Death to Doctors Who Refuse To Serve! (dead-end of medicare)
Brad Aisa
their opposition (such as was even heard.)
"What difference does it make who pays the bill?"
The dead-end of this lie can be witnessed in Ontario, where a supposedly
right-wing, supposedly pro-free market administration is now in the process
of stripping what little rights doctors have left from them, and empowering
the Health Minister with a shocking array of statist powers, including
arbitrary powers to make orders to hospitals, as well as orders to doctors
regarding where they may practice. Doctors who don't comply with the
orders, will have their medicare billing rights revoked, essentially
leaving them unable to practice. (Why would anyone pay hundreds of dollars
in cash to a doctor, when they can go to another and have the state pay the
fee?)
The medical industry has devolved completely into state control as an
inevitable consequence of what was supposed to only be a munificent,
magical new method of supplying the means of health care to all, without
deleterious consequences to doctors, hospitals, or the health industry. The
lesson should be obvious: he who pays the piper calls the tune. Did anyone
ever really expect it could turn out otherwise? We have replaced a system
in which millions of independent individuals payed the bills, with a system
with one and only one customer: the state. There is a fundamental economic
difference between the two circumstances. Expect this to have consequences.
Also, when you make something free, it paralyzes the natural market
mechanisms which check demand and keep prices rationalized. Thus, demand
must rise, and costs must inevitably spiral out of control. This has
happened in medicine, it is also happening in education.
To those who are promoting school vouchers, pay head. This is the dead-end
to which your plan must also eventually lead. What starts as an indignant
snort of "what does it matter who pays the student's tuition" must end up
with a completely government regulated industry which controls who may
teach, where, what, etc. (We of course have much of this in the public
system, but don't advocate an unworkable compromise to replace it.) So
trying to replace public schools with a voucher system is worse than
useless. At least the problems with the current system can be logically
laid at the feet of socialism. But if you pseudo-privatize, then
capitalists will become the hated whipping boy for any subsequent ongoing
problems, even though it is the statist element which is the cause.
Only full, laissez-faire capitalism can rescue our damaged medical system
and education system. Socialism and capitalism are immiscible. Our
disastrous attempts to find a "middle road" between these two mutually
incompatible systems should give us a clue we are making fundamental
mistakes. We must check our premises. Freedom is practical. Every attempt
to intervene in the name of "humanitarianism" just creates vastly more
problems, and necessitates or invites even further damaging restrictions
and controls to try to ameliorate the spiraling ills. We must get off the
treadmill of intervention and socialist redistribution -- we must set our
focus to look at fundamentals, not immediate concretes, and correct the
underlying problems in our society, not slap caustic bandaids on
self-inflicted wounds.
Thank you for considering my ideas. I welcome questions or comments.
--
Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ba...@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Tony Donadio
: Gee... real estate , oil , car prices [ and most other prices ] bank charges
: etc etc etc... all these things are based on a 'free market' economy which
: does not seem to stop the rising spiral thingy.
Real estate prices have not been steadily rising. They did so during the
80's, and then took a bit of a dip in the 90s. There were plenty of
reasons why real estate prices rose in the 80s, though. For example, when
the FDIC drastically increased the degree of government insurance on
loans, huge amounts of capital were loaned out in not-so-wise investments
to purchase real-estate, which increased demand (and therefore prices).
The resulting S&L collapse (and subsequent drop in the value of real
estate) were not unrelated, and certainly not phenomena of a non-existent
free market in capital in this country.
Similar arguments can be made about oil, automobiles, bank charges, and so
forth. (If you think there is a free market in oil prospecting in this
country, for example, you are living in looney land -- try browsing the
EPA regulations.) There are freer markets than others, though, and if you
look at them, they tend to do better than the more regulated ones (has the
price of cars risen nearly as much as the price of health care, for
example?).
--
Tony * Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish
Donadio * to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for
* value. - Francisco D'Anconia, in ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand
Richard Marcellus
: Medicare started out with indignant policy boosters chastising doctors for
: their opposition (such as was even heard.)
:
: "What difference does it make who pays the bill?"
Nice post, Brad.
My only hope for medical treatment in Canada is that rationing and the
general deteriation of medical working conditions, will wake enough
people up, to demand legalization of a free-market private medical care
system.
I feel that it is monsterously evil that the gov't prevents me from
spending my own money on my own healthcare. This is one of the
reasons why I will not remain in Canada once I finish my Ph.D.
Cheers,
Richard
--
Richard Marcellus
Dept. of Biochemistry
McGill University
Montreal, Canada
marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca
Dave Gosse
> Gee... real estate , oil , car prices [ and most other prices ] bank charges
>etc etc etc... all these things are based on a 'free market' economy which
>does not seem to stop the rising spiral thingy.
> Sharing the costs do not make medicine more expensive [ or education ]
>it is simply a matter of greed for EVEYONE involved. The patients, the doctors
>the political hacks, the hospital employees, hospital suppliers , medical
>equipment manufacturers, drug companies etc.
Gosh, isn't that all the people that the state pays?
And banking is far from a free market industry in Canada.
As real estate, in real dollars it has fallen in most parts of the
country. Same with oil. I don't have the exact figures, but between
1979 and 1983 inflation more thatn doubled. Oil and real estate
haven't even come close.
And who owns your medical records? You or the state? The state says
that you do, but what is a doctor going to say when the state says
"Gimme"? What will you do when the state says "Sorry, we're over
budget and cannot afford that operation you need to save your life.
Oh, and by the way, it's illegal for you to pay for it yourself."?
2BR02B
Dave Gosse
Brad Aisa
Richard,
Thank you very much for your complimentary comment.
>My only hope for medical treatment in Canada is that rationing and the
>general deteriation of medical working conditions, will wake enough
>people up, to demand legalization of a free-market private medical care
>system.
Unfortunately, this can't happen. When people discard _principles_ they are
unable to understand anything. Unless people face up to the fundamental
contradiction in the system itself, they will not favor the proper
solution.
Actually, the longer a system is controlled by the government, the HARDER
it is to try to privatize it. First, people completely forget (or never
learn) that it can even BE private. They are fed a lot of lying propaganda
-- "Before medicare, one in ten Canadians dies daily from lack of medical
insurance" -- and the economics are so totally distorted, that people can't
conceive how it would be integrated into their lives without government.
Also, they continue to blindly cling to the notion that the system is being
"mismanaged" or "abused", and you will get a steady stream of reforms and
commissions and experiments -- just like our public school system. None of
these will work of course.
>I feel that it is monsterously evil that the gov't prevents me from
>spending my own money on my own healthcare. This is one of the
>reasons why I will not remain in Canada once I finish my Ph.D.
Well Richard you are just proof that stronger measures are going to be
necessary. The Borg will soon realize it must take steps to prevent the
minds it needs from leaving the collective. They will attempt to assimilate
those who are deemed necessary for the collective's survival.
You will be assimilated into the Borg. Resistance is futile. Those who
cannot be assimilated will be destroyed. You will serve the Borg.
If anybody thinks I was kidding about my subject line, think twice.
the jen thing
: : Medicare started out with indignant policy boosters chastising doctors for
: : their opposition (such as was even heard.)
: :
: : "What difference does it make who pays the bill?"
: Nice post, Brad.
: My only hope for medical treatment in Canada is that rationing and the
: general deteriation of medical working conditions, will wake enough
: people up, to demand legalization of a free-market private medical care
: system.
: I feel that it is monsterously evil that the gov't prevents me from
: spending my own money on my own healthcare. This is one of the
: reasons why I will not remain in Canada once I finish my Ph.D.
What a prince of a human being you are. Take advantage of the system to
get yourself a nice degree or three - then bugger off somewhere else so
you don't have to put a damn thing back into the system. What a guy!
What a piece of work!
On second thought - we are no doubt better off without your sorry ass in
this country. Ta Ta! Please forget to write!
Jim May
Umbach) wrote:
> In article <4f0dpr$v...@noc.tor.hookup.net> ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
writes:
> >From: ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
> >Subject: Death to Doctors Who Refuse To Serve! (dead-end of medicare)
> >Date: Sat, 03 Feb 96 19:42:02 GMT
>
> >Also, when you make something free, it paralyzes the natural market
> >mechanisms which check demand and keep prices rationalized. Thus, demand
> >must rise, and costs must inevitably spiral out of control. This has
> >happened in medicine, it is also happening in education.
>
> Gee... real estate , oil , car prices [ and most other prices ] bank charges
> etc etc etc... all these things are based on a 'free market' economy which
> does not seem to stop the rising spiral thingy.
That's because it is not a 'free market'. Inflation was born with the advent of
the Federal Reserve and its interventionist ilk worldwide.
"To a lesser degree, it [the German hyperinflation of 1923] was also the
story of the blowing
away of money in other countries, Austria, Poland, Hungary, France, Italy,
Spain;
and later, there were beginnings of the process in England, and even the
United States.
This was the twilight of the age of progress; the death of money." Konrad
Heiden,
_Der Fuehrer_, translated by Ralph Mannheim. Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1944.
"The Fed" began operations in 1914 (or thereabouts). Surprise, dude!
Things like that
have causes.
> Sharing the costs do not make medicine more expensive [ or education ]
> it is simply a matter of greed for EVEYONE involved. The patients, the doctors
> the political hacks, the hospital employees, hospital suppliers , medical
> equipment manufacturers, drug companies etc.
If you build a mechanism which makes the pilfering of unearned wealth easy,
somebody is going to take advantage of it. It is human nature. Altruism
is simply
incompatible with it. It's time that you stop trying to shoehorn man
into a form
which contradicts his nature and start acting in accordance with nature instead.
Would you start forcefeeding your dog a vegetarian diet and then blame him for
killing birds and small animals? No, of course not; it is his nature to
be carnivorous,
and if you didn't act in accordance with the nature of your dog as such,
you'll get
fined by the Humane Society.
It's time to grant human beings the same courtesy.
> Everyone wants more but none are willing to give up anything. You cannot
> create a 'fairer' system by cutting or regulating one or two groups - EVERYONE
> must be affected.
Fine. _Everyone_ must be _equally_free -- of coercion. Especially by
their moralistic neighbors
who think that they can do whatever they want with the freedom of others
so long as
it's for a "good cause".
Jim May
Jim May 3D Animator/Technician
The Vivid Group
http://www.vividgroup.com
Brad Aisa
>Richard Marcellus (marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca) wrote:
>: I feel that it is monsterously evil that the gov't prevents me from
>: spending my own money on my own healthcare. This is one of the
>: reasons why I will not remain in Canada once I finish my Ph.D.
>
>What a prince of a human being you are. Take advantage of the system to
>get yourself a nice degree or three - then bugger off somewhere else so
>you don't have to put a damn thing back into the system. What a guy!
>What a piece of work!
>
>On second thought - we are no doubt better off without your sorry ass in
>this country. Ta Ta! Please forget to write!
But don't you think we at least have the right to deprive Mr. Marcellus of
all his property before we let him leave? He is lucky we are going to let
him leave at all. After all, we are all connected and interdependent, and
we all have responsibilities to meet in payment of the rights our
government and society has granted us.
Borg-speak.
Liberals are no longer the greatest threat. The Borg are now upon us in
legions. Our educational system has been dedicated to their manufacture for
some years now. The first really big crop have now been unleashed.
Welcome to hell, ladies and gentlemen.
Brad Aisa
>I realize that for objectivists there is no reason they should worry
>about whether or nor Mr. Marcellus takes from the "system" without
>returning any benefit and bragging about it - but *I find it
>reprehensible.
Mr. Marcellus did not do what you have herein accused him of.
Objectivists advocate individual rights, including property rights, and
hold that all relationships should be voluntary. The only obligations one
owes, are those one has contractually undertaken to fulfill. The individual
is not responsible for the Borg society foisted on him, and owes no
particular obligations to it. There can be no such thing as an _unchosen_
obligation, that is a contradiction in terms. Or, it has a better
description: slavery.
>This is what I find reprehensible about the situation. Now, is there
>something that you didn't understand? It isn't a liberal rant, it isn't
>a unionist rant - it is a taxpayer rant.
If you were REALLY serious about this situation, you would advocate the
only reform which will ameliorate its cause: eradication of the
welfare/interventionist state, and erection of laissez-faire capitalism.
Then, you wouldn't BE a taxpayer. (Or if there were taxes, they would be so
low in comparison to today, they would be irrelevant.)
> And as much as it is too late
>now, I resent and will not be silent regarding my opinion of those who
>use the Canadian medical system while they are growing up (benefit), are
>educated to the the Ph.D. level in a taxpayer funded educational system
>(benefit) and then announce that they don't like the system when it comes
>times for them make contribution.
See my comments on slavery.
Mark Young
thing) writes:
>
>Brad Aisa (ba...@hookup.net) wrote:
>: jho...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca (the jen thing) wrote:
>: >Richard Marcellus (marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca) wrote:
>
>: >: I feel that it is monsterously evil that the gov't prevents me
from
>: >: spending my own money on my own healthcare. This is one of the
>: >: reasons why I will not remain in Canada once I finish my Ph.D.
>: >
>: >What a prince of a human being you are. Take advantage of the
system to
>: >get yourself a nice degree or three - then bugger off somewhere
else so
>: >you don't have to put a damn thing back into the system. What a
guy!
>: >What a piece of work!
Richard is not responsible for your government stealing from you. What
he is doing is the moral thing--put as much pressure on the immoral
system as possible which will hasten its demise, while avoiding
providing any support to such.
<snip>
Mark
Jim Klein
>Our educational system has been dedicated to their manufacture for
>some years now. The first really big crop have now been unleashed.
When you stick to the facts, you get them right. We've now ruined a
full generation with this. If it gets to two, it'll be as good as
over. If it's not stopped before three, then there probably won't be a
fourth. And yes, this may be the first time in history it's been done
with such proficiency!
>Welcome to hell, ladies and gentlemen.
Believe it. Only one thing can save us now, and that's wireless. And
it better be quick! (yes, I realize that it doesn't just "happen")
jk
Nicholas Rich
>
> nsi...@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:
> >marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca (Richard Marcellus) wrote:
> >
> >[stuff deleted]
> >
> >Can't help saying something on this. The word "parasite" keeps
> >jumping into my mind, tho', so maybe I'll save it for later.
> >
> >>Are you forgetting that my parents are also among the Canadian
> >>taxpayers. They have more than paid for my education and healthcare
> >>through the more than 50% of their income that is taken each year.
> >
> >And I'll bet your just selfish enough to turn around and screw them,
> >too.
> >
> >Face it, Marcellus. Your high-priced education is bought and paid for
> >mostly by the taxpayers of Canada, and you can't weasel out of that.
> >Your a leech on the system, whatever bogus rationalizations you want
> >to try and float here.
> >
> >Good riddance to you. But I'll bet you come sniveling back to Canada
> >when you're old and infirm, so you can suck on the system at both
> >ends...
>
> Another Borg.
>
> Face it people, you have to choose one way or another. Are you man or
> Borg?
>
> The purpose of the Borg is to assimilate. The Borg do not permit any
> private purposes. You must serve. You must be assimilated.
Though, it should also be added that resistance is *not* futile :)
--
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble a...@ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants
We settle and resolve problems between businesses including lawsuits
judgments, liens, problem payables and problem receivables--through
ADR, out-of-court and always on a *results-only* basis. We quickly
resolve both Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable problems.
Earn substantial referral fees. Or, become an affiliate and learn how
to cash in on the industry of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
and earn a 6 figure income working from home.
Jim Klein
>Hell is where every man's hand is turned against another.
No, that's what we have now. Hell is when it comes to fruition.
jk
Brad Aisa
>marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca (Richard Marcellus) wrote:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>Can't help saying something on this. The word "parasite" keeps jumping
>into my mind, tho', so maybe I'll save it for later.
>
>>Are you forgetting that my parents are also among the Canadian taxpayers.
>>They have more than paid for my education and healthcare through the more
>>than 50% of their income that is taken each year.
>
>And I'll bet your just selfish enough to turn around and screw them,
>too.
>
>Face it, Marcellus. Your high-priced education is bought and paid for
>mostly by the taxpayers of Canada, and you can't weasel out of that.
>Your a leech on the system, whatever bogus rationalizations you want
>to try and float here.
>
>Good riddance to you. But I'll bet you come sniveling back to Canada
>when you're old and infirm, so you can suck on the system at both
>ends...
Another Borg.
Face it people, you have to choose one way or another. Are you man or Borg?
The purpose of the Borg is to assimilate. The Borg do not permit any
private purposes. You must serve. You must be assimilated.
--
Brad Aisa
>Brad, do you do anything but read second-rate screenplay writers and
>watch Star Trek?
Actually, I am a first-rate screenwriter myself, who has written a Star
Trek script! Check it out on my web site, if you want.
>Get out of the basement Brad. Get out from behind Daddy's furnace and
>get some sun on your skin - it will do you a world of good and clean up
>that skin problem el pronto.
Ah, the Borg are so charming, aren't they? Such erudition. I think the Borg
collective-units get really irritated by the fact that a few of us are
challenging their legitimacy. Unable or unwilling to address our ideas,
they resort to childish insults.
Note how it will not be possible, in the long run, for freedom loving
individualists and the Borg to coexist. Something has to give.
Tony Donadio
: [stuff deleted]
: Can't help saying something on this. The word "parasite" keeps jumping
: into my mind, tho', so maybe I'll save it for later.
: >Are you forgetting that my parents are also among the Canadian taxpayers.
: >They have more than paid for my education and healthcare through the more
: >than 50% of their income that is taken each year.
: And I'll bet your just selfish enough to turn around and screw them,
: too.
Uh-huh. Respond to Marcellus' point by evading it -- by gratuitously
trying to twist it into some kind of accusation against him. By doing
so, the poster admits that he has no *rational* answer to give.
We did NOT agree to the system in place now -- and none of us owe it
allegiance or anything in return. In a free society -- one in which we
are not impoverished by having to spend half or more of our lives toiling
for the state -- our parents would NEVER have had to turn to it to fund
their childrens' education. This is like robbing a bank, using some of
the victims' money to buy them something, and then becoming indignant when
they do not recognize any obligation to feel gratitude for your "gift."
Some gift.
: Face it, Marcellus. Your high-priced education is bought and paid for
: mostly by the taxpayers of Canada, and you can't weasel out of that.
Like Marcellus' parents are not among those taxpayers? You try to weasel
out of addressing his argument, and then you have the effrontery to accuse
HIM of weaseling? This is what psychologists call projection.
: Your a leech on the system, whatever bogus rationalizations you want
: to try and float here.
As though Marcellus and his parents haven't already paid for it a dozen
times over already? The poster has it backwards: it is the system that is
the leech on people like Marcellus' family, not the other way around.
Nicholas Sidor
>>
>>>: I feel that it is monsterously evil that the gov't prevents me from
>>>: spending my own money on my own healthcare.
Whew! Glad you don't have anything *serious* to worry about.
But maybe you could buy a gym membership, or some Vitamin E tablets.
All in aid of preventing a monstrous evil, of course.
I needed a good chuckle. Thanks.
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Tony Donadio
: The human being is a social animal. We are all connected and interdependent.
: This is a fact of life.
This is what I call an "Emperor's New Clothes Gambit" -- self-righteously
proclaiming patent BS in the hope that no one will challenge it. Well,
the emperor is naked.
Human beings are NOT social animals, NOT connected, and NOT interdependent
-- NOT in the way the poster means it. In the relevant sense, each man is
an island. People can gain great value from VOLUNTARY exchanges and
interactions with others; but this is only by virtue of his capacity to
create and trade values with others. That capacity belongs to his
rational faculty, and it is an attribute of each man *as an individual*.
: I believe the reply Jen made was to the apparent hipocracy of
: Mr.Marcellus decrying the statist agenda of the government while
: taking full advantage of its amenities.
And perhaps you think he has an obligation to martyr himself a system that
has bled him and his family dry at gunpoint for decades? Morality ends
where a gun begins. As long as Marcellus and his family have to hand over
more than half of their wealth under the threat of government force, they
have every right to do ANYTHING they can to get some of the value of that
looted wealth back -- and then escape to a freer society, if they can.
: >Liberals are no longer the greatest threat. The Borg are now upon us in
: >legions. Our educational system has been dedicated to their manufacture for
: >some years now. The first really big crop have now been unleashed.
Liberals are irrelevant. Education is irrelevant. Threats are irrelevant..
: Alexander Kim
: President for the Committee to Ban the Commercial Use of Zinc
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ !!!!
GAK!
Please, someone tell me this is a sick joke...
Neil
receiving his PhD because he is not allowed the choice of privatized
health care:
First of all, such an attitude is hardly becoming of an individual who is
about to receive a doctorate. The fact that this is apparently a McGill
student surprises me even more, since I held incorrect stereotypes of
what McGill Ph.D candidates must be like. His words sound more like that
of a child whining that he can't get a toy he wants, so he's going to cry
like a baby and run away.
Secondly, my father was a Ph.D graduate who moved to Canada after
graduating from a British university. He enjoyed 12 years of quality life
in Canada, raising his family in a peaceful, tolerant environment. When he
was faced with the option to leave Canada for the warmer, sunny climate of
Arizona, coupled with an increase in his salary and faced with immense
pressure from his wife (who could not take the winters of northern Ontario
any longer), he made a very painful decision to leave that beautiful
country. Despite the many financial benefits he received by moving to the
US, to this day he insists that he would not have moved if it weren't for
my mother suffering from Ontario's winters.
For someone to make the claim that Canada's health care system is the only
reason he is choosing to leave Canada is not only evidence of his being an
absurdly impulsive and illogical person, but is, quite frankly, completely
unbelievable. There _are_ other factors involved in his decision, the
biggest one most likely being MONEY. He's simply using the health care
excuse as a way to try and promote his own political agenda. A shame he
can't even admit it.
________________________________________
|Neil Singh, |^| |
|University of Arizona, <^\| |/^> |
|Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A. <__ __> |
|http://u.arizona.edu/~neilends | |
|________________________________________|
Tony Donadio
: Ah - you didn't have any CHOICE about being educated here. You were
: forced to get a PH.D. in Canada. The PH,D. police came and forced you
: to register for graduate work. Or is it you just couldn't get a grant at
: a US university?
Oh, I see -- not only does Marcellus have no right to complain that he
and his family have been turned into milch-cows to feed a statist system,
but now he has an obligation to forego the right to pursue an education
because of it? Good lord, you people are monsters!
In a free society, Marcellus would have EVERY RIGHT to pursue a PHD. The
difference is that in a free society the people who made it possible would
be honest and *exact* with him about what he owes them for it. Instead of
paying for his education indirectly through taxes, his family would have
paid that money directly to a university. If his family could not afford
it, then he would borrow the money and owe it to a bank. In the latter
case, he would at least have the prospect of someday being able to REPAY
what he owes to the people who made his education possible. In the
welfare statists' vision, he and everyone else can look forward to being
a 60% indentured slave for life.
Faced with this prospect, Marcellus has every right to try to get what he
can from the system and then flee with it. If you want sane and rational
people to behave otherwise, then the answer is simple: PUT AWAY YOUR GUNS.
Tony Donadio
: : Are you forgetting that my parents are also among the Canadian taxpayers.
: : They have more than paid for my education and healthcare through the more
: : than 50% of their income that is taken each year.
: And what about my parents? Don't they count?
NO, THEY DO NOT.
As well as these things can be measured, YOUR parents' share went toward
educating YOU. I say "as well as these things can be measured" because
that is one of the evils of the system: by throwing everyones' money
together into one big tax pot and dispensing it, it becomes impossible to
determine who deserves how much, and who is getting rooked. That is, in
fact, one of the central PURPOSES of the system.
Ayn Rand wrote an excellent article on this subject in her anthology,
_The Voice of Reason_, entitled "A Question of Scholarships," which I
recommend highly.
Thomas Clarke
writes:
> Alexander Kim (ahk...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
> : The human being is a social animal. We are all connected and
interdependent.
> : This is a fact of life.
> This is what I call an "Emperor's New Clothes Gambit" -- self-righteously
> proclaiming patent BS in the hope that no one will challenge it. Well,
> the emperor is naked.
Coming from an Objectivist that is the pot calling the kettle black.
> Human beings are NOT social animals, NOT connected, and NOT interdependent
> -- NOT in the way the poster means it.
How does the poster mean it? Do you have objective access to his
subjective thought?
> In the relevant sense, each man is an island.
What is the relevant sense?
> People can gain great value from VOLUNTARY exchanges and
> interactions with others; but this is only by virtue of his capacity to
> create and trade values with others. That capacity belongs to his
> rational faculty, and it is an attribute of each man *as an individual*.
This goes against much of modern anthropology. No race of men
has ever been found leading solitary lives like the great cats.
People are basically highly intelligent chimps. Many of our
behaviors come straight over from Pan. For example our admiration
for the famous seems to be mirrored in the way that chimps gain
status by displays of noise making and other flamboyant behavior
as observed by Goodall.
Tom Clarke
Alexei Marcoux
In article <Pine.A32.3.91.960205...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>,
Neil <neil...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> With regards to the man who claims he refuses to live in Canada upon
> receiving his PhD because he is not allowed the choice of privatized
> health care:
> First of all, such an attitude is hardly becoming of an individual who is
> about to receive a doctorate.
Why? What *reasons* are there to suppose that one on the verge of earning
a PhD must acquiesce in a government barring him from making private
transactions for medical services?
> The fact that this is apparently a McGill
> student surprises me even more, since I held incorrect stereotypes of
> what McGill Ph.D candidates must be like. His words sound more like that
> of a child whining that he can't get a toy he wants, so he's going to cry
> like a baby and run away.
_Ad_hominem_ attack. Calling the man a whining child does nothing to
establish the illegitimacy of his concerns.
> [Autobiographical blather snipped]
> For someone to make the claim that Canada's health care system is the only
> reason he is choosing to leave Canada is not only evidence of his being an
> absurdly impulsive and illogical person, but is, quite frankly, completely
> unbelievable.
How does it evidence impulsiveness? (Suppose it were a conclusion reached
after careful deliberation.) How does it evidence illogic? (What is 'logical'
about remaining in a country that bars one from making private transactions
for medical services?)
> There _are_ other factors involved in his decision, the
> biggest one most likely being MONEY. He's simply using the health care
> excuse as a way to try and promote his own political agenda. A shame he
> can't even admit it.
_Ad_hominem_ - poisoning the well. Even if he were using health care as
a vehicle to promote a political agenda (something - and this is a familiar
theme by now - that you offer no rational argument for), how would that
eatablish the illegitimacy of his concerns? Put differently, why can't
his concerns be both legitimate and advance his political agenda (if he in
fact has one)? The two aren't mutually exclusive.
In sum, before you tar the soon-to-be-McGill-PhD with the impulsive and
illogical brush, tar yourself completely first.
Alexei Marcoux
--
* * * * * * * * * *
* Alexei Marcoux *
* BGSU Philosophy *
* * * * * * * * * *
Brad Aisa
>Alexander Kim (ahk...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
>
>: The human being is a social animal. We are all connected and
>: interdependent. This is a fact of life.
>
>This is what I call an "Emperor's New Clothes Gambit" -- self-righteously
>proclaiming patent BS in the hope that no one will challenge it. Well,
>the emperor is naked.
>
The educational establishment is now devoted in earnest to inculcating the
notion that we are "connected and interdependent." Just like the Borg. As
Tony pointed out, I am NOT just engaging in poetic license. These people
literally believe that man in Borg, just exactly as presented in Star Trek,
right down to the collective epistemology, primacy of the group,
irrelevance of the individual, evasion of man's nature, and most
chillingly, the Prime Directive of assimilation of all independent
individuals, with destruction to be visited on those who resist.
Here in Ontario, the previous socialist government's education ministry,
along with some surprising co-sponsors, such as the European Union,
commissioned two Borg theoreticians, Selby and Pike, to prepare a wholesale
initiative to "infuse" (their term) Borg-think into the education system.
The result is presented in a book (using that term loosely) called "Global
Teacher Global Learner", and is now being "test infused" ("infection" would
have been a better term) into a couple of trial schools here in Ontario. I
am getting first hand reports on this from a close friend whose kid is in
one of these schools. The scale of the assault by this program against
reason, objectivity, independence, individualism, egoism, and many other
values, is breathtaking, and frightening. It is not "infused" in a single
subject, but is radically injected into every subject, including math.
Unfortunately the current conservative regime here in Ontario is so
philosophically and intellectually illiterate, and so frankly politically
incompetent, that I doubt anything will be done to halt the "infusion".
The purpose of this program is to literally manufacture Borg. It goes far
beyond socialist propagandizing, and embraces inculcated altruism (they use
that term specifically), surrender of the mind to the group ("consensus
epistemology"), epistemological and value skepticism (a "life long
learner" in their view, is a student who recognizes he can NEVER be
certain of anything!), environmentalism (in spades and diamonds),
collectivism (on a global scale), socialism (that should go without
saying), rejection of all the necessary tenets of a rational, objective
epistemology (they preach things like "complexity", "every fact is related
to every other fact" -- but not through a contextual hierarchy, but in a
flat web they call a "matrix" -- mind numbing charts and diagrams abound in
the book).
These people are serious, ambitious, intellectually armed to the teeth,
unopposed, and as determined a set of reforming zealots as you will ever
encounter. They are literally on a mission to manufacture an entire
generation of Borg-ready carbon units, willing and even eager for
assimilation into the Borg collective.
And as my friend and his son are discovering, those who refuse to be
assimilated will be destroyed.
I will have more to say on this in an upcoming review of this book and this
movement.
Tony Donadio
: Hmm, Mr. Marcellus voluntarily went to school in a state subsidized system.
: Hence he initiated an association with the state. Then, as a result of
: this association, doesn't Mr. Marcellus owe some sort of debt to society?
The notion of what constitutes a "voluntary action" being expressed here
is absurd. The idea of a valid contractual association is GONE the moment
one party tries to set the terms of the association by force. If
Marcellus and his family had been allowed to OPT OUT of paying for the
educational system through taxes, THEN this remark would have a point; but
this is the one alternative that a coercive system of public education
could never countenance. Given the circumstances, Marcellus and his
family have every right to try to get back as much of the value of their
looted wealth as they can -- and then flee with it to a freer society, if
this is possible.
Tony Donadio
: > If a government illegitimately dominates a crucial sector of the
: >economy (such as education or food) so that honest citizens have no
: >viable alternative but to deal with the government to obtain those goods
: >and services, then that does not give the government any special moral
: >claims on those citizens as a result.
: Fair enough, but I contend that the resultant education of Mr. Marcellus is
: of his own initiative. I contend that Mr. Marcellus did not have to attend
: university in Canada. He was free to go anywhere in the world.
Then your contentions are lies and fabrications. Offer Mr. Marcellus the
value of his and his family's looted taxes back first, and THEN you will
have a point. If you don't, then you're simply trying to pretend that
stealing from someone does not constitute force against him and restrict
his choices for future action.
: Was it for financial reasons? He could have waited until such a sum
: was amassed.
So you think he is not entitled to try to get anything in return from the
wealth looted from his family?
You Borg have it backwards. It is not MARCELLUS who "owes" anything to
the state -- it is the STATE that owes Marcellus and his family, BIG TIME.
It is the STATE that has been taxing them for decades to pay for other
peoples' educations, against their choice -- and now you have the gall to
suggest that HE and THEY are the ones not living up to their obligations?
Brad Aisa
>For someone to make the claim that Canada's health care system is the only
>reason he is choosing to leave Canada is not only evidence of his being an
>absurdly impulsive and illogical person, but is, quite frankly, completely
>unbelievable. There _are_ other factors involved in his decision, the
>biggest one most likely being MONEY. He's simply using the health care
>excuse as a way to try and promote his own political agenda. A shame he
>can't even admit it.
The only answer which can be made to the above is Francisco's "money"
speech in Atlas Shrugged.
In essence, the original poster is trying escape Canada because there are
virtually no rights to property or liberty, including the right to earn and
keep money. Mr. Singh calls this a "political agenda". Keep this in mind --
Mr. Marcellus wants to leave because he is a slave. Mr. Singh chastises him
for not wishing to be one.
The Borg are among us. You are next to be assimilated or destroyed.
Nicholas Sidor
>Neil <neil...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>>For someone to make the claim that Canada's health care system is the only
>>reason he is choosing to leave Canada is not only evidence of his being an
>>absurdly impulsive and illogical person, but is, quite frankly, completely
>>unbelievable. There _are_ other factors involved in his decision, the
>>biggest one most likely being MONEY. He's simply using the health care
>>excuse as a way to try and promote his own political agenda. A shame he
>>can't even admit it.
>The only answer which can be made to the above is Francisco's "money"
>speech in Atlas Shrugged.
>In essence, the original poster is trying escape Canada because there are
>virtually no rights to property or liberty, including the right to earn and
>keep money. Mr. Singh calls this a "political agenda". Keep this in mind --
>Mr. Marcellus wants to leave because he is a slave. Mr. Singh chastises him
>for not wishing to be one.
Omigawd. And I *just* got finished saying there were few belly laughs
on the net. Ayn Rand? You'll grow out of it, I promise....
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
the jen thing
watch Star Trek?
Douglas B Clayton
Owe To the Go.. by Paul Hs...@crl.com
> the jen thing <jho...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca> responded:
>
> >What a prince of a human being you are. Take advantage of the system to
> >get yourself a nice degree or three - then bugger off somewhere else so
> >you don't have to put a damn thing back into the system. What a guy!
> >What a piece of work!
>
>
> thing".
>
> If a government illegitimately dominates a crucial sector of the
> economy (such as education or food) so that honest citizens have no
> viable alternative but to deal with the government to obtain those goods
> and services, then that does not give the government any special moral
> claims on those citizens as a result.
Paul's comment made me think of an analogy that I'd like to present.
Suppose a man kidnaps someone and holds her for ten years. Now,
obviously he is feeding her, and providing for some basic necessities.
Suppose further that he is a "kind" kidnapper, and he feeds her
extremely well (say better than 50% of Americans), buys her whatever
kind of clothes she wants, etc, and doesn't make her do any work. Then,
at the end of ten years, she escapes and he yells at her rapidly
departing figure, "Hey! You can't leave!! I fed you for ten years! I
supported you! You owe me at least another ten years!" (I saw _The
Color Purple_ last night. :)
Does everyone see the contradiction here? He is using the fact that he
forced her for ten years to demand ten *more* years of slavery! If he
can demand that, then at the end of the next ten years, he can say the
same thing again, with the same validity--since, indeed, he *has* fed
her for ten more years. As Paul pointed out, the fact that the
relationship was not voluntary means that she is under no obligation to
further remain in his possession just because she once was.
The situation in any country in which one has no choice about how to
support himself, educate himself, etc., is exactly the same. The
Canadian government can not demand one's life just because it has
enslaved other people and given him a "free gift" of his life.
To quote Paul again:
> If a government uses its power to illegitimately force citizens to
> partake of its food (or educational) services, that does not then give it
> a right to then force the citizens to serve it in return.
>
> In other words, two wrongs do not make a right.
Well said.
> ==================== ~~~ *** ~~
> || || * * ~ ~~
> || Paul S. Hsieh || /\ ** ** _
> || <hsi...@crl.com> || _ | | ** ** __ | |
> || || __| |__|__|__ ** ** | |___| |
> ==================== | | | | ** ** | | | |
Douglas Clayton
the jen thing
: In article <4f43ql$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, jho...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca
: (the jen thing) wrote:
: : Richard Marcellus (marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: :
: : : I feel that it is monsterously evil that the gov't prevents me from
: : : spending my own money on my own healthcare. This is one of the
: : : reasons why I will not remain in Canada once I finish my Ph.D.
: :
: : What a prince of a human being you are. Take advantage of the system to
: : get yourself a nice degree or three - then bugger off somewhere else so
: : you don't have to put a damn thing back into the system. What a guy!
: : What a piece of work!
: How have I taken advantage of the system? I had no choice but to
: study in a public university in Canada. I also don't feel that because
: somebody paid for this service that they own me for the remainder
: of my life. Do you believe that one should not be allowed to leave the
: country in which they were born?
Ah - you didn't have any CHOICE about being educated here. You were
forced to get a PH.D. in Canada. The PH,D. police came and forced you
to register for graduate work. Or is it you just couldn't get a grant at
a US university?
By all means, leave. I would even be glad to come and help you pack.
Oh... wait.. you haven't got your additional letters behind your name
yet? Ah.. haven't squeezed enough out of the system yet eh?
the jen thing
: In article <4f565e$10...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, jho...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca
: (the jen thing) wrote:
: : Oh bull-shit. I don't think we have the right to deprive Mr. Marcellus
: : of his property. On the other hand, I find his bragging about using the
: : system here to obtain what he wants (his degrees) and then bragging that
: : he is going to bugger off so he doesn't have to contribute back into the
: : system that educated him to be worthy of *my censure.
: Yes, you do think that you have the right to deprive me of my property
: if it takes the form of my salary.
But your schooling has already deprived me of my property through
taxes. Ah - doesn't count because it is MY property and not yours?
: Perhaps you misunderstood my original post. I did not feel that I was
: bragging. If it did appear that way, I was not clear. I am actually
: upset that things are so bad that I feel a strong desire to leave my family
: and friends who will remain here.
Perhaps, but what you said was you were leaving afvter you got your PH.D.
because of the limits on privatized health care here. It seemed pretty
clear to me.
: : Again, bullshit. My response was solely predicated on Mr. Marcellus's
: : bragging that he was going to get what he wanted from the system that the
: : Canadian taxpayer has contributed to enormously
: Are you forgetting that my parents are also among the Canadian taxpayers.
: They have more than paid for my education and healthcare through the more
: than 50% of their income that is taken each year.
And what about my parents? Don't they count? According to the Fraser
Institute until you make over $50,000/per year you get a net benefit from
the taxes you pay. If your parents had so much extra moola, why didn't
they pay the tuition and send you to the US? Could it be that it is so
expensive in the US and you couldn't get a grant and they took the more
inexpensive (taxpayer) supported option?
: : This is what I find reprehensible about the situation. Now, is there
: : something that you didn't understand? It isn't a liberal rant, it isn't
: : a unionist rant - it is a taxpayer rant.
: Do not assume that my family benefits from the current taxation/
: spending structure. We do not.
Ah - you are justified in not contributing because your parents did it
for you? They bought your freedom not to be a Canadian taxpayer?
Nicholas Sidor
[snip, along with a bunch of other stuff from the philosophy
class....]
Boy, you guys sure know how to complicate things....maybe I just
missed that course...
Look, fellas, it's simple. We Canadians helped pay for his medical
education, on the (implicit) assumption that he'd be available to
provide us with medical care. Or at least that if he decided not to,
he'd come to us with a good reason.
The guy's a fucking leech. He ripped us off.
Does all the horseshit you guys pontificate about make you *feel*
better about being screwed by Marcellus? Could that be it? Are we just
talking around an elaborate rationalization here? (Alas, I didn't take
that course, either...)
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>You Borg have it backwards. It is not MARCELLUS who "owes" anything to
>the state -- it is the STATE that owes Marcellus and his family, BIG TIME.
>It is the STATE that has been taxing them for decades to pay for other
>peoples' educations, against their choice -- and now you have the gall to
>suggest that HE and THEY are the ones not living up to their obligations?
I think I'd be grateful if you alt.philosophy.objectivism loons spared
us, here on can.politics.
No chance of that, probably.
What in God's name is a Borg? (But make it your last post...)
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Billy Beck
>Face it, Marcellus. Your high-priced education is bought and paid for
>mostly by the taxpayers of Canada, and you can't weasel out of that.
>Your a leech on the system, whatever bogus rationalizations you want
>to try and float here.
"...bogus rationalizations..."
(Is that what he said?)
Hey Nicholas:
*Why don't you just stop paying for it?*
...that is unless, of course, you *enjoy* being a slaveholder.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 1/24/96
Lionell Griffith
>In article <4f0dpr$v...@noc.tor.hookup.net> ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) writes:
>>From: ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa)
>>Subject: Death to Doctors Who Refuse To Serve! (dead-end of medicare)
>>Date: Sat, 03 Feb 96 19:42:02 GMT
>>Also, when you make something free, it paralyzes the natural market
>>mechanisms which check demand and keep prices rationalized. Thus, demand
>>must rise, and costs must inevitably spiral out of control. This has
>>happened in medicine, it is also happening in education.
> Gee... real estate , oil , car prices [ and most other prices ] bank charges
>etc etc etc... all these things are based on a 'free market' economy which
>does not seem to stop the rising spiral thingy.
> Sharing the costs do not make medicine more expensive [ or education ]
>it is simply a matter of greed for EVEYONE involved. The patients, the doctors
>the political hacks, the hospital employees, hospital suppliers , medical
>equipment manufacturers, drug companies etc.
> Everyone wants more but none are willing to give up anything. You cannot
>create a 'fairer' system by cutting or regulating one or two groups - EVERYONE
>must be affected.
The problem is caused by the disconnection between the person
consuming the goods and services and the person producing
the wealth to pay for the goods and services. The problem is
made worse by the fact that the Government can and does
cause inflation by deficit spending and the consequent
expansion of the paper money supply.
The ONLY "fair" system is that one gets according to
his production. If you don't or can't produce, then
you DON'T get. In that case, the only way to get
is to have it GIVEN to you. If you TAKE it by
using the Governement or any other way, that is THEFT!
Lionell
Windy Hills Ranch, Training Center, and Reading Room: http://www.av.qnet.com/~lgriffith
Tony Donadio
: tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
: >You Borg have it backwards. It is not MARCELLUS who "owes" anything to
: >the state -- it is the STATE that owes Marcellus and his family, BIG TIME.
: >It is the STATE that has been taxing them for decades to pay for other
: >peoples' educations, against their choice -- and now you have the gall to
: >suggest that HE and THEY are the ones not living up to their obligations?
: I think I'd be grateful if you alt.philosophy.objectivism loons spared
: us, here on can.politics.
: No chance of that, probably.
Not as long as the remarks in question are relevant to the topic of the
newsgroup -- which they obviously are. If the poster is getting tired of
trying to refute rational arguments, however, he could always try some
intellectual honesty and admit defeat.
"No chance of that, probably."
By the way: I notice that the poster deftly evaded answering my point. Or
is the poster trying to concede the point without looking like he's
conceding it?
: What in God's name is a Borg?
The Borg were a thoroughly collectivistic alien race from the "Star Trek:
The Next Generation" TV series. Their brains were linked together by
computer implants into a giant, collective consciousness.
Nicholas Sidor
>The ONLY "fair" system is that one gets according to
>his production. If you don't or can't produce, then
>you DON'T get. In that case, the only way to get
>is to have it GIVEN to you. If you TAKE it by
>using the Governement or any other way, that is THEFT!
>Lionell
>Windy Hills Ranch, Training Center, and Reading Room: http://www.av.qnet.com/~lgriffith
Poor Mr. Griffith. Missed out on the last 5,000 years of human social
development, I guess....
Here's a word to look up in the dictionary, and consider adding to
your vocabulary: "civilization".
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
PKolding
>The case in point here is not the public education of Mr. Marcellus. That is
>in my opinion, the obligation of the state as well as the right of every
>individual; to be given freely. However, the education of Mr. Marcellus in
>question is his post-secondary education. This is a decision made freely by
>him with no obligation to study in this country. Because, he chose freely
>to use the system in place here, I believe that there does exist some social
>debt.
It seems to me the only obligation Mr. Marcellus has with respect to
his university education is that set by the university. And as for
"social debt" that is a matter for the individual alone. It seems to
me that Mr. Marcelllus has been more than eloquent in making the case
that he can best fulfill his social debt by leaving the country. I can
understand perfectly this view.
Those who make these calculations of "social debt" must allow that a
credit may, from time to time, be demanded by the unfortunates who
have to live under such a system. And if an individual's balance sheet
fails to be satisfactory after all the "benefits" of Canada are
weighed against the obvious costs to his individual liberty and
freedom, a decision such as Mr. Marcellus' makes perfect sense.
Nicholas Sidor
>: >You Borg have it backwards. It is not MARCELLUS who "owes" anything to
>: >the state -- it is the STATE that owes Marcellus and his family, BIG TIME.
>: >It is the STATE that has been taxing them for decades to pay for other
>: >peoples' educations, against their choice -- and now you have the gall to
>: >suggest that HE and THEY are the ones not living up to their obligations?
>: I think I'd be grateful if you alt.philosophy.objectivism loons spared
>: us, here on can.politics.
>: No chance of that, probably.
>Not as long as the remarks in question are relevant to the topic of the
>newsgroup -- which they obviously are. If the poster is getting tired of
>trying to refute rational arguments, however, he could always try some
>intellectual honesty and admit defeat.
Jeez, Tony baby, I didn't see any "rational arguments" there. What I
detected instead was a bunch of loony assertions. (Oh, sorry, I mean:
"loopy"). Did I miss something?
>By the way: I notice that the poster deftly evaded answering my point. Or
>is the poster trying to concede the point without looking like he's
>conceding it?
And your point was what, exactly? That Marcellus wasn't a parasite
because his family paid taxes? Is that it? If so, sorry to disappoint,
but that's loony, too.
Should we all leave Canada, because our families paid taxes? Or, as
Marcellus says he's doing, because of the monstrous evil of not being
allowed to spend money on medical care? (Now, there's an idea. How
about if I go last?)
By the way, it actually is pretty easy in Canada to spend money on
health care. Lots of things aren't covered.... Maybe Marcellus would
feel better if he needed to get his teeth fixed, for example.
>: What in God's name is a Borg?
>The Borg were a thoroughly collectivistic alien race from the "Star Trek:
>The Next Generation" TV series. Their brains were linked together by
>computer implants into a giant, collective consciousness.
So were they good guys or bad guys? (Actually, never mind...I think I
figured it out.)
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>ahk...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca (Alexander Kim) wrote:
Well, folks. There you have it. Full support for Marcellus from a
world-class loon. Welcome to the monkey house, Marcellus.
Back to the hardware store, Kolding....
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Jack R. Tallent
> tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
>
> [snip, along with a bunch of other stuff from the philosophy
> class....]
>
> Boy, you guys sure know how to complicate things....maybe I just
> missed that course...
>
> Look, fellas, it's simple. We Canadians helped pay for his medical
> education, on the (implicit) assumption that he'd be available to
> provide us with medical care. Or at least that if he decided not to,
> he'd come to us with a good reason.
>
At what point did he agree with your *assumption*, that in Canada one
pursues his career, not as a right, but at the pleasure of the collective
who will thereafter own him?
Are you implying that this man reneged on an agreement to be your slave
in return for your *allowing* him to be a doctor? Such an agreement would
be invalid even had it been made.
The big lie of government intervention under the auspices of "helping"
is this: it will always be used later as an excuse to deny the rights of
the individual. When government "helps" you, you can bet that they (or
one of their snivelling little toadies) will show up later saying they own
you.
So tell me, can a Canadian *choose* not to pay for the education of
others? Do you really believe that one should become a public servant for
the priveledge of going to a school they were *forced* to pay for???!????
Tell you what. I'm going to force you to fashion a club for me at gun
point. I will then hit you over the head with it, under the (implicit)
assumption that you have agreed to such an arrangement.
Jack Tallent
Jon David Orris
>Look, fellas, it's simple. We Canadians helped pay for his medical
>education, on the (implicit) assumption that he'd be available to
>provide us with medical care. Or at least that if he decided not to,
>he'd come to us with a good reason.
Look, fella, it's simple. This has already been explained at
length by others. I'll try and sum it up for you:
1) You steal half or more of his and his parents money.
2) Leaving him with little option for financing his education.
3) He takes back some of the money that was stolen from him when the
government offers it to finance his education.
4) Seeing as how your society treats doctors, his chosen profession,
as slaves, he wisely leaves.
>The guy's a fucking leech. He ripped us off.
Why does this make him a leech? Because he took back some of what was
his and then split before you bled him more?
Maybe you're just becomming afraid as you realize that your system
relies on the sanction of your victims to support itself, and that
your victims are becomming wise to that fact.
Jon David Orris | "The anti-mind is the anti-life."
jono...@cmu.edu | --John Galt
Billy Beck
>lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) wrote:
>>The ONLY "fair" system is that one gets according to
>>his production. If you don't or can't produce, then
>>you DON'T get. In that case, the only way to get
>>is to have it GIVEN to you. If you TAKE it by
>>using the Governement or any other way, that is THEFT!
>Poor Mr. Griffith. Missed out on the last 5,000 years of human social
>development, I guess....
>Here's a word to look up in the dictionary, and consider adding to
>your vocabulary: "civilization".
(rubbing my eyes...wrinkled forehead aching...)
Okay, folx...I've a question.
In a "civilization" which is busy falling flat on its *ass* because it
is tangled in a century or more of the most rancid logical
sophistry...
In a nation which is desperately fighting to retain the power to
commit every individual human life it can catch, to a future which it
has already pissed away for generations...
In a time which demands the greatest possible effort and passion to
warding off the conceptual voodoo which swirls through venues of
thought, in order to, perhaps, save one's own life...
Is there anyone here who could, *please*, take a moment to identify
and expose the logical errors which this silly person has committed to
the record of these difficult times?
I would do it...but I am *so* tired of this.
Billy Beck
>tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
>>You Borg have it backwards. It is not MARCELLUS who "owes" anything to
>>the state -- it is the STATE that owes Marcellus and his family, BIG TIME.
>>It is the STATE that has been taxing them for decades to pay for other
>>peoples' educations, against their choice -- and now you have the gall to
>>suggest that HE and THEY are the ones not living up to their obligations?
>I think I'd be grateful if you alt.philosophy.objectivism loons spared
>us, here on can.politics.
>No chance of that, probably.
Don't sweat it, Nick.
All this will be taken care of when the...
"sci.razor-wire.nyah.nyah.you.can't.see.me"
...newsgroup comes online.
Lionell Griffith
>lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) wrote:
>>The ONLY "fair" system is that one gets according to
>>his production. If you don't or can't produce, then
>>you DON'T get. In that case, the only way to get
>>is to have it GIVEN to you. If you TAKE it by
>>using the Governement or any other way, that is THEFT!
>>Lionell
>>Windy Hills Ranch, Training Center, and Reading Room: http://www.av.qnet.com/~lgriffith
>Poor Mr. Griffith. Missed out on the last 5,000 years of human social
>development, I guess....
>Here's a word to look up in the dictionary, and consider adding to
>your vocabulary: "civilization".
>Nick Sidor
>nsi...@magi.com
Oh, so its "civilization" when the producers are enslaved to
feed the parisites. I agree that is the traditional notion
of "civilization." They are barbarians so it is proper to
enslave them. We are civilized so it is proper to own slaves.
That is exactly the notion of "civilization" that has caused
ALL past "civilized" nations to collapse. I just don't
happen to agree that it is "civilized" that I be made a slave.
I just don't happen to agree that 4950 years of the past
5000 years of "civilization" has been "civilized." It has been
a nearly unbroken chain of despotisim and slavery. Is force
is rapidly increasing in the US and around the world today.
Producers don't need non-producers. Non-producers need producers.
So what. The non-producers can go suck rocks for all I care.
I will NOT be a willing and cooperative slave.
Jeff Miller
<neil...@U.Arizona.EDU> would write:
>With regards to the man who claims he refuses to live in Canada upon
>receiving his PhD because he is not allowed the choice of privatized
>health care:
>First of all, such an attitude is hardly becoming of an individual who is
>about to receive a doctorate.
You know, I really had no intention of posting here tonight. I
participated in this group some time back (and am delighted to see
some familiar names, BTW!) but have been away for too long. Anyway, I
just thought I would come in and look around...
When I saw this remarkable statement!
I am terribly curious just how similar all these PhD's must be. My
brother earned one a year ago, and he seems the same as he always did.
Perhaps his committee neglected to consider the appropriate attitude
that a PhD is expected to have.
Neil, what can I presume about you and your attitudes, based on your
educational situation?
Jeff Miller
je...@probe.net
Clinton Brome
>Richard Marcellus (marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca) wrote:
>: In article <4f0dpr$v...@noc.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>: : Medicare started out with indignant policy boosters chastising doctors for
>: : their opposition (such as was even heard.)
>: :
>: : "What difference does it make who pays the bill?"
>: Nice post, Brad.
>: My only hope for medical treatment in Canada is that rationing and the
>: general deteriation of medical working conditions, will wake enough
>: people up, to demand legalization of a free-market private medical care
>: system.
>: I feel that it is monsterously evil that the gov't prevents me from
>: spending my own money on my own healthcare. This is one of the
>: reasons why I will not remain in Canada once I finish my Ph.D.
>What a prince of a human being you are. Take advantage of the system to
>get yourself a nice degree or three - then bugger off somewhere else so
>you don't have to put a damn thing back into the system. What a guy!
>What a piece of work!
>On second thought - we are no doubt better off without your sorry ass in
>this country. Ta Ta! Please forget to write!
Just in case the point wasn't clear in the other posts on this
topic --
This is _exactly_ the "argument" that the Soviet government
used to explain why they would not permit dissidents to leave
the country.
Tom Clarke
>Producers don't need non-producers. Non-producers need producers.
>So what. The non-producers can go suck rocks for all I care.
>I will NOT be a willing and cooperative slave.
From the tone of your post, you think of yourself as a producer.
How much did you produce as a result of posting?
So you disagree with the need for a pool of unemployed labor
to keep wages down for the productive people who hire from
this pool?
Tom Clarke
--
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet - Shakespeare
Tom Radcliffe
|> ahk...@barrow.uwaterloo.ca (Alexander Kim) wrote:
|>
|> >The case in point here is not the public education of Mr. Marcellus. That is
|> >in my opinion, the obligation of the state as well as the right of every
|> >individual; to be given freely. However, the education of Mr. Marcellus in
|> >question is his post-secondary education. This is a decision made freely by
|> >him with no obligation to study in this country. Because, he chose freely
|> >to use the system in place here, I believe that there does exist some social
|> >debt.
|>
|> It seems to me the only obligation Mr. Marcellus has with respect to
|> his university education is that set by the university. And as for
|> "social debt" that is a matter for the individual alone. It seems to
|> me that Mr. Marcelllus has been more than eloquent in making the case
|> that he can best fulfill his social debt by leaving the country. I can
|> understand perfectly this view.
|>
|> Those who make these calculations of "social debt" must allow that a
|> credit may, from time to time, be demanded by the unfortunates who
|> have to live under such a system. And if an individual's balance sheet
|> fails to be satisfactory after all the "benefits" of Canada are
|> weighed against the obvious costs to his individual liberty and
|> freedom, a decision such as Mr. Marcellus' makes perfect sense.
|>
Either one is a net beneficiary of coercive income redistribution or
one is not. If one is a beneficiary, then there is an argument for paying
what is owed. If one is not, then one should equally well be able to
collect the excess. But to make this sort of argument is to admit precisely
what advocates of coercive income redistribution deny: that one has
a right to one's wealth. Anyone who plans to leave a country after milking
the system for all it's worth is merely playing the socialist's own game
by their own principles.
Lenin joked that the capitalists would sell him the rope with which he
would hang them. The socialists don't seem one bit better off in that regard.
Andrew R. Southwick
>> Gee... real estate , oil , car prices [ and most other prices ] bank charges
>>etc etc etc... all these things are based on a 'free market' economy which
>>does not seem to stop the rising spiral thingy.
Then you deny that there are such things as:
1) capital gains taxes that demand that (approx) half of all revenue from
the sale of a house must be paid to the government unless that money is
reinvested (usu in another house),
2) munincipal property assessment rules that place the largest tax burden
on recently sold homes,
3) anti-construction rent ceilings in place in several major cities,
4) a government-inflated money supply,
5) property zoning,
6) huge government-imposed startup costs on other energy-production
mechanisms (read: nuclear power),
7) government regulation of the distribution of energy sources, such as laws
establishing the amount of natural gas that can be exported from a state
as a factor of the amount consumed within that state,
8) construction laws and regulations, specifically OSHA and federally-
protected labor monopolies,
9) car gasoline taxes,
10) a publicly-funded and endorsed local, state, and interstate car
transportation system (also knows as "Roads & Highways"),
11) car safety laws,
12) car emissions regulations,
13) gas mileage restrictions (i.e. car manufacturers must meet an average
vehicle-sold MPG level),
14) federally-mandated research into alternate motor-vehicle motive systems,
etc.
Hmmm. The reality I perceive seems to be different than yours. In the
world I live in, the real estate, oil, and automobile markets (not to
mention medicine and education) are far from free.
Andrew R Southwick -={C++/OO Programmer}=- asout...@vnet.ibm.com
#include <stddisclaimer.h> I speak not for IBM.
-= Freedom by permission is a contradiction in terms =-
DINO CARUBIA
>marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca (Richard Marcellus) wrote:
>
>Good riddance to you. But I'll bet you come sniveling back to Canada
>when you're old and infirm, so you can suck on the system at both
>ends..
Why would he want to come back? If things keeps going the way they are
going there won't be much of a country to come back to.
My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
1) It will hasten the system's demise.
2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
Regards,
Dino.
Nicholas Sidor
>My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
>Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
>1) It will hasten the system's demise.
>2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
Kiss my ass, you sniveling cheapskate. Pay your taxes like a good
Canadian should; like the rest of us do, you freeloading ninny.
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Henry Lustig
>tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
>
>[snip, along with a bunch of other stuff from the philosophy
>class....]
>
>Boy, you guys sure know how to complicate things....maybe I just
>missed that course...
>
>Look, fellas, it's simple. We Canadians helped pay for his medical
>education, on the (implicit) assumption that he'd be available to
>provide us with medical care. Or at least that if he decided not to,
>he'd come to us with a good reason.
>
>The guy's a fucking leech. He ripped us off.
>
>Does all the horseshit you guys pontificate about make you *feel*
>better about being screwed by Marcellus? Could that be it? Are we just
>talking around an elaborate rationalization here? (Alas, I didn't take
>that course, either...)
>
>nick
>Nick Sidor
>nsi...@magi.com
>
If you Canadian want to OWN slaves than select from the working class. Only low
class, low IQ uneducated morons are destined to be lsvaes.
The elite, professionals, doctors are not your slaves. They own you, not the
opposite! You had too much socialism for breakfast!
Henry
How can I adapt a creed which, preferring the mud to the
fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above the bourgeois and
the intelligentsia, who with all their faults, are the
quality of life and surely carry the seeds of all human
achievement.
-John Maynard Keynes-
the jen thing
: >: Nice post, Brad.
Just in case you missed it I support his right to leave the country for
the good of the country. If you look at the last paragraph I invited him
to leave, latyer on I even offered to help him pack. How does that make
equate to not letting him leave. Go go.. please, go.
the jen thing
: In article <4f5vnu$1...@news.magi.com> nsi...@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) writes:
: >marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca (Richard Marcellus) wrote:
: >
: >Good riddance to you. But I'll bet you come sniveling back to Canada
: >when you're old and infirm, so you can suck on the system at both
: >ends..
: Why would he want to come back? If things keeps going the way they are
: going there won't be much of a country to come back to.
: My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
: Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
: 1) It will hasten the system's demise.
: 2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
And by all means, vote Tory - cause in spite of all bthe bullshit
rhetoric about making the country grow, making things better for
everyone, it is just a front for screwing your neighbour tight to the
wall. It isn't about trickle down economics - it is about getting as
much as you can as fast as you canand devil take the hindemost.
Good to see that the truth will out no matter how many little policy
statements are made or how many bullshit spin-doctors are hired. The
current swing to the right is only about revenge for supposed wrongs
committed against them, it is only about a cash grab without reference to
what is good for anyone but themselves. YOu can go ahead and defend
selfishness as a virtue a la Any Rant - but the bottom line for the
Tories is ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE. No regard for
children, the future of the country, the prosperity of individuals,
opportunities for the young, care for the aged and infirm - it is only
about their money.
Wayne Brandson
> 1) capital gains taxes that demand that (approx) half of all revenue from the sale of a house must be paid to the government unless that
money is
YEP sure do. (unless the house is an investment property - a
persons home is not an investment) Think that your more familiar with US
taxation than Canadian as above is incorrect -
We do of course have onerous Capital Gains taxes which are of course
confication of individuals assets by the government , however most
societies do degenerate to stealing from citizens until drastic
disruptiuon takes place.
For example if one makes an investment of $ 100,000 in a investment in
stocks, houses or whatever and it grows at an average of 5% per year
(for simplicity sake assume inflation also averages 5% during same
period) it would value would be approxiamtely $ 163,000 in 10 years.
If the property was sold at that time a minimum tax of $ 14,700 would be
assessed owner by the system in Canada which in my opinion is criminal
in effect if not law (another real messy area). Mind you many other
countries including the USA have also let their bureaucrats and scummy
politicians enact such laws.
Brad Aisa
>And by all means, vote Tory - cause in spite of all bthe bullshit
>rhetoric about making the country grow, making things better for
>everyone, it is just a front for screwing your neighbour tight to the
>wall. It isn't about trickle down economics - it is about getting as
>much as you can as fast as you canand devil take the hindemost.
The fallacy in the above is, of course, equating amelioration of theft with
theft. In other words, according to 'jen thing' logic, if I refuse to
surrender my wallet to a hold-up man, I am "robbing" him. If a government
reduces confiscatory/redictributive taxation, it is "robbing" the poor who
previously recieved the looted bounty.
Uh, huh.
>Good to see that the truth will out no matter how many little policy
>statements are made or how many bullshit spin-doctors are hired. The
>current swing to the right is only about revenge for supposed wrongs
>committed against them, it is only about a cash grab without reference to
>what is good for anyone but themselves. YOu can go ahead and defend
>selfishness as a virtue a la Any Rant - but the bottom line for the
>Tories is ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE. No regard for
>children, the future of the country, the prosperity of individuals,
>opportunities for the young, care for the aged and infirm - it is only
>about their money.
Well, if only such great things could truly be said of the Tories!
Actually, it is a rather sizable bit more pragmatic than that. But who
knows, at least the NDP'ers, such as Bob Rae and the poster, think that the
Tories are premised on such ideas as expressed in Francisco D'Anconia's
"Money is the root of all good" speech in Atlas Shrugged. Now if only the
Tories would clue in!
I voted for the Tories (reluctantly, due to their pragmatism and lack of
fundamental philosophic base), purely for SELFISH reasons. It was for MY
benefit, and MY money. MINE MINE MINE --that's MY motto!
--
Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ba...@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Bruce McQuain
>cs92...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca (DINO CARUBIA) wrote:
>>My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
>>Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
>>1) It will hasten the system's demise.
>>2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
>Kiss my ass, you sniveling cheapskate. Pay your taxes like a good
>Canadian should; like the rest of us do, you freeloading ninny.
He IS paying his taxes...he just plans on getting back what he can
by using the system he's financing through the extortion of that
taxation.
---------------------------------------
McQ
Bruce McQuain
Jeff Iverson
>cs92...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca (DINO CARUBIA) wrote:
>>My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
>>Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
>>1) It will hasten the system's demise.
>>2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
>Kiss my ass, you sniveling cheapskate. Pay your taxes like a good
>Canadian should; like the rest of us do, you freeloading ninny.
I'm afraid you scored no points with that last volley.
Why is it right to take from some to give to others? Just tell me why.
Jeff Iverson - Custom Programming - Unique Solutions - Reasonable Cost
Smalltalk + HyperTalk + Visual Basic + Oracle Power Objects + XCMDs & XFCNs
Iverson Software Co., 522 Record St., Mankato MN 56001-2546, 507.625.7355
Jeff Iverson
>DINO CARUBIA (cs92...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca) wrote:
>: In article <4f5vnu$1...@news.magi.com> nsi...@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) writes:
>: >marc...@medcor.mcgill.ca (Richard Marcellus) wrote:
>: >
>: >Good riddance to you. But I'll bet you come sniveling back to Canada
>: >when you're old and infirm, so you can suck on the system at both
>: >ends..
>: Why would he want to come back? If things keeps going the way they are
>: going there won't be much of a country to come back to.
>: My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
>: Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
>: 1) It will hasten the system's demise.
>: 2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
>And by all means, vote Tory - cause in spite of all bthe bullshit
>rhetoric about making the country grow, making things better for
>everyone, it is just a front for screwing your neighbour tight to the
>wall. It isn't about trickle down economics - it is about getting as
>much as you can as fast as you canand devil take the hindemost.
>Good to see that the truth will out no matter how many little policy
>statements are made or how many bullshit spin-doctors are hired. The
>current swing to the right is only about revenge for supposed wrongs
>committed against them, it is only about a cash grab without reference to
>what is good for anyone but themselves. YOu can go ahead and defend
>selfishness as a virtue a la Any Rant - but the bottom line for the
>Tories is ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE. No regard for
>children, the future of the country, the prosperity of individuals,
>opportunities for the young, care for the aged and infirm - it is only
>about their money.
The only people I'm concerned about are my family and my friends. If any of
them need my help, it is freely offered. However, I resent being siphoned to
pay the fare for someone I neither know nor care for. Is it better for
everyone to have nothing, or for some to have lots, some have some, and some
have nothing?
DINO CARUBIA
>lgri...@qnet.com (Lionell Griffith) writes:
>
>>Producers don't need non-producers. Non-producers need producers.
>>So what. The non-producers can go suck rocks for all I care.
>>I will NOT be a willing and cooperative slave.
>
>From the tone of your post, you think of yourself as a producer.
>
>How much did you produce as a result of posting?
Non-sequiter. Lionell is talking about the use of non-retaliatory force by
governments to regulate relationships among men. This kind of force in
effect makes Lionell a slave to non-producers. This is what he is NOT
willing to be co-operative about. I agree with him.
>So you disagree with the need for a pool of unemployed labor
>to keep wages down for the productive people who hire from
>this pool?
The *NEED*? Whose need? Laissez-faire capitalism is not conspiratorial in
any way. It is a moral system because it is a system based on voluntary
relationships among men. Is this so hard to understand?
Regards,
Dino.
the jen thing
>
>The fallacy in the above is, of course, equating amelioration of theft with
>theft. In other words, according to 'jen thing' logic, if I refuse to
>surrender my wallet to a hold-up man, I am "robbing" him. If a government
>reduces confiscatory/redictributive taxation, it is "robbing" the poor who
>previously recieved the looted bounty.
>
>Uh, huh.
Amelioration of theft if you can actually get to the individuals who are
responsible for the theft. But I didn't personally steal a darn thing.
So, if his actions result in loss for me, as I abide by the legal rules
that bind us all - he is the thief. That is unless you are prepared to
admit something like the existence of collective responsibility. Oh - you
can't do that can you? You have to all be individuals. The post that
I replied to and the poster that I replied to was advocating theft of
MY resources.
>>Good to see that the truth will out no matter how many little policy
>>statements are made or how many bullshit spin-doctors are hired. The
>>current swing to the right is only about revenge for supposed wrongs
>>committed against them, it is only about a cash grab without reference to
>>what is good for anyone but themselves. YOu can go ahead and defend
>>selfishness as a virtue a la Any Rant - but the bottom line for the
>>Tories is ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE MINE. No regard for
>>children, the future of the country, the prosperity of individuals,
>>opportunities for the young, care for the aged and infirm - it is only
>>about their money.
>
>Well, if only such great things could truly be said of the Tories!
>Actually, it is a rather sizable bit more pragmatic than that. But who
>knows, at least the NDP'ers, such as Bob Rae and the poster, think that the
>Tories are premised on such ideas as expressed in Francisco D'Anconia's
>"Money is the root of all good" speech in Atlas Shrugged. Now if only the
>Tories would clue in!
You know, you should put down the Any Rant books and start trying to
reason things out for yourself. The goal of any teacher should be that
the student surpass them. You are betraying Ms. Rant in your religious
adherence to her poorly stated and even more poorly supported reasoning.
Break free Brad. Be your own man. Learn to think for yourself.
>I voted for the Tories (reluctantly, due to their pragmatism and lack of
>fundamental philosophic base), purely for SELFISH reasons. It was for MY
>benefit, and MY money. MINE MINE MINE --that's MY motto!
So your principles hold just as far as your wallet is affected? How
could you, you sterling champion of the truth, vote for people who
used lies and damn lies to hoodwink the populace? Oh.. right.. you thought
it would put some money in your pocket. Just so we are all clear on
your motivations - nothing to do with principle, nothing to do with
philosophical position - in the final analysis it only has to do with
what will line your pockets. Tsk tsk tsk. I loathe a man without
principles. Don't trust them at all. How could they possibly spend
all their time railing against a system and its legitimacy and then
participate in it... tsk tsk tsk.
Nicholas Sidor
>The only people I'm concerned about are my family and my friends. If any of
>them need my help, it is freely offered. However, I resent being siphoned to
>pay the fare for someone I neither know nor care for.
We think that you would be well advised to go and meet some more
people, Mr. Iverson. Might do you some good. Start by volunteering at
your local shelter for the homeless, perhaps?
Trying giving a few bucks to charity; that might also help your
attitude toward those less fortunate (!) than yourself.
> Is it better for
>everyone to have nothing, or for some to have lots, some have some, and some
>have nothing?
Silly question, in light of what you wrote above, IMHO.
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
[snip]
More sophomoric (!) nonsense from these wingnuts, always good for a
laugh or two.
What planet are you guys on, anyway? Sounds like fun....
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>nsi...@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:
>>cs92...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca (DINO CARUBIA) wrote:
>>>My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
>>>Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
>>>1) It will hasten the system's demise.
>>>2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
>>Kiss my ass, you sniveling cheapskate. Pay your taxes like a good
>>Canadian should; like the rest of us do, you freeloading ninny.
>I'm afraid you scored no points with that last volley.
>Why is it right to take from some to give to others? Just tell me why.
Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
something that we do, in civilized society, that's all. What would
*you* do, let 'em all starve?
*Civilized* and *society*. I'm for both.
nick
>Jeff Iverson - Custom Programming - Unique Solutions - Reasonable Cost
>Smalltalk + HyperTalk + Visual Basic + Oracle Power Objects + XCMDs & XFCNs
>Iverson Software Co., 522 Record St., Mankato MN 56001-2546, 507.625.7355
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Ernest Brown
"It's just something that we do, in civilized society, that's all."
This century has seen the greatest wave of genocide ever, primarily confined
to "civilized society." The San Bushmen of Africa didn't gas the Jews and
the Aborigines of Australia didn't shoot the kulaks and starve the Ukranians.
To do something simply because "it's always been done this way" is stupidly
irrational, especially when you do it regardless of moral consequences.
"What would *you* do, let 'em all starve?"
Why, if there were enough Nick Sidors around, who were voluntarily willing to
give up THEIR time and effort to help the poor, then they wouldn't starve,
would they? No one on this list would want to impede you if that's what you
want to do. However, if you like the idea of forced labor and involuntary
servitude for this goal, then we'd disagree.
--
"Wisdom is justified of her children"
Brad Aisa
>In article <4fjbto$t...@noc.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net says...
>You know, you should put down the Any Rant books and start trying to
>reason things out for yourself. The goal of any teacher should be that
>the student surpass them. You are betraying Ms. Rant in your religious
>adherence to her poorly stated and even more poorly supported reasoning.
>Break free Brad. Be your own man. Learn to think for yourself.
Are you suggesting that it is not the content of ideas and their
relationship which is primary, but their source, or whether they were
derived personally, or learned from others? In other words, I may only hold
ideas which I originate myself, but not those of others?
But then, wouldn't that make me a slave not just to (say) one thinker, but
ALL thinkers? Wouldn't I then have to be concerned with the content of
EVERYONE ELSE'S consciousness, to avoid holding any idea orginated by
another?
What happens when an idea I happened to originate myself, which I happen to
have demonstrated to my satisfaction is true (BTW, does _validation_ and
_proof_ appear anywhere in your unique epistemological theory?), then do I
have to drop it? Only if the other person discovered it first? Or does this
only apply to famous or well-known thinkers?
I would really appreciate some answers to these important questions.
>>I voted for the Tories (reluctantly, due to their pragmatism and lack of
>>fundamental philosophic base), purely for SELFISH reasons. It was for MY
>>benefit, and MY money. MINE MINE MINE --that's MY motto!
>
>So your principles hold just as far as your wallet is affected? How
>could you, you sterling champion of the truth, vote for people who
>used lies and damn lies to hoodwink the populace? Oh.. right.. you
>thought
>it would put some money in your pocket. Just so we are all clear on
>your motivations - nothing to do with principle, nothing to do with
>philosophical position - in the final analysis it only has to do with
>what will line your pockets. Tsk tsk tsk. I loathe a man without
>principles. Don't trust them at all. How could they possibly spend
>all their time railing against a system and its legitimacy and then
>participate in it... tsk tsk tsk.
Why guess when you could just ask me? I said I _reluctantly_ voted for the
Tories. Very reluctantly, and I now regret it, particularly because of
their appalling policy against doctors and hospitals.
If I do not believe there is any party which I may morally vote for, then I
refrain from voting. But this time, I considered the Tories to be at least
acceptable, since their stated agenda was primarily to scale back
government spending, and to repeal some particularly horrible statist
measures passed by the NDP. It should be noted, that the NDP only got in on
a split minority popular vote, whereas the Tories had a resounding
majority. Thus, they have a clear mandate to repeal all those measures, and
institute those spending reductions.
My principles are individual rights, including the right of people --
myself foremost among them, but ALL people included -- to earn their living
and keep their earnings. There is no dichotomy between my principles, and
my own self-interest, nor is there any conflict between the principles I
advocate for myself, and those I advocate for others; it is the same in all
cases: individual rights.
I do not consider the Tories to be champions of individual rights, but as a
voter, I chose what I considered to be the least threatening party of
individual rights. I accept no responsibility for anything the Tories do
which they did not announce in their platform. That would be a vicious
thing to blame anyone of. The blame rests solidly with the Tories, who can
be trounced next election if you want.
If you have any questions about what are my principles, how these are
implemented, or any questions about the virtue of integrity, please feel
free to ask. I hope I have cleared up your concerns. I am not a pragmatist.
Brad Aisa
>j5r...@prairie.lakes.com (Jeff Iverson) wrote:
>
>>The only people I'm concerned about are my family and my friends. If any
>>of them need my help, it is freely offered. However, I resent being
>>siphoned to pay the fare for someone I neither know nor care for.
>
>We think that you would be well advised to go and meet some more
>people, Mr. Iverson. Might do you some good. Start by volunteering at
>your local shelter for the homeless, perhaps?
Why should Mr. Iverson spend his precious time at a homeless center? Why
not working to improve his business, or socializing with his family and
friends? Why is it wrong to enjoy one's own life, but right to sacrifice it
to others. If it is "selfish" for Mr. Iverson to enjoy his own life, isn't
it selfish for the homeless to accept his sacrifice?
>Trying giving a few bucks to charity; that might also help your
>attitude toward those less fortunate (!) than yourself.
I can't recall Mr. Iverson expressing any opinion of those less fortunate
than himself -- what made you think he did?
Brad Aisa
>>Why is it right to take from some to give to others? Just tell me why.
>
>Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
>something that we do, in civilized society, that's all.
Dagny walked straight toward the guard who stood at the door of "Project
F." [wherein John Galt was being held hostage]
"Let me in," she said.
"No admittance," he answered in the voice of a robot. "By order of
Dr. Ferris."
[she claims to have been sent by "the Washington crowd" -- the two have an
interchange -- he moves to get confirmation by phone]
"No," she said.
Some quality in the tone of her voice made him whirl back to her: she
was holding a gun pointed levelly at his heart. [...]
His mouth fell open and the key dropped from his hand.
"Get out of my way," she said.
[he refuses to decide whether to believe her or follow his superiors'
previous orders]
He shook his head frantically, pressing his back against the door. "Oh
Christ, ma'am!" he gulped in the whine of a desperate plea. [...]
"I'll count to three," she said. "Then I'll shoot." [...]
"One--" she counted; she could see his eyes staring at her in
terror--"Two--" she could see that the gun held less terror for him that
the alternative she offered--"Three."
Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an
animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had
wanted to exist without the responsitbility of consciousness.
>*Civilized* and *society*. I'm for both.
No you aren't -- your haven't a clue what those are. Get out of our way.
Tony Donadio
: >Why is it right to take from some to give to others? Just tell me why.
: Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
: something that we do, in civilized society, that's all. What would
: *you* do, let 'em all starve?
Rarely do you get to see intellectual cowardice and passivity so brazenly
displayed. The poster does not even want to be troubled with the
responsibility of having to think about and judge ideas and policy; all he
wants is to conform to whatever the society he lives in has established
as tradition, as what it "just does."
I just want to point out to the rational readers of the thread that we
have been challenging the advocates of state force to defend and justify
their policy on moral grounds for some time. When they are not squirming
like mad to evade the question, you have seen that THIS is the only kind
of "answer" that they are capable of delivering. Judge them and their
policies accordingly.
--
Tony * Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish
Donadio * to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for
* value. - Francisco D'Anconia, in ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand
Nicholas Sidor
>>We think that you would be well advised to go and meet some more
>>people, Mr. Iverson. Might do you some good. Start by volunteering at
>>your local shelter for the homeless, perhaps?
>Why should Mr. Iverson spend his precious time at a homeless center? Why
>not working to improve his business, or socializing with his family and
>friends? Why is it wrong to enjoy one's own life, but right to sacrifice it
>to others. If it is "selfish" for Mr. Iverson to enjoy his own life, isn't
>it selfish for the homeless to accept his sacrifice?
Always good to have a wide range of experience with different sorts of
fellow humans. It would appear that many of us do enjoy volunteer
work, wouldn't it? (Certainly, lots of us do it...)
>>Trying giving a few bucks to charity; that might also help your
>>attitude toward those less fortunate (!) than yourself.
>I can't recall Mr. Iverson expressing any opinion of those less fortunate
>than himself -- what made you think he did?
Sure he did. Read what he posted.
>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
You make her almost sound as if she had a consistent and useful
political philosophy. Good novelist...
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Douglas B Clayton
Doctors Who Re.. by Nicholas Si...@magi.com
>
>Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
>something that we do, in civilized society, that's all. What would
>*you* do, let 'em all starve?
"I don't know if it's right and I don't care--it's the way we have
always done things, so who am I to want to change it? What would *you*
do, let 'em all live their own lives as independent people?"
Sheesh. I can't believe anyone says BS like that.
>*Civilized* and *society*. I'm for both.
Who says that this *aspect* of our society is civilized? Savages have
done *that* for as long as they have been around.
>nick
Douglas Clayton
Brad Aisa
>ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>Always good to have a wide range of experience with different sorts of
>fellow humans. It would appear that many of us do enjoy volunteer
>work, wouldn't it? (Certainly, lots of us do it...)
No one is arguing against your or anyone's rights to *voluntarily* engage
in volunteer work. What some of us would like, is the right to NOT
"volunteer" to help others, via our hard earned wages.
Help others with *your* resources, and those you can voluntarily solicit.
Don't have the affrontery to try to proselytize on the virtues of altruism
while you are enforcing it at gunpoint on others.
>>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
>
>You make her almost sound as if she had a consistent and useful
>political philosophy. Good novelist...
Let's see. The fight rational, reality-based morality of egoism. A secular,
reality-based defense of individual rights. A clear, unequivocal exposition
of why man needs government, and what the proper structure of government
should be. The first person to solve the alleged dichotomy between
inalienable rights and taxation. And on.
If you wish to refute Objectivist political philosophy, attempt to refute
it. Claiming it doesn't exist is just childish, and will earn you contempt
from both sides of the debate.
--
Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
ba...@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
Nicholas Sidor
>Nicholas Sidor (nsi...@magi.com) wrote:
>: >Why is it right to take from some to give to others? Just tell me why.
>: Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
>: something that we do, in civilized society, that's all. What would
>: *you* do, let 'em all starve?
>Rarely do you get to see intellectual cowardice and passivity so brazenly
>displayed. The poster does not even want to be troubled with the
>responsibility of having to think about and judge ideas and policy; all he
>wants is to conform to whatever the society he lives in has established
>as tradition, as what it "just does."
>I just want to point out to the rational readers of the thread that we
>have been challenging the advocates of state force to defend and justify
>their policy on moral grounds for some time. When they are not squirming
>like mad to evade the question, you have seen that THIS is the only kind
>of "answer" that they are capable of delivering. Judge them and their
>policies accordingly.
Thanks for the compliment (I think). Gosh, I don't think that I was
feeling challenged to defend "state force" at all; I was writing to
some weiner (that's "whiner"...ed) who seemed to think that he
shouldn't be bothered to pay his taxes, while the rest of us had to.
I found that attitude blatantly unfair, as any hard-pressed taxpayer
probably would. Is there something you find way off-base about that
(actually, save your breath on that -- I don't think most of us would
care all that much if you did...)
Is the "state force" that *you* are talking about "collecting taxes"?
Or something else? (I'm truly not sure...). If it is (and it certainly
is in the case of that loon Wiebe) then presumably the moral
legitimacy of it arises from a social contract, namely that in most
societies, humans have decided that it is an efficient, effective and
presumably morally legitimate way of paying for certain things.
(Spare us the rant about how the majority has been hoodwinked, okay?
And how what's her name was the only coherent philosopher since the
beginning of time. Thanks.)
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Tony Donadio
: Is the "state force" that *you* are talking about "collecting taxes"?
That is what I was focusing on, although the state certainly engages in
other forms of force as well.
: Or something else? (I'm truly not sure...). If it is (and it certainly
: is in the case of that loon Wiebe) then presumably the moral
: legitimacy of it arises from a social contract, namely that in most
: societies, humans have decided that it is an efficient, effective and
: presumably morally legitimate way of paying for certain things.
This simply begs the question. How does the poster morally justify his
conception of the "social contract?"
Observe the poster's language. "Humans have decided" -- WHO? "Humans"
as a collective term do "not" decide anything; only individual people do.
By what means are they alleged to have decided this? A majority vote?
What about the dissenters? What morally justifies the majority forcing
them to participate in this "social contract?" I certainly didn't consent
to it, and neither did many of the others writing on this thread. What
even justifies calling it a "contract" if it is not freely agreed to by
the parties it is supposed to be binding upon?
This is what Brad Aisa means when he refers to these people as Borg. They
literally are unable to think and speak about *individual* human beings,
only about abstract collectives. In advocating and implementing their
schemes, they literally pretend that individual people do not exist --
that they have somehow become homogenized into whole whose actions are
morally legitimized by that fact. And in doing so, they trample *actual*
individuals and their lives and interests into the ground.
: (Spare us the rant about how the majority has been hoodwinked, okay?
I have no particular point to make on that score. I do not grant the
premise that a majority vote morally legitimizes ANY violation of
individual rights. If this is the poster's position, then THIS is what he
has to offer a rational argument to justify. If three men are on a desert
island, for example, and two of them are hungry, does the poster think
they have the right to cook and eat the third? If not, then what does he
see as essentially different in the two examples?
DINO CARUBIA
>cs92...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca (DINO CARUBIA) wrote:
>
>>My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
>
>>Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
>
>>1) It will hasten the system's demise.
>>2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
>
>Kiss my ass, you sniveling cheapskate. Pay your taxes like a good
>Canadian should; like the rest of us do, you freeloading ninny.
Wow! You can really argue using principles! NOT!
First the concretes:
1) I never said I don't pay taxes. I am forced to pay like everyone else.
Of course, I _could_ decline to pay taxes, but then I'd go to jail, wouldn't
I?
2) Milking the system means: get any 'entitlement' that you can get your
hands on, legally. Doing this will at least allow you to get back some of the
money stolen from you through taxation. (Note: The only reason I suggest
doing it legally is because of the risk of a prison term. Morally, I think
it is proper to take back what has been stolen from you by ANY non-violent
means.)
3) I am Canadian only in the sense that I was born in this country. That's
it. I don't subscribe to any of that "Canadian Identity" BS you hear the
media and government spouting off about. This is because their version of
what it means to be Canadian is that we have better social programs than the
Americans. That's not an identity, that's socialism. So, if that's what it
means to be Canadian, then I guess I'm just an individual without a
nationality. When a country on this planet is born that respects individual
rights on a consistent basis, that will be my nationality. Until then,
spiritually, I am nation-less.
4) I don't freeload. I have a job. Do you? Who's the REAL freeloader
here?
Now the principles:
I know you are Borg and you want to assimilate me, but I refuse to be
assimilated, so fuck you, you Nazi pig.
What _should_ a _good Canadian_ do?
Well, that all depends on what _the good_ is.
Is life good? Since the only alternative to life is death, the only answer
to that question can be YES! Life is the ultimate value.
How does man sustain HIS life? What faculty or ability does man posses
that allows him to live? What is his primary virutue? Man's primary
virutue is rationality. It is the only faculty that has allowed man to
become master of this planet.
Who should profit from his actions? Since man's consciousness is conceptual
and volitional, "each individual must choose his values and actions by the
standards of man's life - in order to achieve the purpose of maintaining and
enjoying his own life. Thus Objectivism advocates egoism - the pursuit of
self-interest - the policy of selfishness." (Page 230, OPAR). From the above
it becomes obvious that the actor should profit from his actions.
So what should a good Canadian do? He should take any non-violent steps
necessary to hasten the demise of the Borg-like system designed not to
sustain life, but to removing the preconditions required to live it as a
man. Of course, this applies to any nationality, not just to Canadians.
Before you call anyone a "sniveling cheapskate" for wanting control over the
products of his actions, check your premises. I think you will find that it
is YOU who is a sniveling creature who only resembles a man in physical
form, but not in spirit. Don't be cheap with your rationality, cheapskate.
Regards,
Dino.
DINO CARUBIA
Subject: Re: Death to Doctors Who Refuse To Serve! (dead-end of medicare)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <4f5vnu$1...@news.magi.com> <DMJA4...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca> <4fik36$f...@news.magi.com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: York University, Dept. of Computer Science
Keywords:
Nicholas Sidor
>In article <4fik36$f...@news.magi.com> nsi...@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) writes:
>>cs92...@ariel.cs.yorku.ca (DINO CARUBIA) wrote:
>>
>>>My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
>>
>>>Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
>>
>>>1) It will hasten the system's demise.
>>>2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
>>
>>Kiss my ass, you sniveling cheapskate. Pay your taxes like a good
>>Canadian should; like the rest of us do, you freeloading ninny.
>Wow! You can really argue using principles! NOT!
Glad you enjoyed it.
>First the concretes:
>1) I never said I don't pay taxes. I am forced to pay like everyone else.
>Of course, I _could_ decline to pay taxes, but then I'd go to jail, wouldn't
>I?
Yeah, and too bad for you. Cf another of my pithy postings, on civil
disobedience. Try that...instead of whining. You might at least get a
few people's respect on the way to the slammer...
>2) Milking the system means: get any 'entitlement' that you can get your
>hands on, legally. Doing this will at least allow you to get back some of the
>money stolen from you through taxation. (Note: The only reason I suggest
>doing it legally is because of the risk of a prison term. Morally, I think
>it is proper to take back what has been stolen from you by ANY non-violent
>means.)
You need a checkup about what "morality" means. If you don't need it,
you shouldn't ask for it. Isn't that part of why we're all fed up with
how high taxes are, because some of the people claiming entitlements
aren't entitled. They're contemptible; so too is your attitude. (More
whining, I should have said. Woulda been faster to read and type...)
>3) I am Canadian only in the sense that I was born in this country. That's
>it. I don't subscribe to any of that "Canadian Identity" BS you hear the
>media and government spouting off about. This is because their version of
>what it means to be Canadian is that we have better social programs than the
>Americans. That's not an identity, that's socialism.
That, my friend, is nonsense. Nobody I've ever heard of thinks that's
all there is to being Canadian. Do you not think there are good
Canadians who are conservatives? (Dolt!)
>So, if that's what it
>means to be Canadian, then I guess I'm just an individual without a
>nationality. When a country on this planet is born that respects individual
>rights on a consistent basis, that will be my nationality. Until then,
>spiritually, I am nation-less.
Well, la-de-da. But that wouldn't stop you from "milking" the system
the rest of us have set up, would it? How about instead of nation-less
(poor you!) we just put in "hypocrite"?
>4) I don't freeload. I have a job. Do you? Who's the REAL freeloader
>here?
I have a job. I pay taxes. I don't "milk" the system, nor advocate it.
You tell me what that makes me, bozo.
>Now the principles:
>I know you are Borg and you want to assimilate me, but I refuse to be
>assimilated, so fuck you, you Nazi pig.
What is a Borg?
>What _should_ a _good Canadian_ do?
>Well, that all depends on what _the good_ is.
>Is life good? Since the only alternative to life is death, the only answer
>to that question can be YES! Life is the ultimate value.
>How does man sustain HIS life? What faculty or ability does man posses
>that allows him to live? What is his primary virutue? Man's primary
>virutue is rationality. It is the only faculty that has allowed man to
>become master of this planet.
>Who should profit from his actions? Since man's consciousness is conceptual
>and volitional, "each individual must choose his values and actions by the
>standards of man's life - in order to achieve the purpose of maintaining and
>enjoying his own life. Thus Objectivism advocates egoism - the pursuit of
>self-interest - the policy of selfishness." (Page 230, OPAR). From the above
>it becomes obvious that the actor should profit from his actions.
>So what should a good Canadian do? He should take any non-violent steps
>necessary to hasten the demise of the Borg-like system designed not to
>sustain life, but to removing the preconditions required to live it as a
>man. Of course, this applies to any nationality, not just to Canadians.
>Before you call anyone a "sniveling cheapskate" for wanting control over the
>products of his actions, check your premises. I think you will find that it
>is YOU who is a sniveling creature who only resembles a man in physical
>form, but not in spirit. Don't be cheap with your rationality, cheapskate.
Write back when you get out of high school, you twink. Only a half-wit
sophomore would hoover back that Objectivist nonsense at the rate
you're going.
Listen to what you wrote:
"each individual must choose his values and actions by the
standards of man's life - in order to achieve the purpose of
maintaining and enjoying his own life. Thus Objectivism advocates
egoism - the pursuit of self-interest - the policy of selfishness."
It troubles me that you think anything as incoherent and tautological
as that that means anything at all.
But it doesn't trouble me too much, that's for sure.
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>Nicholas Sidor (nsi...@magi.com) wrote:
>: Is the "state force" that *you* are talking about "collecting taxes"?
>That is what I was focusing on, although the state certainly engages in
>other forms of force as well.
>: Or something else? (I'm truly not sure...). If it is (and it certainly
>: is in the case of that loon Wiebe) then presumably the moral
>: legitimacy of it arises from a social contract, namely that in most
>: societies, humans have decided that it is an efficient, effective and
>: presumably morally legitimate way of paying for certain things.
>This simply begs the question. How does the poster morally justify his
>conception of the "social contract?"
Now why would *I* need to do that? It's a fairly straightforward,
garden variety observation, that any simpleton (well, almost any,
obviously) could understand...
>Observe the poster's language. "Humans have decided" -- WHO? "Humans"
>as a collective term do "not" decide anything; only individual people do.
>By what means are they alleged to have decided this? A majority vote?
>What about the dissenters? What morally justifies the majority forcing
>them to participate in this "social contract?" I certainly didn't consent
>to it, and neither did many of the others writing on this thread. What
>even justifies calling it a "contract" if it is not freely agreed to by
>the parties it is supposed to be binding upon?
I think you're problem might be that you only ever read one half-baked
philosopher, and then stopped. Whole libraries have been written about
those questions, obviously. When you're not glued to your keyboard,
you might want to take a look in one, just for fun. Find out what a
loon you appear to be to anyone who made it to the first lecture of a
first year political theory class...
>This is what Brad Aisa means when he refers to these people as Borg. They
>literally are unable to think and speak about *individual* human beings,
>only about abstract collectives. In advocating and implementing their
>schemes, they literally pretend that individual people do not exist --
>that they have somehow become homogenized into whole whose actions are
>morally legitimized by that fact. And in doing so, they trample *actual*
>individuals and their lives and interests into the ground.
"Literally pretend that individual people do not exist"? What have you
been smoking and does it grow in Canada? I think you probably mean
"figuratively", anyway.
>: (Spare us the rant about how the majority has been hoodwinked, okay?
>I have no particular point to make on that score.
After just implying that, in your previous paragraph...
> I do not grant the
>premise that a majority vote morally legitimizes ANY violation of
>individual rights. If this is the poster's position, then THIS is what he
>has to offer a rational argument to justify. If three men are on a desert
>island, for example, and two of them are hungry, does the poster think
>they have the right to cook and eat the third? If not, then what does he
>see as essentially different in the two examples?
Sorry, that's only one example. Sober up and try again. And just who
is this "poster". Do you mean ol' nick, you pretentious nitwit? If you
can't see the difference between a majority vote and cannibalism,
well, you get the picture.
What a bonehead. End of discussion. Back to the hardware store with
you...
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>nsi...@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:
>>ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>>Always good to have a wide range of experience with different sorts of
>>fellow humans. It would appear that many of us do enjoy volunteer
>>work, wouldn't it? (Certainly, lots of us do it...)
>No one is arguing against your or anyone's rights to *voluntarily* engage
>in volunteer work. What some of us would like, is the right to NOT
>"volunteer" to help others, via our hard earned wages.
Tough titty. You have to, until we all stop (that would be when hell
freezes over....). In the meantime, quit your whining and ante up your
fair share, like the rest of us. Or, if you think your cause is so
righteous that folks will be persuaded, withhold your taxes and take
your medicine (cf. civil disobedience).
What gives you any right to pick *my* pocket...
>Help others with *your* resources, and those you can voluntarily solicit.
>Don't have the affrontery to try to proselytize on the virtues of altruism
>while you are enforcing it at gunpoint on others.
What in the world are you talking about. I don't even *own* a gun,
never mind pointing one at somebody. Sounds as if you're trying to
censor me, or point out some imaginary inconsistency in what I've
written.
>>>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>>>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
>>
>>You make her almost sound as if she had a consistent and useful
>>political philosophy. Good novelist...
>Let's see. The fight rational, reality-based morality of egoism. A secular,
>reality-based defense of individual rights. A clear, unequivocal exposition
>of why man needs government, and what the proper structure of government
>should be. The first person to solve the alleged dichotomy between
>inalienable rights and taxation. And on.
"Rationalization of egoism", you mean. There are lots of
philosophically consistent secular defences of individual rights, most
of them with more adherents than Rand. Why people need government?
Ever hear of Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Jefferson, etc ad nauseam. The
alleged dichotomy between inalienable rights and taxation is a scam --
of course she could solve it, she invented it in the first place,
along with a whole gargantuan load of horseshit that only a few
ill-read sophomoric wingnuts ever bothered to take seriously.
But, as I said....good novelist.
>If you wish to refute Objectivist political philosophy, attempt to refute
>it. Claiming it doesn't exist is just childish, and will earn you contempt
>from both sides of the debate.
I wouldn't waste my breath. And I didn't claim it didn't exist, all I
said or implied was that it was a whole garguantual load of bat guano
that only a tiny minority of half-witted high school students ever
paid attention to.
And wrapping a stinky fish in the New York Times doesn't usually make
it stink any less.
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Tony Donadio
: Yeah, and too bad for you. Cf another of my pithy postings, on civil
: disobedience. Try that...instead of whining. You might at least get a
: few people's respect on the way to the slammer...
On the poster's premise, a mugging victim has an obligation to refuse to
surrender his wallet, even if he will be beaten or shot in the process.
WHY? WHAT THE HELL kind of sick justification does he think allows him to
claim that the victim of a crime has no right to protest if he does not
resist *physically* against overwhelming force? No victim has an
obligation to make a martyr out if himself. Dino still lives in a
semi-free society, one in which he can still exercise free speech without
state punishment; and he is using that freedom while he has it to fight
the system on moral and intellectual grounds.
I would like to hear a rational argument for WHY someone like Dino is
supposed to be some kind of hypocrite if he does not "hand over his
wallet" to the government mugger when their guns are trained on him.
Good luck; there ISN'T one.
Tony Donadio
: You need a checkup about what "morality" means. If you don't need it,
: you shouldn't ask for it. Isn't that part of why we're all fed up with
: how high taxes are, because some of the people claiming entitlements
: aren't entitled.
NO ONE is "entitled" to the so-called "entitlements." That is why they
should be abolished. If the poster believes otherwise, let's hear his
rational, moral argument defending them. Good luck.
Also -- what is the poster's problem with responding to arguments about
why forcibly taking peoples' property is immoral? Could it be that he
*has* no response to give?
: Well, la-de-da. But that wouldn't stop you from "milking" the system
: the rest of us have set up, would it?
False premise: The poster and his kind sustain the system; Dino and his
family did and do not. This is a transparent lie.
Tony Donadio
: Write back when you get out of high school, you twink. Only a half-wit
: sophomore would hoover back that Objectivist nonsense at the rate
: you're going.
This is what Ayn Rand called the "Argument From Intimidation."
Sorry, but I'm not intimidated. For myself, I'm a 35 year old with a
Master's degree -- and I know plenty of older, smarter, and better
educated people than myself who uphold Ayn Rand's ideas. So much for the
poster's assertion.
: "each individual must choose his values and actions by the
: standards of man's life - in order to achieve the purpose of
: maintaining and enjoying his own life. Thus Objectivism advocates
: egoism - the pursuit of self-interest - the policy of selfishness."
: It troubles me that you think anything as incoherent and tautological
: as that that means anything at all.
If this is overly complicated for the poster, let me simplify it. One
must act in accordance with the principles required to sustain human life
if one is going to be able to do so. But life is an attribute of each man
as an individual; we are not Borg. To sustain life thus means to sustain
YOUR life as an individual; there is no other kind.
Tony Donadio
: tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
: >This simply begs the question. How does the poster morally justify his
: >conception of the "social contract?"
: Now why would *I* need to do that? It's a fairly straightforward,
: garden variety observation, that any simpleton (well, almost any,
: obviously) could understand...
Really? Then a garden variety simpleton like the poster should be able to
explain it without too much trouble. I wonder why he won't? Could it be
that he really CAN'T justify this idea, and is simply trying to pull an
"Emperor's New Clothes Gambit" here?
: >Observe the poster's language. "Humans have decided" -- WHO? "Humans"
: >as a collective term do "not" decide anything; only individual people do.
: >By what means are they alleged to have decided this? A majority vote?
: >What about the dissenters? What morally justifies the majority forcing
: >them to participate in this "social contract?" I certainly didn't consent
: >to it, and neither did many of the others writing on this thread. What
: >even justifies calling it a "contract" if it is not freely agreed to by
: >the parties it is supposed to be binding upon?
: I think you're problem might be that you only ever read one half-baked
: philosopher, and then stopped. Whole libraries have been written about
: those questions, obviously.
Really? On what grounds does the poster make such presumptions? For the
record, I am quite well read in philosophy, and have studied the writings
of the major so-called "social contract thinkers" -- Hobbes, Locke, and
Rousseau -- in the original. I had the same criticisms of them then that
I am posing now. The fact that "libraries" have been written on the
subject does not mean that any of it is true or rational.
: When you're not glued to your keyboard, you might want to take a look
: in one, just for fun. Find out what a loon you appear to be to anyone
: who made it to the first lecture of a first year political theory class
Observe that, unable to answer my arguments, the poster resorts to ad
hominem, argument from intimidation, and an "Emperor's New Clothes" gambit
-- inventing personal attacks on my character, knowledge and education, in
spite of the fact that he knows nothing about these things. As I said:
they have no answers and no arguments to offer. THIS is intellectual
bankruptcy.
: >I do not grant the premise that a majority vote morally legitimizes
: >ANY violation of individual rights. If this is the poster's posit-
: >ion, then THIS is what he has to offer a rational argument to justify.
: >If three men are on a desert island, for example, and two of them are
: >hungry, does the poster think they have the right to cook and eat the
: >third? If not, then what does he see as essentially different in the
: >two examples?
: Sorry, that's only one example. Sober up and try again... If you
: can't see the difference between a majority vote and cannibalism,
: well, you get the picture.
: What a bonehead. End of discussion. Back to the hardware store with
: you...
Since the poster has persistently refused to actually *address* the
principles and issues raised here, continuing this thread is pointless.
To the thread's rational readers, however, I want to make the following
observations. You have seen the advocates of the welfare state challenged
to provide a rational and moral justification of their views. You have
seen them CONSISTENLY evade responding to theis challenge, substituting
instead ad hominem for argument -- offering remarks like "How does anyone
know its right? It's just something we do," "Sober up and try again,"
and "What a bonehead."
The advocates of the welfare state are morally and intellectually
bankrupt, and they know it. Judge them -- and their policies --
accordingly.
Nicholas Sidor
>>>Why is it right to take from some to give to others? Just tell me why.
>>Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
>>something that we do, in civilized society, that's all. What would
>>*you* do, let 'em all starve?
>Well, do it yourself, just don't force me to participate in your charity
>scheme. What would I do? Let them starve if that is what they choose,
>otherwise seek the help of friends and family or the Salvation Army, just
>don't ask me to pay their way, I've got my own friends and family to support.
What a moron you are. Who do you think would "choose" to starve? Do
you think that you have no responsibility as an ethical human being
toward, say, poor children? Never mind, you probably do think that.
If you don't, do you seriously think that relying on charity is an
efficient and effective way to discharge that responsibility? Get
serious.
>>*Civilized* and *society*. I'm for both.
>It's not civilized if one is enslaved to the unearned debt of the
>non-producers.
Oh, cry us a river (again). I've been to Minnesota; I didn't notice
anyone *enslaved*. Cheap hyperbole. Besides, I think you're just
hiding behind some tacky pretend philosophy to save your pocketbook so
you can buy a new VCR or something.
If you were serious about all this, you'd stop paying your taxes as a
matter of conscience/civil disobedience, and take your lumps. But no,
you just want to excuse that you're a tax dodging skinflint.
Nice try.
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>nsi...@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:
>>Always good to have a wide range of experience with different sorts of
>>fellow humans. It would appear that many of us do enjoy volunteer
>>work, wouldn't it? (Certainly, lots of us do it...)
>If more of my fellow humans would get their collective heads out of their
>collective butts perhaps I'd enjoy meeting a few more of them. As it is I
>prefer the friends I have, and the family that I am part of. You want to help
>the needy? Go ahead, I will not prevent you, buy don't steal from me to
>finance your generosity.
So there you are. Almost a definition of a narrow point of view, I'd
say. Sure, hang out with the same old gang. They are probably
freeloading tax evaders, just like you wannabe.
>My opinion of the less fortunate? If I know them (ie friend or family) then I
>have genuine compassion and caring and a willingness to help. If I don't know
>them (ie stranger) then I have no opinion. Compassion by compulsion is
>ingenuine.
O spare us the self-righteous claptrap, please. So, if you don't know
them, you can pretend they're not there -- no need for genuine
compassion or willingness to help. So running across the generous Mr.
Iverson is the justification for your support. Lucky them, but imagine
having to put up with a weiner (that's "whiner"....ed) to get your
table scraps.
>I'm still learning about Objectivism, but so far it makes rational sense.
An intellectually challenged whiner, at that.
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Jeff Iverson
>ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>>nsi...@magi.com (Nicholas Sidor) wrote:
>>>ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>>>Always good to have a wide range of experience with different sorts of
>>>fellow humans. It would appear that many of us do enjoy volunteer
>>>work, wouldn't it? (Certainly, lots of us do it...)
>>No one is arguing against your or anyone's rights to *voluntarily* engage
>>in volunteer work. What some of us would like, is the right to NOT
>>"volunteer" to help others, via our hard earned wages.
>Tough titty. You have to, until we all stop (that would be when hell
>freezes over....). In the meantime, quit your whining and ante up your
>fair share, like the rest of us. Or, if you think your cause is so
>righteous that folks will be persuaded, withhold your taxes and take
>your medicine (cf. civil disobedience).
As I stated before (caught in the lag) I pay the taxes that are demanded of
me, albeit grudgingly and only through the threat of force. Quit your whining
and just tell me why it is right to take from one to support another.
>What gives you any right to pick *my* pocket...
I have no right, and did not claim any such right. But don't pick my pocket
either. If you want to give, give til it hurts, do what you want, but don't
demand that I owe it to society to play your evil game.
>>Help others with *your* resources, and those you can voluntarily solicit.
>>Don't have the affrontery to try to proselytize on the virtues of altruism
>>while you are enforcing it at gunpoint on others.
>What in the world are you talking about. I don't even *own* a gun,
>never mind pointing one at somebody. Sounds as if you're trying to
>censor me, or point out some imaginary inconsistency in what I've
>written.
You support the establishment, the establishment coerces taxes from us through
the use of force, the use of force could be done at gunpoint, you therefor are
just as guilty as those who hold the gun (be it real or imagined).
>>>>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>>>>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
>>>
>>>You make her almost sound as if she had a consistent and useful
>>>political philosophy. Good novelist...
>>Let's see. The fight rational, reality-based morality of egoism. A secular,
>>reality-based defense of individual rights. A clear, unequivocal exposition
>>of why man needs government, and what the proper structure of government
>>should be. The first person to solve the alleged dichotomy between
>>inalienable rights and taxation. And on.
>"Rationalization of egoism", you mean. There are lots of
>philosophically consistent secular defences of individual rights, most
>of them with more adherents than Rand. Why people need government?
>Ever hear of Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Jefferson, etc ad nauseam. The
>alleged dichotomy between inalienable rights and taxation is a scam --
>of course she could solve it, she invented it in the first place,
>along with a whole gargantuan load of horseshit that only a few
>ill-read sophomoric wingnuts ever bothered to take seriously.
Explain why it is a scam. Why is it right to rob from the rich to give to the
poor (as Robin Hood allegedly did)?
>But, as I said....good novelist.
>>If you wish to refute Objectivist political philosophy, attempt to refute
>>it. Claiming it doesn't exist is just childish, and will earn you contempt
>>from both sides of the debate.
>I wouldn't waste my breath. And I didn't claim it didn't exist, all I
>said or implied was that it was a whole garguantual load of bat guano
>that only a tiny minority of half-witted high school students ever
>paid attention to.
Please, tell us why you think it is so flawed.
>And wrapping a stinky fish in the New York Times doesn't usually make
>it stink any less.
The Times or the fish?
>Nick Sidor
>nsi...@magi.com
Jeff Iverson
>>>>My advice to any freedom loving Canadian out there is this:
>>>>Milk the system for all it's worth. This will achieve two things:
>>>>1) It will hasten the system's demise.
>>>>2) You will get back at least part of the wealth stolen from you.
>>>Kiss my ass, you sniveling cheapskate. Pay your taxes like a good
>>>Canadian should; like the rest of us do, you freeloading ninny.
>Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
>something that we do, in civilized society, that's all. What would
>*you* do, let 'em all starve?
Well, do it yourself, just don't force me to participate in your charity
scheme. What would I do? Let them starve if that is what they choose,
otherwise seek the help of friends and family or the Salvation Army, just
don't ask me to pay their way, I've got my own friends and family to support.
>*Civilized* and *society*. I'm for both.
It's not civilized if one is enslaved to the unearned debt of the
non-producers.
>Nick Sidor
Jeff Iverson
>tdon...@panix.com (Tony Donadio) wrote:
>>Nicholas Sidor (nsi...@magi.com) wrote:
>>: >Why is it right to take from some to give to others? Just tell me why.
>>: Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
>>: something that we do, in civilized society, that's all. What would
>>: *you* do, let 'em all starve?
>>Rarely do you get to see intellectual cowardice and passivity so brazenly
>>displayed. The poster does not even want to be troubled with the
>>responsibility of having to think about and judge ideas and policy; all he
>>wants is to conform to whatever the society he lives in has established
>>as tradition, as what it "just does."
>>I just want to point out to the rational readers of the thread that we
>>have been challenging the advocates of state force to defend and justify
>>their policy on moral grounds for some time. When they are not squirming
>>like mad to evade the question, you have seen that THIS is the only kind
>>of "answer" that they are capable of delivering. Judge them and their
>>policies accordingly.
>Thanks for the compliment (I think). Gosh, I don't think that I was
>feeling challenged to defend "state force" at all; I was writing to
>some weiner (that's "whiner"...ed) who seemed to think that he
>shouldn't be bothered to pay his taxes, while the rest of us had to.
Oh, I pay the taxes that I'm obliged to under the threat of force. I'm also
self-employed so I get back just about everything that I put in.
>I found that attitude blatantly unfair, as any hard-pressed taxpayer
>probably would. Is there something you find way off-base about that
>(actually, save your breath on that -- I don't think most of us would
>care all that much if you did...)
I don't see how it can be called fair to take money that I've earned by
producing value (at least that's why my customers pay me) and give it to
someone who has not produced value and thus has nothing.
>Is the "state force" that *you* are talking about "collecting taxes"?
>Or something else? (I'm truly not sure...). If it is (and it certainly
>is in the case of that loon Wiebe) then presumably the moral
>legitimacy of it arises from a social contract, namely that in most
>societies, humans have decided that it is an efficient, effective and
>presumably morally legitimate way of paying for certain things.
I don't see how it can be called "morally legitimate" to enslave some to
enrich others.
>(Spare us the rant about how the majority has been hoodwinked, okay?
>And how what's her name was the only coherent philosopher since the
>beginning of time. Thanks.)
>Nick Sidor
Jeff Iverson
>j5r...@prairie.lakes.com (Jeff Iverson) wrote:
>>The only people I'm concerned about are my family and my friends. If any of
>>them need my help, it is freely offered. However, I resent being siphoned to
>>pay the fare for someone I neither know nor care for.
>We think that you would be well advised to go and meet some more
>people, Mr. Iverson. Might do you some good. Start by volunteering at
>your local shelter for the homeless, perhaps?
I'm probably more valuable by staying at home and working to produce value so
that I can support the non-producers.
>Trying giving a few bucks to charity; that might also help your
>attitude toward those less fortunate (!) than yourself.
I give plenty to charity, primarily because it is tax deductible, were it not,
my offerings would not be forthcoming.
>> Is it better for
>>everyone to have nothing, or for some to have lots, some have some, and some
>>have nothing?
>Silly question, in light of what you wrote above, IMHO.
I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were.
Jeff Iverson
>ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>>>We think that you would be well advised to go and meet some more
>>>people, Mr. Iverson. Might do you some good. Start by volunteering at
>>>your local shelter for the homeless, perhaps?
>>Why should Mr. Iverson spend his precious time at a homeless center? Why
>>not working to improve his business, or socializing with his family and
>>friends? Why is it wrong to enjoy one's own life, but right to sacrifice it
>>to others. If it is "selfish" for Mr. Iverson to enjoy his own life, isn't
>>it selfish for the homeless to accept his sacrifice?
>Always good to have a wide range of experience with different sorts of
>fellow humans. It would appear that many of us do enjoy volunteer
>work, wouldn't it? (Certainly, lots of us do it...)
If more of my fellow humans would get their collective heads out of their
collective butts perhaps I'd enjoy meeting a few more of them. As it is I
prefer the friends I have, and the family that I am part of. You want to help
the needy? Go ahead, I will not prevent you, buy don't steal from me to
finance your generosity.
>>>Trying giving a few bucks to charity; that might also help your
>>>attitude toward those less fortunate (!) than yourself.
>>I can't recall Mr. Iverson expressing any opinion of those less fortunate
>>than himself -- what made you think he did?
>Sure he did. Read what he posted.
My opinion of the less fortunate? If I know them (ie friend or family) then I
have genuine compassion and caring and a willingness to help. If I don't know
them (ie stranger) then I have no opinion. Compassion by compulsion is
ingenuine.
>>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
>You make her almost sound as if she had a consistent and useful
>political philosophy. Good novelist...
I'm still learning about Objectivism, but so far it makes rational sense.
>Nick Sidor
Jim Klein
writes:
>Nicholas Sidor (nsi...@magi.com) wrote:
>
>: >Why is it right to take from some to give to others? Just tell me
>: >why.
>
>: Jeez, who knows if it's *right* or not (hardly the point). It's just
>: something that we do, in civilized society, that's all. What would
>: *you* do, let 'em all starve?
>
>
>I just want to point out to the rational readers of the thread that we
>have been challenging the advocates of state force to defend and
>justify their policy on moral grounds for some time. When they are
>not squirming like mad to evade the question, you have seen that THIS
>is the only kind of "answer" that they are capable of delivering.
>Judge them and their policies accordingly.
Here's another strong argument for firearm education and ownership.
After all, it is their primary tool!
jk
Jim Klein
>Is the "state force" that *you* are talking about "collecting taxes"?
>Or something else? (I'm truly not sure...). If it is (and it certainly
>is in the case of that loon Wiebe) then presumably the moral
>legitimacy of it arises from a social contract, namely that in most
>societies, humans have decided that it is an efficient, effective and
>presumably morally legitimate way of paying for certain things.
>
>(Spare us the rant about how the majority has been hoodwinked, okay?
Well, I won't rave about how the majority has been hoodwinked...that's
really too obvious to do much with.
But a "social contract"?! What sort of "contract" is this, one which
has only one side make the decisions?
And "decided"??!! C'mon...decided implies an individual freely making
his/her choices. Surely you're not saying this is the basis for the
tax system, are you?
jk
Nicholas Sidor
>Nicholas Sidor (nsi...@magi.com) wrote:
>: Yeah, and too bad for you. Cf another of my pithy postings, on civil
>: disobedience. Try that...instead of whining. You might at least get a
>: few people's respect on the way to the slammer...
>On the poster's premise, a mugging victim has an obligation to refuse to
>surrender his wallet, even if he will be beaten or shot in the process.
Recommendation: a short course in logical fallacy. Quick as you can.
Cf. logical leaps, jumping to conclusions
>WHY? WHAT THE HELL kind of sick justification does he think allows him to
>claim that the victim of a crime has no right to protest if he does not
>resist *physically* against overwhelming force?
Who ever said that? Not me....
> No victim has an
>obligation to make a martyr out if himself. Dino still lives in a
>semi-free society, one in which he can still exercise free speech without
>state punishment; and he is using that freedom while he has it to fight
>the system on moral and intellectual grounds.
I'm for free speech. I'm against whining freeloaders...
>I would like to hear a rational argument for WHY someone like Dino is
>supposed to be some kind of hypocrite if he does not "hand over his
>wallet" to the government mugger when their guns are trained on him.
>Good luck; there ISN'T one.
Again, I ask: what are you smoking? Now you're seeing "government
muggers with guns trained on Dino". Pretty loopy, if you ask us...
Back to the original notion, you nitwit. People should pay their
taxes, and not freeload on the rest of us...
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>Nicholas Sidor (nsi...@magi.com) wrote:
>: You need a checkup about what "morality" means. If you don't need it,
>: you shouldn't ask for it. Isn't that part of why we're all fed up with
>: how high taxes are, because some of the people claiming entitlements
>: aren't entitled.
>NO ONE is "entitled" to the so-called "entitlements." That is why they
>should be abolished. If the poster believes otherwise, let's hear his
>rational, moral argument defending them. Good luck.
Already did that. Cf social contract. Cf go to the library. But you're
not entitled to not participate in that contract, with the exception
of civil disobedience, which you gutless wonders eschew, preferring to
dress up your whining in the bogus pretentious and discredited
political ramblings of at third-rate novelist, (or a first rate
television producer).
>Also -- what is the poster's problem with responding to arguments about
>why forcibly taking peoples' property is immoral? Could it be that he
>*has* no response to give?
What force are you talking about? (And, please, spare us the idiotic
notion that taxation is forcible theft of some kind. Sober up,
please...)
>: Well, la-de-da. But that wouldn't stop you from "milking" the system
>: the rest of us have set up, would it?
>False premise: The poster and his kind sustain the system; Dino and his
>family did and do not. This is a transparent lie.
That's not my premise at all, you nitwit. Obviously. Trying to pretend
you're not in high school again?
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
[snip]
Loopy... No need to defend the welfare state, wasn't the issue. The
issue was cheating on your taxes, "milking" the system.
Do you seriously think that you've defended that? Convince me; and try
to see if you can do it without resorting to cannibalism or Star Trek.
We're waiting....
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>Nicholas Sidor (nsi...@magi.com) wrote:
>: Write back when you get out of high school, you twink. Only a half-wit
>: sophomore would hoover back that Objectivist nonsense at the rate
>: you're going.
>This is what Ayn Rand called the "Argument From Intimidation."
Address the issue, why don't you. Hoovering back Any Rant?
>Sorry, but I'm not intimidated. For myself, I'm a 35 year old with a
>Master's degree -- and I know plenty of older, smarter, and better
>educated people than myself who uphold Ayn Rand's ideas. So much for the
>poster's assertion.
Sorry, I don't believe you. Prove it. Master's degree in what?
>: "each individual must choose his values and actions by the
>: standards of man's life - in order to achieve the purpose of
>: maintaining and enjoying his own life. Thus Objectivism advocates
>: egoism - the pursuit of self-interest - the policy of selfishness."
>: It troubles me that you think anything as incoherent and tautological
>: as that that means anything at all.
>If this is overly complicated for the poster, let me simplify it. One
>must act in accordance with the principles required to sustain human life
>if one is going to be able to do so. But life is an attribute of each man
>as an individual; we are not Borg. To sustain life thus means to sustain
>YOUR life as an individual; there is no other kind.
Hmmm. Let's see: "One must act in accordance with the principles
required to sustain human life if one is going to be able to do so".
Rough translation: "If one is going to do so (be able to act in
accordance with the principles of human life), then one must act in
accordance with the principles required to sustain human life." Is
that right, or did you mean something else by "do so"?
"To sustain life means to sustain your life as an individual."
Are these supposed to *mean* anything? And, what might this nonsense
have to do with the welfare state? Or with cheating on your taxes?
Bonehead, sophomoric objectivist loons. Third rate novelist. If the ad
hominem fits....
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com
Nicholas Sidor
>>We think that you would be well advised to go and meet some more
>>people, Mr. Iverson. Might do you some good. Start by volunteering at
>>your local shelter for the homeless, perhaps?
>I'm probably more valuable by staying at home and working to produce value so
>that I can support the non-producers.
That's your main problem, in a nutshell. It isn't an either/or for
most of us.
>>Trying giving a few bucks to charity; that might also help your
>>attitude toward those less fortunate (!) than yourself.
>I give plenty to charity, primarily because it is tax deductible, were it not,
>my offerings would not be forthcoming.
Well, hold on just a minute!!!! By Gawd, we couldn't have tax
deductibility without TAXES, now, could we? So I guess, in the end,
your glad we do. What would you and that loon Aisa dress up that in?
Giving back your money at gunpoint? Coercing you to take it and spend
it on yourself?
>>Silly question, in light of what you wrote above, IMHO.
>I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were.
Here's the bottom line. Pay your fair share, and don't whine about it
unless you're prepared to do something about it.
Sorry, that was two bottom lines.
nick
Nick Sidor
nsi...@magi.com