• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 14 votes

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms


  • Please log in to reply
330 replies to this topic

#31 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 30 March 2010 - 04:22 PM

If you want absolute freedom from intrusive government, try Somalia.


That's a perfect misunderstanding of what "government" is and isn't. Somalia has one of the largest and most intrusive governments in the world! The fact that it's fragmented into multiple competing warlord fractions doesn't make it any less of a government! All governments start out as small mafia-like criminal enterprises and grow to a point where it starts being in their interest to protect and cultivate their turf, invest in public relations, let their "subjects" collectively vote on certain trivialities, and so forth. The alleged "divine right" to initiate aggression is the defining characteristic of whether something is a government or a voluntary institution: a homeowners' association, a business, a club, a church, a charity, a family, a Web-site, etc, etc, etc. If a government stops initiating aggression, then it's no longer a government! Conversely, if any of the aforementioned institutions, or simply a gang of armed street thugs, initiate aggression against you, then they become your government - their claim to power is just as legitimate!


You nailed it buddy :)

"You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down: up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course." - Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention, 1964

The "ant heap of totalitarianism" -- an apt description of Somalia.

of course to amend the statement a little bit, this is a good qualifier in case that bit about consistent with law and order confuses you:

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add within the limits of the law, because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - Thomas Jefferson


Given your correct definition of government, here is what Ayn Rand had to say...

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man's self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.


This is a key philosophical hurdle that gives Objectivists trouble. There is no implication that rightful government must be a monolithic, "public" (ie. funded by forcibly collected taxes) institution. In fact the opposite is true. Hence anarcho-capitalism, which many Objectivists wrongfully have a problem with.

Edited by RighteousReason, 30 March 2010 - 04:47 PM.


#32 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 30 March 2010 - 05:31 PM

This is a key philosophical hurdle that gives Objectivists trouble. There is no implication that rightful government must be a monolithic, "public" (ie. funded by forcibly collected taxes) institution. In fact the opposite is true. Hence anarcho-capitalism, which many Objectivists wrongfully have a problem with.


The various forms of capitalist minarchism (including Objectivism or even Jeffersonian Constitutionalism, etc) and Anarcho-Capitalism do not necessarily contradict one-another. Anarcho-Capitalism recognizes your freedom of contract, thus you can make yourself a subject of any government you choose (though your kids would not become its subjects by default). Minarchism recognizes your right to free exit, and your right to exist outside of their government without being conquered by it. Libertarianism is an evolving science, not an orthodoxy - the two experiments can exist side-by-side, and may the better system win by attracting the greater share of the world's brains and capital.

I consider myself both a minarchist and an Anarcho-Capitalist. The former is a pragmatic political strategy for the present day; the latter is an ivory-tower vision for the future.

#33 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 30 March 2010 - 09:26 PM

The various forms of capitalist minarchism (including Objectivism or even Jeffersonian Constitutionalism, etc) and Anarcho-Capitalism do not necessarily contradict one-another. Anarcho-Capitalism recognizes your freedom of contract, thus you can make yourself a subject of any government you choose (though your kids would not become its subjects by default). Minarchism recognizes your right to free exit, and your right to exist outside of their government without being conquered by it. Libertarianism is an evolving science, not an orthodoxy - the two experiments can exist side-by-side, and may the better system win by attracting the greater share of the world's brains and capital.

I consider myself both a minarchist and an Anarcho-Capitalist. The former is a pragmatic political strategy for the present day; the latter is an ivory-tower vision for the future.


The alleged "divine right" to initiate aggression is the defining characteristic of whether something is a government or a voluntary institution


From wikipedia...

In civics, minarchism (sometimes called minimal statism,[1] small government, or limited-government libertarianism.[2]) refers to a political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression.


The whole concept of "minarchism" is self-contradictory-- an institution is either a government and it aggressively violates individual rights, or it is a private, voluntary institution.

Any "true" minarchism is functionally equivalent to anarchy.

Tell that to any die hard Objectivist and watch their head explode. It's fun :) I agree though that anarcho-capitalism is perfectly compatible with Objectivism-- it's entirely what Ayn Rand intended, and indeed AC could never work without *objective law* -- not just any irrational law system(s). It's just that most people don't get this stuff.


-- On the subject of "objective law" -- I am only beginning to research a bit on this concept and it is absolutely stunning to me how similar this idea is to the idea of "Friendly AI". I think this a crucial connection to be made.

Edited by RighteousReason, 30 March 2010 - 09:46 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 30 March 2010 - 11:26 PM

"Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it without effort by somebody else. The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree."


-- Leonard Peikoff, in "Health Care is Not a Right"

#35 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 31 March 2010 - 05:44 AM

The whole concept of "minarchism" is self-contradictory -- an institution is either a government and it aggressively violates individual rights, or it is a private, voluntary institution.


I agree in principle, but it's not quite so simple. Minarchism can pragmatic (in which case it's similar to gradualist Anarcho-Capitalism), which makes a very good argument that you cannot quit government force "cold turkey" without killing the patient. Stupid people need time to adapt to a new system, or else you simply replace a "civilized" mafia overlord with an "uncivilized" bloodbath. You cannot attain a free society by "forcing people to be free" - it will instead happen through many decades of secession, intergovernmental competition, local experimentation (ex. Free State Project / seasteading), flight of brains and capital to ever-freer economic environments, and ever-stronger "right to free exit" until canceling "citizenship" becomes as simple as switching banks or health insurance plans.


On the subject of "objective law" -- I am only beginning to research a bit on this concept and it is absolutely stunning to me how similar this idea is to the idea of "Friendly AI". I think this a crucial connection to be made.


The Randian concept of "objective law" falls somewhere between two separate Anarcho-Capitalist concepts: Natural Law and polycentric free market jurisprudence. The former is a universal "social contract" verifiable through pure reason and econometrics, while the latter facilitates the enforcement of the former and leverages your Natural Rights to self-defense, to enforce contracts, and so on.

It's a fact that you exist (cognito ergo sum), that you desire your existence (or why do you bother eating?), and that you are subject to certain Natural Laws, from the laws of mathematics and physics to the equally immutable laws of fundamental economics (mathematics and logic applied to animal action).

The easiest right to prove is the Right to Life - it is functionally impossible for a society where arbitrary murder is not frowned upon to evolve beyond the hunter-gatherer stage of human development, because more sophisticated tribal structures and especially agriculture require a degree of cooperation that is impossible if your neighbor or coworker can simply bash you over the head for fun and profit. You were born into a civilization that has recognized that right to some degree for many generations, and only thanks to this level of civilization is it possible for Earth to support billions of human beings as opposed to hardly a million in caveman times. Without the widely recognized Right to Life your odds of ever being born are tremendously small, and your life would have been nasty, brutish, and short.

The idea is similar for other Natural Rights (liberty, property, parents' rights, a child's / prisoner's right to emancipation, and a few others), but they require a bit more econometric analysis for their proof, which ultimately is based on the principle of competitive advantage: a society that violates Natural Rights the least would have an empirically-observable materialistic advantage over other societies that violate them more. It's almost as clear-cut as penicillin, except of course you can't observe human societies through a microscope, and the lenses of history are blurred by pro-government bias that funds and controls most knowledge-related institutions. A society that tolerates theft is very unlikely to build a successful and stable economy. A society that believes in a false construct called "animal rights" (which violates actual Natural Rights of humans) wouldn't advance as well scientifically, due to the necessity of using animals for lab experiments. A society that believes in various false constructs called "positive rights" (ex. right to free food, health-care, unicorns, etc) will discourage economic productivity, experience flight of brains and capital, higher taxes, and it will eventually simply run out of competent people to tax. A society that hits people with a stick to force them to work harder might seem like a good idea initially, but in reality it always backfires, especially in a modern age where "working smart" is becoming ever-more valuable than simply "working hard". A society that violates parents' rights experiences a collapse of fertility rates, or ends up with an army of mass-produced zombie citizens that aren't very creative and motivated for individual achievement. Etc, etc, etc.

#36 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 31 March 2010 - 07:15 AM

That's a perfect misunderstanding of what "government" is and isn't. Somalia has one of the largest and most intrusive governments in the world! The fact that it's fragmented into multiple competing warlord fractions doesn't make it any less of a government! All governments start out as small mafia-like criminal enterprises and grow to a point where it starts being in their interest to protect and cultivate their turf, invest in public relations, let their "subjects" collectively vote on certain trivialities, and so forth. The alleged "divine right" to initiate aggression is the defining characteristic of whether something is a government or a voluntary institution: a homeowners' association, a business, a club, a church, a charity, a family, a Web-site, etc, etc, etc. If a government stops initiating aggression, then it's no longer a government! Conversely, if any of the aforementioned institutions, or simply a gang of armed street thugs, initiate aggression against you, then they become your government - their claim to power is just as legitimate!


This is an interesting view and one I haven't heard before. I consider Somalia to be an example of anarchy because there is no monopoly of violence, which is what a government is. Unless, of course, these warlords control certain geographical areas, in which case they could be considered small monopolies.

Anyone bringing up Somalia as an example would do well to read about how much better things are in Somalia now than when there still was a government (and they would probably be even better if other governments weren't trying to implement a new government there). Things have improved by pretty much all standards. Comparing it to the US is ridiculous. Give both countries a 100 years and we shall see.

I never signed it (nor is it a "social contract" based on empirically-verifiable Natural Law), and furthermore - a self-contradictory legal contract wouldn't be enforceable anyway. Most ideas about "positive rights" are a definite logical fallacy: there can be no such thing as the freedom to enslave others!


Nice to see someone new with a libertarian view... not very popular here :) Welcome to the boards!

#37 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 31 March 2010 - 07:31 AM

The easiest right to prove is the Right to Life - it is functionally impossible for a society where arbitrary murder is not frowned upon to evolve beyond the hunter-gatherer stage of human development, because more sophisticated tribal structures and especially agriculture require a degree of cooperation that is impossible if your neighbor or coworker can simply bash you over the head for fun and profit. You were born into a civilization that has recognized that right to some degree for many generations, and only thanks to this level of civilization is it possible for Earth to support billions of human beings as opposed to hardly a million in caveman times. Without the widely recognized Right to Life your odds of ever being born are tremendously small, and your life would have been nasty, brutish, and short.


And yet this only proves that the vast majority of people prefer life over death, but what about the small minority that prefer to kill people? Proving a Right to Life from an evolutionary perspective takes as an axiom that the well-being of all people is desirable. I of course agree that it is, but I find it difficult to argue that this axiom is one that everyone must accept.

Instead, I've come up with a different approach. In a truly free society, the vast majority of people could and would agree to the non-aggression principle, whether it's on logical, evolutionary, or religious grounds, and the small minority who refute this axiom and want to hurt other people instead are on their own without any protection. Dispute resolution organisations would naturally be based on the axiom. The people who refute it cannot ever argue logically that it is wrong to hurt them; all they can do is use physical force. But since they are a very small minority, and quite likely do not form any group, and it is very difficult for them to do business with other people, and most importantly, because harm can be done to them without consequences, not accepting the axiom will be a very risky endeavour.

#38 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 31 March 2010 - 07:51 AM

"Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it without effort by somebody else. The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree."


-- Leonard Peikoff, in "Health Care is Not a Right"

What about people who can't work do to illness, both physical and mental? What's your basic stance on how they should get by if you are so against the gov taking care of everyone?

#39 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 March 2010 - 12:25 PM

"Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want — not to be given it without effort by somebody else. The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree."


-- Leonard Peikoff, in "Health Care is Not a Right"

What about people who can't work do to illness, both physical and mental? What's your basic stance on how they should get by if you are so against the gov taking care of everyone?

Gah! Private, voluntary charity!! Why is it so amazingly counter-intuitive that theft and slavery are never the answer!?

Read the quote again, it is not your right to have an *equal outcome* -- it is only your right to have an *equal opportunity* -- which necessitates upholding your right to trade or give to charity the products of your labor as you wish -- which is exactly the right that must be first eliminated for the government to "take care of everyone".


"The integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor"


"The work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man's body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive"


- Howard Roark, The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand


"Poverty and Suffering are not due to unequal distribution of goods and resources, but to the unequal distribution of capitalism"


- Rush Limbaugh

Edited by RighteousReason, 31 March 2010 - 12:49 PM.


#40 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 31 March 2010 - 04:53 PM

This is an interesting view and one I haven't heard before. I consider Somalia to be an example of anarchy because there is no monopoly of violence, which is what a government is. Unless, of course, these warlords control certain geographical areas, in which case they could be considered small monopolies.


An Anarcho-Capitalist may clumsily use the term "monopoly on violence" to describe the government, but that doesn't mean a "free market on violence" is what we're advocating - see the Non-Aggression Principle. I more often use terms like: "governments' alleged 'divine right' to initiate aggression" or the "free market in self-defense".


And, once again - "Anarcho-Capitalism" is not "anarchism", it is free market capitalism in its purest form. A "chickpea" is not a "chicken".


Anyone bringing up Somalia as an example would do well to read about how much better things are in Somalia now than when there still was a government (and they would probably be even better if other governments weren't trying to implement a new government there). Things have improved by pretty much all standards. Comparing it to the US is ridiculous. Give both countries a 100 years and we shall see.


Somalia is a failed UN mission built on top of a failed theocracy built on top of a failed Communist state built on top of a failed colonial venture. Bringing it up as an example of Anarcho-Capitalism is the height of either ignorance or malice! There are a few statistical examples of the free market in Somalia doing better than in their neighbors with less fragmented governments, but the overall state of economic freedom there is absolutely terrible. There are no good existing examples of Anarcho-Capitalism - not colonial America, not medieval Iceland, etc.

Anarcho-Capitalism is an advanced state of society that humanity as a whole has not yet reached, with instant access to information (ex. Internet, smart-phones, etc) being one of the prerequisite technologies that will help make it possible. Your smart-phone can tell you if the product you're about to buy is uncertified, if you're approaching the property line of someone with a bad reputation for being rude to unwanted guests, if there's a way to drive from point A to point B without using any roads with rules you don't agree with, etc. Having multiple competing currencies, for example, was just too difficult in the 19th century because the transaction costs were too high, but that isn't a case any longer - RFID price scanners and credit card processing technologies can do currency conversion on the fly. Most examples where centralized authority is alleged to be essential are solvable with technologies that are within our grasp - flying air quality probes / floating water quality probes will help track pollution externalities, etc, etc, etc. Less-lethal weapons, flying cars (which would have been affordable to the middle class by now if not for government red tape and trillion-dollar wars for cheaper oil), seasteads, and space travel are not strictly prerequisites of Anarcho-Capitalism, but they are other examples of technologies that will help bring it about. Real-time / archived high-definition space satellite video integrated with networks of billions of video cameras on the ground make petty crime next to impossible to get away with, which is also a great example of how tyrannical the applications of those technologies can become if we don't get rid of centralized power monopolies ASAP!


Nice to see someone new with a libertarian view... not very popular here :) Welcome to the boards!


Thank you very much. My experience here has been very pleasant so far, in spite of my radical politics, especially when compared to how I fare on other non-libertarian message boards (ex. I've been banned from places like JREF, CityData Forums, Ubuntu Forums, etc).


And yet this only proves that the vast majority of people prefer life over death, but what about the small minority that prefer to kill people?


You have the right to kill them in self-defense (and you can transfer that right to defence agencies that specialize in that sort of thing), though in less urgent circumstances a civilized society would find it more prudent and emotionally satisfying to capture them alive and make them work to pay restitution to their victims instead, most likely with the motivation of being able to earn their freedom and some degree of forgiveness someday. As technology advances, your odds of being able to get away with murder gradually approach 0, and your motivation for murder diminishes as well, since you're able to kill simulated people in the Holodeck or whatnot to relieve your psychological urges without violating anyone's rights.

No human action and no human society can ever be said to be perfect, but we can still use empiricism and deductive reasoning to establish what theory is the most desirable. A society that recognizes the right to life (and thus the right to self-defense, and thus a criminal justice system) works and evolves. A society that doesn't recognize it does not - it gradually regresses back to the stone age. This is similar to how mathematical models where 2 + 2 == 4 work, while models where it is calculated to be another numbers do not. Of course there are no gods to smite you for believing that 2 + 2 == chair, but your endeavors to interact with reality on the basses of erroneous knowledge will result in failure. Since human beings exist in a finite material world, the on-going existence and advancement of their civilization requires thought that is rational and results in functionally effective systems that enable and enhance economic stability and growth.


Proving a Right to Life from an evolutionary perspective takes as an axiom that the well-being of all people is desirable. I of course agree that it is, but I find it difficult to argue that this axiom is one that everyone must accept.


A human being may lose his right to life on the bases of absolute necessity with respect to the rights of others (i.e. a killer can be killed in self-defense or in an act of post-facto justice, or a parasite like a fetus or a conjoined twin may be evicted from a body that s\he doesn't own). Your own life and body aside, what other excuse can you have to kill someone that cannot be used arbitrarily by anyone to murder anyone else, thus causing total societal collapse? If someone else can lose his right to life without a very good reason, then so can you! The Non-Aggression Principle is the natural compromise that automatically emerges to balance out everybody's rights.


Instead, I've come up with a different approach. In a truly free society, the vast majority of people could and would agree to the non-aggression principle, whether it's on logical, evolutionary, or religious grounds, and the small minority who refute this axiom and want to hurt other people instead are on their own without any protection. Dispute resolution organisations would naturally be based on the axiom. The people who refute it cannot ever argue logically that it is wrong to hurt them; all they can do is use physical force. But since they are a very small minority, and quite likely do not form any group, and it is very difficult for them to do business with other people, and most importantly, because harm can be done to them without consequences, not accepting the axiom will be a very risky endeavour.


I'm not sure I agree. It seems that according to your theory it would be possible for me to kill any self-owning adult who is a documented supporter of communism, for example, because communism fails to recognize people's individual rights, including liberty and property, and clearly violates the Non-Aggression Principle. And who gets to decide what amount of anti-NAP speech qualifies as its violation and deprives the speaker of his rights? Furthermore, it ignores the crucial moral distinction between speech and action, and any system that violates an individual's freedom of speech is inherently tyrannical and prone to corruption. Can I kill any person who's voted for any political leader that violates NAP? Your system would result in NAP supporters being free to kill everyone else, which in the present society would of course be a suicide attack and all NAP supporters will be branded terrorists and exterminated pretty darn fast!

NAP is not an axiom and not a system that can be imposed on any society through defensive force alone, but it is the natural economic result of a sufficiently advanced society that progresses to a sufficient level of individual freedom, as a society would in order to achieve greater stability and economic growth. You will accomplish far more through non-violent non-cooperation against tyranny (i.e. walking away, tax resistance, engaging in dialogue, etc), in which case the tyrants will no longer have the excuse to squash you, and you will be able to influence a lot more people on an intellectual level.

#41 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 31 March 2010 - 05:55 PM

I'm not sure I understand what you consider to be the difference between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Is medieval Iceland an example of anarchism in your opinion?

Your own life and body aside, what other excuse can you have to kill someone that cannot be used arbitrarily by anyone to murder anyone else, thus causing total societal collapse? If someone else can lose his right to life without a very good reason, then so can you!


I think this is pretty much what I argued, but our approaches may be a bit different. I know that a society that does not accept NAP as a principle is doomed to fail, but it's unclear to me whether you suggest NAP as a 'divine right' or simply a practical solution for improving society as a whole. What is the philosophical/logical proof of taking "that socities evolve is absolutely good" as the premise? What if someone argues that they want socities to revert back to the stone age?

#42 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 31 March 2010 - 06:34 PM

It's always fun to watch the ridiculous lengths people will go to justify maintaining a privilege which they feel makes them superior to another "less privileged" group.

Get over it. Universal Healthcare is coming. The entire rest of the civilized world has it. We will as well within 10 years. That's not a political statement, it's just what I foresee happening based on current technological, social, and political trends.

Regardless of how it get's twisted into other things, Government exists as a tool of the people, it is, and always will be, the physical embodiment of the will of the collective, and as such is responsible for enacting the will of the collective. It exists to enable humanity itself to do things which no single individual can do alone. There will never be a future in which there is no government, and history has been filled with examples of all the various "small" governments so loved by libertarians, all of which have failed. Multiple governments inevitably lead to conflicts, and no society has EVER existed in which there is no governing system. Our future is a single world wide government. And it will be one in which every individual has a vote, a voice, and a responsibility.

Individual Liberty must always be balanced against the health of the collective body of humanity. Your freedom to do as you wish is limited, has always been limited, and always will be limited by this fact. Your freedom cannot come at the cost of someone else's, and your "privileges" cannot be paid for with someone else's blood. If you want COMPLETE liberty to do as you wish, go to an island and live by yourself. But so long as you are a part of society, and enjoying the benefits of being part of the society, that society will dictate the limits of your freedom to do as you wish.

Equality before the law means EXACTLY THAT. NO-ONE HAS PRIVILEGED STATUS. If it is a right for ONE, it is a right for ALL.

All the rest of this arguing is about "Wahhhhh I want to maintain my feelings of superiority!"

#43 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 31 March 2010 - 07:10 PM

Multiple governments inevitably lead to conflicts, and no society has EVER existed in which there is no governing system.


There have been many societies without a government. It's not clear what you mean by "a governing system".

Our future is a single world wide government. And it will be one in which every individual has a vote, a voice, and a responsibility.


Let's hope that will not be the case. Having a vote is not much of a consolance if the vote is between slavery and death. It really amazes me that there are people who see no problems with a one world government. What happens if we don't like the government? Why do you even think we would have a vote?

Equality before the law means EXACTLY THAT. NO-ONE HAS PRIVILEGED STATUS. If it is a right for ONE, it is a right for ALL.


So how is it that it is illegal for you and me to steal, but it is legal for the tax collector to steal?

#44 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 31 March 2010 - 07:54 PM

I'm not sure I understand what you consider to be the difference between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.


Here we run into the problem of semantics, and the word "anarchy" being used by different people to mean very different things. Anarcho-Capitalism (note the dash and the capitalization) is definitely substantially different from the most popular ideas about anarchy, because it supports very strong property rights and encourages some level of social hierarchy through contractual obligations. It is a form of Capitalism, with Anarcho- being an adjective, not a noun. Some people whose ideas are identical to Anarcho-Capitalism prefer terms like "voluntaryism" instead, but that term is even easier for other ideologies to hijack. Calling it something like "pure free market capitalism" might be an improvement, but everyone inventing their own definitions would lead to absolute chaos. So for now I'll have to bite the bullet and call myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, following in Murray Rothbard's footsteps, until my own ideas are sufficiently well defined. The good thing about this term is that it scares away both the socialists and the conservatives, so it probably will not be hijacked any time soon. :)


Is medieval Iceland an example of anarchism in your opinion?


It is tempting to speculate, but I won't, especially since historical nitpicking will distract from more substantive arguments for Anarcho-Capitalism. There were very few examples of heavier-than-air flight before the 20th century, but that doesn't make it a bad idea in the present.


[...] I know that a society that does not accept NAP as a principle is doomed to fail [...]


That's not exactly true, depending on your definition of "fail". My metaphysics (evolutionary pragmatism) are built around the principle of competitive advantage, not mere survival - a society that violates Natural Rights the least will have an empirically-observable evolutionary advantage over the societies that violates them more.

A tribe of savages can exist with only the most primitive deterrents against murder and no formal concepts of liberty or property at all! Human nature is a moving target, especially if you track humanity from the primordial goo onward. Cooperative pact behavior becomes beneficial in even pre-mammalian stages of animal development, but it doesn't evolve into a universal Right to Life as we know it today until at very least the development of language, and it was really the development of early agriculture that made it beneficial for human tribes to not kill each-other over access to the far more limited means of hunter-gatherer survival. Agriculture and writing also enable some degree of property rights, but some restrictions on human liberty remain functionally beneficial until widespread functional literacy and access to information technology can be accomplished.

A Communist culture can survive and even have sophisticated technology (of course only in the hands of the ruling elite), but what demonstrates the irrationality of Communism is how poorly it compares with other political systems that are less irrational in their understanding and defense of Natural Rights. Communism is built around a vision of humanity as it was during the industrial revolution, and though Communist countries were able to import a lot of technological ideas from the more Capitalist countries they were still unable to effectively imitate them, much less catch up in scientific and social advancement. If the more Capitalist countries didn't exist, people in Communist countries would be stuck in a dystopia similar to the one described in Ayn Rand's Anthem, but they'd think they are doing just fine because they'd have no point of reference to tell them otherwise.

Truths can only be discovered through free experimentation and free comparison, which is why Anarcho-Capitalism is the most rational political system - it applies the scientific method to the realm of political thought, and it encompasses the ability for individuals to experiment with all other political systems by voluntary association. You can build a Communist charter city within Anarcho-Capitalism, with a 300ft statue of Stalin or whatever the heck you want, but you can only do it on legitimately acquired land and with people who choose to be there voluntarily, with their children having the right to know about the outside world and the freedom to leave if they so choose. If my knowledge about Communism is correct, then your city will fail economically as all competent people decide it is no longer in their interest to be a part of your "gift economy" and only the freeloaders remain. This intergovernmental competition and freedom of choice is the only effective weapon we have against government tyranny, and that is why the threat of a homogenizing all-powerful World Government is the sum of all fears!


[...] but it's unclear to me whether you suggest NAP as a 'divine right' or simply a practical solution for improving society as a whole.


I only used the term "divine right" to mock the alleged rights that any government claims to have to impose taxation, regulation, and so on (i.e. if you were to "tax" your neighbor yourself then that would clearly be seen as theft, but if you go through the "magical ballot box ritual" then suddenly it's a-OK). NAP is an economic concept, not much different than the law of supply and demand - a rational compromise between billions of "greedy capitalists" who all individually want to rule the world, but know they don't stand a chance and don't want to die trying.


What is the philosophical/logical proof of taking "that socities evolve is absolutely good" as the premise?


All members of the human society exist, and they choose to exist, as material beings living in a material universe. (People who don't like the immutable natural laws of the universe they were born into are free to kill themselves at any time.) The reality of human existence requires certain empirically-verifiable universal rules of human behavior, many of which were recognized to some degree by the less savage of the ancient civilizations for thousands of years, and have been a prerequisite for you ever being born. It is functionally impossible for cavemen who refuse to recognize the Right to Life for anyone outside their immediate tribal group, much less their Rights to Liberty and Property, to effectively domesticate animals, till the soil, irrigate the Nile delta, drain the swamps of Europe turning infertile land fertile, reduce infant mortality, establish global trade, build electric power plants, mine silicon, and do all of the other things that make the survival of 7 billion people on this planet possible. (And this would be even more self-evident as humanity begins to expand beyond this planet.) That is the only objective basis for a "social contract", which you are obligated to follow even though you never signed it - you don't have to be a nice guy, and you don't have to bow down to anyone, but you do have to live within the empirically-verifiable economic constraints that make your existence possible.



What if someone argues that they want socities to revert back to the stone age?


You cannot make the human civilization at large revert to the stone age without violating the rights of every person who disagrees with you (hopefully everyone), but you are free to set up your own "stone age community" on privately owned land, or a seastead, or a space station, or a terraformed moon on the other side of the galaxy, etc - just as long as all adults are there through individual consent, and the children have the right to leave if/when they so choose. My system will be backed by the vast majority of humanity who value their life and the well-being of their children, and recognize that life in the stone age was nasty, brutish, and short. Your system will be backed by the people who want to sacrifice all benefits of civilization (including a chance at life extension technology and eventual immortality in a Holodeck heaven that is infinitely better than whatever delusions our forefathers fantasized about), or rather the fraction of such people who don't just want to hang out in a voluntary community as I mentioned. If the proponents of my system still fail to convince all proponents of your system to not initiate aggression (and some people simply cannot be reasoned with) then my system will be able to protect itself through defensive force.

#45 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 31 March 2010 - 08:05 PM

Multiple governments inevitably lead to conflicts, and no society has EVER existed in which there is no governing system.


There have been many societies without a government. It's not clear what you mean by "a governing system".


Name one. Name one single society in which a tribal, village, town, or country ruling body has not existed, be it a council of elders, guild, chief, etc. Cite a real HISTORICAL example JLL.



Our future is a single world wide government. And it will be one in which every individual has a vote, a voice, and a responsibility.


Let's hope that will not be the case. Having a vote is not much of a consolance if the vote is between slavery and death. It really amazes me that there are people who see no problems with a one world government. What happens if we don't like the government? Why do you even think we would have a vote?


Because that is the trend in which we are headed. Universal connectivity via the internet, transparent government, and true 1 person 1 vote democracy. Be as pessimistic as you wish JLL. I am simply reporting on the eventual end of all the bickering between ideologies.

Equality before the law means EXACTLY THAT. NO-ONE HAS PRIVILEGED STATUS. If it is a right for ONE, it is a right for ALL.


So how is it that it is illegal for you and me to steal, but it is legal for the tax collector to steal?


Because we as a society have determined that it is necessary, as a society, to provide our society with certain universal benefits and rights. As a member of that society it is our responsibility to contribute to the good of the whole. Stealing is me taking from you for MY PERSONAL BENEFIT. Taxation is a price paid to enjoy the benefits we as a society have determined are needed for our societies well being.

You can call it stealing all you want JLL. It's no different than paying for insurance, paying for a car, paying for earrings, or whatever. If you wish to enjoy the benefits of police, fire, sewer, etc, it has to be paid for. And since you WILL benefit from these things REGARDLESS of if you claim you want them or not, it is your responsibility as a member of a society to contribute.

If you don't want to benefit from living in a society, feel free to go find a private island and try to survive with out those benefits.

#46 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 31 March 2010 - 08:42 PM

It's always fun to watch the ridiculous lengths people will go to justify maintaining a privilege which they feel makes them superior to another "less privileged" group.


The privilege of not being someone's slave? I can see that logic isn't your strong suit, but can you at least try to contemplate how did it happen that the government came to have greater Rights over my body than I myself have, leaving me to beg for mere privileges?


Get over it. Universal Healthcare is coming. The entire rest of the civilized world has it. We will as well within 10 years. That's not a political statement, it's just what I foresee happening based on current technological, social, and political trends.


My response to Obama is no different than my response to Bush (I became a tax resister in 2003), or as it would have been to Hitler or Stalin: "you can have my fat stinking corpse, but not my obedience".


Regardless of how it get's twisted into other things, Government exists as a tool of the people, it is, and always will be, the physical embodiment of the will of the collective, and as such is responsible for enacting the will of the collective.


I am a person, and the government is not my "tool" (nor does it even have my consent to exist), therefore your argument is debunked.

And if the "collective" has a will, then, logically - must it not have a mind as a separate entity from its component parts? An individual human mind is a functional entity on a completely different plane of sentience than any individual braincell, which cannot function at all independently. A human mind is irreducible: if you cut it in 10 parts you don't have 10 deciminds, you have 140 grams of inert gray meat! A "collective", on the other hand, is perfectly and inevitably reducible as you go from the abstract to the specific: the human minds that it consists of. It is those minds that have a will, not the abstraction that you are trying to impose for your political benefit!


It exists to enable humanity itself to do things which no single individual can do alone.


So does this forum - I couldn't have this conversation all by myself! The difference is that this forum is a means that its participants voluntarily chose to utilize. It does not exist as the result of a government decree, it exists on the basis of people cooperating on the basis of their own individual self-interest (i.e. capitalism). Voluntary human action can do anything that involuntary human action (i.e. government) can do, and there is an ever-growing body of scientific evidence that it can do it better, even when it comes to things like charity. Why else would I spend the time to write all this if not because it boosts my self-esteem and makes me believe that I'm doing some small part to make the world a better place?


There will never be a future in which there is no government, and history has been filled with examples of all the various "small" governments so loved by libertarians, all of which have failed.


History is also filled with examples of geniuses that have been murdered by mindless brutes - does that make the murderers more intelligent, or their behavior more desirable? Governments don't grow because they are functionally superior to personal and economic freedom, they grow because the proponents of governments are willing to lie, steal, cheat, brainwash, and kill millions upon millions of people in order to solidify their grip on power, while the defenders of individual liberty typically do not.


Multiple governments inevitably lead to conflicts, and no society has EVER existed in which there is no governing system.


See above.


Our future is a single world wide government. And it will be one in which every individual has a vote, a voice, and a responsibility. [...]


Like I said - you can have my dead body, but not my obedience.

I only deal with people on the basis of reason - a level on which you have absolutely no power against me. Violence, which is the source of all your power, will simply be ignored as an unfortunate limitation imposed over my life that I can do nothing about, no more rational than prostate cancer. You can cripple my body, throw me in a prison cell, and cut short my life, but the irrationality of your barbaric system will remain self-evident for all of future history to look down upon in condemnation.


Individual Liberty must always be balanced against the health of the collective body of humanity. [...]


Yes, and you will find me defending logical Human Rights on this thread above, but you will not find any rational person arguing for "the right to enslave others", which is what your idea of positive rights is all about.


Equality before the law means EXACTLY THAT. NO-ONE HAS PRIVILEGED STATUS. If it is a right for ONE, it is a right for ALL.


People do start out with equal negative rights, and no one should have the right to steal, which is what you advocate. It is you who believes in special privileges through the "divine right" of government.

Edited by Alex Libman, 31 March 2010 - 08:52 PM.


#47 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 31 March 2010 - 09:29 PM

Oh the mental gymnastics through which you go...

Believe as you will. Justify what you wish. The future is still going to occur. We are all part of the collective of society. So long as that is true, we will all be responsible to that society.

Once we have achieved effective space travel, you are welcome to go try your little fantasies out wherever you wish. And, like all those who have done so in the past when we still had frontiers, 99% of them will crash and burn. Feel free to try your little "minarchies". Greece and Italy both did so. The result was endless wars between city states.

But like Churchill said, those who refuse to learn from history, will simply repeat it.

#48 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 31 March 2010 - 11:52 PM

Multiple governments inevitably lead to conflicts, and no society has EVER existed in which there is no governing system.


There have been many societies without a government. It's not clear what you mean by "a governing system".


Name one. Name one single society in which a tribal, village, town, or country ruling body has not existed, be it a council of elders, guild, chief, etc. Cite a real HISTORICAL example JLL.

A good understanding of capitalism has only come about since the later half of the twentieth century (like many many other things). Hence Ayn Rand's book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

#49 Alex Libman

  • Guest
  • 566 posts
  • 0
  • Location:New Jersey, USA

Posted 01 April 2010 - 02:03 AM

Oh the mental gymnastics through which you go...


It's called logic. (Admittedly with some humor thrown in, I mean, c'mon, I'm not being paid to educate you...)


Believe as you will. Justify what you wish. The future is still going to occur. We are all part of the collective of society. So long as that is true, we will all be responsible to that society.


If you can attempt to make logical arguments for your position, then I will debunk them. If all you can do is testify to your blind faith, then there's nothing I can do for you.


Once we have achieved effective space travel, you are welcome to go try your little fantasies out wherever you wish.


IF we achieve effective space travel in spite of the wings of the human civilization being clipped by the tyrants you seek to empower. With their population control and industry-stifling agenda already in full swing, there's really no economic incentive for human beings to ever leave this planet, and the government might simply outlaw it to prevent a brain-drain outside their control. A regression into an environmentalist dystopia like the one described in Ayn Rand's Anthem seems like an ever-more probable possibility.


And, like all those who have done so in the past when we still had frontiers, 99% of them will crash and burn. Feel free to try your little "minarchies". Greece and Italy both did so. The result was endless wars between city states.


Wow, I knew what I was saying earlier was over your head, but I didn't know it was by that much! And you are comparing completely different eras and completely different political systems! The first lesson you should have learned from reading about ancient Greece is that democracy doesn't work - Athens always voting to attack its neighbors and make its philosophers drink hemlock. And the united Roman Empire was far more libertarian than the disintegrated states! When comparing apples to apples - economic freedom always wins.


But like Churchill said, those who refuse to learn from history, will simply repeat it.


My point exactly. Every year of recorded history and in any part of the world you will find many examples of economic freedom pushing this civilization forward and of government force pulling it back.

Churchill's country failed to listen to his advice, and they experienced substantial economic misery when a more socialist government got into power. FDR prolonged the government-caused depression by another decade, with recovery happening only after government spending was cut after the unnecessary 30-year war (which is the complete opposite of what socialist economists predicted, and continue to failingly predict to this day).

Edited by Alex Libman, 01 April 2010 - 02:04 AM.


#50 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 01 April 2010 - 06:30 AM

Wonderful conspiracy theories you have there.

The trouble is you seem to think laws can be passed to stop technological progress. They've tried. At best, it delays developments. No technology has even been successfully LEGISLATED out of existence. No Genie ever put back in a bottle. Your fears have no foundation in historical evidence, and are over situations which even in the worst extremes are merely delays. With the speed of currently developing technology, a decade is the most such a repressionistic ideology could possibly succeed in. And the Republican party has been attempting it for over a decade.

Fear the state if you choose, but the state you fear is one that exists only in your mind. From the real trends in politics, not the ones screamed about by any political agenda, but the actual events occuring, the only state which will eventually emerge is a technocratic democracy. Fear what you will. Support whoever you wish. I am simply reporting the reality as I have seen it developing.

#51 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 01 April 2010 - 08:49 AM

Multiple governments inevitably lead to conflicts, and no society has EVER existed in which there is no governing system.


There have been many societies without a government. It's not clear what you mean by "a governing system".


Name one. Name one single society in which a tribal, village, town, or country ruling body has not existed, be it a council of elders, guild, chief, etc. Cite a real HISTORICAL example JLL.


Chiefs and councils are not the same thing as governments. In your original statement you mix the two. I have nothing against "a governing system", as long as it is based on voluntary choice. See medieval Iceland for an example of what I consider acceptable. They did not have a monopoly on violence.

Because we as a society have determined that it is necessary, as a society, to provide our society with certain universal benefits and rights.


What is a society but a collection of individuals? Who has determined that it's okay to tax people? I certainly was not part of that decision. Are you saying that mob rule is morally right?

As a member of that society it is our responsibility to contribute to the good of the whole.


Why? Is that your opinion or an absolute truth?

Stealing is me taking from you for MY PERSONAL BENEFIT.


So if I steal from you and spend it on a charity of my choice, you won't mind because it's not stealing? Or if I steal from you and spend it on clothes for my girlfriend, you won't mind because it's not stealing?

Taxation is a price paid to enjoy the benefits we as a society have determined are needed for our societies well being.


No, taxation is a compulsory price, decided by a small minority and accepted by the majority, to fund things that would be better produced in the free market. Just because you think taxation is used for good does not make the act of stealing morally right.

How is taxation different from a mafia moving next to your house and demanding protection money from you? What if they use some of that money for taking care of, say, old people? Does that make it good? What if 75% of the neighborhood accept the mafia taking your money, will you then accept it too as morally right?

You can call it stealing all you want JLL. It's no different than paying for insurance, paying for a car, paying for earrings, or whatever.


But it is different, in that I can choose whether I want to buy a car or not, but I cannot choose whether I want to pay taxes or not. Surely you see the difference. It's as if I was saying it's okay for me to keep your head underwater, because it's no different that you going for a swim. Yes, they both include water, but there is still a clear difference.

If you wish to enjoy the benefits of police, fire, sewer, etc, it has to be paid for. And since you WILL benefit from these things REGARDLESS of if you claim you want them or not, it is your responsibility as a member of a society to contribute.


Right, so if the mafia steals everybody's money and then uses 10% of the money to build a park that is free for everyone, it makes stealing okay? Because REGARDLESS of whether you claim you want the park or not, you will be able to benefit from it.

If you don't want to benefit from living in a society, feel free to go find a private island and try to survive with out those benefits.


I would, but all islands are claimed by a government.

#52 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 01 April 2010 - 04:53 PM

Because we as a society have determined that it is necessary, as a society, to provide our society with certain universal benefits and rights. As a member of that society it is our responsibility to contribute to the good of the whole. Stealing is me taking from you for MY PERSONAL BENEFIT. Taxation is a price paid to enjoy the benefits we as a society have determined are needed for our societies well being.

You can call it stealing all you want JLL. It's no different than paying for insurance, paying for a car, paying for earrings, or whatever. If you wish to enjoy the benefits of police, fire, sewer, etc, it has to be paid for. And since you WILL benefit from these things REGARDLESS of if you claim you want them or not, it is your responsibility as a member of a society to contribute.

If you don't want to benefit from living in a society, feel free to go find a private island and try to survive with out those benefits.


Funny you should bring up trying to survive on an island by yourself.

Stand on an empty stretch of soil in a wilderness unexplored by man and ask yourself what manner of survival you would achieve and how long you would last if you refused to think, with no one around to teach you the motions, or, if you chose to think, how much your mind would be able to discover - ask yourself how many independent conclusions you have reached in the course of your life and how much of your time was spent performing the actions you learned from others - ask yourself whether you would be able to discover how to till the sod and grow your food, whether you would be able to invent a wheel, a lever, an induction coil, a generator, an electronic tube - then decide whether men of ability are exploiters who live by the fruit of your labor and rob you of the wealth you produce, and whether you dare to believe that you possess the power to enslave them. Let your women take a look at the jungle female with her shriveled face and pendulous breasts, as she sits grinding meal in a bowl, hour after hour, century by century - then let them ask themselves whether their 'instinct of tool-making' will provide them with their electric refrigerators, their washing machines and vacuum cleaners [and everything else, like that healthcare you now declare is a right], and if not, whether they care to destroy those who provided it all, but not 'by instinct'.


- John Galt, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand



You don't realize that there is a very real "John Galt effect", here's one recent example among many many others:

We reported in May that after passing a millionaire surtax nearly one-third of Maryland's millionaires had gone missing, thus contributing to a decline in state revenues. The politicians in Annapolis had said they'd collect $106 million by raising its income tax rate on millionaire households to 6.25% from 4.75%. In cities like Baltimore and Bethesda, which apply add-on income taxes, the top tax rate with the surcharge now reaches as high as 9.3%—fifth highest in the nation. Liberals said this was based on incomplete data and that rich Marylanders hadn't fled the state.

Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.

http://online.wsj.co...EditorialPage_h




Believe as you will. Justify what you wish. The future is still going to occur. We are all part of the collective of society. So long as that is true, we will all be responsible to that society.


You don't get it. We are not whining and sniveling, we are merely trying to objectively explain to you the reality of the utter destruction that faces a society that goes down that path.


If you like The Nanny State…if you like the results of the Michigan economy run by unions (the first state to hit 15% unemployment)…or WORSE the California economy…a state that has spent itself into oblivion, insolvency and bankruptcy…and you want to turn the whole of America into one big Michigan…or one big California…YOU MIGHT BE A SOCIALIST.

If you think government can save money on healthcare…even though the exact same people that run government have brought you an almost $2 Trillion dollar deficit…and almost $100 Trillion in debt…almost double world GDP (all the money made in the world each year)…and despite the fact that government loses money in every department and every agency, at every level, every year since inception…YOU MIGHT BE A SOCIALIST.

… and you're definitely an IDIOT.


You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner's terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man's property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers. Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out ... you believed that crime could be 'practical' [and in your case, not defined as "stealing"] if your government decreed that robbery was legal and resistance to robbery illegal.




If we were asking you whether you were against socialism or not, in order to test you, it would not be a test to determine whether or not you are heartless, but actually just whether you are completely clueless about math.


"Lois Cook said that words must be freed from the oppression of reason. She said the stranglehold of reason upon words is like the exploitation of the masses by the capitalists. Words must be permitted to negotiate with reason through collective bargaining." - The Fountainhead


"But egotists are not kind. And you are. You're the most egotistical and the kindest man I know. And that doesn't make sense."
"Maybe the concepts don't make sense. Maybe they don't mean what people have been taught to think they mean."
- Peter Keating and Howard Roark, The Fountainhead


"Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are the functions of the self.
"Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative - and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism - the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain; his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal - under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.
"This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.
"The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence of dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death."

- Howard Roark, The Fountainhead


- Ayn Rand

Edited by RighteousReason, 01 April 2010 - 05:39 PM.


#53 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 01 April 2010 - 09:31 PM

above should read "independence or dependence"

Edited by RighteousReason, 01 April 2010 - 09:55 PM.


#54 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 01 April 2010 - 09:48 PM

[quote name='JLL' post='395901' date='Apr 1 2010, 08:49 AM'][quote name='valkyrie_ice' post='395711' date='Mar 31 2010, 03:05 PM'][quote name='JLL' post='395694' date='Mar 31 2010, 07:10 PM'][quote name='valkyrie_ice' post='395686' date='Mar 31 2010, 02:34 PM']Multiple governments inevitably lead to conflicts, and no society has EVER existed in which there is no governing system.[/quote]

There have been many societies without a government. It's not clear what you mean by "a governing system". [/quote]

Name one. Name one single society in which a tribal, village, town, or country ruling body has not existed, be it a council of elders, guild, chief, etc. Cite a real HISTORICAL example JLL.[/quote]

Chiefs and councils are not the same thing as governments. In your original statement you mix the two. I have nothing against "a governing system", as long as it is based on voluntary choice. See medieval Iceland for an example of what I consider acceptable. They did not have a monopoly on violence. [/quote]

Wow are you deluded JLL. A Chief of a tribe had every monopoly on violence. If he said go to war and you refused, you would either be killed by the tribe, or cast out from it. Denying reality is not an answer.



[quote][quote name='valkyrie_ice' post='395711' date='Mar 31 2010, 03:05 PM']Because we as a society have determined that it is necessary, as a society, to provide our society with certain universal benefits and rights.[/quote]

What is a society but a collection of individuals? Who has determined that it's okay to tax people? I certainly was not part of that decision. Are you saying that mob rule is morally right?

[quote name='valkyrie_ice' post='395711' date='Mar 31 2010, 03:05 PM']As a member of that society it is our responsibility to contribute to the good of the whole.[/quote]

Why? Is that your opinion or an absolute truth? [/quote]

Nether, it is simply reality. If you exist in any society, you do so by accepting the rules and responsibilities that society assigns to you.

[quote][quote name='valkyrie_ice' post='395711' date='Mar 31 2010, 03:05 PM']Stealing is me taking from you for MY PERSONAL BENEFIT.[/quote]

So if I steal from you and spend it on a charity of my choice, you won't mind because it's not stealing? Or if I steal from you and spend it on clothes for my girlfriend, you won't mind because it's not stealing? [/quote]

You're really stretching JLL. Stealing is an action of individuals against individuals, be that "individual" a person, a business, or a corporation. Tax is a legally levied responsibility given to every member of society. It was passed by a vote of the public, in order to provide large scale public services to the entire society as a whole. If you do not wish to enjoy those services you are free to leave the society, vote to have those services discontinued, or break the law and pay the penalties. You do not get to pick and chose what responsibilities you will assume or not.



[quote][quote name='valkyrie_ice' post='395711' date='Mar 31 2010, 03:05 PM']Taxation is a price paid to enjoy the benefits we as a society have determined are needed for our societies well being.[/quote]

No, taxation is a compulsory price, decided by a small minority and accepted by the majority, to fund things that would be better produced in the free market. Just because you think taxation is used for good does not make the act of stealing morally right.

How is taxation different from a mafia moving next to your house and demanding protection money from you? What if they use some of that money for taking care of, say, old people? Does that make it good? What if 75% of the neighborhood accept the mafia taking your money, will you then accept it too as morally right? [/quote]

You are free to have whatever opinion you wish JLL, but the reality is these laws were passed because they were determined to be in the interest of the society precisely because the private sector FAILED to provide them.


[quote][quote name='valkyrie_ice' post='395711' date='Mar 31 2010, 03:05 PM']You can call it stealing all you want JLL. It's no different than paying for insurance, paying for a car, paying for earrings, or whatever.[/quote]

But it is different, in that I can choose whether I want to buy a car or not, but I cannot choose whether I want to pay taxes or not. Surely you see the difference. It's as if I was saying it's okay for me to keep your head underwater, because it's no different that you going for a swim. Yes, they both include water, but there is still a clear difference.[/quote]

You enjoy the benefits of a society JLL. Did those benefits simply appear out of thin air? Do they exist without that society to provide them? The Government became involved in Police and Fire because your system was tried, and FAILED BADLY, so badly in fact that the public demanded that it be removed from the private sector's control. When large cities burned because the fire departments were busier fighting each other than fires, the public decided enough was enough. While this may indeed have taken place before you were born, you have spent your entire life benefiting from that fact. The SOCIETY at that time decided that it was necessary to enact legislation which provided services to all members of society, paid for by a fee charged to each person. In that regard, it is EXACTLY the same as you paying for the service of car insurance, or paying for the service of receiving merchandise from a store, or the service of having someone come paint your house. You are paying for the services you benefit from simply by being a member of society. As those services are provided for you regardless of whether you "desire" them or not, you are obligated, just as everyone else in society is, to help pay for them. If you think you pay too much for them now, you truly do not want to see how much you would pay if that cost was not divided across the entirety of the population.


[quote][quote name='valkyrie_ice' post='395711' date='Mar 31 2010, 03:05 PM']If you wish to enjoy the benefits of police, fire, sewer, etc, it has to be paid for. And since you WILL benefit from these things REGARDLESS of if you claim you want them or not, it is your responsibility as a member of a society to contribute.[/quote]

Right, so if the mafia steals everybody's money and then uses 10% of the money to build a park that is free for everyone, it makes stealing okay? Because REGARDLESS of whether you claim you want the park or not, you will be able to benefit from it. [/quote]

But I did not vote to allow the mafia to tax me, now did I? We the people voted to accept the responsibility of paying for those services paid for with our taxes. And since We the People chose to assume the obligation, and because we live in a society in which every law is created via a process of voting, even if those votes are currently by proxy, and in which the voices of both the majority and minority are balanced as best as possible, even if you dislike a law that has been duly created via the voting process, as a member of our society you have obligation to obey that law. If you wish to change that law, you are free to initiate petitions, and attempt to persuade others to support you, and attempt to get your choice of law passed. None of those options exist with the Mafia.

#55 valkyrie_ice

  • Guest
  • 837 posts
  • 142
  • Location:Monteagle, TN

Posted 01 April 2010 - 10:12 PM

Because we as a society have determined that it is necessary, as a society, to provide our society with certain universal benefits and rights. As a member of that society it is our responsibility to contribute to the good of the whole. Stealing is me taking from you for MY PERSONAL BENEFIT. Taxation is a price paid to enjoy the benefits we as a society have determined are needed for our societies well being.

You can call it stealing all you want JLL. It's no different than paying for insurance, paying for a car, paying for earrings, or whatever. If you wish to enjoy the benefits of police, fire, sewer, etc, it has to be paid for. And since you WILL benefit from these things REGARDLESS of if you claim you want them or not, it is your responsibility as a member of a society to contribute.

If you don't want to benefit from living in a society, feel free to go find a private island and try to survive with out those benefits.


Funny you should bring up trying to survive on an island by yourself.

Stand on an empty stretch of soil in a wilderness unexplored by man and ask yourself what manner of survival you would achieve and how long you would last if you refused to think, with no one around to teach you the motions, or, if you chose to think, how much your mind would be able to discover - ask yourself how many independent conclusions you have reached in the course of your life and how much of your time was spent performing the actions you learned from others - ask yourself whether you would be able to discover how to till the sod and grow your food, whether you would be able to invent a wheel, a lever, an induction coil, a generator, an electronic tube - then decide whether men of ability are exploiters who live by the fruit of your labor and rob you of the wealth you produce, and whether you dare to believe that you possess the power to enslave them. Let your women take a look at the jungle female with her shriveled face and pendulous breasts, as she sits grinding meal in a bowl, hour after hour, century by century - then let them ask themselves whether their 'instinct of tool-making' will provide them with their electric refrigerators, their washing machines and vacuum cleaners [and everything else, like that healthcare you now declare is a right], and if not, whether they care to destroy those who provided it all, but not 'by instinct'.


- John Galt, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand


There is no thought you have, no idea you possess which was not provided to you by the society you exist in. No development in science or technology which was created in isolation from the benefits of a society. Nothing exists in a vacuum. As a member of a society, YOU ARE AS RESPONSIBLE TO THAT SOCIETY AS IT IS TO YOU. Period.

Does abuse exist? Yes. But that abuse will occur REGARDLESS OF THE SYSTEM. The entire process of Democracy it to MINIMIZE the abuse as much as it is possible. Fantasize as you will about "perfect capitalism" it DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE HUMAN NATURE WILL ALWAYS SEEK TO MAXIMIZE PERSONAL GAIN WITH MINIMAL RESPONSIBILITY.


You don't realize that there is a very real "John Galt effect", here's one recent example among many many others:

We reported in May that after passing a millionaire surtax nearly one-third of Maryland's millionaires had gone missing, thus contributing to a decline in state revenues. The politicians in Annapolis had said they'd collect $106 million by raising its income tax rate on millionaire households to 6.25% from 4.75%. In cities like Baltimore and Bethesda, which apply add-on income taxes, the top tax rate with the surcharge now reaches as high as 9.3%—fifth highest in the nation. Liberals said this was based on incomplete data and that rich Marylanders hadn't fled the state.

Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.


http://online.wsj.co...EditorialPage_h

Thank you for proving that it is human nature to maximize personal gain and minimize responsibility.



Believe as you will. Justify what you wish. The future is still going to occur. We are all part of the collective of society. So long as that is true, we will all be responsible to that society.


You don't get it. We are not whining and sniveling, we are merely trying to objectively explain to you the reality of the utter destruction that faces a society that goes down that path.


No. You fail to realize I am explaining objective reality, not ideological fantasies.

#56 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 02 April 2010 - 01:32 AM

There is no thought you have, no idea you possess which was not provided to you by the society you exist in. No development in science or technology which was created in isolation from the benefits of a society. Nothing exists in a vacuum. As a member of a society, YOU ARE AS RESPONSIBLE TO THAT SOCIETY AS IT IS TO YOU. Period.

Haha. Wow. This is like something straight out of a monologue of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead.

"Ellsworth... you're..."
"Insane? Afraid to say it? ... Look around you. Pick up any newspaper and read the headlines. Isn't it coming? Isn't it here? Every single thing I told you? Isn't Europe swallowed already and were stumbling on to follow? Everything I said is contained in a single word -- collectivism. And isn't that the god of our century?


Does abuse exist? Yes. But that abuse will occur REGARDLESS OF THE SYSTEM. The entire process of Democracy it to MINIMIZE the abuse as much as it is possible. Fantasize as you will about "perfect capitalism" it DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE HUMAN NATURE WILL ALWAYS SEEK TO MAXIMIZE PERSONAL GAIN WITH MINIMAL RESPONSIBILITY.


"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler


The ability to use a vote to wield the police power of government is what enables irresponsible people to abuse others.

We reported in May that after passing a millionaire surtax nearly one-third of Maryland's millionaires had gone missing, thus contributing to a decline in state revenues. The politicians in Annapolis had said they'd collect $106 million by raising its income tax rate on millionaire households to 6.25% from 4.75%. In cities like Baltimore and Bethesda, which apply add-on income taxes, the top tax rate with the surcharge now reaches as high as 9.3%—fifth highest in the nation. Liberals said this was based on incomplete data and that rich Marylanders hadn't fled the state.

Well, the state comptroller's office now has the final tax return data for 2008, the first year that the higher tax rates applied. The number of millionaire tax returns fell sharply to 5,529 from 7,898 in 2007, a 30% tumble. The taxes paid by rich filers fell by 22%, and instead of their payments increasing by $106 million, they fell by some $257 million.


http://online.wsj.co...EditorialPage_h

Thank you for proving that it is human nature to maximize personal gain and minimize responsibility.

Anybody that exercises an ounce of accountability with their money would find it insanely foolish to flush their charitable funds into the black hole of government. I'm sorry the concept doesn't fit your ideology, but there is such a thing as private charity: it is where individuals choose of their own volition to give their money to a specific organization that they can hold directly accountable, as opposed to a bloated, monolithic organization that uses the power of police and military force to seize the money from themselves and others, a system for which they can only hold a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction accountable through a single measly, diluted vote. The former method of private, voluntary charity is the obvious choice for any informed sane person that genuinely cares about society or responsibility.

Believe as you will. Justify what you wish. The future is still going to occur. We are all part of the collective of society. So long as that is true, we will all be responsible to that society.

You don't get it. We are not whining and sniveling, we are merely trying to objectively explain to you the reality of the utter destruction that faces a society that goes down that path.

If you like The Nanny State…if you like the results of the Michigan economy run by unions (the first state to hit 15% unemployment)…or WORSE the California economy…a state that has spent itself into oblivion, insolvency and bankruptcy…and you want to turn the whole of America into one big Michigan…or one big California…YOU MIGHT BE A SOCIALIST.

If you think government can save money on healthcare…even though the exact same people that run government have brought you an almost $2 Trillion dollar deficit…and almost $100 Trillion in debt…almost double world GDP (all the money made in the world each year)…and despite the fact that government loses money in every department and every agency, at every level, every year since inception…YOU MIGHT BE A SOCIALIST.

… and you're definitely an IDIOT.


No. You fail to realize I am explaining objective reality, not ideological fantasies.

Which was the ideological fantasy? The absurd, impossible level of debt the United States has incurred as a result of its corrupted, broken government social programs? Or the impending failure of California for the same reasons? If you would like to debate these facts, well knock yourself out. I would advise doing some research on your own before you start if you are in fact uninformed as I don't really have the time to inform you. For starters the US has 56 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in the Social Security program alone-- a program which is already THIS YEAR paying out more than it takes in taxes-- and most of the rest of those liabilities are coming due in the next few years as the Baby boomers retire. The US is obviously coming to a crashing end if it continues under these policies and debts and yet you advocate *increasing* the size and scope and debt of government social programs -- that reasoning completely validates my point I keep quoting from Ayn Rand... "Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out"

Edited by RighteousReason, 02 April 2010 - 02:01 AM.


#57 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 02 April 2010 - 10:50 AM

Which was the ideological fantasy? The absurd, impossible level of debt the United States has incurred as a result of its corrupted, broken government social programs? Or the impending failure of California for the same reasons? If you would like to debate these facts, well knock yourself out. I would advise doing some research on your own before you start if you are in fact uninformed as I don't really have the time to inform you. For starters the US has 56 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in the Social Security program alone-- a program which is already THIS YEAR paying out more than it takes in taxes-- and most of the rest of those liabilities are coming due in the next few years as the Baby boomers retire. The US is obviously coming to a crashing end if it continues under these policies and debts and yet you advocate *increasing* the size and scope and debt of government social programs -- that reasoning completely validates my point I keep quoting from Ayn Rand... "Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out"


What the government gives, it can take away.

Entitlements are *not* guarantees. You cannot bank on what the government promises, especially one with 56 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in the Social Security program alone.

For example, this *supposed* healthcare bill that was passed includes huge cuts in medicare funding.

http://riffenberg.wo...-medicare-cuts/

Democrats Refuse to Rescind 500 Billion in Medicare Cuts

Democrats will transfer the 500 Billion in cuts to Medicaid.

Citizens receiving Medicare have paid into Medicare all of their life. Removing 500 billion dollars seems like theft to me.

In Sept.,the Democratic congress approved a plan to cut $16 billion Medicare financed nursing home care over the next 10 years. The new Obama care health plan will cut an additional $32 billion over the next ten years from Medicare financed nursing homes. Hundreds, maybe thousands of nursing homes across the nation are expected to close.
The 500 Billion-Dollar Cut in Medicare in the health care plan will be used for Medicaid.




In addition, the United States' political system is now based on candidates getting massive campaign financing by huge, multinational corporations.

For example, do you know this this *supposed* healthcare bill that was passed is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009?

"Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill”

http://fdlaction.fir...alth-care-bill/

This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.

The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint VP. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.


Edited by bobdrake12, 02 April 2010 - 10:52 AM.


#58 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 02 April 2010 - 11:00 AM

Get over it. Universal Healthcare is coming. The entire rest of the civilized world has it. We will as well within 10 years. That's not a political statement, it's just what I foresee happening based on current technological, social, and political trends.


This is a universal health care bill?

http://fdlaction.fir...alth-care-bill/

The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance.

Per the CBO:

•Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million
Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24 million (44%)



#59 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 02 April 2010 - 11:12 AM

Equality before the law means EXACTLY THAT. NO-ONE HAS PRIVILEGED STATUS.



This would be NICE, but that is not how the system works in the United States.

For example, this *supposed* healthcare bill that was passed has exemptions for the elite.

http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=36174

President Barack Obama signed the Senate health care bill into law yesterday that will exempt the President, his cabinet secretaries and special congressional staff members from participation in the new government-run health care “exchanges.”

Rank-and-file House and Senate staffers will be forced out of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) and into the restricted federal health insurance exchanges, but not the leadership or committee congressional staff or the federal civil service bureaucrats who will be making your health care decisions for you.



#60 bobdrake12

  • Guest
  • 1,423 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 02 April 2010 - 11:23 AM

As a member of a society, YOU ARE AS RESPONSIBLE TO THAT SOCIETY AS IT IS TO YOU. Period.


This *supposed* healthcare bill that was passed was sold on the following premise: "You can keep the insurance you have if you like it."

But that claim is untrue in certain instances.

http://fdlaction.fir...alth-care-bill/

The excise tax will result in employers switching to
plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered
services.


Older, less healthy employees with employer-based
health care will be forced to pay much more in out-ofpocket
expenses than they do now.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)