Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 112

Thread: Questioning Some Libertarian Sacred Cows

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Here's the issue though. Suppose 1000 hippies get together, buy up a bunch of land, and set up a commune. They structure it as a corporation where each member has 1 share, and no one can sell his share without the consent of all other shareholders. This is all voluntary, but it's still a problem. If, after a few years, 999 of the hippies realize, "hey, this communism stuff doesn't really work, we're all starving, I want out" but 1 deranged hippy remains devoted to the communist idea, and refuses to let the others sell their shares, we're stuck.
    Your reasoning fails here in that it ignores the onus of responsibility of each member to exercise all good intelligence and discretion prior to signing on the dotted line. If a man is not going to employ basic sense in such situations, then he has no basis for complaint when things go south.

    By this logic, nobody is responsible for any of the cretinous arrangements into which he carelessly enters. Another possible path your logic can take leads to the justification of banning all contracts because of what may happen. Life is risk. Business is risk. People enter into arrangements always at some risk. People are responsible for their choices. If they make the wrong choice, all else equal, the onus of the results is on them.

    Nobody with the least shred of sense of going to enter into an agreement such as you specify in this hypothetical.

    but the land owned by the commune is now unavailable for productive use. The 1 lingering pinko can keep that land pertinently off-line, wasted.
    So? First of all, you presume too much WRT the notion of "productive use", or at least fail to give a good account of what you mean by it. In any case, it matters no whit because the single hold-out might have a very different idea of what constitutes "productive".

    At the bottom of all this lies individual responsibility. If one is going to act foolhardily, he must live with the consequences.

    On a small enough scale, this isn't really a big deal. But it's conceivable, however unlikely, that is could happen on a very large scale. Suppose an entire state were turned into a commune of this kind.
    You are engaging in highly flawed what-iffery. Keeping things real, what is the likelihood that an entire state would go commie such that in so doing they have violated nobody's rights? That would be just short of zero. It is the nature of populations to cleave to a mean and a distribution, which implies variance. No matter how right the Gaussian, there will virtually always be differences of opinion on any given question, meaning that there would always be some number of people saying "no" to communism, further implying that any move toward that wretched arrangement would of necessity come about through the violation of someone's rights. At that point, all bets are off and I fully support the right of the minority to murder as many of the majority they can until either they are themselves killed off, the commie wannabes reconsider, or they are killed off to the man.

    I understand that you likely chose this extreme example to illustrate a point, but caution against using such cases before giving them their due consideration and always bear in mind how such things work out in real like, nearly universally.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    If folks want to live like commie hippes on their property, it's none of my business.

    ...As long as they leave Suzanistanians alone, it's all good.
    So, for instance, if 99.999999% of the planet is a communist hellhole, but your own small parcel is left alone, this is fine with you?



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    So, for instance, if 99.999999% of the planet is a communist hellhole, but your own small parcel is left alone, this is fine with you?
    Yes. Would you not be?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Yes. Would you not be?
    No, I'm interested in the well-being of society at large.

    Let me try another hypothetical:

    Suppose the federal government passes a law exempting you from all others laws. You are completely free and can do whatever you want.

    ...would you not still care about everyone else out there, still suffering?

  7. #35
    @osan

    Suppose every landowner on the planet entered into a contract such as I've described, creating a permanent world communist state.

    Would you think this is fine, because it came about voluntarily?

    Or would you think it a problem, because of its terrible practical consequences (e.g. extreme poverty)?

    In other words, I'm asking whether you care about consequences at all, or are a pure deontologist.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Yes. Would you not be?
    Of course. It's counter-revolutionary.
    Also, in the interest of the "well-being of society at large", they'd probably invade to keep you from prancing about in your wonder woman costume.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    No, I'm interested in the well-being of society at large.

    Let me try another hypothetical:

    Suppose the federal government passes a law exempting you from all others laws. You are completely free and can do whatever you want.

    ...would you not still care about everyone else out there, still suffering?
    If the federal government exempted me from all laws, I would declare myself queen and dismantle it. Welcome to Suzanistan.

    Would I care? Absolutely. I care about the people living in the commie hellholes. Hell, I even care about the dumb ass commie hippies BUT it's not my place to tell them how to live - if that's how they choose. If it's not, I would welcome them into Suzanistan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Of course. It's counter-revolutionary.
    Also, in the interest of the "well-being of society at large", they'd probably invade to keep you from prancing about in your wonder woman costume.
    You're one to talk. Good luck keeping otheroneistan from being invaded...

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    me too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep another alive.
    Killing is fine. Murder is the prohibited case.


    but from an aviation law perspective?
    Can a man be credibly looked upon as an aircraft?

    It could be argued that a flag pole hanger creates an "admiralty" situation; "duty to allow disembarkation"
    I hope you are kidding.

    Block's stance tends too much toward "zong massacre" for my liking; slave jettison
    "Zong massacre"?

    If a hot air balloon operator has equipment failure can you shoot him down and dead before he lands within the survey stakes of your land?
    I would tend to say "no" prior to landing. After the fact, you betcha. I am under no obligation to assume anything regarding the circumstance and intent behind the landing. Such assumptions are how plenty of people lose their lives. Serial killers, for example, often succeed in their perfidies because their victims assumed wrongly about the intentions of the charming stranger before them.

    It's a dangerous world, full of collisions. Most people do not want the responsibilities of negotiating life in such a world, and therefore try to comfort themselves with a raft of impossibly unsound legal requirements imposed upon people in restriction of their rightful prerogatives to act. "Proportionate response" is a prime example. A stranger approaches and begins yelling how he is going to kill you with the arnis cane in his hand. There are those who believe you have no just basis for drawing a pistol and shooting the ghost from that person's carcass. Those people are dangerously wrong; they are deranged and without clue as to the nature of combat. They think that because an arnis cane is rattan, that it is "less deadly" than a gun. I could introduce them to people capable of killing them with a single blow with such a cane.

    Our criminal statutes are hopelessly polluted with the perhaps well-intended stoogery of people wholly unqualified to draft such legislation.

    I think in both instances I'd advocate for admiralty (aviation) law, not property law to govern the situation; a flag pole hanger or falling balloon operator then being then within the realm of "right to egress" of an "outlander"
    How about Law based on the principles of proper human relations, which one might call "Natural Law"?

    Most people are pretty reasonable, sometimes to a dangerous fault. Few are going to demand the flagpole hanger drop to his death, though some might. Few are going to start shooting once the hot air balloon alights in the front pasture. Therefore these hopelessly extreme examples tend to serve no good purpose in terms of choosing which principles to accept as Law.

    I would also point out that the proper principles and the Law that derive therefrom carry with them the potential for terrible things. This cannot be escaped, yet people attempt to escape them always, much to the decay of the general living conditions. Once again we see that people want something for nothing. They want the benefits of freedom without having bear any of its burdens. This, I am sad to tell you, is pure impossibility for the one cannot be without the other. Without Nildor, there is no Sulidor. Without Sulidor, there is no Nildor. Yin exists only through the existence of Yang, and verse vice-a.

    When I was learning to fly, my instructor always had me doing emergency procedures and usually going through open-field landings until I was just about to flare, at which point he always told me to gun it and get the hell out of there. I never once concerned myself with the possibility of someone running from the barn, machinegun in hand, hammering away at us until all were Swiss cheese and quite thoroughly dead. I acknowledge it is a possibility, however endlessly remote, but I have yet to meet another human being who has given me any indication of such inclinations, and I can tell you that I have trucked with some very "interesting" personalities in my time, several of them more frightening than anything else.

    while you can ask a trespasser to leave (without his stuff mind you); I don't believe one can ask a trespasser to leap to his death in order to do so
    The point you make is certainly very compelling from the standpoint of pure, raw emotion. But if we stick very strictly to principle, it fails. And again I nauseate with repetition of the fact that nary a soul walking the planet is likely to do such a thing. But if they did, IMO they would be within their rights, even if I felt they were stretching things a mite.

    We are not going to like all of the results implied by the state of proper human freedom. But we have to stick with them or we are no longer free, but rather only the denizens of pretty slavery. As I always mention: freedom's coin is pretty on only one side, the other filled with responsibility, accountability, and vast potential for all manner of horror. Brave, decent, and good people accept this and find there to be little to no hazard in real practice. Most of the time that which appears criminal in the acts of others in indeed just that. Those cases where some apparently horrific result precipitates as the consequence of someone exercising their rights in what appears an "overly strict" manner need to be examined from all sides of possible perception. As the Block article noted, the woman with the man on the flagpole may have no idea who he is or what his intentions are. She may, as noted, been a rape victim and very afraid of strangers. In the case where she shoots the ghost from his carcass, we may only be able to say that it was a tragic occurrence, the fault of neither party. $#@! happens.

    What, for example, does one do with a pilot whose aircraft crashes into a house, killing the occupants, yet he survives? Do we send him to the gas chamber or hand him a 20 year term in prison? In the absence of extenuating circumstances, I would hope not. $#@! happens. Life is risky. Freemen understand and accept this. In so accepting, I assure everyone that the world would not fall into chaos. Quite to the contrary, I have found that history illustrates that it is government and the endless idiocy it brings to people lives that precipitates the chaos perhaps 99.999% of the time.

    Most people may be disgustingly stoopid, lazy, and corrupted, but they tend to also be peaceful in the extreme. Whence warfare, other than "government"? I can think of but a small proportion of cases where "government" was not the perpetrator in one way or another. Even the Whiskey Rebellion had "government" to thank for its eruption. People don't like being messed with.

    but there is a fine line here; if the window was closed need you necessarily exert yourself to officiously open it? I think not.
    The line is bright and clear. Some attempt to say otherwise precisely due to their desire to avoid the costs of freedom, which at times includes tragedy. And of course the tragedies of life, speaking generally, can never be avoided. In enacting legislation to protect the flagpole hanger, for example, other tragedies arise, not the least of which is the violation of men's rights, but more specifically those that occur in place of those avoided because the restrictions imposed upon rightful human action leads to them. What happens when the hanger turns out to be a serial rapist and the poor woman in question, fearing for the destruction the state threatens to heap upon her life through the courts, hesitates and ends up raped, cut to pieces, cooked, and eaten, not necessarily in that order? When such questions are raised with legislators and other state stooges, the answer is either "those are the unfortunate risks and must be accepted in a land under rule of law" (same essential argument as mine, BTW), or "because $#@! you", the latter by far being the more common response.


    Until one accepts the potential for tragic results, he cannot credibly claim to be an advocate of freedom, for that state is an all-or-nothing deal. There are no degrees of freedom, but only of servitude. It is the nature of things. Degrees of Freedom
    Last edited by osan; 03-04-2017 at 06:52 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    So, for instance, if 99.999999% of the planet is a communist hellhole, but your own small parcel is left alone, this is fine with you?
    that black market profit tho

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...




  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    BUT it's not my place to tell them how to live - if that's how they choose.
    You're opposed to forcing people to do/not do things in all circumstances?

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    You're one to talk. Good luck keeping otheroneistan from being invaded...
    TRY IT.
    I got them fancy bracelets, bitches.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    You're opposed to forcing people to do/not do things in all circumstances?
    Of course not. I force my will on people everyday. Mr Animal and my kids will attest to that. I don't believe I have the right to come to your house and force my will on Mrs./Mr. MallsRGood and your family, though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Can a man be credibly looked upon as an aircraft?
    what if he was wearing a wing suit?



    I hope you are kidding.
    no quite serious; in essence we have bitch on the flag pole aboard the Master's ship



    "Zong massacre"?
    1781; the act of jettisoning slaves in lieu of "more valuable cargo"; a metaphor
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zong_massacre


    How about Law based on the principles of proper human relations, which one might call "Natural Law"?
    sure but therein you'll have to look at the apprehensions of the property owner. Does he fear the pirate? Or does he see the blameless neighbor in distress? And if he sees the blameless neighbor in distress; apprehends a ward in his care... and thereafter closes the window... is that a crime of omission?

    Most people are pretty reasonable, sometimes to a dangerous fault. Few are going to demand the flagpole hanger drop to his death, though some might. Few are going to start shooting once the hot air balloon alights in the front pasture. Therefore these hopelessly extreme examples tend to serve no good purpose in terms of choosing which principles to accept as Law.
    They're not necessarily that extreme; as I said... last year a hang glider landed about 200 feet from my front door in the cow field; these things indeed happen.

    I think the flag pole situation adds an interesting slant in that not only are we discussing one's "land" but the curtilage of one's inner home.
    Last edited by presence; 03-04-2017 at 07:09 PM.

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    I don't believe I have the right to come to your house and force my will on Mrs./Mr. MallsRGood and your family, though.
    Someone comes to what you call your house. You use force to keep him out. You are forcing your will on this person. Property presupposes force. Note, that's not a criticism of property. My point is that it's not as if I'm for "forcing my will on people" and you're not. We both are. Everyone (except honest to God pacifists) is for forcing their will on people. The question is what we want to force others to do/not do.

    Taking it back to the commie corporation....

    You're suggesting that the 1 should be able to forcibly prevent anyone else in the world from making productive use of the property. I'm suggesting the 1000 should be forcibly preventing from making this type of contract in the first place. We're both advocating the use of force, just in different ways. How do we decide which way is better? I say, by looking at the practical consequences; the consequence of mine is to avoid the commie hellhole scenario.
    Last edited by MallsRGood; 03-04-2017 at 07:05 PM.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Someone comes to what you call your house. You use force to keep him out. You are forcing your will on this person. Property presupposes force. Note, that's not a criticism of property. My point is that it's not as if I'm for "forcing my will on people" and you're not. We both are. Everyone (except honest to God pacifists) is for forcing their will on people. The question is what we want to force others to do/not do.

    Taking it back to the commie corporation....

    You're suggesting that the 1 should able to force the other 999 not to sell their shares. I'm suggesting the 1000 should be forced not to make the contract in the first place. We're both advocating the use of force, just in different ways. How do we decide which way is better? I say, by looking at the practical consequences; the consequence of mine is to avoid the commie hellhole scenario.
    But the 1000 weren't forced to sign the contract.

    Sorry, I misread what you wrote there. I'm working without my glasses.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    In enacting legislation to protect the flagpole hanger, for example, other tragedies arise, not the least of which is the violation of men's rights, but more specifically those that occur in place of those avoided because the restrictions imposed upon rightful human action leads to them.
    rest assured I'm never calling for more legislation




    What happens when the hanger turns out to be a serial rapist and the poor woman in question, fearing for the destruction the state threatens to heap upon her life through the courts, hesitates and ends up raped, cut to pieces, cooked, and eaten, not necessarily in that order?
    I think this is where men rea really comes in call. What does that victim of the flag pole hanger perceive? Hey that's fat Sally from the 25th floor... I knew her drunk ass would fall off the rail eventually. Now do I owe something to fat drunk, known to be harmless, Sally? Am I at least obliged to not close the window when I no longer perceive threat?

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Someone comes to what you call your house. You use force to keep him out. You are forcing your will on this person. Property presupposes force. Note, that's not a criticism of property. My point is that it's not as if I'm for "forcing my will on people" and you're not. We both are. Everyone (except honest to God pacifists) is for forcing their will on people. The question is what we want to force others to do/not do.

    Taking it back to the commie corporation....

    You're suggesting that the 1 should be able to forcibly prevent anyone else in the world from making productive use of the property. I'm suggesting the 1000 should be forcibly preventing from making this type of contract in the first place. We're both advocating the use of force, just in different ways. How do we decide which way is better? I say, by looking at the practical consequences; the consequence of mine is to avoid the commie hellhole scenario.
    That escalated quickly. Do you really believe it's possible, after seeing what the commie hippy island turns into, that more people would voluntarily enter into such agreements?

    You're talking about protecting people from making bad choices and I get that but where does it end? At what point do you become what you despise?
    Last edited by Suzanimal; 03-04-2017 at 07:16 PM. Reason: found my glasses :)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    Walter Block advocated for the right to execute at flag pole hanger attempting to enter your apartment on property rights grounds.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/02/...for-the-state/
    Well, there's a shocker. And Walter always seems so sensible..
    "The Patriarch"

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    That escalated quickly. Do you really believe it's possible, after seeing what the commie hippy island turns into, that more people would voluntarily enter into such agreements?
    If no one would ever enter into such contracts, then what's the harm in banning them?

    You're talking about protecting people from making bad choices and I get that but where does it end? At what point do you become what you despise?
    I'm talking about enforcing a set of rules governing property rights, which are specifically designed to lead to the best results.

    This is what we're all doing.

    Each of us has set some of principles which we want to enforce on others, because we think it would be best for them.

    That's what ethics is.
    Last edited by MallsRGood; 03-04-2017 at 07:25 PM.

  25. #51
    it is undoubtedly the moral duty of every person to extend to others assistance when in danger;
    and if such efforts should be omitted by any one when they could be made without imperiling his own life,
    he would, by his conduct, draw upon himself the just censure and reproach of good men;
    but this is the only punishment to which he would be subjected by society
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ty-to-Act-quot

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    If no one would ever enter into such contracts, then what's the harm in banning them?
    If no one would ever enter into such contracts, why bother banning them?


    I'm talking about enforcing a set of rules governing property rights, which are specifically designed to lead to the best results.
    For who? Everyone? That's impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  27. #53
    That's not quite the same thing though.

    Refusing to help the flagpole guy climb into the window isn't the same as actively pushing him (to his death) off the flagpole.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    @osan

    Suppose every landowner on the planet entered into a contract such as I've described, creating a permanent world communist state.
    Suppose my dick expanded slightly to 300 miles long and 70 wide...

    We really should keep things plausible. The world cannot agree on the most basic points, how are they all going to agree to such a thing as this?

    I would also point out that even if it came to such a pass, it could only do so through the violation of human rights on a massive scale. To wit: just because someone rents your third floor apartment, it does not follow that as part of the lease agreement that you can demand they waive their basic rights. You could not, as a land owner, demand they sever the pinky of their dominant hand so you can wear it on a necklace. You cannot, as landlord, demand the tenant let you into his house, raid his refrigerator, and screw his daughter. I'm sure you get the point.

    Similarly, landowners are not the only people with rights. If landowners all decided to go pink, it would not follow that the non-landowning people were obliged to follow suit.

    Would you think this is fine, because it came about voluntarily?
    It would not come about, so there is really no need to think about it. There are other, far more real and immediately threatening realities out there.

    Or would you think it a problem, because of its terrible practical consequences (e.g. extreme poverty)?
    You have taken a virtually impossible scenario and ask me to consider the practical consequences? That is something of humorous in the irony.

    In other words, I'm asking whether you care about consequences at all, or are a pure deontologist.
    False dichotomy, one explicit and at least one implied.

    Firstly, one is not perforce to be torn between consequence and duty because the two are not mutually exclusive.

    Secondly, one is not perforce to be torn between the various forms of authority precisely because they are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a general way.

    I have a demonstrable duty not to unjustly violate my fellows. It is PRECISELY because of the consequences that I adhere to that duty.

    Things are not quite so simple as you appear to take them, and they are not so mutually antagonistic as your words seem to imply. The facets of human relations are manifold and provide for many valid possibilities, including epistemic authority of sorts. That woman with the flagpole hanger - she is well within her natural right to shoot the hanger from the pole, but is under no obligation to do so. She might exercise restraint beyond that required for any of a fair number of possible reasons. That simple example alone offers a rich field of possibilities, each with potential benefits, as well as risks and accountabilities.

    You seem to be of a common mindset that seeks what I can only characterize as a distorted vision of perfection in human affairs. The ONLY perfect arrangement is true and proper freedom. Anything else is sub-optimum and can lead only to trouble, sooner or later. Chaining humanity "for its own good" has been the wellspring of poverty, disease, death, destruction, and endless suffering and overall misery among the members of the human family. Until we as a species come to recognize and accept this in sufficient measure, the only place we shall be heading is ever downward into the pit of hell. Thus far, I see no indication of the much needed changes and that makes me endlessly sad because I love my daughters and rue the world in which they will grow old and have to watch their children come up. This world of humanity is a travesty and perversion of everything that is right and decent in men. That we do not arise and slit the throats of every tyrant on the planet is our deepest shame.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    If no one would ever enter into such contracts, why bother banning them?
    I think people would enter into these kids of contracts.

    ...not often, and not on a large enough scale to matter all that much, but it's still a problem, and one that's easily solved.

    For who? Everyone? That's impossible.
    Yes, it's impossible to achieve a result that's ideal for everyone, since people want different things.

    That doesn't mean we can't form some clear idea of what's "best for society."

    We all have such an idea, I do, you do, everyone who claims they don't does.

  30. #56
    @osan

    You're refusal to respond to the hypothetical is itself a telling response.

    Obviously, you don't fancy the idea of world communism, even it came about by voluntary means.

    Yet you don't want to deal with this conflict between theory and practice.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Also, in the interest of the "well-being of society at large", they'd probably invade to keep you from prancing about in your wonder woman costume.

    Now you got me twitching.

    Bastard.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    I think people would enter into these kids of contracts.

    ...not often, and not on a large enough scale to matter all that much, but it's still a problem, and one that's easily solved.

    That's a slippery slope.


    Yes, it's impossible to achieve a result that's ideal for everyone, since people want different things.

    That doesn't mean we can't form some clear idea of what's "best for society."

    We all have such an idea, I do, you do, everyone who claims they don't does.
    I absolutely do. I just don't care to force my peaceful ways on others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  34. #59
    @Suzanimal

    On a related note, I'm curious what you think of voluntary slavery.

    If you oppose it, how do you justify that exception to freedom of contract?

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    I absolutely do. I just don't care to force my peaceful ways on others.
    O, but you do.

    We all do.

    The only different is in what we want to force people to do/not do.

    ...not that it's a big difference, I presume we're in agreement on the other 99.999% of topics beyond this esoteric one we're discussing.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Cows Eat What?! 6 Surprising Things Fed to US Cows
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-24-2014, 11:40 AM
  2. Cows Eat What?! 6 Surprising Things Fed to US Cows
    By donnay in forum Health Freedom
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-20-2014, 11:07 AM
  3. Respecting Sacred Cows
    By green73 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 06:25 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 09:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •