No one can disagree that moral systems that embrace reality are practical. My view is that your system isn't practical, but.....that's not the fallacy.rtwngAvngr said:What is the fallacy? I'm saying moral systems which embrace reality, what is, are more practical and possible.
Neocon philosophy is using law and order to temper and transmute the selfish urge.
"Greed is wanting more when you have enough" Enough for how long, an hour? It's pretty expensive to send kids to college and buy a home, is wanting these things greed. Is it greedy to want to be able to retire.
I've obviously devastated your worldview to the point where you're running on fumes, saying outrageous things, spitting our bizarre combiations of words. I think you need a nap.
An overpowerful government scares me more than overpowerful corporations. Governments use guns to accomplish their goals, businesses must appeal to a consumer's wants and needs, and competition between like corporations makes them both better and more responsive to people; plus corruption is limited at least to the extent that it will damage the corporation in the marketplace. Monopolistic governments do whatever they want and lie about the results through their state run media.
This is the fallacy = You said "greed is good". You can't offer a reality of human nature as sufficient grounds to justify your views on greed. Other groups (that you may or may not disagree with) could offer the exact same "reality of human nature" as sufficient grounds to justify their position(homosexuality, abortion, environmentalism, etc). This is a fallacy of moral reasoning called "naturalistic fallacy". ie, Just because a part of human nature includes self-preservation doesn't mean that a person can conclude that acting on that nature is good. You may believe, but can't be reasonable. Then you flip-floped and decided very simply that "greed is". If you say "greed is" and so assume it ought to be, you run into the is/ought problem of justifying your beliefs because you may feel like there is nothing you can or should do about it. This too is not reasonable. You may believe, but can't be reasonable. If you've decide that "greed is" without assigning moral value to it, you're a confused libertarian misrepresenting Jeffersonian democracy.
What I don't get is that if cooperation is "the result" of greed, why not skip all the greed talk and start talking about cooperation?
Can you point out bizarre word combinations. I might be able to make myself more clear.
You got it wrong about neocon philosophy.......you either believe your own hype or are duped into believing the hype........if only Strauss were alive to see the fruits of his labor.....his views have nourished religious crony capitalism crusading for global dominance......ya understand that?
....you said it....Neocon governments use guns to initiate their goals in Iraq. Then want to use their other tool, crony capitalism, to try and finish the job. That's the facts. Haven't you been listening to the neocon think-tanks? The rest of the world has.
Democratic governments are always under threat of dismissal.....robber barons are not.