Will Excesses Really Neutralize Each Other under Libertarianism?

There is a tendency among libertarians to argue for more individual liberty and freedom as the key to societal good. This isn’t because everything people do with freedom is good but because bad things will cancel each other out. It’s like a vision of humanity as economic, social, or emotional billiard balls. There is a rational argument here but one minimizing the moral sense of limits and conscious self-control. The libertarian argument is essentially the Satan-ist argument. No, Satan doesn’t exist, and libertarians aren’t committed to evil. Still, libertarians seem to believe that vices naturally cancel each other out in an utterly free social order. Do they really?

I once came upon a book by some funny Jewish guy of the church of Satan. In it, he argues that the seven deadly sins are nothing to be afraid of. Instead of resisting them we should indulge them because they cancel each other out. For instance, take vanity and gluttony. Gluttony is pleasurable, but it’s bad because it turns us into gross fatties. But, not to worry since vanity is there to balance it out. In other words, a person may want to pig out, but his narcissism will control his appetite or push him to exercise. So, we need not fear these vices. If we indulge in them, we not only gain pleasure but also arrive at some kind of equilibrium. Somewhat true to be sure. But, would it be sufficient for a person to be healthy? Can we have a good society where vices simply cancel each other out? (Also, what about people who are so ugly to begin with that they would gain little by controlling their appetite or exercising? Despair & self-loathing in the looks department may lead a person to eat like pig to compensate for his or her ugliness.)

Libertarian philosophy comes pretty close to such thinking–the notion that vices, if let loose, will cancel or balance each other out and make for a decent society. While such ideas may have some macro-social or psycho-individual validity, there is no substitute for individual virtue and moral character in the maintenance of a healthy society. (Libertarians, of course, aren’t anti-morality, anti-virtue, nor anti-self-restraint, but they hardly emphasize such values in their preference of theory of freedom). Indeed, the beauty and power of virtue unite the individual with the community–made up of other individuals. Individual freedom is something we all prize and seek, but it has no inherent moral value(except in the vaguest and broadest sense; man needs freedom to choose good or evil, but freedom isn’t synonymous goodness; nor, can we expect the bad to simply balance out the other bads).
And, freedom is often socially destructive for the simple fact that people indulging in excessive behavior–even in private–are likely to cause problems spilling into rest of society. Fat people, for instance, make healthcare costs rise for everyone. And, people who gamble away their money become burdens on their family and rest of us.
The libertarian argument is most compelling when law enforcement against certain vices aren’t effective or counter-productive. This was certainly the case with prohibition in the 20s and 30s. The problem in a free society is that even criminals enjoy rights and protections which give cover to much of their criminal activities. The only effective way to eradicate such behavior is by eradicating freedom itself, but that would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. So, a free society simply has to allow certain kinds of freedom. We cannot legislate ourselves at every turn into a healthy society, and it almost impossible to legislate virtue in a democracy(and such don’t do much good even in a theocracy).
Nevertheless, who can deny that certain vices are extremely destructive, and we simply cannot expect other vices or virtues to naturally or organically balance them out. Though being fat is not a crime–and of course shouldn’t be–, the rise of fatassness among Americans shows us the serious shortcomings of the balance-of-vices theory. Though it’s true that people want to enjoy both food and have look goods, narcissism simply isn’t powerful enough to neutralize excessive gluttony in many people. Fatsos know they don’t look good, but they keep pigging out. Why? Because eating is fun and exercising is strenuous. People know they should eat less but they want to eat more and more. This is why so many Americans are fat-tards. Gluttony and narcissism are both vices, but one is much easier to indulge than the other(at least in modern society; gluttony would have been difficult long ago when procuring food was the hardest task of all.)
It’s quite obvious that people need another mechanism to eat less: shame. There is a thing called self-shame, but the most effective kind of shame is social shame. But, as we move away from a shame culture–due to both liberalism and libertarianism–, we have people who indulge in behavior that is immediately gratifying but harmful or destructive. In our politically correct, sensitive, and litigious society, we are not allowed to call fatsos ‘fatsos’. Some states are even considering protecting fatties from the evil of ‘weightism’. Now, I’m not recommending that we call fatsos ‘fatsos’. That would be rude. But, would it be so bad if there was some degree of social pressure or ostracism against fatsos? Indeed, it would be best for the fatsos. Fatsos are not victims. They are self-created self-indulged monstrosities. If they are shamed out of fatness, they would be better off and so would be–lower all-around healthcare costs.

Fatasses eat too much shit and don’t exercise enough. Sure, some people have slower metabolism, but then they should eat less. But, they pig out like the fatsos that they are.
Now, a fatso may not like being fat and may want to lose weight. But, many people simply cannot control their eating habits. They know they are fat and ugly and would like to look better(vanity factor), but the food is just too irresistible. Without strong external pressure associated with shame or a strong internally held philosophy of frugality, freedom and liberty themselves are not going to create some miraculous equilibrium. Without a strong set of moral values or shame culture, there is only the strong arm of the state to enforce and maintain social balance/stability. This is truer in some communities than others. Blacks, for instance, tend to be wilder and more aggressive. So, freedom and liberty for blacks naturally lead to more excesses than freedom and liberty among other races. We can even see this when we contrast normal whites with ‘whiggers’. ‘Whiggers’ are white people who emulate blacks, and they happen to be far trashier and more problematic than regular white folks.
At any rate, we don’t want the state to interfere too much with our lives, so we must prevent bad conditions that arise from freedom and liberty. Shame and morality are central to social stability. The idea that simply more freedom and liberty will fix the problems through an organic process of counter-actions is just wishful theorizing.

There is also the cultural factor. A traditional society with newfound freedom and liberty still holds an internal mechanism–handed down through centuries or even millennia–that restrains excesses of individual freedom or liberty. Such mechanism, apart from the law and government, plays a crucial role in curbing wanton excesses of freedom. But, as the generations pass, as youth culture develops, as cultural traditions and norms weaken, and as more kids listen to stuff like rap music & other junk, individual freedom and liberty take on a different color altogether; they lose the connection to the roots of civilization. Freedom and liberty go from liberation to decadence.
Compare blacks in the 50s to blacks today. Many blacks in the 50s still had what we might call ‘family values’. Freedom and liberty for folks in ‘Raisin in the Sun’ had different implications than freedom and liberty for black kids who grow up today to hip hop, nigga culture, jiggety doo, yabbity ho-di-di-do. Of course, black community had always been more problematic than the white community, but its freedom had been restrained by moral sense and order prior to the 60s. No longer.
So, a libertarian argument that black community will make progress through more freedom and liberty would be nonsense. This isn’t to suggest that bigger government is the solution either as it has, indeed, made things worse by encouraging destructive behavior among blacks–welfare checks for teen mothers, tendency for educated blacks to go into parasitic bureaucratics than productive economics. But, the main problem of bigger government in the black community was having pumped in all that money without social controls. If anything, the problem is that bigger government led to more freedom in the black community. The problem was not the government taking away freedom but encouraging and supporting too much freedom–a dangerous policy because blacks, being wilder, are tempted to abuse freedom. All that welfare money allowed blacks to do as they please in terms of having loose sex, dropping out of school, and so on. Every black girl knew that if she messed up and acted crazy, the government would give her money. The problem wasn’t big government per se but a big government that gave and gave but demanded nothing in return. If big government is bound to fail all the time and everywhere(as libertarians contend), Sweden and Canada would be giant Detroits, but they are not. Of course, one could argue nothing would have worked with blacks because too many of them are just too crazy.

* * * *

Suppose we apply libertarianism to gun ownership. A libertarian might argue that the best way to deal with gun violence is allow easier and freer sales of guns to more people. Eventually, things will balance out. If more people own guns, they would be able to protect one another. Criminals would think twice about robbing people. A sudden spike in gun violence may eventually drop once everyone has guns and an equilibrium has been reached. There is some degree of validity to this argument, but let’s not fool ourselves. This kind of ‘equilibrium’ will be violent, crazy, and tension-filled. (Actually, stability or lack thereof in any society may be the product of its system of laws, moral values, and racial make-up than on gun laws. A Yugoslavia divided by ethnicity was a dangerous place for guns since Serbs shot Croats, Croats shot Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Muslims shot Serbs, and etc. Guns and ethnic diversity can be a deadly mix. But, once you have stable communities dominated by one race or ethnicity, there’s likely to be greater peace, with or without guns; indeed, each of the former Yugoslavian nations are safer now after the breakup and population transfers even though many people still own guns. On the other hand, a society dominated by blacks may not be safe with lots of guns cuz so many blacks act crazy. Indeed, fear of blacks has become the number one reason why whites want to own guns. In the past, it was fear of Indians and wild animals. If the wild frontier was tamed by white folks in the 19th century, today the urban jungle dominated by blacks is encroaching on white folks who want guns. Rich liberals, who can afford to live in safe neighborhoods, risk nothing when they yammer about the evil of guns and promote interracism since they don’t practice what they preach, but many common white Americans see the dangers all around.) If easy availability of guns is the solution, then why is there so much gun violence in the inner cities? Since just about every negro has a gun, he or she would be reluctant to use it; there should be mutual apprehension and respect. And, gangs would not shoot one another since all sides know the other guys have guns to retaliate with. But, the equilibrium and stability brought upon by guns in the inner city isn’t much better than the state of animal nature.
Bad and aggressive people will find ways to do bad things, and they’ll be far more willing to use guns. Bad people are more likely to be daring, reckless, and dangerous. Of course, they are likely to die younger(as in the movie City of God), but such idiots don’t think long-term; even if they know the dangers of crime and violence, they still prefer emotion over sense: the glamorous ‘badass’ life to one of sobriety; they don’t heed to the advice of ‘live a long life eating rice gruel’(Yojimbo by Akira Kurosawa).
Ever see a Western movie? Why do certain individuals or gangs gain great power over other people even though everyone has guns? Consider the movie "High Noon"; why is the entire town afraid of a few goons? Or, consider the mafia; how come a bunch of dago hoodlums could exert so much force on entire communities? Bad people have bigger balls. In truth, most people are chicken or ‘don’t want any trouble’. In other words, most people aren’t bungee jumpers.

So, if we ramp up the freedom for individuals, those with reckless tendencies will push them to excess and get in the way of those who tend to be wimpy(most people). The so-called organic equilibrium will vary from society to society depending on how many crazyass knuckleheads it has. A community of 1000 people with 10 Mike Tysons will be saner than a community of 1000 people with 100 Mike Tysons. The so-called equilibrium will be different between the two.

This is why we need many good laws and effective enforcement. To be sure, bad laws may be worse than lax or no laws.
It is the failure to enact and enforce good laws that leads to the excesses that eventually lead people to call for draconian, intrusive, or even oppressive laws(out of anger or in need for security). The best bulwark against the growing power of the state is to allow the state to play a constructive role in enforcing and regulating social order(within reason). Letting people do as they please can lead to social excess or chaos, in which case people fall under the sway of demagogues or ideologues who seek to greatly expand state power in the name of providing ‘bread and peace’.

Consider guns and the recent financial mess. If we have very loose guns laws and if too many people have guns, there are likely to be more shootings and bloodbaths such as the Virginia Tech shooting. http://groups.google.com/group/neo-fascism/msg/a491ffaa4f7a7035?hl=en&
That will lead to an outcry for truly draconian guns laws by people who react EMOTIONALLY than rationally to such things. Emotions matter in society, especially in respect to who controls the media. In the US, the media is controlled largely by liberal Jews, and they don’t want guns in the hands of white Americans. Horrible gun tragedies will be played up by the liberal media in order to push forth their anti-gun agenda.

Sometimes the image or news story is so ICONICALLY or symbolically powerful that the world community feels compelled to DO SOMETHING even if unwise--think of the humanitarian mission in Somalia. Just consider the effect that the images of dead Palestinian children had on the world community and peace processes in the 1990s. Those images played a key role in pressuring US and Israel to go for policies with little likelihood to succeed. When things get bad, people will grab at anything, especially if some news story crystallizes the urgency and desperation of a situation.

Of course, not all crises are caused by lack of laws or social stability; in the case of Israel and Palestinians, the cause of the violence is competing nationalisms. In any case, the problem exists due to impossibility of effective political control and stability in that part of the world--which makes lawful governance difficult or impossible.

But, even in a nation such as US or Iceland, we can end up with major social crisis if the pillars of society crumble. Too much gun violence resulting from too many guns is one form of crisis. The financial collapse in the US and Iceland is another kind of crisis resulting from too muchness or excesses(of 'free markets').

When things like that happen, people grow angry but also feel helpless. They fall into the hands of those who say they can fix the problem if they’re given tremendous government power. People ‘think’ with their emotions than with their minds. (When times are too good, same can happen, which explains why so many upbeat people in the late 90s ‘thought’--more like felt--that they were all going to be millionaires thanks to internet stocks.) Same can be said of the political and social 'thinking' and expectations during the Civil Rights Movement in America. It was the emotional power of watching ‘helpless’ and ‘innocent’ blacks being bullied and attacked by ‘vicious’ whites(especially on TV) that added tremendous momentum to the movement. Also, the gravity and complexity of the racial problem made people desperate and anxious; they wanted something to be done that would end the problem; so, they just decided to hold their breath and take a leap of faith off the cliff into the water they hoped was deep enough. Alas, the water wasn’t deep and we’ve broken many bones since.
Americans–and the rest of world–ignored the complexities of the social problem and just chose to believe in simple good vs wrong, a scenario where heaven on earth would be achieved if white folks only embraced the negro(when in fact the negro had many biologically rooted problems regardless of whether white folks embraced him or not). And, this sort of thing continues to hold sway over us because the liberal Jews who own and run the media and academia still employ those images via movies, PBS documentaries, and school texts to EMOTIONALLY inculcate us into being ‘virtuous’ people according to their agenda.

We should all realize that terrible crises and incidents can be exploited emotionally by the other side. So, if freedom lovers push for too many and easy access to guns, the series of gun-related bloodbaths can be emotionally exploited to turn the majority of people against ALL guns and ALL gun-owners. This is why people who oppose all gun laws will eventually end up with no guns. Zero gun control will lead to more and more horrible bloodbaths, which will be exploited by the liberal media to shock people. More and more people will EMOTIONALLY support tougher gun laws, not only in fear of gun violence because the growing consensus moral pressure says, ‘you must oppose guns to be a good honorable decent person’.

By now, we should know that thought is really steered by emotions. Prevalence of incidents that stir people’s emotions against gun violence will shape their minds against all guns. Consider the impact of liberal media on racial violence. They cover up or under-report news of black-on-white violence, but still remind everyone of the killing of Emmit Till and exaggerate white-on-black violence(which is almost non-existent). White kids grow up reading about or watching that liberal biased stuff(showing us the evils of white ‘racism’) in the various media; their emotions are stirred first, and then their thoughts follow. In boxing, you hit the head and the body follows. In education and culture, you grab the heart and the mind follows. This is why people think Holocaust was worse than other mass killings. Our hearts have been targeted with heart tuggers like Diary of Anne Frank, Schindler’s List, and Angel on the Fence. In contrast, we know of the other killings through the head than through the heart. We know Stalin killed millions but only through dry books, not through wet movies, music, tv, heart-tugging documentaries. We think of the history of communism; we FEEL about the Holocaust.

We must be wary of extreme liberty and freedom because excesses lead to backlashes.

The great backlash against drugs happened because pro-drug folks failed to understand the emotional impact of bad news. Drug advocates of the 60s would have done better to call for strong laws keeping drugs legal but regulated and controlled. Instead, people like Timothy Leary said it would be no problem at all if all the kids smoked pot, tripped on acid, or whatever. Such messages and attitude led to drug orgies and terrible excesses(easily exploited by the media and alarmists), which led to public outrage and tough drug laws that totally banned most drugs.

And, liberals messed up on the crime issue through the EXCESSIVE pro-negro policies. By apologizing for black crime and naively believing that the crime problem would go away if government provided more welfare, love, and job-training for blacks, liberals ended up creating a scary social reality where blacks thought they could run rampant and do as they damn pleased. With cops’ hands tied behind their backs, with criminals being let out through revolving door system, many cities became uninhabitable, and white folks fled for the suburbs. Though conservatives didn’t control the media nor have the means to portray liberal proponents of laxer crime laws as fiends or louts, many ordinary people saw the reality and simply voted with their feet. Because of LIBERAL control of the media and academia(the power to control the heart), many white folks who took flight felt guilt and self-loathing. On the ground, they readily saw black lunacy and crime all over, but the forces(media) controlling their hearts(thus minds) said, ‘shame on you for running from the wonderful negro(who, in reality, wasn’t so wonderful)’. This explains the popularity of Oprah and Obama among gulli-wullible white people. All those white folks who ran from ‘bad blacks’–but were afraid to admit their fear of blacks–wanted to prove that they aren’t ‘racist’ after all. So, they go gaga over Orpah and Obama.

What’s true of guns and crime is also true of economics. Reagan did a lot of good things for the economy, but the libertarian economists who pushed the envelope on deregulation were asking for trouble. It led to excesses in the financial sector which led to the current crisis which is paving the way for socialism. Deregulation and free market economics were not the only nor the main cause of the crisis, but they played essential roles. Had conservatives been more interested and invested in good government, its operations, and what it can do against market abuses, then the current mess could have been avoided, and we wouldn’t be on the road to socialism. But, free wheelers and dealers got the green light to do whatever clever crazy stuff they desired–all the more dangerous because those instruments and policies got intertwined with forces and policies that had little or nothing to do with the free market. Instead of opposing anti-free-market policies on principle and employing the necessary instrument of government to regulate the financial sector and enforce laws, conservatives got ideologically and politically lazy and thought that more and more deregulation and wheeling and dealing would fix all problems and be good for the economy. It led to excesses, and excesses led to the current meltdown.
And, it’s been EMOTIONALLY exploited by Obama and the liberal Jewish media that made him. And so, we are headed to socialism.
Ancient Greeks valued moderation. Libertarianism is the very anti-thesis of moderation. It is inherently supportive and bolstering of excessive behavior in the belief that all the excesses will counter and balance each other out. But, do we want an ‘ecological’ society? There is ecological balance in nature brought upon by ugly processes. We humans cannot live like that. The balance in nature is achieved by animals fighting and devouring other animals, by forest fires, by all sorts of crazy stuff. Animals act excessively, and the ‘natural balance’ is the outcome of all these competing excesses–constant warfare.

Humans, on the other hand, can maintain order and balance through self-control, shame, laws and enforcement, understanding, virtue, etc. Libertarianism mocks all that and says everyone should just do his or her thing to excess and not worry since the excesses will be balanced by counter-excesses of others or by internal psychological mechanism(like vanity neutralizing gluttony).
It’s no wonder that Ayn Rand had no use for morality as we know it. It was all about ‘me, me, me’. I’m not arguing for altruism or socialism. If anything, I think the individual is of paramount importance. But, an individual must be a person of virtue, with respect for others, and such. Also, every individual must realize that he or she is a link in a long chain of humanity. No individual was created by himself or herself. Nor, did he or she leap out of a theory or book. He or she is the product of union of man and woman and part of a long line of history and society. Individuals need freedom to explore and find his or her place in society and history, but there is no such thing as a pure individual, which is just an abstract theory.

If Keynesianism is the wave of the future(and we can’t do anything about it), would Voluntary Donation be the best solution?

Many Americans oppose Keynesianism(I do too), but if we’re going to have it anyway... how could it be made to work best? Even something deeply flawed has varying levels of functionality. Drinking and driving is always stupid, but it is less dangerous with beer than vodka.
So, even if Keynesianism is fundamentally unsound, applications can range from utterly stupid to somewhat workable. How may we make it as workable as possible?

The current brand of Keynesianism is fundamentally flawed for trying to have it both ways. Huge increase in government spending, small increase in taxes–and only on the rich. (Of course, current policies may force drastically higher taxes down the line.) So where will the money come from? More printing? More borrowing? Dumb and dumber.
Imho, Keynesianism can only work by spending and distributing actual wealth, not inflated paper or borrowed money. Most of the actual wealth in America is the accumulated capital of the rich.

We all heard countless times that the rich got vastly richer while most Americans have been in the stagnant income bracket for the last 25 yrs. Keynesian economists warn us of wealth that concentrates rather than circulates. Using anatomical analogy, a condition where blood doesn’t properly flow through the entire body is not good. (To be sure, it’s a flawed analogy since every person has brains, ability, and potential to be productive and accumulate his own wealth instead of waiting for wealth to fall on his lap. Still, most people are not natural businessmen nor have the talent to succeed in highly skilled fields. Most people have jobs where they are told what to do, and as such, are kind of like parts of the body. If our economy cannot gainfully use such people, there will problems of wealth circulation.)

Since many rich people have more than enough money to run their businesses and take care of their needs(basic and luxurious), much of their wealth remain in savings. Though wealth in banks and other institutions are lent and thereby circulated throughout the economy, the recent crisis has raised doubts about its viability.
Furthermore, in a severe downturn rich people aren’t likely to invest or expand because of poor economic prospects. So, the vast fortunes of the rich remain in banks, as real estate holdings, and other stuff by whatever name they go by.

With the vast fortunes of the rich locked up in savings and portfolios, where is the economic activity and dynamism necessary for us to climb out of this hole? If Keynesianism really the only solution? If yes, which kind of Keynesianism?
The Only Keynesianism that makes any sense is one confiscating the wealth of the rich and spreading it far and wide. Raising top tax rates from 35% to 40% won’t do it. Vast amounts of accumulated wealth will have to expropriated and spread throughout the economy.
The people will spend the money, and the economy will buzz with activity; eventually, much of the wealth will flow back to the rich who own the big corporations.
If a store owner is rich but customers have little money, economic activity will be low. But, if we take half the rich store owner’s wealth and spread it around, people will have money to spend. There will be renewed economic activity with customers buying things from the store owner.
Of course, this is a very stupid(and unethical) way to run an economy and will probably lead to inflation since people are gaining purchasing power without comparable output in production.

It’s also true that rich people don’t horde their wealth in some secret hole in the ground. Whichever financial institution or investment is employed, the wealth circulates through the economy somewhere and somehow. Even so, in the past 20 to 25 yrs the wealth hasn’t sufficiently circulated through large segments of the American society. Also, with all the financial hijinks, vast amounts of wealth have been squandered by ‘the smartest guys in the room’ who now demand tax payer money for bailouts.
And, though vast amounts of loans have been made available to ordinary–and even poor–Americans, mounting debts have only served to corrupt and/or pauperize many people. Given recent developments, leading economists and politicians have reconsidered the merits of Keynesianism. And, it is in this light that I offer the confiscatory lottery policy. In an era of euphemisms–where anti-white discrimination is ‘affirmative action’ and welfare checks are ‘tax credits’–, it should be called the Voluntary Donation.
Two major problems of Voluntary Donation will have to be considered. One is constitutionality. Government, as far as I know, doesn’t have the power to grab large amounts of accumulated personal property. (I could be wrong). Perhaps more important is the likely loss of motivation on the part of the rich and talented. The wealth will eventually return to the rich in the form of consumer spending, but it’ll be wealth stolen from them in the first place. Destroying meaningful incentives for the capitalist class is like killing the golden goose. If rich people had to routinely fork over huge portions of accumulated wealth, they will slack off and the economy will suffer.

Okay, but how about a system that essentially safeguards the wealth of the rich(and therefore their motivation to work) while, at the same time, grabbing a big chunk of their wealth for ‘wealth redistribution’?
This is where the lottery based Voluntary Donation comes in. Suppose we divide up rich people into several categories: super billionaires, billionaires, super millionaires, mega-millionaires, millionaires. Rich people would be divided up into these groups according to the amount of accumulated wealth not directly invested in their business or primary real estate. Suppose every year, 10% percentage of each group(chosen by lottery) has to hand over a substantial amount of their ‘excess’ wealth for redistribution. 10% of millionaires will have to hand over 20% of their wealth. 25% for Mega-millionaires. For super-millionaires, 30% of their wealth. For billionaires, 35%. For super-billionaires, 40%.
The unlucky rich will be chosen randomly(like for Jury duty). The chosen will get a 10 yr reprieve so that no one can be chosen more than once every 10 yrs. Most of this appropriated wealth will be given to ordinary working people(in credit card form to ensure circulation through the economy).

To compensate for loss of wealth, a special hall can be built in the Washington Mall to commemorate the ‘generous’ rich people who ‘voluntarily’ gave up substantial portions of their wealth for the common good. Bigger donors will of course receive greater honors. Millionaire donors will be honored with plaques with their names and photos; super billionaire donors, with giants portraits painted by leading artists. They lose wealth but gain a slice of immortality. Rich people can take pride in knowing that their mugs will rest forever in the Smithsonian along with those of great presidents, scientists, astronauts, movie stars. Vanity goes a long way in boosting morale. Big donors also get trophies and special mentions at the State of the Union address.

The Voluntary Donation policy both preserves a reasonably high motivation level among the business class and circulates the wealth through the economy. Especially with the rise of globalism, the knowledgeable and well-connected elite have grown much richer than rest of America. Globalism has provided us with cheaper goods and services, but it has led to the concentration of wealth in the top while causing stagnation among middle and lower classes.
I don’t endorse wealth redistribution and would prefer to see more of a traditional patriotic capitalism. But, if globalism continues to concentrate ever more wealth at the top while hollowing out or keeping the middle section of America economically stagnant, growing numbers of people will demand a way, even a radical way, to circulate some of the ‘excessive’ wealth of the rich to rest of America.
Printing or borrowing money to ‘spread the wealth around’ simply sounds stupid and irresponsible. Confiscating and redistributing the real wealth of the rich is economically sounder, but it would demoralize and dis-incentive-ize the wealth-creating class.
But, the Voluntary Donation policy balances the needs of preserving capitalist incentives and circulating the wealth throughout the entire economy. In decades past, vast numbers of American workers were paid well, and they purchased the products of American employers. The wealth circulated up and down, back and forth. This no longer seems to be the case in the global economy. If wealth cannot circulate ‘organically’ through a free market capitalist process, more Americans may demand a Keynesian or even a socialist way to get the job done.

Is Socialism ‘natural’? Is It in Harmony with Human Nature?

It’s often been argued that capitalism accepts human nature for what it is whereas socialism tries to change it. Capitalism is realistic whereas socialism is idealistic. Capitalism believes that human nature is essentially unalterable, socialism believes ‘human nature’ is but the product of social conditioning(or, it’s innately noble before being perverted by an unjust society).
Capitalists say that people are, by nature, self-interested, even greedy. This basic fact can be suppressed but not rooted out or changed. If suppressed, it undermines the very part of man that makes him industrious, ambitious, innovative, and creative. Most people work hard or take risks because for reward. If people are not allowed to work for gain and glory, they won’t be motivated. So, for wealth to be produced, capitalism is the best way. It doesn’t suppress human nature of self-interest or even greed. Rather, it channels and controls our nature through a system of laws and ethics.

Socialists long disagreed with capitalists. They believed man can be conditioned or ‘socially engineered’ to work for the ‘common good’; we could all be trained to work for social or moral incentives than for material incentives. This was the idea behind productive socialism, and it has either failed or seriously underperformed relative to capitalism everywhere. Some socialists admit that ‘moral incentives’ aren’t productive but still defend their moral value. But, most socialists have rejected socialism as a productive economic model. Most of today’s socialists are distributive than productive. They understand that capitalism produces wealth much faster and in greater amount than socialism does. Therefore, the purpose of socialism is not to replace capitalism but to feed off capitalism to support policies for the ‘common good’.

The question I want to raise if distributive socialism goes against human nature. Productive socialism certainly does. But, couldn’t one argue that distributive socialism gels well with human nature? Humans are, by nature, self-interested and greedy, true. But, humans are also, by nature, envious. It could be argued that envy is a form of self-interest and greed. When a child sees that another child has more cookies, he wants some of those cookies. When someone sees that his friend has a much bigger house, much more money, and enjoys more luxury, he wants the things his friend has. Envy is natural. And, envy is the heart of distributive socialism. (To be sure, envy also serves capitalism. People work hard because they want to keep up with the Joneses. People bust their butts so they can dress fancy and drive expensive cars like rich folks do. For talented people, envy drives them to harder work, greater ambition. But, some people are either too lazy or too dumb to succeed. Their envy has little or limited productive value. A poor smart envious Jew can use his brains and make millions in several years, but a poor dumb goy will make peanuts no matter how hard he tries. He just doesn’t have the natural talent to succeed like smart folks. Similarly, a Mexican-American can train all he wants, but he’s not going to the NBA; he wont’ enjoy money and chicks professional athletes do. This is where envy is served by distributive socialism. For masses of dummies, it’s the easiest way to get a ‘piece of the pie’.)

Good or bad, distributive socialism may well be very much in harmony with human nature. Productive socialism isn’t mainly based on envy; at best, it’s based on pre-emptive envy--creating a society where no one will have more than others and thus no reason to envy others. Productive socialism is based on the idea of collective effort. It’s the idea that wealth should be created together by everyone, and since everyone created it together, everyone should get an equal share.
But, everyone knows that capitalism produces far more wealth than productive socialism does. This is because capitalism channels and harvests the energies of human nature rather than suppressing them. But, it must be said that distributive socialism also channels human nature. Distributive socialism is not productive, but it may play a role in bringing forth a degree of social co-existence between the have-mores and have-lesses based on the ways of human nature.

Suppose there’s a kid is hired by his uncle to paint the fence. The kid is paid and buys 20 chocolate bars. His brother wants some and throws a tantrum. All chocolate bars rightfully belong to the kid who painted the fence and bought them with his money. He worked out of self-interest, very much in line with human nature. And, he bought yummies to satisfy himself in keeping with human nature.
But, it’s also natural for the brother to feel envious and throw fits of jealousy because his brother has all the candy. Suppose the jealous brother was never hired by the uncle, can’t find means to earn money to buy candy, or is too lazy to work at odd jobs. Suppose the parent finally steps in and tells the brother with the 20 chocolate bars to give 3 to his brother. Fair or unfair, that may restore peace in the house. The brother who worked and earned his money still gets to keep the lion’s share of the candy. The envious brother is partly satisfied because he got something than nothing. And, the parent can finally get some peace in the house without the two kids bickering and fighting constantly.

Or, consider the natural world. Animals are, by nature, self-interested and ‘greedy’. Animals hunt for keeps, but there’s no rule that says an animal is limited to his own kills. If a bear comes upon a kill felled by wolves, the bear will try to take it. Hyenas and lions raid the others’ kills. Packs of hyenas try to take the kills of other packs of hyenas. Prides of lions do the same with other prides. All predators do this. They take whatever they can. Animals hunt for their own kills but also take others’ kills. Whether we call it hunger, envy, or greed, animals want something through effort or no effort at all. In some cases, animals fight eachother to the death over kills. Or, an animal or a pack will retreat when confronted with stronger animal or larger pack. But, this isn’t always the case. There are times when a kind of crude ‘distributive socialism’ prevails among the beasts.

For example, suppose a pack of wolves fell a large bison and start feastingt. We could say they ‘produced’ a kill. Suppose a bear comes along and wants the kill. It could be said the bear is ‘envious’ of the kill. Though the bear didn’t ‘produce’ the kill, he wants it just the same naturally. Now, three things can happen. The bear can drive out the wolves, or the wolves can drive out the bear. But, in rare cases, the bear and wolves, though unhappy and growling at one another, may decide to ‘share’ the kill. If the bear and the wolves are evenly matched, they may sense it’s best to feast on the kill together even while maintaining a certain distance and constantly growling at one another. Why risk life and limb fighting over the kill? Of course, bears and wolves don’t consciously understand this process in the contractual sense. But, in an instinctive sense, both parties may feel that’s it’s better to share, with each side getting something, than have both parties maul one another viciously with everyone getting hurt or even killed. Animals don’t understand game theory, but there is a certain natural dynamic that takes place in such situations.

Animals want to have it all. An animal will lay claim to an entire area and mark it as his own. But, there are times when it will have to tolerate ‘socialistic’ intrusions of others on its territory or bounty if it’s to have a peace of mind and find some enjoyment in life. Suppose there’s a stream full of salmon and a bear slunkers along and claims it as his own territory. It ‘claims’ and marks the stream; it wants to have all the salmon in the stream for itself. But, suppose other bears arrive one by one and intrude on this marked territory. Suppose the newly arrived bears are ‘envious’ of all the goodies in the stream and want some for themselves. The bear that first arrived and claimed the territory can fight all the newcomers. If it’s powerful enough, it may drive them all way. But, it may well be wiser to ‘share’ the stream. The first-arrived bear may still keep the best part of the stream for itself, but it may have to let the other bears fish in the other parts of the stream. If the original bear chases after every new bear, it will grow weary, go hungry, and may even get killed in the fight. So, in order to keep something than end up with nothing, the greed of the bear will have to accommodate the envy of the other bears. This is any kind of conceptual socialism but defacto natural socialism.
Something similar can be seen among polar bears. Generally, polar bears are solitary animals who hunt and eat their own food. But, if a bunch of polar bears come upon a giant beached whale, they may go into ‘socialist’ mode. Suppose a polar bear comes upon a dead whale, claims it, and wants it all for itself. Suppose other bears arrive and want some of it since it’s a BIG feast. Often, all the bears will feast together even if they remain wary and suspicious of one another. It’s almost as if an instinctive game theory kicks into place. If the bears all fight for the entire whale, many will get hurt or even killed, and no bear may enjoy the meal. But, if the first-arrived bear shelves its ‘greed’ nature and accommodates the ‘envious’ nature of all the bears, all the bears will enjoy something.

So, one could understand distributive socialism of the human world in the same way. Of course, it’s not ‘fair’ under the rule that says those who earn their wealth should keep it all. But, the fact is there are far more mediocre folks than talented people. Far more people are unlucky than lucky. All people naturally want personal gain and glory, but relatively few people achieve much of such. Successful people naturally want to keep their gain. But, unsuccessful people naturally feel envious. Since ‘greed’ has negative connotations, capitalists say great achievers seek ‘success’, ‘excellence’ and ‘greatness’. Since ‘envy’ has negative connotations, socialists say the people seek ‘social justice’, ‘fairness’, and ‘equality’. But, at the root of both -isms is the essence of human nature: greed and envy. And, if we examine both carefully, they are two sides of the same coin. Envy is, in other words, greed of the mediocre, the unlucky, or the lazy. Capitalist greed is about using your talent and ‘exploiting’ partners, situations, and employees to maximize your profit, glory, and/or fame. Socialist greed is about using the ‘protection racket’ of the government to take some of that good stuff from rich successful folks.
Some liberal-minded capitalists may pat themselves on the back and take pride in their compassion and willingness to ‘share’ with the less fortunate, but something more elemental is taking place. Like the wolves who figure it’s better to let the envious bear have some bison and leave them in peace to eat the rest of the bison, successful capitalists figure it’s better to ‘buy off’ the people’s envious resentments by offering them some freebies.

And, this is the thinking of the capitalist class who helped Obama get elected and now dominate his administration. Though Obama is a stealth socialist radical, most of the people in his administration(the oohs, aka liberal Jews) are actually successful capitalist types who are trying to expand distributive socialism in order to save their own golden goose.
They are essentially supporters of the New Economy or global capitalism which allows the smart, cunning, knowledgeable, rootless, and cosmopolitan to trot around the world and make fortunes undreamt of by previous generations. This process has made the top 2% very very rich, a group that is disproportionately ooh-ish(liberal Jewish). The global capitalists love this cash cow so much that they don’t want to let it go. But, this process has led to the stagnation of Middle America which lost millions of jobs overseas. If this goes on, there may be an angry mass revolution. Middle America–mostly goyim–may rise up against the oohs. So, these oohs are using Obama to institute socialism not so much to empower the people but to defang their rage and anger. More and more Middle Americans have grown envious and jealous of the superduper oohs who live in fancy condos, rich suburbs, the gated communities, etc. The oohs think, ‘gee, maybe if we give them free healthcare and tax credit checks(welfare checks by other name), they’ll remain stupid, docile, and happy watching American Idol’.

Anyway, this proves that socialism too can be in harmony with human nature. For distributive socialism to work meaningfully however, it must be conditional. People mustn’t just get free stuff through the government but be willing to do community service or participate in public works and lead a reasonably healthy and responsible life. Lazy and irresponsible people who simply want to mooch off others 100% deserve to be shot. In other words, socialism can work if it’s fascist than welfare-ist.

Did Gomer Pyle become his true self in Full Metal Jacket?

Most of us would like to think "Gomer Pyle"–Lawrence–in Full Metal Jacket went from a naturally nice guy to a cold-hearted killer. In other words, the Marines turned him from a warm healthy individual to a cold killing machine. But, could it be argued that what drove Gomer crazy was the realization of his true self?

Gomer was probably raised in a protective environment where he indulge being a big baby. He was provided with food, comfort, and simple joys. He was a child in a toy wonderland. But, in the Marines he’s forced to connect with his predatory nature. (Remember that Peanuts cartoon where Snoopy has a nightmare about being in the North Pole with Huskie dogs? Gradually, he turns mean and fights to be head of the pack.)
Of course, human nature is multi-faceted. There are both the warm and tender side AND the brutal and aggressive side. It would be wrong to say human nature is ONLY this as opposed to that. But, Gomer was probably brought up in a family where the aggressive and survivalist side was never nurtured or developed. He grew big and tall but emotionally remained a cuddly baby. It didn’t help that he’s rather dim.

In a way, Gomer changes due to external pressure, especially that of the badass sergeant. But, this process involves something WITHIN Gomer being awakened. It is the brute nature that had remained dormant but had always been there. It is the side of man that is aggressive, ruthless, competitive, and bloodcurdling. It is a genuine part of human nature.
With most guys in the camp, we see a balance between control and aggression. The problem of Gomer is he starts with little control and little aggression. He has little control over his baby-ish appetites. He’s a fatbody, looks like an overgrown child, and can’t control his hunger or even his facial expressions. He also has little aggression because he’s probably been pampered and doted all his life. Eventually, he is brutalized and gains self-control. And, the aggressive and ruthless side of him is cracked open, and Gomer finally turns into a bona-fide killing machine. But, the process was so traumatic that he ultimately cannot absorb the shocks. He goes crazy. He cannot maintain the balance between aggression and control.

Others do much better, but not much better if we think about it. The Gomer-infantile-killer-syndrome theme is picked up later. Recall how the soldiers sing Mickey Mouse at the end of the movie. And, Joker’s friend turns totally infantile freako after the Viet Cong assassin girl is killed. It’s as though the Marine Corp turn boys into men but also men into boys. The military makes boys put away toy guns... and places in their hands... real guns... which are toys too, if you think about it. So, in a way, War is like Disney Land where people get hurt for real... or a movie where people die for real.

There is, indeed, something infantile about our love of war movies. Sure, we say it’s all about honoring servicemen, sacrifice, patriotism, and etc. But, isn’t a big part of the appeal just to see things get blown up real good? Don’t we enjoy war movies in the way that kids enjoy playing war games? Movies, no matter how ‘serious’, are all make-believe anyway. Make-believe or not, we sure love to play.

We generally distinguish play-acting from the real thing, but could it be said play-acting is the real thing as practice, and the real thing is play-acting for real?
Just look at cats. Cats are always playing, and we think it’s cute. But, cat play is always based on fighting and hunting. It’s like what David Mamet, another Jew like Kubrick, understands so well. Take a film like "House of Games" where the games are for real. The Play is the Thing.

What is the Evolutionary Purpose of Art?

The evolutionary advantage of art may actually be quite elementary. Art, in the most basic sense, is that which gives pleasure to eyes and ears. Art is created by man but distills the essence of what we find beautiful or pleasurable in the physical or psychological realm. So, what is the evolutionary advantage of appreciating beauty? In the most basic sense, the ability to appreciate beauty makes complex organisms(humans being the most complex)want to live; it turns us into junkies of the pleasures of life. Before organisms pass down their genes through procreation–a process in which beauty and pleasure play essential roles(for higher animals anyway)–, they have to want to live in the first place. More complex an organism is, the more conscious it tends to be, therefore more self-conscious, therefore more vulnerable to emotional downswings and self-loathing, therefore more dependent on counter-forces to balance out the misery and uphold the rationale for living.

Without powerful reasons to live, higher organisms experience or encounter dissipation, thoughts of suicide, or reluctance to procreate. Humans have a tremendous will to live and ability to survive. The ability comes from our cognitive skills and physical dexterity. But, an intelligent and emotionally complex mind questions itself, the meaning of life, suffer from emotional turbulence, moral confusion, self-loathing, and so on. Instead of serving as a tool for survival and expansion, the human mind may cannibalize itself by obsessing on the negative aspects of life or asking circular questions about unfathomable matters. As higher organism is capable of greater depression and self-doubt, these tendencies must be counter-acted by capacity for greater pleasure, meaning, and enjoyment of beauty. Simpler organisms don’t have this problem because they either lack consciousness or possess consciousness focusing mainly on survival. As such, they do not fall into self-conscious suicidal traps.

Of course, too much of a self-serving will to live and enjoy pleasure can undermine the survivalist or evolutionary process; if the technology of virtual reality keeps progressing, people may lock themselves in fun-filled virtual worlds of great aesthetic and sensual pleasure and refuse to deal with real reality. Such are the dangers of technology, often explored in sci-fi works.
Anyway, capacity for pleasure makes people want to live. Consider anyone with suicidal thoughts. Why does he want to snuff out his life? Because he sees more pain–physical or psychological–than pleasure, more meaninglessness than meaning. But, why are people with suicidal tendencies still afraid or reluctant to jump off a cliff or shoot themselves? Other than the fear of physical pain, there is the fear of missing out on the joys of life. Life forms are addicted to the wonderment of life(and it could be argued that all appreciations of beauty or pleasure is a form of art appreciation). Even if suicidal people could die painlessly and be assured that their loved ones will be well-taken care of, they would still feel panic and fear in some part of their being.

Indeed, the very fact of being alive is filled with pleasure. It may not be intense or electrifying most of the time, but there is a degree of satisfaction and fascination in the very fact of being alive. Simplest organisms have an elemental life force that keeps the engine running. Consider insects whose life force within pushes them to consume, run from danger, and survive. Lower organisms can also be mindlessly ‘self-sacrificing’ for the perpetuation of the species as when bees or salmon go through the ‘ritual’ process of mass deaths so that a new generation can arise from it.
As organisms grow more complex, they gain consciousness and complex emotions. No longer driven by what might be called an automatonic life force, they need conscious reasons to thrive as organisms. A goldfish may thrive in the wild or in an aquarium, but a dog will grow sick if locked up in a small cage. A dog taken for a walk senses wonderment through smell, sight, movement, and so forth. The dog is aesthetically engaging with stimuli, and its life force is boosted by these joys. A snake may be content mainly to eat and sleep, but this isn’t true for organisms with higher and more complex–intelligence-wise and emotionally–forms of consciousness. It’s not just the dog’s hunting instincts on display but its ability(and necessity) to derive pleasure from interaction with the environment. There is HAPPINESS on the part of the dog. A dog gains greater life force through such activity. A dog locked up in a small cage may grow sick from lack of stimuli or attention. Of course, an animal has no concept of suicide and cannot attempt such a thing. But, a dog without a stimulating environment grows depressed, sick, and listless. We see the same thing in a child. A child is more excited about or engaged with life when he is given toys to play with or shown a cartoon. Toys and cartoons provide pleasure to a child. Pleasure makes the child more committed and more ‘addicted’ to life. In a way, art is toys for adults. Even puritanical religions that suppress sensual pleasures find roundabout ways to introduce music into prayer. Islam bans pictorial representations of men and animals, but this is compensated by a very flamboyant(one may even say ‘sensual’)use of Arabic on the walls of mosques.

Being locked up in prison is dreary not only for its limited space and lack of freedom but for its sheer lack of aesthetic stimulation. It’s all steel bars and concrete walls. Prison offers the basic necessities for survival, but prisoners serving long life sentences don’t really get a kick out of life. Of course, most inmates still don’t welcome the death because the very fact of being alive still has its pleasures. Meals are pleasurable. Social interaction is pleasurable. Using the prison library has its pleasures. Looking up at the sky and clouds during exercise period also has its pleasures. And, closing one’s eyes and recalling good times is also pleasurable. And, even if one is not surrounded by beauty and pleasure, one can think of beautiful things. One can construct an art gallery in one’s own mind. One can dream of beautiful natural scenery or naked ladies; one can compose music in one’s head or replay favorite songs in one’s mind. These may not be artistic activity in the technical or professional sense, but art is linked with all such emotions, desires, and mental habits.

One of the great pleasures of life is food. Hunger drives us to eat by causing pain and discomfort, but we also like to eat because it is pleasurable. The pleasure that comes from eating makes us look forward to the next yummy meal; that makes us value life and want to live. No matter how depressed you are, the prospect for another delicious dish or good sex makes you cling to life. Gourmet food is art for the taste buds, and sex is a kind of aesthetic/pleasurable experience for one’s eyes, ears, hands, and private organs. Not for nothing did Pauline Kael see cinema as a kind of sex. It was an art form that sensually engaged the most organs all at once. Cinema wrapped and connected with us in like the arms, legs, and private organs of a sex partner. In the film "Purple Rose of Cairo", we have a very unhappy woman with a nasty hubby and nothing happening in her life. If she were a lower organism with no or simple consciousness, it would be enough for her to eat and sleep. But, she’s an higher organism, and as such, filled with doubt, depression, misery, and so on. Yet, what keeps her wanting to live, what makes her cling to life? The ‘art’ of cinema. No matter how stupid or lowly a film may be, it may have some magical life-nourishing purpose for some. Of course, like I said, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. If one becomes addicted to the movies, one may prefer life-at-the-movies over life-in-reality. And, that is also the problem with the woman in "Purple Rose of Cairo". The movies keep her alive, but they also cut her off from what we consider meaningful living. Same is true of food. Delicious food makes us want to live to eat more delicious stuff. But, addiction to this yumminess may make us fat and unhealthy, in which case, too much of a good thing will turn us into fat slobs who die of heart attack at a young age.

The art of cooking is kind of like art. Chefs distill the flavors that are most appealing to us and cook up dishes that maximize our pleasure. Some would even argue that fine cooking is indeed Art. What we generally consider as art–music, literature, painting, sculpture, etc–is consumed through our eyes and ears; food is consumed through our mouths. In both cases, we are seeking and finding pleasure through our senses.
Of course, this can’t be said of much of modern art whose purpose is to provoke, incite, experiment, or even offend. Such may be more of an acquired taste and may not serve the interests of the life force or the will to live. But, some higher intellects or pompous asses may require just that sort of thing to get their jollies in life, in which case even such arts may have their evolutionary purpose.

In addition, such works of art may serve the same kind of function as genetic mutations. Most mutations are useless or harmful, but once in a long while one comes along that may actually present new possibilities and advance the species. Similarly, avant-garde-ism, though generally stupid or useless, may occasionally break through the sound barrier of culture and establish a new template for something very exciting and useful. .
Even so, most people understand art as a thing of beauty, and art appreciation for the masses, even in today’s post-modern culture, is about finding pleasure from works of beauty, humor, and other things that make people feel good. Even art that seems ugly at first sight may be appreciated for its truth–moral beauty–or its wit(a kind of intellectual beauty or elegance). Woody Allen is ugly and his comedies range from gross to absurd, but we can all appreciate the impressive acrobatics of his intelligence.

Art gives us pleasure and fills with a sense of wonderment. We want to return for more. This makes us want to live. Take Franz Kafka who was one severely depressed person. Yet, what kept him going until he died of sickness? He found meaning through art. And, I’ll bet people who read his books but contemplated jumping off a cliff thought, ‘but if I drop dead, I won’t be able to read any more Kafka.’ That may sound like silly, but it’s probably not. And, it doesn’t have to be what we call Great Art. Even taking a stroll and feeling the breeze and looking up at the stars is an aesthetic experience. Art is merely an extension of this pleasure/wonderment principle which is so integral to the higher organism’s will to live. And, cherishing our memories is also a kind of aesthetic experience. The mind does to events and happenstance what time does to grape juice. It turns them into mental wine. It becomes transformed, mythologized, aestheticized, etc. It becomes precious. The past becomes like a museum. It becomes sacred, and the sense of sacred is linked with the idea of art. Art is the sacralization of pleasures that gain special meaning for us. It is distilled and bottled pleasure with the vintage tag.

Aesthetics is integral to just about everything we do. People look for beautiful men or women for sexual partners. People with money seek houses not only for their functionality but for the aesthetic pleasures the houses provide. Architects don’t just build huts where people eat or sleep but houses which people can show off as their private palaces. One of the great advantages capitalism had over communism was that communism stressed the basic necessities of life and not much else. Other than the lack of personal freedom and liberty, there was an overwhelming sense of dreariness, drabness, greyness, khaki-ness, and humdrumness in communist nations. Sure, there was the occasional colorful rallies, splashy slogans, and loud songs, but it was mostly dull, dull, and dull. Capitalism was more colorful. There were fancy clothes for women, even poor women. There were lipstick and hair salons for gals. Capitalist movies promised more fun and pleasure. Remember the movie "Moscow on the Hudson"? What is the first thing commies do in America? They run to Macy’s and try to buy all the ‘narcissistic’ goods as possible to take back home. So, the commies were not only starved for better food but more color in their lives. Even Western leftists almost never defected to commie nations; indeed, look at most leftists and they are just as vain with makeup and fashion as everyone else. Radical feminism tried to be anti-sensual and anti-aesthetic, but the whole edifice fell apart when Madonna came along and shook her ass. (Again, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. This is where the Judeo-Christian religion has played an important balancing role in Western civilization. The pagan love of art & appreciation of nature is vital, life-affirming, and all that, but too much of it can lead to the kind of thing we see in the movie Ten Commandments when people take it too far and worship the Golden Calf and have orgies. And, we need only look at our own retarded girls-gone-wild skankass culture and the problems in the black community to understand what happens when pleasure becomes the ONLY principle of life. This is why capitalism needs to be balanced by moral restraint, righteousness, and sobriety). And, this may have been the reason why Italian Fascism and German National Socialism were so popular among their folks. Though both promoted a limited or narrow aesthetic philosophy, neither waged a war on beauty and colorfulness. Both were ideologies centered around the cult of beauty. However, the problem of both, especially National Socialism, was that they tried to ideologize beauty in national or racial terms; as such they tended to be blind to the beauties of other cultures and traditions. And, let’s face it. The reason why Che Guevara has become a great icon among the Left is because he was a beautiful man. Never mind his politics; he was the Latin Lover of the Revolution. If Che had been 4' 11 and looked like Elephant Boy or Baba Booey(on Howard Stern Show), no way he would have gained such an iconic status.

As social creatures, we also want to share the object or source of our pleasure with other folks. This makes for communal interaction. Every artist is also begging for attention and respect/higher status in the community. Even politics is a kind of art. And, it also inspires people to have children in order to pass down and share the things of beauty and sacredness(cultural heritage) that they enjoyed and cherished onto the next generation. I repeat, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. A person so immersed in his or her own pleasures may see having children as a hindrance or obstacle to one’s self-centered pleasure-seeking freedom. That may explain why so many young people hooked on videogames, movies, internet, and so forth do not wish to ‘settle down’ and ‘grow up’ and put away pleasurable but childish things and get married and have kids.

There is probably also a danger in too much thinking. Intellect allowed mankind to come up with better reasons and tools for building and expanding civilizations and empires, but at some point, intellect turns on itself and begins to obsess with thoughts like, ‘maybe life is meaningless’, ‘maybe it’s all an illusion’, ‘maybe power is evil’, ‘it’s all in vain’, and so on. Just look at your average Ingmar Bergman film and you get my drift. High civilization elevates our sense of ourselves; it turns us into super idealists and into proud folks. But at some point, we realize that our reality don’t live up to our ideals. We either lose heart or we seek radical ways to create heaven on earth. Either way, we fail. We also realize, through science, that we are part of the animal world, that human processes are essentially biological processes despite our sense of highfalutin exceptionalism and spiritualism. We hit an intellectual roadblock but can’t regain our lost innocence again. Too much of anything leads to infertility and inertia. Just look at what happened to Jean-Luc Godard ever since he crawled into a cave to ‘think’ about cinema.

Even so, the pleasures of life, of which art is an important element, fill even the most depressed person with the life force. The will-to-life for higher organisms is largely based on the pleasure of living. The very fact of being alive is pleasurable and wondrous. Just being alive makes one feel special or blessed. Even when one’s bored as hell, it’s infinitely more interesting than being dead, which is to be a zero. Just being alive and feeling the buzz of life is, in an elemental way, a form of artistic appreciation. After all, our senses are always stimulated by something. We always react aesthetically to things around us. Even when we are surrounded by ugliness, we think artistically. We wish for things to be beautiful than ugly, pleasurable than painful(unless one is crazy enough to enjoy Chantal Akerman films). That is an artistic spirit within each of us–even if most of us don’t become professional artists. Even if we’re not professional artists, the way we arrange things in our homes, the way we dress, the way we react to other people’s looks, the way we respond to sounds, and so forth all involve an aesthetic or artistic process or appreciation. Even falling in love is a form of artistic process. A beautiful person is like a natural work of art. We love flowers for their natural beauty. Strictly speaking, art is artificial or man-made, but much of our art is a replica of what we find beautiful in the real world. Consider paintings of sunsets, flowers, beautiful women, etc. We preserve beautiful artworks because our pride and enjoyment of them serves to legitimize and validate our entire civilizations. Modern Greeks say, ‘our ancestors built the Parthenon, so our culture and tradition have a right to survive’. All political leaders lay claim to a certain cultural achievement which cannot be distinguished from art and creativity. The reason why blacks are so eager to lay claim to Ancient Egypt is because Egyptians were not only politically powerful at one time but because they built some of the most beautiful and astounding objects and structures known to man. Germans have been justly proud of their musical tradition. It’s as though most of us feel–if only subconsciously–that people that produced greater art and cultures have more right to exist than others. So, with both individuals and societies as a whole, art has a way of reinforcing the will to live and survive. Indeed, we would consider it a bigger tragedy if all of German culture were to vanish than all of East Timorese culture. All cultures are valuable, but loss of German culture would mean the loss of Goethe, Beethoven, Fritz Lang, etc. Loss of East Timorese culture would mean loss of wood carvings and necklaces made of coke bottle caps. (Just kidding if you happen to be East Timorese).

Art is merely the highest form of seeking and enjoying pleasure. It elevates pleasure by distilling or stylizing the essence of beauty we find in the world or in the structures of our mind. High art is an object of pleasure that has attained sublime proportions. As such, we sanctify it as something of eternal value, something worthy of universal and timeless appreciation. Societies do this with art, but we do it with our memories as well. There are certain experiences that we cherish over all others. In the psycho-temple of our minds, those experiences are given special place. They are remembered as the sacred moments of our lives. Without such memories, our lives would have much less meaning. In "Blade Runner", replicants seek memories, even filching them from others, in order to find a greater meaning for living. What is the thing that Batty(Rutger Hauer character)aches most about as his demise looms? It's the fact that all the wondrous and beautiful things he'd seen and stored in his memory will all be lost; death wipes out or utterly destroys the private art museum/cathedral in our minds; in a sense, art expresses or serves our desire to live forever; though we die, something about us--that which is most beautiful, noble, and excellent--will live on through art; it's as though a part of our soul(invested in the art we create, appreciate, or revere)will be reincarnated down through the ages; it's as though future generations who come to appreciate those works of art will, in some strange way, come to appreciate us as well; this is why family albums, diaries, and heirlooms become like 'art' within families.

If replicants in Blade Runner horde other people's photographs to imagine beautiful memories of their own, we watch movies to filch memories from others as well. In time, movie memories become our memories. We are all replicants hungry for images and memories of others. Such memories add meaning to our lives.
All life forms follow certain patterns. Without order, human society is not possible and that may explain our intrinsic attraction to symmetrical and geometric forms. Dada-ism notwithstanding, art cannot simply be arbitrary. Even the most cluttered or chaotic works of art follow certain rules; even violating all previous rules is a form of rule, and the work has to be measured a success or failure according to the rule it lives by. In that sense too, art is very integral to what we are as complex organisms. We don’t merely live in our surroundings but seek meaning and beauty through it. We don’t just use rocks but find ways to extract minerals we need from rocks to make better tools. A metal tool is better than a stone tool. Similarly, we don’t just appreciate beauty around us but try to extract the essence of beauty of nature and express them through art.