GET REAL, BENIGNO!

This part I agree with you. We are increasingly living in a world where human resources (those who could) migrate from low ROI to high ROI environments (read: environments where productivity is more justly rewarded). The "Philippines" is nothing more than one of such altenative environments for you and me to choose from to make our home.

That's fine for those who have the means, resources, and skills to participate in this virtual global "National Loyalty Exchange" that is starting to develop. But you forget that there are millions of Filipinos who have no choice but to live in this failed state.

Nationhood has proven to be an elusive concept to Filipinos in particular, us being more of a nation by colonial edict (read: a bunch of tribes lumped together into a political unit and named after a king who happened to be sitting on the Spanish throne at the time) than a people brought together by shared values or philosophies. Considering this, we are lucky we hadn't descended into chaos the way Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Indonesia and other multi-cultural/ethnic societies did after their colonial masters pulled out or after their respective dictators were deposed.

You are right. The term "Philippines" only means something today on paper for you and me. But it means something to those millions who have no choice but to be subject to the implementation of this writ.


Hmm - a "universal strategy" whose main advocate calls on everyone to "mind their own businesses". Interesting.

I do recall that you indeed have or are a part of some clandestine movement that you are reluctant to describe. I'm tempted to ask (again) what it is you purport to be your "universal strategy" but I think you've eluded this question of mine long enough to keep me the wiser.

Suit yourself then.

One wonders though why such a supposed movement that supposedly could only be of benefit to the general public needs to be kept under wraps.

Like so many other entities in Philippine society, it is difficult to deal with people who are, shall we say, less-than-transparent about their views.

[b"]Get Real Philippines!![/b]

let's just say i wear two hats these days: a communist strategist and a student of objectivism. while they differ greatly in their general ideas and methods, both have more in common than many people care to admit.

just this: anyone who strategizes on a national level but excludes externalities is surely a crackpot. and while benigno has proven that less deserving people can already partake of the global market pie, those bound to the philippine islands (like myslef) need not despair. there are jobs for the goods ones. the bad ones should not expect anything good coming their way. this is basically your essay, bud, that GOOD THINGS SHOULD COME TO EVERYONE. now that's as ridiculous as one can get.

[ January 06, 2003: Message edited by: mac_bolan00 ]

As a Filipino who already lost his Philippine citizenship, I'm not truly in a position to be mercilessly critical of the Philippine culture. Besides, once pinoy--always pinoy. There's no denying that. James Fallows wrote in the Atlantic Quarterly in the 80s that what we have is a "Damaged Culture." It was quite a painful article. He received a gratuitous amount of condemnation from pinoys. I, for one, reacted negatively to that piece. But it's so funny how some of his detractors have come around and now actually applaud his piece. In that piece, there was a significant attribution to "colonial mentality" as to why our culture is damaged. There's perhaps strands of truth to that assertion. We are indeed products of our colonial past -- and so were the United States, Canada, Australia, Singapore, the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, New Zealand, Brunei. The usual left-wing intellectual mantra of the damaged culture -- the west is to blame. The Americans? Brits? Spaniards? Perhaps -- a bit. But,ultimately sovereign nations like the Philippines will have to take responsibility of their failures. If some former colonies were able to make good of their colonial past, then there are no excuses. Yet my intellectual friends will point to the FACT that most of the former colonies of the west are not faring well i.e., African nations. Good point. But consider this -- asylees from these countries who got to the west, tend to be prosperous and good citizens of host western nations. Just like pinoys in the US and Canada -- accused to be hopelessly trapped by colonial mentality -- are performing above average in diff. measurements of success in these countries. It seems to me that sometimes pinoys will have to be uprooted from his milieu of an endemically toxic culture, to grow, flourish and, prove his worth --to shine!
As to the criticism on religion as a root of this damaged culture-- it's hogwash. If there's one thing preserving Filipino families in the west -- it's the pinoy's fervent Catholicism (and Protestantism) and not their apparent opulence, material contentment, or professional success.
So what's the problem? And what's the fix? Hard to answer. But I'll lend my humble opinion--rule of law. There seems to be a propensity for pinoys to skip it incessantly and with impunity. And all the other nations failing -- that seems to be the case as well.
As a positive note, compared to other nations, Philippines is still quite young. The United States will have to go though the turbulence of the Revolutionary War, Slavery, the war of the states, etc...to achieve its current state. It's not perfect but it's trying to be all things that it can w/c is quite a feat for a country that is only 336 yrs old. Common thread -- rule of law. It's not late for my beloved P.I.

First of all, I'd like you to cite one instance where I've advocated simply doling out wealth to the underserving. That is the entire antithesis of what Get Real stands for. We are advocating that Filipinos acquire the proper values and ethics so that they can earn their keep in a sustainable manner.

Let me get this straight. Communists advocate distributing wealth equally to all regardless of individual product while objectivists advocate giving personal ability its due respect and reward commensurate to the resulting product made possible by said ability. The advocates of objectivism also extol the supremacy of the capitalist system and the undisputed achievement of European civilisation in the realms of wealth creation and upliftment of standards of living.

It seems it is you who is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

I can't claim to be a student of objectivism as I had read only one of Ayn Rand's books. But from what I've read, I am inclined to subscribe to most of its tenets. Have you seen this page of mine? It pretty much summarises what I think of objectivism.

I noticed too that you are starting your own website. Good start. Maybe it'll make you a bit more transparent and less ambiguous.

Get Real Philippines!!

The reason most of the advanced countries you cite took 300 years to achieve propsperity is because they had to develop the right approaches and philosophies on their own and as they went.

Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, and Taiwan have proven that second-generation advanced countries need not re-invent the wheel. They merely adopted virtues that made the first-generation advanced countries successful. In effect, humanity already has a vast amount of stock knowledge to for us to learn from. We need not repeat the mistakes alread committed by older countries. All we have to do is appreciate the disciplines required to implement these in our own backyard successfully.

In fact we do so to some extent -- our form of government (democracy -- which took centuries for Western Civilisation to develop) was implemented within the last 100 years in the Philippines. However we practice it without an appreciation of the discipline and responsibility that democracy entails.

Get Real Philippines!!

you'll do well to stay away from anything related to the ARI when studying objectivism.

communism, in its simplest form, simply liberates the basic production unit (i.e., the worker) so that he can realize the benefits of his output better. but this has not happened (yet). it has not happened in any SOCIALIST regime we know. even in a totally free market environment, it is not likely for most workers to benefit fully from their output. the only exception would probably be landed subsistence farmers, hunters, gatherers and fishermen.

Why is that?


This sentence is one big motherhood statement.

What do you mean by "liberates the basic production unit" and how exactly does that enable said production unit to "realize the benefits of his output better"?

Does one have to suffer death by jargon before one can understand what communism is?

Pardon the sarcasm but this is a sincere call for clarity. Unless of course you do indeed prefer to sound like this yahoo.


Right.

About your website (apologies if I pursue the topic considering that you seem to be inclined to skirt it): I just wanted to say that you seem to have something good going there.

Kinda hard to believe you and the mac_bolan00 of that site are one and the same. Are you?

One last thing, about that claim of yours that I am for doling out to the "undeserving", are you still prepared to substantiate this claim, or has that issue gone to Issues Heaven as far as you are concerned?

Get Real Philippines!!

[ January 06, 2003: Message edited by: benign0 ]

randian objectivism seems to insist on a strong government while other schols of objectivism lean towards pure libertarianism (meaning absolutely no laws of man).

read the communist manifesto. it's a very short book. you can download it from http://readroom.ipl.org

In other words you're an anarchist, right?

But humour me one moment. You listed the following "directives" in your "website" that you feel need to be implemented to address some of your "recognised" problems:

1. Population control must be implemented in all countries.
2. Reduce dependence on such resources that cannot be renewed.
3. Protection of the citizenry through a combination of strong governance and empowerment of
individuals.
4. Education must be a priority both by the govenment and individual family units.
5. same as # 5
6. Governance must be scientific. Government directives must take precedence over due
representation and consultation.

The sixth one is most notable "Government directives must take precedence over due
representation and consultation".

How do you reconcile that with what you said, that you do not subscribe to the ARI brand of objectivism which advocates strong government?

For that matter, all the other directives you listed would require some form of strong government to implement.


Maybe someday when I have to take a real long crap.

I know, I know, your sig says "admit nothing, deny everything" or something to that effect. But do you actually intend to skirt the issue on your website forever?

I'll make you a deal. Simply tell me (either here or in a PM) if you don't want to talk about it and I will hold my peace forever. Scout's honour.

Get Real Philippines!!

i had to let you post a couple of times to understand what you were saying. so you mean i've started a website much like 'get real philippines'? i must have done it in my sleep. i don't remember ever starting one. what's the name of the site? does it mention mac_bolan00? hmmmmm... i knew i was famous but not that famous. and those directives you mentioned sound too much like solomon tulbure. now there's another crackpot.

the only guy i know who bothers with ayn rand and objectivism en extremis is tyanak_me. let me have a talk with that shmuck.

sunuvasock!!! the site you mentioned was started by ach_soo! you know who that wanker is? he's a PEXer!!! what a weasel.

Why would he use your handle as a goecities account userid?

I know you've already confirmed its existence in a previous post, but just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, here is the link:

http://www.geocities.com/mac_bolan00/

And as you said, the other identities mentioned in the site are a certain Mariano Domingo with the email address ach_soo@hotmail.com, not to mention the geocities account name "mac_bolan00". Isn't that a strange coincidence? As I asked previously, why would this ach_soo use your handle for a Geocities account user ID? And isn't it also strange that you yourself talked a while back about developing something called a "universal strategy" and, by some stroke of luck, the content of that Geocities site actually looks like such a "universal strategy" under development?


Which ones of those directives don't you agree with? And who is this Solomon Tulbure?


Your sig sez it all: Admit nothing. Deny everything. Throw counter-accusations. Can you blame me if I am a bit skeptical about your assertions given this underlying philosophy of yours? You've already demonstrated some adherence to this philosophy as I will cite as follows:

(1) It took you two follow-ups to get you to respond to my queries about the above-mentioned website (admit nothing);

(2) You are apparently denying any knowledge of a website that happens to bear your name (deny everything); and,

(3) You suddenly start dropping names of obscure crackpots left and right in an attempt to account for these revelations (throw counter-accusations).

Get Real Philippines!!

first, mr. get reel, it's closer to your nature to dream up something you believe to be a conspiracy. second, i'm not the web site hack around here: you are.

solomon tulbure started a loony movement called the illuminati order. he wrote "the illuminati manifesto". among other things, it wants people to live a life of free sex, to explore homosexuality, and collect sperm from certified geniuses in order to improve the human race. his sites on the net have been removed since the start of this year.

i have no propietary rights over mac_bolan00. people with no imagination tend to borrow catchy nicks on the net. example: teddy benign0 (sa lahat ng kabibiliban, yun pa!)

so now that you know who solomon tulbure and ach_soo are, you might want to look them up. i distinctly remember ach_soo to have posted a couple of entries in PEX.

i can make a rough demog of ach_soo. he must be in his mid- to late 30s, given his nick. aslo, his writing style seems to be that of a technical man, probably a scientist or an engineer. how old are you, mr. engineering-graduate-from-UP?

[ January 07, 2003: Message edited by: mac_bolan00 ]

Now now. No need to get hostile here. I'm just presenting evidence in question form. You can invoke the 5th if you wish to (I also gave you that option a while ago). But since you've decided to break your silence, it would help to throw in more substanial arguments than a counter accusation -- oh, I forgot, throwing counter-accusations is your motto nga pala. Counter-accusations are usually followed by evidence to support said accusations. But I guess that is beyond the realm of your philosophies in life (which is strange for someone who is an advocate of objectiviesm.


If this fellow is such a wacko as you claim, why are you so familiar with him?


I wasn't referring to "proprietary rights" over the name mac_bolan00. I was referring to the apparent coincidences surrounding the nature of said name.


I've seen this ach_soo a couple of times in PEx. What's your point?


So now you're taking the let's-discuss-the-messenger-instead-of-the-message tack true to your original form, are you? You should know by now what my usual response to personality speculations are.

Notice that you haven't addressed a single relevant issue I've so far put on the table here:

(1) You still fail to tell us exactly why you think I advocate doling out to the "underserving";

(2) You have not explained this strange communism-objectivism dichotomy that you claim to espouse;

(3) You have not clarified what exactly you meant by your motherhood statement "communism,... simply liberates the [worker] so that he can realize the benefits of his output better" (my italics). If it is that simple why don't you explain it in simple terms?

So what is your purpose here in this forum?

Are you sure you are really fit to discuss in this esteemed forum or, out of respect for this foum's owners, would you like to take this discussion back to Wild Wild PEx where your less-than-esteemed comrades hang out and where you are apt to play your usual flippant parlour tricks?

Get Real Philippines!!

you're the one who started this mac_bolan00 website crap. your first mention of the site wasn't lost to me. i looked up geocities and blogspot, with a little help from my subordinates (they're the ones familiar with the sites).

i already answered your questions. you're just fishing for information you yourself should be reading on. you have no arguments. you're no better than those bible truists who can't generate anything original.

Very well. Shall we consider this topic closed? I'll just have to take your less-than-credible word for it.

For the record, am I right in assuming that you are not an advocate of the following "directives":

1. Population control must be implemented in all countries.
2. Reduce dependence on such resources that cannot be renewed.
3. Protection of the citizenry through a combination of strong governance and empowerment of individuals.
4. Education must be a priority both by the govenment and individual family units.
5. same as # 5
6. Governance must be scientific. Government directives must take precedence over due representation and consultation.

They sound suspiciously aligned to what you claimed to be your "frustrations" about the Philippines. To refresh your memory:

"oh but i do have frustrations. i'm frustrated that the fertility rate per nubile female is still 3.0X. i want to bring this down to less than 1.8X and maybe maintain the country's population to a manageable 20 million. i want to eradicate all types of mysticism (read: religion). i want to eradicate all these crazy regionalists and nationalists. i want to stamp out racism."


Have you? Can you point out exactly where you purport to have answered these questions?

Here they are again to refresh your memory:

(1) You still fail to tell us exactly why you think I advocate doling out to the "underserving";

(2) You have not explained this strange communism-objectivism dichotomy that you claim to espouse;

(3) You have not clarified what exactly you meant by your motherhood statement "communism,... simply liberates the [worker] so that he can realize the benefits of his output better" (my italics). If it is that simple why don't you explain it in simple terms?


I think it is moot and academic that everyone here does their own reading in their own time. What I am interested in is what you have to say about these concepts which you yourself brought up in this forum. This is a discussion forum, right?


Oh I do have my arguments. Right here. Where are yours? Don't tell me they're in your not-yours website?

And I never intended to enter my website into any originality contests. It is merely a compilation of already world-renowned traits of Filipinos. In fact my vision is to phase myself out as a content provider and rely more on contributors since I am more interested in the administration of the website (and maybe paraphrasing articles and essays) than in writing stuff that most Pinoys already know.

Get Real Philippines!!

[ January 07, 2003: Message edited by: benign0 ]

I was intrigued by mac_bolan00's statement, which reads:"let's just say i wear two hats these days: a communist strategist and a student of objectivism. while they differ greatly in their general ideas and methods, both have more in common than many people care to admit."

I do not claim to be a student of either communism or objectivism. The extent of my exposure to both these philosophies is Fr. Tabora's lectures on Karl Marx in Philo 101 and 102 and Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead." Nonetheless, I seem to recall, from some documentary I saw a few years ago, that Ayn Rand was a Russian immigrant who fled the Soviet Union and developed this highly individualistic philosophy because of her aversion to the collectivist and statist nature of communism. So I was a little confused about how mac_bolan00 can consider himself both a communist and an objectivist. Based on my limited understanding and dim recollection of both philosophies, it seems to me that they are fundamentally inconsistent with each other? Is this perception an accurate one? If not, then I was curious about what he thought these two philosophies had in common?

Hey Mac-dude! Are you going to reply to this sincere inquiry or are you going to give him the same treatment you give people who express any curiosity about your views?

Get Real Philippines!!

i said i study objectivism at the same time i'm currently involved a bunch of guys 'looking into' communism.

yes it might be difficult to find common ground between ayn rand's brand of OT and communism. but first, look how an ideal communist society is structured: there is no state. work by each individual is collectivized only for added efficiency (share costs). otherwise, each person is better off fending for him/herself. large capital is not controlled by any one person unless it represents accumulated wealth. essential resources (arable land, water resources, etc.) have to be collectively tapped and protected.

no what about an objectivist society as ayn rand sees it? each individual prioritizes his/her personal interest. however, she puts a stopper on all this by saying each individual must RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. therefore, she is also considering constraints like limited resources, a vulnerable natural environment and trading practices that adversly affect others. you also see that there is some measure of collectivism in the overall effort.

i subscribe to a more libertarian thought though i'm still in the process of defining.

Hope you don't mind if I butt in:


But doesn't the modern free market economy and its minion -- the corporation -- do that already? It collectivises individual work so that costs are shared (for example, ordinary workers have greater access to equipment and technology in a corporation than if they were in business on their own). Corporations provide income that is relatively secure compared to that of an entrepeneur (therefore personal risk is mitigated). And, as you said, if an individual is finds that he is better of "fending for himself" (say, finds opportunity to make more money on his own), he is free to leave a corporation and start his own business.

The free market has also proven to be far more efficient at allocating capital than that of a centrally-controlled economy. The free market ensures that capital is allocated to efficient (read: profitable) enterprise. In most capitalist societies, allocation of "essential" resources is still highly regulated by the government.


By saying you subscribe to a "more libertarian thought", do you therefore imply that you do not subscribe to ARI's version of objectivism and its "RESPECT [for] THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS" (which I note you emphasised by typing these in all-caps)?

Get Real Philippines!!

Do workers in a communist society really keep the fruits of their labor as they would under an objectivist set-up? I seem to remember a Marxist or communist slogan that says "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Even if the ideal communist society is stateless, as mac_bolan00 asserts the objectivist society also aspires to be, it's hard to imagine how this redistributive ethic can be enforced without a state. Maybe religion can supply the motivation for this altruism, but religion of any kind is anathema to Marxism and communism. It's just counter-intuitive, even naive, to expect people to voluntarily renounce their ability to control and benefit from rights, property or otherwise, that they worked hard to acquire. Kills initiative for the hardworking and creates a disincentive for the lazy. I think this is part of what Ayn Rand found so objectionable in the Soviet system from which she escaped.

Even if there may be some similarities in some of the features of how the ideal societies try to operationalize each philosophy, the bottom line is that their underlying premises are irreconcilable. There is a difference in emphasis, and this difference dictates how society is reckoned with. Objectivism extols the individual, commnism, the collective. The imperatives emanate from different sources, and even if some results may come out the same way some of the time, the animating goals are different. Consequently, solutions arrived at when each paradigm is employed to deal with a problem will probably differ more often than they will coincide.

Just an opinion.

when you're planning, you don't have to stick to existing doctrines. that allocation by need thing is overblown (especially by ayn rand) and it basically considers basic need.

objectivists would rather not call it collectivism or re-distribution but rather 'objective reality'. an objectivist individual will not do anything to harm the earth's carrying capacity.

[ January 08, 2003: Message edited by: mac_bolan00 ]

How odd that macbolan00 chosen to zero in on an issue that is peripheral to my main argument. Perhaps this is what benignO means when he calls him evasive and what infuriates the former so much?

But anyway, to respond to macbolan00's new point briefly --- I wouldn't be so cavalier as to dismiss "existing doctrines" in attempts to fashion the ideal society and government. You didn't define what you meant by "existing doctrines," so I will assume for the moment that the term pertains to how political and social institutions have functioned in the real world and the ideological (used in the broad sense) justifications offered in support of their existence and operation.

It seems to me that effective and influential ideas about man, society, and politics are rarely developed in a vacuum. Specifically, political theorists and philosophers (I tend to use these terms interchangeably, in case you feel the urge to make much ado about my usage) almost always base their insights and models on historical examples as well as empirical observations of contemporary politics. Take Montesquieu or James Madison, for instance. Political theories/philosophies that don't heed the lessons of history, that don't pay due regard to how people really behave and how the world has actually worked will likely falter in implementation and be of limited usefulness and relevance.

But getting back to my primary point --- you haven't yet addressed my main argument that despite occasional convergence in some of the operational features of communism and objectivism, the premises of these two philosophies are nonetheless fundamentally at odds with each other. Don't they take radically divergent positions regarding the basic questions of what is the nature of man and how ought he relate to society?

so it is then. you may have found my last post odd but i do hope you understood.

i'll assume for now that your understanding of objectivism and communism is the same as what most people hold: each one locates at the extreme ends of the state control vs. free market polarity. am i right? if so, let me now put in some clarifications:

my brand of communism may be in part defined as one marked by a broad collectivsm. however, IT IS NOT CANNOT ENTIRELY definable by such a simple polar relation. examples:

i want to collectivize intenal security. call it a police state. the resources/output of all must be tapped for this. what's the purpose? simply to protect the citizenry. HERE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WITH WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE IN A RANDIAN SOCIETY. while randians believe that individuals should first and foremost look after themselves, they still feel that a policing government is morally justified since two competing individuals may carry their actions to the point that one's rights are being violated.

second, i reject marx' belief that capital is a social asset, not an individual's. his argument here seems myopic: a single businessman may need money to kick off an enterprise but it's the collective effort of his workers that really create the value. i see no logic to this. therefore, i submit that a true communist society must still allow individuals to amass wealth and have the power to trade (loosely defined to include hiring of employees who will be paid fairly).

i also want to protect the environment in order to maintain its rated holding capacity. population control must be ENFORCED, NOT MERELY ENCOURAGED. AND THE ENVIRONEMENT MUST NOT ONLY BE PROTECTED, IT MUST BE MANAGED. now this calls for a real collective effort.

alright, those are examples of my intended structure or 'operating features' as you call them. now if you want me to tell you how i feel towards their 'divergent' philosophies, i will say the following: both have, more or less, the same opinion of what reality is (our physical universe). both have as its basic moral code the protection of each individual. both rely on reason.

it is in the matter of ethics wherein they diverge. one champions self-interest while the other wants a unified platform. one holds that a completely free market system is the only environment wherein an individual can live properly. the other believes in regulation and centralized planning as long as these two are practical.

so now i ask, given very similar ideas on metaphysics, morals and epistemology, does one really have argue much about how each individual or the whole population should act and behave? won't self-interest ultimately come face-to-face with common interest? isn't the absence of laws just as dangerous as a failure of government?

[ January 08, 2003: Message edited by: mac_bolan00 ]

Thank you, mac_bolan00, that was very helpful. I think I now see more clearly what your project is, and it is an engaging one. If I understood you correctly, you're trying to design your own hybrid theory by picking and choosing ideas and features from both objectivism and communism. Reminds me a little bit of Chinese attempts to reconcile communist political ideology with aspects of a free market economy.

With respect to your last point, I do agree that societal contests will involve some variation of self-interest v. common interest. American political theory, for example, is characterized by tension, by constant oscillation between constitutionalism, which has traditionally safeguarded minority and individual rights, and democracy, which allows the majority to express their will. Nonetheless, and if I understood your argument properly, I still think that the question of the role of the individual and his relationship to society, and vice versa, continues to have both teleological and practical significance to philosophies, even if they share similar attitudes towards the physical world, reason, etc. Basically, how a philosophy or theory resolves this issue will determine how implementing institutions will stack the deck, which, in turn, can often decide the contest. Depending on who wins or who loses, one can gauge whether a philosophy has met its goals or ideals and, by that token, whether it has succeeded or not. Moreover, how a chosen implementing structure encourages and discourages certain interests to prevail over others would matter a great deal to real people in the real world.

Had another question for you. In your world, how is the "common interest" determined and who decides what it is?

In plainspeak, you are therefore undertaking to develop a philosophy whose primary aim is creating social harmony by the cancelling out of the forces of "self-interest" and "common interest" by selectively applying collectivist and individualist principles across different forms of governance depending on the nature of the resource whose allocation happens to be affected/impacted by the quality and nature of said form of governance.

I don't think anybody (including myself) would argue against your views on how and where to apply collectivist and individualist principles across governance (which makes me wonder why it took you this long to explain this simple concept of yours).

My contention is that culture cannot be ignored when applying a philosophy (and therefore, one cannot oversimplify by generalising all societies as merely being the aggragate result of the effects of the two -- and only the two -- forces of "individual interests" and "common interests"). I am all for your developing a philosophy (I myself espouse that the Filipino people need a "right philosophy" here).

But if we again ignore specific cultural traits of a people we will fall in the same trap as previous generations did when they thought that American-style democracy was best for the Filipino people. Like you, they themselves firmly believed at the time that their philosophy was best without considering the character of the people it was being applied to.

In the case of the Filipino people, I believe the key traits of (1) inferior work ethic, (2) lack of collective trust, and (3) weak self-reliance stick out as the main cultural traits that any form of government or style of governance (and their respective philosophical underpinnings) need to contend with.

In summary, you and I are in conflict only at the fringes of our respective beliefs. You are into evaluation of philosophies but are indifferent to cultural nuances of the society you want to apply your philosophies to. I am into evaluation of cultures and am considerate of philosophical aspects only in so far as they address cultural challenges in said culture being evaluated.

Having said that though, I still believe your folly lies in your indifference to the destructive effect of our people's cultural weaknesses and the hubris by which you seek to develop a one-size fits all school of thought based on an overly simplified view of what makes a society tick.

Get Real Philippines!!

[ January 09, 2003: Message edited by: benign0 ]

WAIT NO MORE! :bounce:

Teddy Benigno, our new national hero, has finally published his New Year's message!

Come read it here!

Just dropping by to bump up this thread.

Hey Mr. two-star rated mac-bolan00! Conspicuously silent now, are we?

I should have known. When it comes to a face-off with people who present logical (albeit simple) arguments, you simply scamper away.

I also noticed that you deleted your little "Universal Strategy" website. What's the matter? Can't back up what you preach?

Maybe you're better off staying in Wild Wild PEx where your quaint little antics are tolerated. :lo:

As Arnold once said:

I'll be back.

Get Real Philippines!!

what's there to write about, benignut? our last exchange was a PEX classic: i ended up spilling more than i wanted to for your sake, you ended up learning something new, and your arguments didin't go farther than they were at the start --even though you managed to snag a law teacher to backstop you.

a short memory, haven't we? i already told you i've never constructed a website in my life. look for someone else to bonker.

i told you, the people here aren't as receptive as those in PEX.

[ January 20, 2003: Message edited by: mac_bolan00 ]

Woo hoo! Look who's ready to rock-n-roll again!

I hope you don't scurry away again like you always do when the going gets tough, dude.

Now now, no need to go ballistic on us. If you "ended up spilling more than i wanted to for your sake", that's your problem for even attempting to discuss something and not be prepared to go the whole nine yards with expressing your views. You're blaming me for making you spill your beans is so childish.

Mommy, mommy, the man made me tell my secret

"Snag a law teacher". Really now? It seems it is you who are so into these conspiracy theories. You really think everyone who pops up here and throws you otherwise pertinent questions is on my side, much less into some kind of secret conspiracy against you together with me?

You insult this "law teacher" you talk about. I wonder what he/she has to say about this speculation of yours.

"Look for someone else to bonker".
You should talk.
Wasn't it you who started all this? Wasn't it you who, out of nowhere, popped up in this thread and called me "benignut" (ala PEx culture)?

Note for the record that I stick to my tried and tested posting style -- I respond to every point you even to the point of quoting every bit and piece of your original posts. Can't say as much for your posting style. Yours is glib and impulsive and you seem to ignore details of the post being responded to at your convenience. How do you expect to further your "universal strategy" with this kind of behaviour?

Stop acting like a baby.

Get off whatever pills you are popping and face the music. Stop blaming otherwise benign people who only want to discuss issues here for your fall from grace.

Do your "two stars" some justice for a change.

Take accountability for your own actions.

Get Real Philippines!!

thought so myself. i'll bet you'll be bumping this thread five times before you get message.

Another one of your famous one-liners?

Seems like the only person not getting the message around here is you!

Get Real Philippines!!

Things are happening!

Our education system has been purged of Tagalog by Presidential Order.

Population is currently being highlighted (and of course being shot down by the Church) as an issue that GMA seems inclined to act on decisively.

Read all about it by clicking on the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/benign0/admin/whatsnew.html

Happy reading!

/me walks into the thread, looks around, and shakes his head with disgust