This is for Jeffersonian Liberal, Moderate, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Capitalist Atheists. Objectivists are always welcome too! If you don't know about this stuff, it's also for you.
Members: 118
Latest Activity: Nov 19, 2012

Started by Parallax. Last reply by Renee Oct 22, 2012. 23 Replies 0 Likes
Started by Brian. Last reply by Tonya Wynn Sep 12, 2012. 1 Reply 0 Likes
Started by Brian. Last reply by Will Faithless Sophia Jan 27, 2012. 10 Replies 0 Likes
Comment
Comment by Tonya Wynn on October 20, 2012 at 4:00pm How can we encourage other voters to vote for a 3rd party next election. An independent DID get to be president ONCE.
Comment by Tonya Wynn on September 12, 2012 at 12:59pm DeLeo, have ya' read The Tao? I think you'd like it. Most library systems have it.
Comment by Tonya Wynn on September 12, 2012 at 12:58pm Regarding Japan...the word for them could be ethnocentric. But they are also stoic people. I lived there for 2 months and worked in Japanese karaoke bars in New York City for 4 yrs.
Comment by Brian on November 14, 2011 at 10:40pm I reviewed the article "Japan-refutation-of-neoliberalism. And I thought of the concept of "National Psychology."
I do not think Western people can follow or mimic the unique system of Japan because the "national psychology" of Japanese people are quite different from that of other nations.
Since the story became a bit longer, I posted it in the Discussion.
Comment by Jason Edwin DeLeo on November 13, 2011 at 1:49am I have decided that perhaps atheism is not the correct term for the way I view the world . I think it should reflect that as far as I can see the concepts God or gods are both undefined as God is supposed to be defined as that which cannot be defined . And how can something that by it's very nature not be defined by anyone be a concept at all? How can I define myself as an a-theist when in fact I am pro fact and pro conceptual driven reality and therefor am not so much an atheist as an advocate of the world and reality and I am driven by the passion to do things in a manner in accordance with the laws of the real world . So the whole debate about the non-concept God or the non-concept gods is exactly like the debate about Santa Claus or ghosts or the Easter Bunny .
Comment by Brian on November 12, 2011 at 10:12pm
I agree with most ideas of Jason.
But I am afraid some people might misunderstand his rules.
For example, rules number 1 and 2 can be applied to any evil doers as well.
How about adding "as long as their doings do not harm any innocent people" to the end of the rule number 2.
Then the rule number 1 is obsolete. Just my ideas.
I like Jason's energy.
Quiet people are destined to lose even if they are good.
How about we become warriors, Jason. We need a kind of revolution.
If you think my cause deserves help, please help me in any way.
It is not to help me. It is to help all people, most of all yourself.
Please give it a thought.
You can help me with good ideas.
Comment by Jason Edwin DeLeo on November 5, 2011 at 3:39pm So I see we are all stating where we stand . I myself hold the following convictions .
1. Leave me alone !
2. All people should be able to do anything to themselves that they want to do .
3. Ultimately there is no way to stop rule 2.
4. I don't care about anyone else's goals and or ambitions or lack there of except when it interferes with rule 1 .
5. The only exception to rule 4 is people I have personally agreed with to help pursue goals and or ambitions together.
6. I really mean it.
Comment by Jason Edwin DeLeo on November 5, 2011 at 3:21pm So at the heart of Craig's arguments seems to be his willingness to support people who can't or don't want to work. So does that mean all my useless loafing relatives can come move into his house eat his food and defecate in his yard?
There are two kind's of businessmen in this county (women also) . The kind who asks for nothing from the government and succeeds or fails on his own merits . And the other kind the kind that succeeds with a small portion of his own money and a huge government loan . These second type are usually the type that steal you blind , run their companies into the ground and defraud investors . When dealing with any man/woman it is important to figure out what type of person is running the company and invest accordingly .
As to the so called social support network so lauded on other groups . Also known as the welfare state or nanny state . This was a huge con from when it was first created . The federal governments very own Ponzi scheme .
At the time it was created very few people lived long enough to ever collect. It is ironic that some of the same policies that are now costing us so much money ( Medicare and Medicaid ) are leading to everyone living longer . So we have about ten more years before the last of the baby boomers hit 65 this is the watershed moment . And Obamacare won't help matters any . Increased regulation of medical treatment and providing massive government funding for new state of the art expensive technologies is the very thing that led to the massive rise in healthcare costs in the first place .
If you were drinking a glass of water and you found out it had poison in it would you not immediately put it down and seek help ? Or would you finish the water and go back to the same well and consume more ? I think everyone can see my point .
Over the years even though the Republicans have claimed to deregulate things and be for less and smaller government . It is patently untrue . George W. Bush enacted more regulations in his eight years than Clinton did . The supposed deregulation of the Energy companies was a shell game with little real effect . Except in California where it cased a massive bureaucratic screw up and huge revenue losses . The only true solution to polluting companies isn't just deregulation . It's Deregulation plus the sale of every piece of so called government property in the U.S.A to private individuals . They would then be responsible for the use of the land and could be sued for allowing their pollutants to infringe on any one else's land . The so called public ownership of certain lands ends up meaning that people feel free to pollute it . This goes all the way from some idiot dumping a pile of trash in the desert to huge companies dumping toxic waste in the wilderness .
As to recycling I think it should be encouraged everywhere . It turns out you can recycle almost anything . I think even the long chain polymers and toxic waste products can be recycled and rendered reusable . It is of course all a question of money . There is a city in New Jersey that recycles all of there aluminum and other metals there tires batteries and trash . They have zero waste and they have a clean beautiful city and they even truck in other peoples trash to run their trash burning power plant . That also has soot scrubbers on it I believe . This should be a much better solution than New York City for instance that has barge loads of trash continuously taken out to sea and dumped . Anyway that's all for now.
Comment by Tonya Wynn on October 27, 2011 at 6:23pm Craigart14, didn't know that incandescent bulbs poluuted more than a mercury-filled 'new' bulb. The new bulbs give MUCH less light than incandescents and are frankly less appealing to decor and facial-beauty.
But, I agree about Republicans exploiting workers and polluting, otherwise.
Even Nova, the PBS tv show, alluded to the fact that climate change could be a natural (not man-made) happening.
Comment by Craigart14 on July 2, 2011 at 2:09pm
We're almost on the same page. Do what you like as long as you're not hurting anyone else. The rest is negotiation, but dammit, those negotiations are complicated. I think that freedom should include, for example, the freedom to smoke weed, which endangers no one but me, but not the freedom to drive on public roads while stoned. (If anyone is curious, I don't smoke weed.) People should be free to have consensual sex with other adults, in any combination they want. But the right wing wants the freedom to exploit workers, to pollute the environment in the pursuit of short-term profits, and to defraud the public. Which of these behaviors is harmful to others? The right was all a-twitter a few weeks ago over new government efficiency standards for incandescent light bulbs. They insisted it's their right to buy whatever kind of light bulbs they want--and I would agree, if it weren't for pollution and climate change.
There's an old saying that "my right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I think your right to swing your fist ends considerably short of my nose. Where it ends exactly could be the subject of a lengthy debate. Where does your right to pump black smoke into the air end, or your right to inject carcinogens into the ground water? Where does my right to ride my motorcycle at 110 end? Where does a woman's right to control her own body end--if it does? My right to burn my trash in a barrel in the back yard? I was once part of a faculty committee investigating the harassment of members of a new student organization: a gay/straight alliance. They thought they had every right to crowd around the entrance to the meeting room shouting "Fag! Fucking dyke!" to the students trying to enter. Some I spoke to thought it was just free speech. Hmm. One guy said there were posters on campus with the number 666 on them. The posters, he said, were harassing him, so why couldn't he harass the queers? If the government, in the form of the campus police, stops the harassment, are they protecting the rights of the gay/straight members or violating the rights of the protesters?
So we agree on most everything, but I stick by my original point that the joys of free market capitalism are myths. When there was laissez faire capitalism, there were also robber barons and stock manipulators, all getting rich on insider information. There were also widespread illiteracy, ignorance, and poverty because short-term profits always outweighed the greater good. The preamble to the Constitution clearly states the reasons for creating the Constitution. One which we all know is to "provide for the common defense." Another, which you seldom hear mentioned, is to "promote the general welfare." That one, it seems to me, gives government broad latitude to make regulations for the common good. However much we may distrust our government--and believe me, I do--we would be fools to trust BP or Union Carbide or Monsanto.
Mathew T. replied to Atheist Andrea's discussion Are you open about being an atheist or are you in the closet?
Mathew T. replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Daily Show takes on Christian persecution
Mathew T. replied to James M. Martin's discussion Sorry for the Hype, But This Might Make You Laugh
Loren Miller replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Edward Snowden: War on Whistleblowers "Only Builds Better Whistleblowers" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
Tom Sarbeck replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Edward Snowden: War on Whistleblowers "Only Builds Better Whistleblowers" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
Debra Stevenson commented on Loren Miller's blog post Of Wardens and Caretakers ... and Gods...
Tom Sarbeck replied to Ravi Morey's discussion Upcoming New Book putting God on Trial in the group Atheist Writers© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.


You need to be a member of The Other Free Thinkers to add comments!