Michael Bowen painter & Sixties icon

[toxlovexisxtoxdie]

thats my name xDDDD no seriously, my name is michael bowen

[ANEWWORLD2012]

to YOU my friend more to come.................

[odfoto]

Michael, R.I.P.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Well, government certainly can enforce laws based on morality. Personally, I think the U.S. Constitution is a pretty decent starting place.

[freesk8]

I also love the Constitution. It is a very libertarian document, but just and Constitutional laws are based on a very narrow portion of morality: those involving harm to rights. Laws that regulate morality where there is NO violation of rights create victimless crimes, and these laws are bad laws.

[freesk8]

For instance, many claim that it is immoral to do business on a Sunday. Violates the sabbath. But doing business on a Sunday harms no ones rights. Murder, on the other hand, is both morally wrong AND violates rights. Outlawing murder (at the state level) is an example of good law. When people say "you can't legislate morality" they are saying that you can't legislate the MERELY moral, but you CAN legislate the immoral that also violates rights.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I must disagree with his idea that guilt is particulary "western". Eastern culture has a long history of placing people in predefined roles, and conformity of behaviour and expression are historically rigidly enforced. A major vehicle of enforcement is guilt.

Do we imagine Buddhists who fought in the Japanese Imperial Army felt no guilt? Of course they did. Much of what Japan is today is the result of massive feelings of guilt over WW2.

[freesk8]

The goal is to be motivated by positive things, like justice, love, hope, productivity, intellectual discovery, artistic vision, joy, loyalty, creativity, honor, self-reliance, responsibility, family, entrepreneurship, etc, instead of by things like fear and guilt.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Of course. It's just that no culture excludes guilt from the mix.

[laotsu7777]

your example of guilt in eastern cultures is correct, but is light years away from saying both cultures are the same in regards to the issue. In the moral/value system, and philosophical systems teach you to try as best you can to eliminate guilt. Judeo christian religions teach you there is no avoiding it, and that you should be guilty. big difference.

[laotsu7777]

* sorry typed to fast- meant to write:  Im the Eastern moral/value systems...

[RogerOnTheRight]

I must completely disagree with your analysis. Buddhism, for example, does not teach you to eliminate guilt at all. Rather, in Buddhism we strive to understand it.

There are no preferred states of mind. In fostering awareness, through zazen, we come to understand our mind and the Universe, and thus may overcome suffering. Typically, this means avoiding that behaviour we know to cause guilty feelings.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Put another way, there are reasons for feeling guilty. Guilt is something we impose on ourselves because we perceive differences between what we know is right and our actual behaviour.

All moral systems simply seek to correct that behaviour.

[deaddoc]

@RogerOnTheRight Hmmm... but what if what we KNOW is right was programmed into us early?

[RogerOnTheRight]

@deaddoc

What of it? Would you not still want to understand the sources of your feelings and thoughts?

[deaddoc]

@RogerOnTheRight Yes, so that I could deconstruct it.

[1RandomNoise]

@deaddoc

Sure. And, I have to suppose, from personal experience, our knowledge of right and wrong does come to us early in our lives. Still, delusion is the bogey man we all fight from birth to death.

[laotsu7777]

some try to at least, some almost suceed, WHILE OTHERS REQUIRE IT. So there is a difference. It is obviously unescapable, but embracing it and fighting it are two completely different aproaches.

[freesk8]

Cultural influences are ignorable by strong individuals. The real problem is when government forces unearned guilt upon people in order to manipulate them. This is much harder to avoid.

[laotsu7777]

interesting perspective on the European Union...

[RogerOnTheRight]

This is a good video. I agree with his observation that government either intimidates artists or buys them off. This is one good reason to get rid of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Artists have always been beholden to their benefactors. At least with commercial support, artists can be free to find benefactors supportive of their artistic choices. Government can never be trusted to allow true freedom any more than the church did during the Rennaisance.

[freesk8]

I totally agree. :)

Art elites would love to fund their pet projects on the backs of the poor. They shouldn't be allowed to. Artists should respond to market forces, or choose to be starving artists in order to be true to their visions. Their choice.

[laotsu7777]

horrible choice...sell out or not. it's been like that since the late 1890's though...

[freesk8]

Long before that. Artists of old had to suck up to the king or duke or baron to get patronage. The difference now is that thanks to the free market there are many more people with money to buy art, instead of one monarch or a few elites. But you are right, this is a tough choice. Blessed are those who have artistic visions that happen to be sellable.

[laotsu7777]

I see the church, the government, AND THE CORPORATIONS as representing the same freedom styfling entities. The reason is that when things of importance are discussed via art, they will be censored and or edited to make sure that they do not go against the interest of the corporation...which are rarely in the interest of the poor.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Corporations are simply group ownership and management of private property. Whether I am an individual or a member of such a group, it is in my interest to promote my values. Why should I not do that?

And who determines what is in the interest of the poor? Corporations have done more to eliminate poverty, by providing employment, that governments can or ever will do.

[freesk8]

Absolutely right. Spoken like a true libertarian/free market capitalist! :)

I sure wish the Republicans valued the free market.

Oh, well!

Artistic and creative freedom fluourish better under free markets than under socialism or more government control. When governments control markets, they control art, and they have vastly more power than competitive corporations.

[RogerOnTheRight]

To say Republicans do not value free markets is a bit of a broad stroke. There are many of us who are rather libertarian at our core, but also have realistic aspirations to actually govern.

Then there are "old guard" Republicans, like many of those in the Senate, who simply need to be replaced. They are as protectionist as their Democratic counterparts.

[freesk8]

OK, I admit, there are a few fiscally conservative Republicans in the House and Senate, but they are in the minority, even among Republicans! I like Pres. Candidate Ron Paul (R, TX). But he calls himself a libertarian! All libertarians, on the other hand, want less taxes, less government spending, and more free markets.  Republicans brought us the medicare drug benefit; the biggest spending obligation in US history.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Yep, major screwup. Reagan must be turning in his grave.

At least the tax cuts worked. Reducing top marginal rates indeed produced more revenue, and greater wealth. In fact, it has compensated the massively stupid spending, at least in the short run.

Still, it would be better if the Republicans lived up to their ostensible conservatism.

[deaddoc]

@RogerOnTheRight Rather corporate execs could not make all their money without the poor to work for barely livable wages. It's about greed and proportions. No one thinks that a government can provide all the industry, but industry cannot be left to laissez faire exploitation of everyone else. I see that the right wants NO taxes at all on the corps, so they can supposedly hire more. Not historically true.

[deaddoc]

@RogerOnTheRight Even a high school grad knows that corporations can be formed by one person.

[RogerOnTheRight]

@deaddoc

True. I have one. What of it?

[freesk8]

I agree, that both corporations and governments have interests, and will try to impose those interests on artists, but the big difference is monopoly. Government is a monopoly. Nowhere else to go!  Governments enforce some monopolies in some markets. But with corporations, there is more choice. They create more rich people who can afford art, and unlike the government, they compete with other corporations.