Blog Comments

  1. ProIndividual's Avatar
    SV,

    I left you a longwinded (my usual) post in the forum thread you started to accompany this blog. I hope you'll read it, especially the parts about the SLOET and PLC, and tell me what you think, either publically or in a PM.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5395391
    Updated 02-10-2014 at 01:18 PM by ProIndividual
  2. Sentient Void's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx
    You haven't demonstrated that the violation of the NAP was right only that the father would feel justified. Those two aren't the same thing.
    This misses the point. While I might argue that he would be 'right' based on his own morals and values, specifically the survival and protection of his family above all else, that is not what I set out to do.

    What I set out to do is simply show that the strong tendency for far too many libertarians to say that the NAP should never, ever be violated, no matter what, doesn't make much sense in reality, and that most likely, the vast majority of people claiming as such are also hypocrites. Given this actual situation, I think most libertarians (since I don't think they are actually insane or irrational, but rather some of the most sane and rational people out there) *would* violate the NAP.
  3. WM_in_MO's Avatar
    Excellent read. thanks for sharing.

    I'll study this and maybe it will prove useful in future arguments
  4. PierzStyx's Avatar
    You haven't demonstrated that the violation of the NAP was [I]right[/I] only that the father would feel justified. Those two aren't the same thing.
  5. Occam's Banana's Avatar
    I responded to your post about this on the general forums here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5388411

    So I'll just repeat here what I said there ...

    I didn't vote in the poll because I pretty much already agree with everything you said - though I would phrase & frame things somewhat differently. My main quibble is that I would NOT say that the NAP itself is flawed - rather, all too often, the way it is employed is flawed.

    The NAP may be primarily a prioristic in its (theoretical) derivation, but it should (and must) be primarily a posterioristic in its (practical) application.

    The "posterior" application of the NAP is of vastly overwhelming importance and significance, because there will always be two broad groups of people. First, there will be people who reject the NAP altogether & outright (for whatever reason - because they disagree with it philosophically, or because they are sociopaths, or etc.). Second, there will be people who accept the NAP but violate it anyway (again, for whatever reason - because they succumb to temptation, or because they find themselves in a "lifeboat" situation in which no outcome satisfies both our sympathies and the NAP, or etc.).

    The "anterior" use of the NAP as a "rule of thumb" (or as you call it, a "maxim") for guiding & informing our actions before we act - especially in our routine, day-to-day lives - is invaluable. But I contend that that is NOT the NAP's actual, correct or true purpose. The actual, correct and true purpose of the NAP is to tell us whether what we have done is jurisprudentially actionable after we have done it.

    As I said in a previous response to you on this subject in another thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sentient Void View Post
    [lots of good sense snipped for space]
    I agree completely. In place of your pharmacy example, I've always used this scenario: imagine you're lost & freezing in a blizzard and you stumble across a cabin (or some other kind of shelter). The owner, who is present, is an elderly person who is unduly afraid of you & refuses to assist. What do you do? Do you say, "Oh, well! The NAP forbids me to forcibly tresspass, so I'll just wander off & die" ... ?

    NAP is an a posteriori (or "post-emptive") razor that absolutely determines whether some (previously committed) action is a suitable candidate for jurisprudential consideration.

    NAP is NOT an a priori (or "pre-emptive") razor that absolutely determines whether some (as yet uncommitted) action must *never* be committed. (Though it can often serve as a general guide or rule-of-thumb in this regard - especially under mundane circumstances or in situations that are not "edge cases.")

    Also important to remember is the fact that NAP doesn't tell us anything about *what* we ought (or ought not) to do in response to NAP violations. Other valid principles of justice (such as that of restitution) are required for that purpose.
    And my reply to a follow-up question in the same thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntary Man View Post
    I'm wondering how your story ends. in my version, trespasser is shot by frightened, elderly property owner. how does your version end?
    My version doesn't have an ending ... it's a cliffhanger!

    Seriously, though, I leave the story unfinished in order to suggest numerous possible outcomes. There's the "I'll go way and die" outcome, or the "I kill the resident to save myself" outcome, or the "I tresspass by sneaking into the barn" outcome, or... (and so forth).

    The point is that, for one reason or another, *none* of the possible outcomes (given the situation) are entirely satisfactory. This indicates that the NAP, as critically important as it is, is not the "end-all-be-all" that many make it out to be. This isn't due to any flaw or inadequacy in the NAP - it's due to attempts to force the NAP to give us neat, tidy answers where no such answers are possible (under *any* principle of justice).
  6. darkstar725's Avatar
    Thanks for sharing.
  7. Sentient Void's Avatar
    Many years ago I and the person I was with at the time had an abortion in the mid to late first trimester. I did not fully realize what it was we were doing or asking to have done, until it was too late and the act was finished. After it was clear what had just taken place - that I had just killed a perfectly healthy child, my own child, someone who was a part of me and that I was a part of - I became utterly sick to my stomach and had to rush to the bathroom in the hospital where I vomited over and over again. I came out and tried to act as if nothing was wrong. As we started to walk out to leave, nurses on the way out said I 'looked green' and asked if I was okay. I started to faint and collapsed on the ground and needed to be woken up with with smelling salts. As we finally left, I came to the full realization of what we had just done and it made me mentally, physically, utterly sick to my *core*. To this day I am haunted by that event and what I had done. It is a regret that I will live with for my entire life, and it leaves part of me permanently empty with a dark, painful void that can never be filled.

    But it doesn't end there. What would this person have been like? What smiles have I missed? What lifetime of experience for myself and this person did my decision result in cutting short? I have a healthy, beautiful daughter, now. I love her more than anything in this world and she gives special meaning to my existence. But I still horribly regret that past decision. If we did not do what we did, she would not be here nor would I likely be with the person who has made me unbelievably happy and who has given me this child. On top of this incurable pain and being haunted by that event, my happy life has now been put into question as well and I am left in an extremely awkward position behind the happiness of what is vs the horrible decision and experience that was a pathway towards my current life.

    I deserve all of this and would have none of this painful experience removed even if I could. I will hold on to that pain because it's all that I have for that unborn child. It is something I must endure, lest I diminish the gravity of the choices I have made and the consequences I must now live with.

    For anyone thinking about aborting a perfectly healthy child or encourages others to consider it as an option, please - please reconsider.
    Updated 08-01-2013 at 09:48 PM by Sentient Void
  8. Neil Desmond's Avatar
    Hello. This is my first post on this forum. I'm trying to understand this argument which is essentially the "economic calculation problem." What is so difficult about, for example, having automation produce apples or oranges, counting (with a simple sensor) how many are consumed each week, month, day, instant - whatever, storing that information in a database, and increasing or decreasing the number of apple trees or orange trees that are planted based on that information alone?

    For today's society, I believe that free-market capitalism is better than central planning or state-regulated "capitalism" (if you want to call it that), but I also believe that once we achieve enough advances in automation technology (the hardware and mechanism side of things; I think we've surpassed the information storage and processing threshold) a post-scarcity society will spawn and the need for trade and money will become obsolete. The quality of life and standard of living for both rich and poor will go up, and crime (about 99% of which is based on trade/money/scarcity) will practically vanish. Banks, insurance companies, certain parts of the government, and many other entities are overhead that can be eliminated. To me this overhead is a more complicated web of information gathering, storing, processing, and transferring than what would be necessary for a post-scarcity society.

    I'm a Libertarian and advocate of Ron Paul, because with less government in the way (which is what he's offering) and more room and freedom for people to be innovative (which is what I want to be - I have some patents for automation), we'll probably be able to get to that post-scarcity society sooner rather than later.

    What do you think?
  9. nobody's Avatar
    Your post should read ; Sietgest. Besides any other administrating from other than one person is COLLECTIVISM. ALL and/or any portion of humanity is guilty of same. Even the chosen people. They answer to one.
    SO, you must ask what is in the Collective for me, because YOU are not, "the one".
    Updated 04-06-2012 at 11:47 AM by nobody
  10. nobody's Avatar
    PROGRESSIVE people? They usually are also called LIBERAL. Regulation is an oxymoron to a Liberal minded person.
    PROGRESSIVES are actually of the Conservative mind. They LOVE to regulate others. Regulation is not Liberality.
    Updated 03-28-2012 at 02:35 PM by nobody
  11. WurmD's Avatar
    You are funny! ^_^ It even seems to me that you made an effort to be funny on purpose ^_^!

    How I Imagine the required assessment of demands of individuals: Every buy/order information being logged and accessible to the production sector (pretty much what already happens today when you go to Walmart; but scaled up)
  12. Wesker1982's Avatar
    Great post.

    Of course, some try to make the claim that it is *because of* the interventions of the TSA, DHS, and other alphabet soup agencies of our 'federal' government, that we haven't had any major terrorist attacks in the first place.
    I saw a Reason video on youtube where they point out that in order to justify the amount of money they spend, they would have to stop three major terror plots on U.S. soil.... a day. I would like to see someone claim that without this money spent, that there would be 3 major attacks a day. LOL.
  13. Travlyr's Avatar
    Well said, Sentient Void, damn well said! It is 2011 when the establishment got the memo. From now on, we'll be separating the wheat from the chaff. It's time to chose sides ... liberty or tyranny?

    No One But Paul
  14. Anti Federalist's Avatar
    No One But Paul
  15. therepublic's Avatar
    In the beginning the Tea Party blogs were unusually cordial, and I recall people hear calling for more kindness so as not to run off potential Ron Paul supporters. Well you have become kinder, while the Tea Party, which has been co-opted by the GO,P has become quite nasty. They do us a favor, because their numbers are shrinking while our numbers are growing.

    During the last debate, I noticed even Bachmann was sounding more like the establishment when she indicated the Constitution was not written for the modern times of terrorism, and the internet.
    Updated 11-24-2011 at 09:20 AM by therepublic
  16. republicanmother's Avatar
    Tremendously great points. I've used that John Adams quote in describing this phenomenon of no compromise entitled "Revenge of the Nerds".
    That Ayn Rand quote is an excellent one to use on the "lesser of two evils" wimps.
  17. scrosnoe's Avatar
    Love it!
  18. Cleaner44's Avatar
    Very nice... No One But PAUL!
  19. DizziNY's Avatar
    Ayn Rand is not a Libertarian, she is eugenicist and NO Libertarian is a eugenicist. Alice Copper is a conservative Republican.
  20. Sentient Void's Avatar
    Very nice! I just heard the interview with him saying he's a libertarian. I'm a *huge* Disturbed fan.

    It seems some small-govt libertarians voted for Obama because they couldn't possibly conceive how he would continue or even expand the policies under Bush. He talked about many positions on civil liberties that libertarians would approve of - obviously his actions haven't met with his rhetoric. A lesser of two evils vote, if you will (although I will vote third party from now on if someone like RP or Gary Johnson isn't chosen by the GOP).

    TBH - during the 2008 election when it started, I supported Ron Paul first and Obama as a second best. Never again. My philosophical position on liberty has also become more philosophically radicalized since then as well (since I'm a free market anarchist now).

    So, with that all being said, I won't hold it against him.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast