Senate Debate: Witness the Sight
Paul Wharton
care, the federal system of Congress is on the brink of endorsing it.
The majority of House Representatives have defied us. And, Obama is
certain to sign any government health care expansion. Thus, it is the
Senators who will decide whether government health care will be rammed
down our throats. They have just voted to start a debate. Witness
the sight.
Paul Wharton
Objectivist American
Charles Bell
I wish Americans, the majority of whom do not want soclialized
healthcare, and never did in spite of many of these who also voted
Dem. in 2008, would realize that if this thing passes now, unless the
GOP can grab 2/3 of both houses in 2010, America will be saddled with
socialized healthcare until there is no more U.S.A. Thereafter,
ending socialized healthcare and all the rest of the socialism that
this Congress and President can bring about would necessitate ending
the U.S.A.
1Z
> America will be saddled with
> socialized healthcare until there is no more U.S.A.
ludicrous non-sequitur
Charles Bell
It follows if people believing themselves endowed with certain
inalienable rights do not want socialized healthcare and the U.S.
federal government refuses to get rid of it (and there are plenty
reasons to believe it will not) , then people will get rid of the U.S.
federal government
1Z
> On Nov 23, 7:05 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Nov, 14:26, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > America will be saddled with
> > > socialized healthcare until there is no more U.S.A.
>
> > ludicrous non-sequitur
>
> It follows if people believing themselves endowed with certain
> inalienable rights do not want socialized healthcare
A majority voted for O.
>and the U.S.
> federal government refuses to get rid of it (and there are plenty
> reasons to believe it will not) ,
like the fact that people who have
public healthcare systems like
them and want to keep them
> then people will get rid of the U.S.
> federal government
Right-winger calls for other wingnuts
to go on a shooting spree. What a suprise.
Charles Bell
> On 23 Nov, 12:52, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 7:05 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 Nov, 14:26, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > �America will be saddled with
> > > > socialized healthcare until there is no more U.S.A.
>
> > > ludicrous non-sequitur
>
> > It follows if people believing themselves endowed with certain
> > inalienable rights do not want socialized healthcare
>
> A majority voted for O.
>
Majority vote (esp, that merely for a President) does not abolish
inalienable rights.
> >and the U.S.
> > federal government refuses to get rid of �it (and there are plenty
> > reasons to believe it will not) ,
>
> like the fact that people who have
> public healthcare systems like
> them and want to keep them
>
And what right do they have to make all people carry health insurance
policy (1) morally and (2) constitutionally?
> > then people will get rid of the U.S.
> > federal government
>
The U.S. federal government can be overthrown (other than
metaphorically by typical elections) legally by a Constitutional
Convention.
1Z
> On Nov 23, 8:18 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > like the fact that people who have
> > public healthcare systems like
> > them and want to keep them
>
> And what right do they have to make all people carry health insurance
> policy (1) morally and (2) constitutionally?
The moral case is the lives that would be saved.
There is no constitutional issue, that is
another crank theory.
Fred Weiss
> The moral case is the lives that would be saved.
Whose lives?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html
Or:
Also, the lives of Canadians are saved now because they can come to
the US for advanced medical care. When that door shuts - and we impose
the same "cost controls" and rationing as they have - where will they
go?
> There is no constitutional issue, that is another crank theory.
Izzy, Constitutional Scholar
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13838615
Fred Weiss
1Z
> Also, the lives of Canadians are saved now because they can come to
> the US for advanced medical care. When that door shuts - and we impose
> the same "cost controls" and rationing as they have - where will they
> go?
Harley Street?
> > There is no constitutional issue, that is another crank theory.
>
> Izzy, Constitutional Scholar
Like you or Bell are.
Fred Weiss
> On 23 Nov, 18:19, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, the lives of Canadians are saved now because they can come to
> > the US for advanced medical care. When that door shuts - and we impose
> > the same "cost controls" and rationing as they have - where will they
> > go?
>
> Harley Street?
This isn't something to be dizzy about, Izzy.
If medical innovation is squelched, if new, experimental treatments
are denied, and if investment and risk is unrewarded far, far more
people will die than a mere 40,000. It could easily be in the
millions, possibly 10's of millions because such are the numbers of
people who have been saved by modern medicine and who could be saved
in the years to come if medicine is not further strangled by gov't
interference.
> > > There is no constitutional issue, that is another crank theory.
>
> > Izzy, Constitutional Scholar
>
> Like you or Bell are.
I'm not claiming to be. I'm just presenting you with the argument
which you had perhaps been unaware of.
Fred Weiss
eddie
apartment in a decrepit halfway house? I know, I've delivered there.
1Z
> On Nov 23, 1:58 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Nov, 18:19, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> > Harley Street?
>
> This isn't something to be dizzy about, Izzy.
>
> If medical innovation is squelched,
there is no reason to suppose it will
be. Repeating the same straw man
10,000 times doesn';t make it so
> if new, experimental treatments
> are denied, and if investment and risk is unrewarded far, far more
> people will die than a mere 40,000.
Doens't work like that in practice. You are ignorign evidence and
spouting dogma.
> It could easily be in the
> millions, possibly 10's of millions because such are the numbers of
> people who have been saved by modern medicine and who could be saved
> in the years to come if medicine is not further strangled by gov't
> interference.
>
> > > > There is no constitutional issue, that is another crank theory.
>
> > > Izzy, Constitutional Scholar
>
> > Like you or Bell are.
>
> I'm not claiming to be. I'm just presenting you with the argument
> which you had perhaps been unaware of.
More to the point, the real experts are unaware of it. Only
the "usual suspect" crank bloggers are aware of it.
Jim Klein
> > If medical innovation is squelched,
>
> there is no reason to suppose it will
> be.
What, are you kidding?
> Repeating the same straw man
> 10,000 times doesn';t make it so
Straw man? Is this how Subjectivism works...
just repeat the same thing over and over, and
when enough people do it enough times, then
it becomes true? Where did Potroast go?
I admit I can see the appeal, but really now.
And is it "onezee" or "elzee"?
There's no reason to suspect that innovation
thrives in an environment of less regulation
and control by force? Is that what you're saying?
I'll wait for your answer, before we try to
figure out whether this is true or false.
> > if new, experimental treatments
> > are denied, and if investment and risk is unrewarded far, far more
> > people will die than a mere 40,000.
>
> Doens't work like that in practice. You are ignorign evidence and
> spouting dogma.
Too funny. You might be the first around here to
be even more hypocritical than the self-proclaimed
Orthodox Objectivists!
jk
1Z
> On Nov 26, 6:00 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If medical innovation is squelched,
>
> > there is no reason to suppose it will
> > be.
>
> What, are you kidding?
No.
> There's no reason to suspect that innovation
> thrives in an environment of less regulation
> and control by force? Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying it exists in countries with public health care
systems (NB this is an appeal to fact , not an appeal
to what "would" happen)
I'm saying private pharma companies can
co-exist wth public health care delivery.
I'm syaing private pharma is highly regulated everywhere anyway.
I'm saying pharma would insantly go out of business
without the "regulation" of IP rights.
Objectivists have particular respect for "men of the mind". At first,
coming up with a novel idea is indeed creating something from nothing.
But making money out of ideas is exquisitely dependent on government
"inteference". The profits of, for instance, a pharmaceutical company
would be wiped out entirely if it was not for the ability to enforce
patents. And intelectual property rights are not something like
transport or communications infrastructue that could be supplied by a
number of competing consortia, they require the monopolistic power of
governments (supplemented by international co-operation).
Arnold Broese
news:b7db2f99-abbd-4db8...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> But making money out of ideas is exquisitely dependent on government
> "inteference". The profits of, for instance, a pharmaceutical company
> would be wiped out entirely if it was not for the ability to enforce
> patents. And intelectual property rights are not something like
> transport or communications infrastructue that could be supplied by a
> number of competing consortia, they require the monopolistic power of
> governments (supplemented by international co-operation).
What is your point here? The main objection to governments is their
violation of rights, not, as mentioned to above, the protection of those
rights. Patent protection is protecting the right of a man to his property,
and that is the opposite of interference.
.
.
.
--
Arnold
1Z
wrote:
> What is your point here?
Anarcho-capitalism is inimical to innovation
>The main objection to governments is their
> violation of rights, not, as mentioned to above, the protection of those
> rights. Patent protection is protecting the right of a man to his property,
> and that is the opposite of interference.
Mandatory healthcare is the protection of the right to life...
Arnold Broese
>
> Mandatory healthcare is the protection of the right to life...
Whose life is is protected, and whose is imposed on. On what *logical*
grounds do you claim the right to control the lives of others who do you no
harm? Your values are your concern, and should not be forced on others. As
always, what separates us, is your willingness to use force against innocent
people, and my willingness to live and let live. I prefer my ethics.
--
Arnold
Paul Wharton
> Mandatory healthcare is the protection of the right to life...
Suppose you are just short of owning enough wealth to cure your life-
threatening disease. You are so close to being able to pay, but due
to a ruthless, capitalist system, the government will not intervene.
You die.
Now, suppose you live in a communist (they call it socialist these
days) system. The government intervenes and sends out other people's
wealth. So you are saved! The communist government takes all of your
money--then gives you a penny belonging to someone else.
Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter
Jim Klein
> > There's no reason to suspect that innovation
> > thrives in an environment of less regulation
> > and control by force? Is that what you're saying?
>
> I'm saying it exists in countries with public health care
> systems
And filet mignons exist in India. Either address my
question directly or forget about it.
> (NB this is an appeal to fact , not an appeal
> to what "would" happen)
>
> I'm saying private pharma companies can
> co-exist wth public health care delivery.
>
> I'm syaing private pharma is highly regulated everywhere anyway.
I don't disagree, though I'm not so sure how "private"
that is in the first usage...owing to the second!
> I'm saying pharma would insantly go out of business
> without the "regulation" of IP rights.
That's pharma as you (we) know it, not pharma
as the discoverers and makers of drugs generally.
> Objectivists have particular respect for "men of the mind". At first,
> coming up with a novel idea is indeed creating something from nothing.
> But making money out of ideas is exquisitely dependent on government
> "inteference".
Currently yes (often and in a fashion), but not necessarily by nature.
> The profits of, for instance, a pharmaceutical company
> would be wiped out entirely if it was not for the ability to enforce
> patents.
That's pharma as we know it, and it's a chicken-egg thing.
I'm no fan of the current pharma situation and I
think it clearly disserves millions and millions of
people, even as it well serves millions of others.
It's my opinion that in a freer state of affairs, there'd
be less of the former and more of the latter. Really,
I think that's kinda obvious. When people choose
for themselves, they'll inevitably choose service
over disservice. As even you ought to concede,
when they're choosing for others, there can be
many other factors involved. Do you deny that?
> And intelectual property rights are not something like
> transport or communications infrastructue that could be supplied by a
> number of competing consortia, they require the monopolistic power of
> governments (supplemented by international co-operation).
Most would say transport and communications, or pretty
much anything else for that matter, require the same thing.
When people understand that there's no entity capable of
doing any of these things except a thinking individual, then
they might come to realize that the underlying claim here
is false.
jk
1Z
> Suppose you are just short of owning enough wealth to cure your life-
> threatening disease. �You are so close to being able to pay, but due
> to a ruthless, capitalist system, the government will not intervene.
> You die.
> Now, suppose you live in a communist (they call it socialist these
> days) system. �The government intervenes and sends out other people's
> wealth. �So you are saved! �The communist government takes all of your
> money--then gives you a penny belonging to someone else.
suppose you have a social democratic system that is
neither ruthlessly capitalist nor tyranically communist...
1Z
> On Nov 26, 11:48 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > There's no reason to suspect that innovation
> > > thrives in an environment of less regulation
> > > and control by force? �Is that what you're saying?
>
> > I'm saying it exists in countries with public health care
> > systems
>
> And filet mignons exist in India. �Either address my
> question directly or forget about it.
address what? you raised an issue that is basically imaginary
> > (NB this is an appeal to fact , not an appeal
> > to what "would" happen)
>
> > I'm saying private pharma companies can
> > co-exist wth public health care delivery.
>
> > I'm syaing private pharma is highly regulated everywhere anyway.
>
> I don't disagree, though I'm not so sure how "private"
> that is in the first usage...owing to the second!
Oh, well regulation is OK if it addresses
"rights", apparently. I guess pharma
regulation addresses my right not to
be killed by quack medicine.
> > I'm saying pharma would insantly go out of business
> > without the "regulation" of IP rights.
>
> That's pharma as you (we) know it, not pharma
> as the discoverers and makers of drugs generally.
Explain why a profit-making company would invest large sums in
research if they could not prevent their products
being bootlegged.
> > Objectivists have particular respect for "men of the mind". At first,
> > coming up with a novel idea is indeed creating something from nothing.
> > But making money out of ideas is exquisitely dependent on government
> > "inteference".
>
> Currently yes (often and in a fashion), but not necessarily by nature.
See above
> > The profits of, for instance, a pharmaceutical company
> > would be wiped out entirely if it was not for the ability to enforce
> > patents.
>
> That's pharma as we know it, and it's a chicken-egg thing.
See above
> I'm no fan of the current pharma situation and I
> think it clearly disserves millions and millions of
> people, even as it well serves millions of others.
Explain how to get more innovation without
also having more dangerous drugs and human
guinea pigs.
> It's my opinion that in a freer state of affairs, there'd
> be less of the former and more of the latter. �Really,
> I think that's kinda obvious. �When people choose
> for themselves, they'll inevitably choose service
> over disservice.
How do ordinary people make informed
choices about highly technical areas?
>�As even you ought to concede,
> when they're choosing for others, there can be
> many other factors involved. �Do you deny that?
What do you mean by "choosing for others?" If I ask
for expert assistance in making a technologicla, legal or medical
decision, is the expert in question "choosing for others"?
> > And intelectual property rights are not something like
> > transport or communications infrastructue that could be supplied by a
> > number of competing consortia, they require the monopolistic power of
> > governments (supplemented by international co-operation).
>
> Most would say transport and communications, or pretty
> much anything else for that matter, require the same thing.
I have no idea why you would say that. Even in the
Socialst Republic of Grreat Britain I can choose between
several broadband companies, several rail franchises, etc.
> When people understand that there's no entity capable of
> doing any of these things except a thinking individual, then
> they might come to realize that the underlying claim here
> is false.
ANy of what things?
Jim Klein
> Explain why a profit-making company would invest large sums in
> research if they could not prevent their products
> being bootlegged.
Your implicit premise is that lack of Govco
enforcement translates to necessarily
being bootlegged.
This is not so. Besides the possibility that
individuals and individual companies might
be able to protect that which is theirs, there's
also the admittedly highly idealistic situation
where not so many people would choose to
take what's not theirs.
You also have the hierarchical problem of
sacrificing a higher value for a lower one.
But that only makes sense if you believe
humans shouldn't deal with one another with
thuggery and coercion, and where you put
that particular principle in the hierarchy.
> See above
See above.
> See above
See above.
> > I'm no fan of the current pharma situation and I
> > think it clearly disserves millions and millions of
> > people, even as it well serves millions of others.
>
> Explain how to get more innovation without
> also having more dangerous drugs and human
> guinea pigs.
That's hardly at issue here. We are discussing who
is going to decide what, for whom.
> > It's my opinion that in a freer state of affairs, there'd
> > be less of the former and more of the latter. Really,
> > I think that's kinda obvious. When people choose
> > for themselves, they'll inevitably choose service
> > over disservice.
>
> How do ordinary people make informed
> choices about highly technical areas?
Rationally? By seeking information and opinion?
Are you seriously disagreeing with the last sentence?
> > As even you ought to concede,
> > when they're choosing for others, there can be
> > many other factors involved. Do you deny that?
>
> What do you mean by "choosing for others?" If I ask
> for expert assistance in making a technologicla, legal or medical
> decision, is the expert in question "choosing for others"?
Notice the words "ask" and "assistance."
The relevant point is: WHO'S making the decision?
> > > And intelectual property rights are not something like
> > > transport or communications infrastructue that could be supplied by a
> > > number of competing consortia, they require the monopolistic power of
> > > governments (supplemented by international co-operation).
>
> > Most would say transport and communications, or pretty
> > much anything else for that matter, require the same thing.
>
> I have no idea why you would say that. Even in the
> Socialst Republic of Grreat Britain I can choose between
> several broadband companies, several rail franchises, etc.
And from how many thousands can't you choose,
because they were effectively barred out? We are
in an era of Big Business...the bad kind, the kind that
didn't get there because they were so much better
than the competition, but rather because they had
the right friends with the right winks and nods.
And then when they can't make it anyway, even
screwing their own customers to the limits of
imagination, they just have those same customers
bail them out at the point of a gun.
Pretend it's something else, all you want. The
facts speak for themselves, and they're screaming.
> > When people understand that there's no entity capable of
> > doing any of these things except a thinking individual, then
> > they might come to realize that the underlying claim here
> > is false.
>
> ANy of what things?
You name it. If it's in what we call the "human
realm," then that's how it's done.
jk
1Z
> On Nov 27, 3:42 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Explain why a profit-making company would invest large sums in
> > research if they could not prevent their products
> > being bootlegged.
>
> Your implicit premise is that lack of Govco
> enforcement translates to necessarily
> being bootlegged.
>
> This is not so.
There is a strong motivation for
it -- profit. Please explain why
people would refrain from doing something
that would make them money.
>Besides the possibility that
> individuals and individual companies might
> be able to protect that which is theirs,
In what kind of legal framework? What is the
difference from putting someone in your own private jail for
violating what *you* see as your rights
and just plain kidnap?
>there's
> also the admittedly highly idealistic situation
> where not so many people would choose to
> take what's not theirs.
Idealism doesn't stop file sharers, does it?
> You also have the hierarchical problem of
> sacrificing a higher value for a lower one.
??? What difference does that make in practice?
Forgers and bootleggers are genreally suppressed
by the threat of punishment, not Hierarchies of Values.
> But that only makes sense if you believe
> humans shouldn't deal with one another with
> thuggery and coercion, and where you put
> that particular principle in the hierarchy.
Pfft. I can believe that till my nose bleeds,
why would it stop anyone else stealing my IP?
Really, all you have said above is no different
"everyone should stop being greedy" or
"eveyone should stop makign war".
> > > I'm no fan of the current pharma situation and I
> > > think it clearly disserves millions and millions of
> > > people, even as it well serves millions of others.
>
> > Explain how to get more innovation without
> > also having more dangerous drugs and human
> > guinea pigs.
>
> That's hardly at issue here. We are discussing who
> is going to decide what, for whom.
It is exactly the issue. Answer the question.
> > > It's my opinion that in a freer state of affairs, there'd
> > > be less of the former and more of the latter. Really,
> > > I think that's kinda obvious. When people choose
> > > for themselves, they'll inevitably choose service
> > > over disservice.
>
> > How do ordinary people make informed
> > choices about highly technical areas?
>
> Rationally? By seeking information and opinion?
From whom? Are you going to regulate the opinion-givers,
or is that going to be a free for all as well.
> Are you seriously disagreeing with the last sentence?
Have you stopped to consider that the present
situation evolved out of a free-for-all
of competing quacks and snake-oil-salesmen?
That it did so with the consent and co-operation
of the majority?
That having regulation and certification is
actually useful to consumers, since it guarantees
mininimum standards of service and comepetence?
That the average
consumer would rather glance at a medical certificate
than spend hours trawlign the web?
Have you noticed that professional associations and
certifixations are often set up entirely outside govenrment
control simply to let consumers know who the competent experts
are?
> > > As even you ought to concede,
> > > when they're choosing for others, there can be
> > > many other factors involved. Do you deny that?
>
> > What do you mean by "choosing for others?" If I ask
> > for expert assistance in making a technologicla, legal or medical
> > decision, is the expert in question "choosing for others"?
>
> Notice the words "ask" and "assistance."
>
> The relevant point is: WHO'S making the decision?
The question is who is competent to offer the advice. If
I freely take soem qauck medicine that cripples me it is little
comfort that it was my choice. Choices that are free but uninformed
aren't that great.
> > > > And intelectual property rights are not something like
> > > > transport or communications infrastructue that could be supplied by a
> > > > number of competing consortia, they require the monopolistic power of
> > > > governments (supplemented by international co-operation).
>
> > > Most would say transport and communications, or pretty
> > > much anything else for that matter, require the same thing.
>
> > I have no idea why you would say that. Even in the
> > Socialst Republic of Grreat Britain I can choose between
> > several broadband companies, several rail franchises, etc.
>
> And from how many thousands can't you choose,
> because they were effectively barred out?
By what?
> We are
> in an era of Big Business...the bad kind, the kind that
> didn't get there because they were so much better
> than the competition, but rather because they had
> the right friends with the right winks and nods.
And bribery and infuence are goign to disappear
in Libertopia how? You are going to preach
about Hierarchies of values, and they'll just vanish?
> And then when they can't make it anyway, even
> screwing their own customers to the limits of
> imagination, they just have those same customers
> bail them out at the point of a gun.
>
> Pretend it's something else, all you want. The
> facts speak for themselves, and they're screaming.
You've gone completely off the topic. The point remains
that you don't have an answer as to how IP rights
can be protected within a pluralistic, competitive
framework. "Idealism" doesn't count.
> > > When people understand that there's no entity capable of
> > > doing any of these things except a thinking individual, then
> > > they might come to realize that the underlying claim here
> > > is false.
>
> > ANy of what things?
>
> You name it. If it's in what we call the "human
> realm," then that's how it's done.
I've still no idea of what you are on about. It
takes organsiations to build railroads, put a man on the moon...
you name it.
Jim Klein
> There is a strong motivation for
> it -- profit. Please explain why
> people would refrain from doing something
> that would make them money.
I don't think they would. So that leaves whether
the making of the money is pursuant to something
good or something bad.
It also leaves where exactly in the hierarchy of
principles "making money" falls.
> >Besides the possibility that
> > individuals and individual companies might
> > be able to protect that which is theirs,
>
> In what kind of legal framework? What is the
> difference from putting someone in your own private jail for
> violating what *you* see as your rights
> and just plain kidnap?
IMO, there is no relevant difference.
This is precisely why anarcho-capitalism is not
my cup of tea, at least as David Friedman presents
it. I see no ethical difference between the purchase
of thuggery and the vote for it.
> Idealism doesn't stop file sharers, does it?
Of course not, and neither do words stop
bullets. Whoops...there goes Rule of Law.
> > You also have the hierarchical problem of
> > sacrificing a higher value for a lower one.
>
> ??? What difference does that make in practice?
> Forgers and bootleggers are genreally suppressed
> by the threat of punishment, not Hierarchies of Values.
AFAIK, no functional adult has ever engaged any
action that wasn't pursuant to a Hierarchy of Values.
At least not /before/ he was captured or arrested!
> > But that only makes sense if you believe
> > humans shouldn't deal with one another with
> > thuggery and coercion, and where you put
> > that particular principle in the hierarchy.
>
> Pfft. I can believe that till my nose bleeds,
> why would it stop anyone else stealing my IP?
It wouldn't. What makes you believe that I
think it would? I don't think anything you
believe literally stops anyone from anything,
except yourself of course.
> Really, all you have said above is no different
> "everyone should stop being greedy" or
> "eveyone should stop makign war".
Guilty as charged. Why...are those false, leaving
aside various ethical translations of "greedy" such
that it's a good thing?
You think everyone SHOULDN'T stop being greedy
(against others) and making war against others?
If so, that's an interesting POV.
> > > Explain how to get more innovation without
> > > also having more dangerous drugs and human
> > > guinea pigs.
>
> > That's hardly at issue here. We are discussing who
> > is going to decide what, for whom.
>
> It is exactly the issue. Answer the question.
It has nothing to do with anything. Sure, I suppose
there will always be "more dangerous drugs," and
in various manners will be "human guinea pigs."
Do you seriously believe your approach of
bureaucratic decision-making will somehow
have a positive effect on either of those?
> > > How do ordinary people make informed
> > > choices about highly technical areas?
>
> > Rationally? By seeking information and opinion?
>
> From whom? Are you going to regulate the opinion-givers,
> or is that going to be a free for all as well.
Just like the politicians, you are so utterly convinced
that normal people are bumbling idiots who can't
possibly make a decision for themselves. Sorry,
but I fundamentally disagree with that.
But even if I didn't, I don't see why the most idiotic
and most bumbling should be the ones to make
the decisions!
> > Are you seriously disagreeing with the last sentence?
>
> Have you stopped to consider that the present
> situation evolved out of a free-for-all
> of competing quacks and snake-oil-salesmen?
No, I am not. A decent argument could be made
that we're currently being sold the quackiest and
most snake-oilish bullshit in recorded history.
> That it did so with the consent and co-operation
> of the majority?
Oh, that one you got right.
> That having regulation and certification is
> actually useful to consumers, since it guarantees
> mininimum standards of service and comepetence?
You got that right too---"guarantees minimum
standards." The challenge seems to be whether
it'll be possible to lower that minimum enough!
I suppose it'll work when enough people die.
> That the average
> consumer would rather glance at a medical certificate
> than spend hours trawlign the web?
What does that have to do with thuggery?
> Have you noticed that professional associations and
> certifixations are often set up entirely outside govenrment
> control simply to let consumers know who the competent experts
> are?
Yes. This makes my point, not yours. According to
you, it CAN'T be done except at the point of a gun.
> > The relevant point is: WHO'S making the decision?
>
> The question is who is competent to offer the advice. If
> I freely take soem qauck medicine that cripples me it is little
> comfort that it was my choice.
Actually, that's wrong. But it's too far afield from this
to pursue.
What about the flip side? How much comfort do you
get from NOT being able to take some GOOD
medicine that was prevented from being marketed?
> Choices that are free but uninformed
> aren't that great.
That would seem to be a strong argument for
being informed. I agree. So do you believe
information flows more freely with more statism
or less statism?
> > And from how many thousands can't you choose,
> > because they were effectively barred out?
>
> By what?
By the only thing that CAN bar anything in the
human realm...physical force.
> > We are
> > in an era of Big Business...the bad kind, the kind that
> > didn't get there because they were so much better
> > than the competition, but rather because they had
> > the right friends with the right winks and nods.
>
> And bribery and infuence are goign to disappear
> in Libertopia how?
I don't know what Libertopia is, and I've already
explained the ONLY way that ANY human action
is going to disappear...when individuals choose
not to do it.
> You are going to preach
> about Hierarchies of values, and they'll just vanish?
I may be an idealist, but I'm not an evader. YOU
have to explain why the institutionalization of the
very behavior we're hoping vanishes, is somehow
going to speed its disappearance. Good luck.
> You've gone completely off the topic. The point remains
> that you don't have an answer as to how IP rights
> can be protected within a pluralistic, competitive
> framework. "Idealism" doesn't count.
Oh, that one's easy. I don't give a shit whether
or not you can protect your IP rights. All I know
is that your fear that you can't, is hardly some
argument for making my life and production at
your avail.
That's why you need guns to pull it off.
> > You name it. If it's in what we call the "human
> > realm," then that's how it's done.
>
> I've still no idea of what you are on about. It
> takes organsiations to build railroads, put a man on the moon...
> you name it.
I'm sorry; I don't understand.
Organisations...of what, exactly?
jk
1Z
> On Nov 27, 9:45 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a strong motivation for
> > it -- profit. Please explain why
> > people would refrain from doing something
> > that would make them money.
>
> I don't think they would.
Fine. So if govt. doesn't regulate IP, people
will rip off medical discoveries and pharma
will go out of business.
>So that leaves whether
> the making of the money is pursuant to something
> good or something bad.
> It also leaves where exactly in the hierarchy of
> principles "making money" falls.
>
> > >Besides the possibility that
> > > individuals and individual companies might
> > > be able to protect that which is theirs,
>
> > In what kind of legal framework? What is the
> > difference from putting someone in your own private jail for
> > violating what *you* see as your rights
> > and just plain kidnap?
>
> IMO, there is no relevant difference.
Fine. How do things look from the bottom of
a heffalump trap? Trying to punish people
for violoating your IP on a private-enterprise basis
constitutes a criminal activity. So "individuals and individual
companies
will NOT be able to protect that which is theirs"
> This is precisely why anarcho-capitalism is not
> my cup of tea, at least as David Friedman presents
> it. I see no ethical difference between the purchase
> of thuggery and the vote for it.
SO what *did* you mean by: "individuals and individual companies might
be able to protect that which is theirs" ...?
> > Idealism doesn't stop file sharers, does it?
>
> Of course not, and neither do words stop
> bullets. Whoops...there goes Rule of Law.
Rule of Law requires enforcement, not just
words.
> > > You also have the hierarchical problem of
> > > sacrificing a higher value for a lower one.
>
> > ??? What difference does that make in practice?
> > Forgers and bootleggers are genreally suppressed
> > by the threat of punishment, not Hierarchies of Values.
>
> AFAIK, no functional adult has ever engaged any
> action that wasn't pursuant to a Hierarchy of Values.
Whatever. Doesn't stop crime so not relevant.
> At least not /before/ he was captured or arrested!
>
> > > But that only makes sense if you believe
> > > humans shouldn't deal with one another with
> > > thuggery and coercion, and where you put
> > > that particular principle in the hierarchy.
>
> > Pfft. I can believe that till my nose bleeds,
> > why would it stop anyone else stealing my IP?
>
> It wouldn't. What makes you believe that I
> think it would?
You seem to think that IP rights can exist
in the absence of regulations protecting them.
Don't you?
>I don't think anything you
> believe literally stops anyone from anything,
> except yourself of course.
> > > > Explain how to get more innovation without
> > > > also having more dangerous drugs and human
> > > > guinea pigs.
>
> > > That's hardly at issue here. We are discussing who
> > > is going to decide what, for whom.
>
> > It is exactly the issue. Answer the question.
>
> It has nothing to do with anything. Sure, I suppose
> there will always be "more dangerous drugs," and
> in various manners will be "human guinea pigs."
That isn't the point again. Pharma research is
regualted because releasing untested drugs is dangerous.
You disapprove of the regulation because you think it suppresses
innovation
You need to explain how you intend to
get rid of trhe regulation without re-instroducing the
dangers it suppresses.
> Do you seriously believe your approach of
> bureaucratic decision-making will somehow
> have a positive effect on either of those?
I think it already has.
> > > > How do ordinary people make informed
> > > > choices about highly technical areas?
>
> > > Rationally? By seeking information and opinion?
>
> > From whom? Are you going to regulate the opinion-givers,
> > or is that going to be a free for all as well.
>
> Just like the politicians, you are so utterly convinced
> that normal people are bumbling idiots who can't
> possibly make a decision for themselves.
I think I am not going to cram 7 years of
medical training into my head every time
I get sick. I am happy to let an expert decide
on the treatment for me, like 99% of people. And
I think I am smarter than the average bear.
> Sorry,
> but I fundamentally disagree with that.
>
> But even if I didn't, I don't see why the most idiotic
> and most bumbling should be the ones to make
> the decisions!
> > > Are you seriously disagreeing with the last sentence?
>
> > Have you stopped to consider that the present
> > situation evolved out of a free-for-all
> > of competing quacks and snake-oil-salesmen?
>
> No, I am not. A decent argument could be made
> that we're currently being sold the quackiest and
> most snake-oilish bullshit in recorded history.
Make it then.
> > That it did so with the consent and co-operation
> > of the majority?
>
> Oh, that one you got right.
Fine. So your system would go against their
wishes.
> > That having regulation and certification is
> > actually useful to consumers, since it guarantees
> > mininimum standards of service and comepetence?
>
> You got that right too---"guarantees minimum
> standards." The challenge seems to be whether
> it'll be possible to lower that minimum enough!
irrelevant. Consumers need to know who the
experts are. You do them no favours by removing certifications.
> I suppose it'll work when enough people die.
>
> > That the average
> > consumer would rather glance at a medical certificate
> > than spend hours trawlign the web?
>
> What does that have to do with thuggery?
You intorduced that irrelevancy: you explain it.
What it *does* have to with is that people want
professional advice from people who come
with some sort of gurantee that they knwo what
they are talking about -- and you want to
remove that in favoru of a chaotic free-for-all.
For some reason.
> > Have you noticed that professional associations and
> > certifixations are often set up entirely outside govenrment
> > control simply to let consumers know who the competent experts
> > are?
>
> Yes. This makes my point, not yours. According to
> you, it CAN'T be done except at the point of a gun.
I don't think anyone has been killed for praciticing
medicine without a licensed. Unlicensed practitioners
have killed many, though.
> > > The relevant point is: WHO'S making the decision?
>
> > The question is who is competent to offer the advice. If
> > I freely take soem qauck medicine that cripples me it is little
> > comfort that it was my choice.
>
> Actually, that's wrong.
Only by your bizarre values.
>But it's too far afield from this
> to pursue.
>
> What about the flip side? How much comfort do you
> get from NOT being able to take some GOOD
> medicine that was prevented from being marketed?
I don't believe there has ever been such a thing
Give me an example.
> > Choices that are free but uninformed
> > aren't that great.
>
> That would seem to be a strong argument for
> being informed. I agree. So do you believe
> information flows more freely with more statism
> or less statism?
I'm a centrist: I think the right balance is best.
> > And bribery and infuence are goign to disappear
> > in Libertopia how?
>
> I don't know what Libertopia is, and I've already
> explained the ONLY way that ANY human action
> is going to disappear...when individuals choose
> not to do it.
So the problem with great Britain is that it is not
entirely occupied by saints? What a fascinating
point, I never realised that.
> I may be an idealist, but I'm not an evader. YOU
> have to explain why the institutionalization of the
> very behavior we're hoping vanishes, is somehow
> going to speed its disappearance. Good luck.
I have no idea of what you are talking about.
> Oh, that one's easy. I don't give a shit whether
> or not you can protect your IP rights. All I know
> is that your fear that you can't, is hardly some
> argument for making my life and production at
> your avail.
SIghh..the question *your* proposal to make
pharma "better" by removing regulation ,
when regulaiton is what enables its very existence.
> Organisations...of what, exactly?
Individuals in what...exactly?
RichD
> This is precisely why anarcho-capitalism is not
> my cup of tea, at least as David Friedman presents
> it. �I see no ethical difference between the purchase
> of thuggery and the vote for it.
What is anarcho-capitalism, how does it differ
from plain vanilla capitalism?
--
Rich
Bert Hyman
news:2ff88a54-a69f-4a35...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is anarcho-capitalism, how does it differ
> from plain vanilla capitalism?
It's the "anarchy" part.
It's really not capitalism or any sort of civilized society at all,
merely anarchy with a silly name attached.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
RichD
> > aren't that great.
>
> That would seem to be a strong argument for
> being informed. �I agree. �So do you believe
> information flows more freely with more statism
> or less statism?
Have you heard the latest "progressive" suggestion?
It seems newspapers are about to go Neanderthal,
thanks to the internet (Craigslist, notoriously).
wellllll.... can't allow that, can we? We MUST
provide unbiased quality news; need before greed.
So... gov't subsidies, voila (not from just any gov't,
but THE gov't). For the "quality" organizations
(the only ones who qualify, of course).
And one of their chief arguments: we bailed
out Big Bank and Big Car, why not Big
Journalism (which has even more political clout)?
Think about LOST JOBS and THE CHILDREN...
Can you spell slippery slope, boys and girls?
--
Rich
RichD
What did you deliver?
--
Rich
RichD
> > What is anarcho-capitalism, how does it differ
> > from plain vanilla capitalism?
>
> It's the "anarchy" part.
>
> It's really not capitalism or any sort of civilized society at all,
> merely anarchy with a silly name attached.
Anarchy cannot be civilized?
Big Brother is a necessary condition for civilization?
--
Rich
Bert Hyman
news:62199064-9593-41b8...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> > What is anarcho-capitalism, how does it differ
>> > from plain vanilla capitalism?
>>
>> It's the "anarchy" part.
>>
>> It's really not capitalism or any sort of civilized society at all,
>> merely anarchy with a silly name attached.
>
>
> Anarchy cannot be civilized?
Only by chance, and then only for a moment.
> Big Brother is a necessary condition for civilization?
Those are the only two options? Lawless anarchy or police state?
Really?
Arnold Broese
news:62199064-9593-41b8...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anarchy cannot be civilized?
> Big Brother is a necessary condition for civilization?
Objective law is not "Big Brother" Big Brothers are the result of
competition between Little Brothers.
--
Arnold
Ray
> On Nov 27, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> > Choices that are free but uninformed
>> > aren't that great.
>
>
> It seems newspapers are about to go Neanderthal,
> thanks to the internet (Craigslist, notoriously).
> wellllll.... can't allow that, can we? We MUST
> provide unbiased quality news; need before greed.
> So... gov't subsidies, voila (not from just any gov't,
> but THE gov't). For the "quality" organizations
> (the only ones who qualify, of course).
>
No, they don't have evil ends in mind.
They just want to keep things the way they were.
You know, like keeping plants and animals species from going instinct.
It's the same with auto manufactures and newspapers.
They're such Conservatives, aren't they?
Ray
1Z
> What is anarcho-capitalism, how does it differ
> from plain vanilla capitalism?
No state regulation or law-enforcement whatsoever -- it's
all done through private agencies somehow. Like mafia bosses hiring
hitmen.
Jim Klein
> > Anarchy cannot be civilized?
>
> Only by chance, and then only for a moment.
That's fascinating. I never claimed to be an
anarchist, but from where exactly did this come?
May I take a single guess? Do you call it "logic"?
You've never written anything but the truth in my
experience, so I'm anxious to discover this one.
jk
Bert Hyman
news:0a188783-cfbf-4b1f...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
An anarchic society would be one with no rule of law, or perhaps one
with competing bodies of law and law enforcement agencies.
Individuals would decide for themselves what their rights are and how
they're going to defend those rights. Like-minded people might form
groups to provide strength in numbers, but that's not a requirement.
If, by chance, the individuals or groups in this mythical anarchic
society happened to be in a state where there were no pressing
disagreements among those individuals or groups, that state might be
what you could call "civilized."
However, once anything happened to disturb this peaceful state, there
would be no rule or law for resolving the disturbance, so the civilized
state would again disolve into chaos.
1Z
> If, by chance, the individuals or groups in this mythical anarchic
> society happened to be in a state where there were no pressing
> disagreements among those individuals or groups, that state might be
> what you could call "civilized."
If they had no pressing disagreements, they could agree on laws
and leaders...oh, hang on a minute....
Jim Klein
> An anarchic society would be one with no rule of law, or perhaps...
Excuse me for interrupting. Sorry, I didn't know you
were just making speculations, since the verbiage
was so declarative. Never mind.
> If, by chance, the individuals or groups in this mythical anarchic
> society
Sorry again. Like I say, I didn't recognize that
you were writing myths. I hadn't seen that before.
But I must say, you do it very well!
jk
Bert Hyman
news:0081d475-d24f-4078...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 11:09 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> An anarchic society would be one with no rule of law, or perhaps...
>
> Excuse me for interrupting. Sorry, I didn't know you
> were just making speculations, since the verbiage
> was so declarative. Never mind.
You asked about a civilized anarchic society, so of course it's
speculation.
What's your point, if any?
RichD
> > Anarchy cannot be civilized?
> > Big Brother is a necessary condition for civilization?
>
> Objective law is not "Big Brother" Big Brothers are the
> result of competition between Little Brothers.
But Objective law still presumes a state, with
state authority; inherently coercive, hence immoral.
The only moral society is built on voluntary,
co-operative interactions. Anything else is
immoral, though I concede there are degrees
of evil (whether 'necessary evil' is another issue).
--
Rich
RichD
> >> > What is anarcho-capitalism, how does it differ
> >> > from plain vanilla capitalism?
>
> >> It's the "anarchy" part.
>
> >> It's really not capitalism or any sort of civilized society at all,
> >> merely anarchy with a silly name attached.
>
> > Anarchy cannot be civilized?
>
> Only by chance, and then only for a moment.
Concur that pure anarchy is problematic;
for instance, road maintenance. And other
similar thorns, such as invading Union hordes.
However, morally, only voluntary interactions
are defensible. The notions of jurisdiction, and
citizenship - the state, per se - is inherently immoral.
Your argument of pragmatism vs. theory is
a red herring.
> > Big Brother is a necessary condition for civilization?
>
> Those are the only two options? Lawless anarchy or police state?
I regard any state authority, imposed by force,
as Big Brother. You apparently find a benign
Overlord as unobjectionable. Of course,
benignness meliorates the condition, but
doesn't alter its essence.
PS 'lawless anarchy' would still involve rules. fyi
PSS Was Galt's Gulch not anarchy?
--
Rich
RichD
> > Have you heard the latest "progressive" suggestion?
>
> > It seems newspapers are about to go Neanderthal,
> > thanks to the internet (Craigslist, notoriously).
> > wellllll.... can't allow that, can we? �We MUST
> > provide unbiased quality news; need before greed.
> > So... gov't subsidies, voila (not from just any gov't,
> > but �THE gov't). �For the "quality" organizations
> > (the only ones who qualify, of course).
>
> No, they don't have evil ends in mind.
> They just want to keep things the way they were.
> You know, like keeping plants and animals species
> from going instinct.
> It's the same with auto manufactures and newspapers.
>
> They're such Conservatives, aren't they?
Bingo, Ray. Indeed, the statists are stagnationists.
But really, the attitude is overwhelmingly common,
and stems from simple stupidity. Joe Sixpack sees
layoffs and jobs lost on the evening news, but is
unable to visualize the jobs and wealth lost due
to subsidies, which consumes capital. That
requires a level of abstract thinking beyond the
proles' capabilities.
Rand hit the nail: "Their program consists of
ordering everyone: STAY WHERE YOU ARE!"
--
Rich
Charles Bell
> On Nov 28, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Anarchy cannot be civilized?
> > > Big Brother is a necessary condition for civilization?
>
> > Objective law is not "Big Brother" Big Brothers are the
> > result of competition between Little Brothers.
>
> But Objective law still presumes a state, with
> state authority; inherently coercive, hence immoral.
>
Coercion means forcing someone to do something where otherwise he
would be doing nothing. When the state intervenes with force against a
man, it is because that man is *not* doing nothing but acting in such
a way as to coerce another. The state is inherently an agent of force,
but not all force is coercive.
In the present case of the proposed socialist healthcare, whereas it
ought to be the presumption of the law that a man not wishing to buy
health insurance has that moral right *to do nothing* (under Objective
Law), a federal mandate to force insurance upon one not wishing
insurance (or healthcare, for that matter) is coercive. However,
forcing a man to cease and desist selling fraudulent insurance
policies is applying a force which is not coercive.
Your mistake is a typical libertarian one in taking the initiation of
force principle as axiomatic and outside of any context.
Arnold Broese
> On Nov 28, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Objective law is not "Big Brother" Big Brothers are the
>> result of competition between Little Brothers.
>
> But Objective law still presumes a state, with
> state authority; inherently coercive, hence immoral.
'Inherent,' is a capacity, that by itself cannot be evaluated morally. Only
actions can be.
>
> The only moral society is built on voluntary,
> co-operative interactions. Anything else is
> immoral, though I concede there are degrees
> of evil (whether 'necessary evil' is another issue).
Objectivism also believes in voluntary interactions. That is why it has an
authority to stop those who don't. There is such a thing as as moral force
you know - such as self defence. Spouting that the mere existence of a
government is a violation of rights, doesn't make it so, Look to Somalia for
the effect of small competing governments. Look to the Mafia for examples
closer to home.
--
Arnold
Bert Hyman
news:35bd96ab-5cef-47a0...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But Objective law still presumes a state, with
> state authority; inherently coercive, hence immoral.
What?
Having the state intervene to prevent a murder or to capture and jail a
criminal is "immoral?"
Really?
Bert Hyman
news:9f0663ee-dbdd-493b...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PS 'lawless anarchy' would still involve rules.
Those rules being determined solely by the biggest, most powerful mob at
the moment.
Jim Klein
> Coercion means forcing someone to do something where otherwise he
> would be doing nothing.
Right, or doing something else.
> When the state intervenes with force against a
> man, it is because that man is *not* doing nothing but acting in such
> a way as to coerce another.
That's the American theory alright, the sovereignty
of the individual, which can only be abridged with
coercive force.
> The state is inherently an agent of force,
> but not all force is coercive.
It's all coercive; it's just not all initiatory.
> In the present case of the proposed socialist healthcare, whereas it
> ought to be the presumption of the law that a man not wishing to buy
> health insurance has that moral right *to do nothing* (under Objective
> Law), a federal mandate to force insurance upon one not wishing
> insurance (or healthcare, for that matter) is coercive. However,
> forcing a man to cease and desist selling fraudulent insurance
> policies is applying a force which is not coercive.
Again, that's coercive. The theory is that it's not
initiatory and therefore moral. But is the relevant
distinction between moral and immoral force
usage, properly captured with "initiatory" or not?
Seems to me that "when the force is used" is not
the essential distinguishing factor.
> Your mistake is a typical libertarian one in taking the initiation of
> force principle as axiomatic and outside of any context.
Fair enough, but your mistake is the typical human
one, created and influenced by religious principles,
that force usage against a force-user without regard
to its effect upon the actor, is necessarily moral.
jk
Jim Klein
> Having the state intervene to prevent a murder or to capture and jail a
> criminal is "immoral?"
No, but the problem here is the referent of "prevent
a murder." When a man has a gun at your head and
intends to use it, one's ability to forestall that action
is "preventing a murder." Offhand, that sounds moral.
Commie-libs will maintain that all sorts of actions,
from monetary subsidies to the distribution of
free drug needles, are all likewise actions which
"prevent a murder," even as they can't nail down
exactly which murder is prevented. "Many of 'em,"
is the presumed answer.
Never mind that a stronger evidential argument
can be made that such policies actually CREATE
murders that otherwise wouldn't have happened.
Point being, just as "when it happened" can't tell
us exactly the morality of an act, neither can the
referentless generality "prevent a murder."
jk
1Z
> Commie-libs will maintain that all sorts of actions,
> from monetary subsidies to the distribution of
> free drug needles, are all likewise actions which
> "prevent a murder," even as they can't nail down
> exactly which murder is prevented. "Many of 'em,"
> is the presumed answer.
Fasco-cons will maintain that all sorts
of invasions are necessary to prevent
innocent citizens beign killed by wicked foreigners,
even as they can't nail down when the Viet Cong are
supposed to be marching up Main Street.
1Z
That taking something from somebody is
OK so long as the wider consequences are beneficial
is, BTW, *exactly* the justification for taxation!
Bert Hyman
news:6efd8094-6cf8-4184...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
1Z <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That taking something from somebody is OK so long as the wider
> consequences are beneficial is, BTW, *exactly* the justification for
> taxation!
I thought that the [original] justification of taxation was that
the citizens should pay the reasonable costs of operating the proper
functions of the government of the country/state/city where they chose
to live.
1Z
> Innews:6efd8094-6cf8-4184...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
>
> 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That taking something from somebody is OK so long as the wider
> > consequences are beneficial is, BTW, *exactly* the justification for
> > taxation!
>
> I thought that the [original] justification of taxation was that
> the citizens should pay the reasonable costs of operating the proper
> functions of the government of the country/state/city where they chose
> to live.
They could alternatively pay various private agencies. The point
is to justify the coercive element.
Bert Hyman
news:538f7012-274b-4054...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
1Z <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're another who favors the idea of battling private police forces?
Mob rule and gang warfare is the hallmark of your model civilization.
1Z
chose to live.
>
> > They could alternatively pay various private agencies.
>
> You're another who favors the idea of battling private police forces?
Not at all. I am repeating an objection that is standardly amde to
taxation
Charles Bell
> On Dec 8, 5:21 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Coercion means forcing someone to do something where otherwise he
> > would be doing nothing.
>
> Right, or doing something else.
>
Strictly speaking in Objectivism: one's only social obligation to his
neighbors is to do nothing. Thus, if your neighbor acts in such a way
that does *not* allow you to do nothing vis-a-vis himself, THEN he is
violating your moral right to life (to be left alone) without
coercion. By your doing "something else" your neighbor might
complain, not always without justification, you are violating his
right to be left alone (e.g. air, water, noise pollution) .
> > When the state intervenes with force against a
> > man, it is because that man is *not* doing nothing but acting in such
> > a way as to coerce another.
>
> That's the American theory alright, the sovereignty
> of the individual, which can only be abridged with
> coercive force.
>
> > The state is inherently an agent of force,
> > but not all force is coercive.
>
> It's all coercive; it's just not all initiatory.
>
No, I have to disagree, Government is in its nature an agent of
force, and the issue of "initiatory" ends up being a lot of hair-
splitting. The anarchists are correct in that to have a government of
no force is to have no government. I think the center of political
fight in Objectivist circles is sometimes over the *preventing* of
coercive action of one against another, especially that of fraud. I
think a distinction of "coercion" versus "force" is in order to avoid
the hair-splitting in the sense that I believe a government (under
objective laws) can initiate force to prevent coercion, but such a
government force, whether intentionally or not, becomes coercive when
the force-to-prevent is used against those who are not intent on using
coercion at all.
> > In the present case of the proposed socialist healthcare, whereas it
> > ought to be the presumption of the law that a man not wishing to buy
> > health insurance has that moral right *to do nothing* (under Objective
> > Law), �a federal mandate to force insurance upon one not wishing
> > insurance (or healthcare, for that matter) is coercive. �However,
> > forcing a man to cease and desist selling fraudulent insurance
> > policies is applying a force which is not coercive.
>
> Again, that's coercive. �The theory is that it's not
> initiatory and therefore moral. �But is the relevant
> distinction between moral and immoral force
> usage, properly captured with "initiatory" or not?
>
You see, this is where the hair-splitting begins, and it is always
over fraud and conspiracy charges.
> Seems to me that "when the force is used" is not
> the essential distinguishing factor.
>
> > Your mistake is a typical libertarian one in taking the initiation of
> > force principle as axiomatic and outside of any context.
>
> Fair enough, but your mistake is the typical human
> one, created and influenced by religious principles,
> that force usage against a force-user without regard
> to its effect upon the actor, is necessarily moral.
No, I do not take the force outside the context in which it is used,
intentionally or not. In point of fact, I am *adding* context by
drawing the above distinction between coercion and force and
recognizing that government, given probable cause to believe in the
likelihood, may have a proper function, in initiating force against
those who would coerce others. Acting against a conspirator to commit
fraud is not justifiable in your opinion? Someone actually has to be
hurt or die first, in your opinion?
Jim Klein
So what's your point? Is it that you feel an obligation
to choose one idiot side over the other, and you
just have a personal preference for communism?
jk
Jim Klein
> > It's all coercive; it's just not all initiatory.
>
> No, I have to disagree, Government is in its nature an agent of
> force, and the issue of "initiatory" ends up being a lot of hair-
> splitting. The anarchists are correct in that to have a government of
> no force is to have no government. I think the center of political
> fight in Objectivist circles is sometimes over the *preventing* of
> coercive action of one against another, especially that of fraud.
That begs the question of whether fraud is coercive
or not. Luckily, we're not really discussing that.
> I
> think a distinction of "coercion" versus "force" is in order to avoid
> the hair-splitting in the sense that I believe a government (under
> objective laws) can initiate force to prevent coercion,
Okay, but that's an unusual usage. I think most people
would say that's not initiatory force, but defensive. Of
course, most of those same people would say that pure
retaliation is defensive as well, so I agree it's not too
sensible to use their definitions!
> but such a
> government force, whether intentionally or not, becomes coercive when
> the force-to-prevent is used against those who are not intent on using
> coercion at all.
Right, and I would say that's a clear case of initiatory
force, since "defensive" doesn't apply at all.
But then, most of the numbskulls who couldn't get
their definitions straight on the other point, might
also maintain that nearly all regulations and nanny
oversights are themselves preventative in nature
and so therefore are cases of defense.
> > Fair enough, but your mistake is the typical human
> > one, created and influenced by religious principles,
> > that force usage against a force-user without regard
> > to its effect upon the actor, is necessarily moral.
>
> No, I do not take the force outside the context in which it is used,
> intentionally or not. In point of fact, I am *adding* context by
> drawing the above distinction between coercion and force and
> recognizing that government, given probable cause to believe in the
> likelihood, may have a proper function, in initiating force against
> those who would coerce others. Acting against a conspirator to commit
> fraud is not justifiable in your opinion? Someone actually has to be
> hurt or die first, in your opinion?
Well, "acting" is a pretty broad verb, and "not acting"
is almost synoymous with "being dead."
My comment was meant to address the ubiquitous
but questionable basic premise that retaliation is
a moral good, not what sort of criminal behaviors
ought to be actionable under a rational system of
Rule of Law, assuming such a thing is not self-
contradictory in the first place.
jk
Charles Bell
> On Dec 10, 4:49 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > It's all coercive; it's just not all initiatory.
>
> > force, and the issue of "initiatory" ends up being a lot of hair-
> > no force is to have no government. I think the center of political
> > fight in Objectivist circles is sometimes over the *preventing* of
> > coercive action of one against another, especially that of fraud.
>
> That begs the question of whether fraud is coercive
>
. . . Leading from the mistaken notion that coercion can only come as
the result of *physical* force. Rand screwed the pooch on this in her
politics but not in her morality in that deception is a sin, but that
would leave many thinking that to outlaw fraud is to regulate morality
-- again leading from Rand's confusing politics.
> > 嚙瘢
> > think a distinction of "coercion" versus "force" is in order to avoid
> > the hair-splitting in the sense that I believe a government (under
> > objective laws) can initiate force to prevent coercion,
>
> Okay, but that's an unusual usage. 嚙瘢 think most people
> would say that's not initiatory force, but defensive. 嚙瞌f
> course, most of those same people would say that pure
> retaliation is defensive as well, so I agree it's not too
> sensible to use their definitions!
>
My first discussion here was up against Betsy Speicher on fraud and
conspiracy, and she had some tortured logic that was in keeping with
Objectivism but I can't remember it. As you know,, I believe in
enforcing DUI restrictions (given probable cause) even though the
offender has yet to actually harm anyone. That certainly is a case
where government can morally initiate force against someone, but that
force is not coecion in that the person is not simply doing *nothing*
but acting in a way for potential harm. I believe Speicher's argument
also involved "potential" but it rang hollow.
> > but such a
> > government force, whether intentionally or not, becomes coercive when
> > the force-to-prevent is used against those who are not intent on using
> > coercion at all.
>
> Right, and I would say that's a clear case of initiatory
> force, since "defensive" doesn't apply at all.
It is better to simply acknowledge that government can initiate force
and move along. The IoF principle wholly applies to one individual
against another, and in a fantasy world (the anarchist one) if
everyone followed the principle then government would not be
necessary. The fundamental principle in Objectivist social-political
relations ought not to be the IoF Principle but: "Setting things into
motion (inertial force) always has intended and unintended
consequences, and because men always set things into motion, men
always use force against each other, so deal with it in the most
rational and mutually voluntary way."
>
> But then, most of the numbskulls who couldn't get
> their definitions straight on the other point, might
> also maintain that nearly all regulations and nanny
> oversights are themselves preventative in nature
> and so therefore are cases of defense.
>
I find the problem more a matter of the slippery slope argument rather
than moral justification. The best of intentions have unintended
consequences, but any man who does not set things into motion at all
times, and thus incurring the possibility of unintended consequences,
is a dead man.
> > > Fair enough, but your mistake is the typical human
> > > one, created and influenced by religious principles,
> > > that force usage against a force-user without regard
> > > to its effect upon the actor, is necessarily moral.
>
> > No, I do not take the force outside the context in which it is used,
> > intentionally or not. In point of fact, I am *adding* context by
> > drawing the above distinction between coercion and force and
> > recognizing that government, given probable cause to believe in the
> > likelihood, may have a proper function, in initiating force against
> > those who would coerce others. 嚙璀cting against a conspirator to commit
> > fraud is not justifiable in your opinion? 嚙磅omeone actually has to be
> > hurt or die first, in your opinion?
>
> Well, "acting" is a pretty broad verb, and "not acting"
> is almost synoymous with "being dead."
>
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I think the idealized world as seen
by the anarchist or the absurdly minarchist Objectivist is a world in
which people somehow seek permission from others to do anything to the
point of near complete inertial inaction. To live is to exert force.
There is no getting around that. However, maintaining a linguistic
distinction between "force" and "coercion" maintains a moral component
in "selfish force" versus "not selfish force".
> My comment was meant to address the ubiquitous
> but questionable basic premise that retaliation is
> a moral good, not what sort of criminal behaviors
> ought to be actionable under a rational system of
> Rule of Law, assuming such a thing is not self-
> contradictory in the first place.
The retaliation argument is an offshoot of Rand's screwy politics: A
hurts B, therefore government has a moral right to retaliate against
A. To me, that is all beside the point, being after the fact. What
about: B fears A will hurt him, therefore B forces A (along with B in
equal share) to pay taxes to put a cop on the beat to prevent A from
hurting B. That is the real world. The anarcho-capitalist argues that
B has no right to force A to pay for B's defense. I do not have the
time to make an O'ist counter-argument, but I think you know what it
is.
1Z
> Is it that you feel an obligation
> to choose one idiot side over the other,
No.
Jim Klein
> > That begs the question of whether fraud is coercive
> > or not. Luckily, we're not really discussing that.
>
> . . . Leading from the mistaken notion that coercion can only come as
> the result of *physical* force.
What's mistaken about that? I can see adding "threat
of" to the definition, but I can't find any coercion
without the use (or threat) of physical force.
But I'm all ears if you've got some examples.
> Rand screwed the pooch on this in her
> politics but not in her morality in that deception is a sin, but that
> would leave many thinking that to outlaw fraud is to regulate morality
It's not that it regulates morality; it's that it's a
call for the usage of force against non-forceful action.
Rand wouldn't say that anyway, because she took
fraud as essentially and effectively the use of force.
> -- again leading from Rand's confusing politics.
You can never have a non-confusing or consistent
politics with the sovereignty of the individual as its
base and non-voluntary non-defensive force as its
manifestation. Contradictions don't exist.
> My first discussion here was up against Betsy Speicher on fraud and
> conspiracy, and she had some tortured logic that was in keeping with
> Objectivism but I can't remember it. As you know,, I believe in
> enforcing DUI restrictions (given probable cause) even though the
> offender has yet to actually harm anyone. That certainly is a case
> where government can morally initiate force against someone, but that
> force is not coecion in that the person is not simply doing *nothing*
> but acting in a way for potential harm.
And as the theory goes, that person is therefore
initiating force against someone, even though it's
only in the threat stage.
> I believe Speicher's argument
> also involved "potential" but it rang hollow.
So does this one!
> > > but such a
> > > government force, whether intentionally or not, becomes coercive when
> > > the force-to-prevent is used against those who are not intent on using
> > > coercion at all.
>
> > Right, and I would say that's a clear case of initiatory
> > force, since "defensive" doesn't apply at all.
>
> It is better to simply acknowledge that government can initiate force
> and move along. The IoF principle wholly applies to one individual
> against another, and in a fantasy world (the anarchist one) if
> everyone followed the principle then government would not be
> necessary. The fundamental principle in Objectivist social-political
> relations ought not to be the IoF Principle but: "Setting things into
> motion (inertial force) always has intended and unintended
> consequences, and because men always set things into motion, men
> always use force against each other, so deal with it in the most
> rational and mutually voluntary way."
You mean rational OR mutually voluntary, and you're
going to have to pick. If rational, then there go all
the modern governments right down the crapper.
If mutually voluntary, then it's a naked cry for democracy.
> > But then, most of the numbskulls who couldn't get
> > their definitions straight on the other point, might
> > also maintain that nearly all regulations and nanny
> > oversights are themselves preventative in nature
> > and so therefore are cases of defense.
>
> I find the problem more a matter of the slippery slope argument rather
> than moral justification. The best of intentions have unintended
> consequences, but any man who does not set things into motion at all
> times, and thus incurring the possibility of unintended consequences,
> is a dead man.
But what's the point? Is the existence of unintended
consequences supposed to be evidence of the
justice of nanny government?
IOW, what do you propose to do about the
unintended consequences that every person
causes in his day-to-day actions?
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean. I think the idealized world as seen
> by the anarchist or the absurdly minarchist Objectivist is a world in
> which people somehow seek permission from others to do anything to the
> point of near complete inertial inaction. To live is to exert force.
> There is no getting around that. However, maintaining a linguistic
> distinction between "force" and "coercion" maintains a moral component
> in "selfish force" versus "not selfish force".
I get the gist, but I'm not sure why that's a more
important distinction politically than initiatory
versus defensive, or even retaliatory.
> The retaliation argument is an offshoot of Rand's screwy politics: A
> hurts B, therefore government has a moral right to retaliate against
> A. To me, that is all beside the point, being after the fact. What
> about: B fears A will hurt him, therefore B forces A (along with B in
> equal share) to pay taxes to put a cop on the beat to prevent A from
> hurting B. That is the real world. The anarcho-capitalist argues that
> B has no right to force A to pay for B's defense. I do not have the
> time to make an O'ist counter-argument, but I think you know what it
> is.
Not only don't I know it, I'm very skeptical that it's
truly Objectivist in view of the fact that Rand
didn't believe men should be forced to pay for
others' (or even their own) defense.
AFAIK she didn't believe men should be forced at
all, and that force should only be engaged in the
service of defense against force, of which she
(mistakenly) viewed retribution as a subset.
If it's moral to tax individuals, even for their own
defense and benefit, then why wouldn't it be
moral to draft them for the same reason? Or is it?
jk
Arnold Broese
news:a4881744-b155-4927...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 11, 5:54 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> > That begs the question of whether fraud is coercive
>> > or not. Luckily, we're not really discussing that.
>>
>> . . . Leading from the mistaken notion that coercion can only come as
>> the result of *physical* force.
>
> What's mistaken about that? I can see adding "threat
> of" to the definition, but I can't find any coercion
> without the use (or threat) of physical force.
>
> But I'm all ears if you've got some examples.
The way I see it, is that if you force someone to accept what you have done
without their willing consent, you have, in effect, used force. 'Force'
entails more than physical contact, it entails the denial of volition in a
transaction. The fact that one can swindle without violence, does not remove
force from the end result. The result, is a forced one that would have been
physically resisted given the opportunity to do so. To claim that since
there was no such opportunity, there was no force involved, is playing with
words.
--
Arnold
Jim Klein
wrote:
> The way I see it, is that if you force someone to accept what you have done
> without their willing consent, you have, in effect, used force.
Well yeah, "if you force someone..." you will have used
force by definition. What about "get someone" to do
something?
> 'Force'
> entails more than physical contact, it entails the denial of volition in a
> transaction.
Correct, but it's relevant in what way it denies volition.
Indeed, one is really (actually, physically) denying
volition and the other is getting the volition to change.
Offhand, that looks like a relevant difference in this context.
> The fact that one can swindle without violence, does not remove
> force from the end result.
Not automatically, no. But the question is whether it
DOES remove force.
I'm not here to defend "force is not fraud" anyway, at
least not at the moment. From a truly egoist
perspective, using fraud is just as wrong as using
physical force, and for the same reasons basically.
> The result, is a forced one that would have been
> physically resisted given the opportunity to do so.
Nah, that can't be the distinction since it would leave
far too many obviously free choices as force. In
retrospect, many many of them would be resisted
given the opportunity. You could add, "given the
knowledge at the time," but then you've just removed
fraud from the class of force since it IS done given
the knowledge at the time!
> To claim that since
> there was no such opportunity,
> there was no force involved, is playing with
> words.
There are very good arguments for including fraud in
the class of force, particularly with a stipulation of
so-called minarchist government that both physically
protects individuals and supposedly makes them
whole from civil violations involving property and
money. I've read Billy Beck make one of the best,
explaining the connection between property (wealth)
and our time of life used in acquiring it. Thus a
theft or fraud IS a physical attack against a person,
every bit as much as if you took an arm from him.
After all, ultimately we only have time of life anyway.
Still, at this level, I find the argument wanting. If we
are monopolizing physical force, then we should
monopolize physical force. If we are trying to impose
how everyone ought to live, then we should do that.
Me, I see a huge distinction between the two. Further,
I'd say Rand was very solidly focussed on the proper
(in her opinion) engagement of the former, while the
Post-Mortems have always been more focussed on
the latter...usually with the argument that they are
really the same anyway.
Which would be a great argument, except that reality
refuses to go along.
jk
Charles Bell
> On Dec 11, 5:54 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > That begs the question of whether fraud is coercive
>
> > �ｿｽ. . . Leading from the mistaken notion that coercion can only come as
> > the result of *physical* force.
>
> of" to the definition, but I can't find any coercion
> without the use (or threat) of physical force.
>
I don't accept "threat of" (potentialism) as anything other than a
patch on a badly formulated political viewpoint. Coercion can result
from something other than the use of, or the threat of, the use of
force. And force can be used without coercion.
>snip [, , , ] for time's sake.
> But what's the point? �ｿｽIs the existence of unintended
> consequences supposed to be evidence of the
> justice of nanny government?
>
In your view, is apprehending, arresting and conviction for DUI part
of a "nanny government"?
> IOW, what do you propose to do about the
> unintended consequences that every person
> causes in his day-to-day actions?
>
He must accept that government will annoy him somethimes with
requirements, imposed by force, he'd rather not have to put up with.
> > The retaliation argument is an offshoot of Rand's screwy politics: A
> > hurts B, therefore government has a moral right to retaliate against
> > A. �ｿｽTo me, that is all beside the point, being after the fact. �ｿｽWhat
> > about: B fears A will hurt him, therefore B forces A (along with B in
> > equal share) to pay taxes to put a cop on the beat to prevent A from
> > hurting B. �ｿｽThat is the real world. The anarcho-capitalist argues that
> > B has no right to force A to pay for B's defense. �ｿｽI do not have the
> > time to make an O'ist counter-argument, but I think you know what it
> > is.
>
> Not only don't I know it, I'm very skeptical that it's
> truly Objectivist in view of the fact that Rand
> didn't believe men should be forced to pay for
> others' (or even their own) defense.
>
I can separate Rand's philosophical principles from her specific
political views. She was mostly right in the generalities in the
latter but often completely wrong as well. She did not display any
holding of the value of the separation of powers in the government and
in balance the states-versus-federal government (Jeffersonian
localism). She fell into a trap, common with libertarianism, of
considering a "rights-respecting" government the same as "rights-
enforcing" in an oligarchical national government using the judiciary
to bludgeon people and their local governments into behaving correctly
-- the national government as a force for moral good, in common with
Progressives. [Read anything by Fred Weiss on the subject.] Do you
think she would consider that the same judicial ideology behind Roe v.
Wade might well be the same as that in an upholding of socialized
healthcare in insurance mandates?
> If it's moral to tax individuals, even for their own
> defense and benefit, then why wouldn't it be
> moral to draft them for the same reason? �ｿｽOr is it?
Rand's stance on taxation is the best example of a serious mistake in
politics. The principle of a monopolistic government *necessitates*
compulsory taxation -- as in my example: B fears A and therefore
requires both pay taxes for police.
Charles Bell
> On Dec 11, 11:43 pm, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The way I see it, is that if you force someone to accept what you have done
> > without their willing consent, you have, in effect, used force.
>
> Well yeah, "if you force someone..." you will have used
> force by definition. �What about "get someone" to do
> something?
>
> > 'Force'
> > entails more than physical contact, it entails the denial of volition in a
> > transaction.
>
> Correct, but it's relevant in what way it denies volition.
>
> Indeed, one is really (actually, physically) denying
> volition and the other is getting the volition to change.
>
> Offhand, that looks like a relevant difference in this context.
Broese's comment is in line with what I am thinking and your reponnse
is lacking.
It has to do with the way modern, civilized people really interact.
There can be bullying by deception or emotional blackmail as by
physcial force. Think of the way each in a spousal couple can behave
to the demands of the other. They are voluntarily consenting to
agreement *in general*, but the degree to which one may *want* to do a
particular thing often has little to do with the details of that
particular negotiation.
Someone sick or dying and someone offering cure are inherently in
different intellectual states; the snake-oil salesman is solely in
possession of the facts as to the value of the product (none) and the
sick man is . . . well . . . sick.
> I'm not here to defend "force is not fraud" anyway, at
> least not at the moment. �From a truly egoist
> perspective, using fraud is just as wrong as using
> physical force, and for the same reasons basically.
>
The problem is the IoF principle simply does not refer to fraud and
other deceptions unless one goes around then modifying "force" to mean
something other than what it literally means. That is one reason I
like the Objectivist definition of "selfish" because contained in it
is the meaning "so long as you do not harm someone else . . " that
causes other rational egoists to have to modify their definition. I
see government as an agent of force that will sometimes need to
initiate force, so long as that force is not *coercive* -- meaning not
forcing someone choosing to do nothing, to do something -- but also
may force him to cease doing something even prior to having harmed
another (that is, not retaliatory).
Jim Klein
> > On Dec 11, 11:43 pm, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > The way I see it, is that if you force someone to accept what you
> > > have done
> > > without their willing consent, you have, in effect, used force.
>
> > Well yeah, "if you force someone..." you will have used
> > force by definition. What about "get someone" to do
> > something?
>
> > > 'Force'
> > > entails more than physical contact, it entails the denial of volition
> > > in a
> > > transaction.
>
> > Correct, but it's relevant in what way it denies volition.
>
> > Indeed, one is really (actually, physically) denying
> > volition and the other is getting the volition to change.
>
> > Offhand, that looks like a relevant difference in this context.
>
> Broese's comment is in line with what I am thinking and your reponnse
> is lacking.
I know---that's why I get to be right!
There is a difference between "denying volition"
and "getting the volition to change." That leaves
only relevance for you to talk about, and how do
you propose to do that in evasion of the difference?
> It has to do with the way modern, civilized people really interact.
What does? If you're making a factual comment, then
I agree. If you're making some value judgment, then
I don't follow.
> There can be bullying by deception or emotional blackmail as by
> physcial force.
And half the Europeans will say it can be done by
advertising too, you know. You find that laughable,
but there's a fairer case for that position than you know.
After all, you can't leave out CONTEXT and when
you start considering all the factors that are
involved in lots and lots of advertising, the claim
that it's coercion just like fraud is, isn't the
wildest claim in the world.
Me, I'm too simpleminded, so I just leave "force"
with those referents that are force.
[snip]
> Someone sick or dying and someone offering cure are inherently in
> different intellectual states; the snake-oil salesman is solely in
> possession of the facts as to the value of the product (none) and the
> sick man is . . . well . . . sick.
The question is, "What do you propose to do about that?"
Are you justifying not allowing the salesman to sell
his product, or lie about it, or what exactly?
> The problem is the IoF principle simply does not refer to fraud and
> other deceptions unless one goes around then modifying "force" to mean
> something other than what it literally means.
Right, which is why simpletons like me don't
find it persuasive.
> That is one reason I
> like the Objectivist definition of "selfish" because contained in it
> is the meaning "so long as you do not harm someone else . . "
Hmm. I find that a bit misleading. It's not wrong because
in any context where one is interacting with others, the
statement is true. I find it misleading because it seems
to imply that the state of those others should be the
motivating factor for what you do. As I'm sure you agree,
that would be wrong.
> that
> causes other rational egoists to have to modify their definition. I
> see government as an agent of force that will sometimes need to
> initiate force, so long as that force is not *coercive* -- meaning not
> forcing someone choosing to do nothing, to do something -- but also
> may force him to cease doing something even prior to having harmed
> another (that is, not retaliatory).
That sure looks sensible on its face, but I just
learned the perfect answer...
"It has to do with the way modern, civilized people really interact!"
jk
Arnold Broese
> On Dec 11, 11:43 pm, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 'Force' entails more than physical contact, it entails the denial of
>> volition in a transaction.
>
> Correct, but it's relevant in what way it denies volition.
>
> Indeed, one is really (actually, physically) denying
> volition and the other is getting the volition to change.
>
> Offhand, that looks like a relevant difference in this context.
The principle remains. How do you "change" volition? Either one deals with
others voluntarily, or one doesn't. If it is the latter, then it goes
against the will of the other person. If the other person is not aware of
the imposition of the will of another, he is forced to accept it regardless.
It is forced on him. "Force" is not limited to physical contact. *In the
political context, it is defined as the negation of your volition by another
volitional being.*
I wrote " The result, is a forced one that would have been
physically resisted given the opportunity to do so."
Your answer:
"Nah, that can't be the distinction since it would leave
far too many obviously free choices as force. In
retrospect, many many of them would be resisted
given the opportunity. You could add, "given the
knowledge at the time," but then you've just removed
fraud from the class of force since it IS done given
the knowledge at the time!"
Are you saying that those people Madoff swindled were aware of it; that they
had knowledge of it, and that they chose not resist?
That is not how I see it. Madoff imposed his will on them, even if he didn't
use a club. It is the imposition itself that is forceful, not just the
manner of the way it was done. The manner may be physically violent or not.
--
Arnold
Jim Klein
> > But what's the point? Is the existence of unintended
> > consequences supposed to be evidence of the
> > justice of nanny government?
>
> In your view, is apprehending, arresting and conviction for DUI part
> of a "nanny government"?
I explained once why this was one of a very few
topics that I don't engage. I had a nutty friend
once who said that the focus on DUI was going
to be the harbringer of what we see now.
It sounded nutty then and it sounds nutty now,
but I'm not even close to being convinced that
the claim is false. So I leave it alone, for now.
> > IOW, what do you propose to do about the
> > unintended consequences that every person
> > causes in his day-to-day actions?
>
> He must accept that government will annoy him somethimes with
> requirements, imposed by force, he'd rather not have to put up with.
Lovely words, derived of lovely principles. Luckily,
I just learned the perfect response for this...
"It has to do with the way modern, civilized people really interact!"
Plus, I always find it amusing that you and Jim Prescott
find each other's POV as complete opposites, and I
find them remarkably similar!
> I can separate Rand's philosophical principles from her specific
> political views. She was mostly right in the generalities in the
> latter but often completely wrong as well.
I agree. So does Prescott BTW!
> She did not display any
> holding of the value of the separation of powers in the government and
> in balance the states-versus-federal government (Jeffersonian
> localism).
Those are two different things and I don't know
that she gave them short shrift either. To her,
they were part-and-parcel of the American Way,
and she was not one to dichotomize referents
needlessly. That is, I'm not sure what mistakes
she made in this regard, even as I agree that
she didn't give them strong focus...especially the
localism part.
[snip]
> Rand's stance on taxation is the best example of a serious mistake in
> politics. The principle of a monopolistic government *necessitates*
> compulsory taxation --
I dream Rodney King's vision...maybe we can all
just get along.
But even if not, I think a whole shitload of consideration
is deserved for the question, "And therefore...what?"
We agree wholeheartedly. "The principle of a monopolistic
government *necessitates* compulsory taxation."
And I ask, "So therefore...what?" Does this mean that
monopolistic government is to be placed at the very
acme of our hierarchy? Or is it just all so obvious
that we may treat it as if were so?
> as in my example: B fears A and therefore
> requires both pay taxes for police.
But this is just a classic Post-Mortem mistake.
Obviously you're not saying that /any/ fears on
B's part would always justify forcing A to take
part in its (imagined!) resolution, just because
B happens to feel fear.
No, of course you're saying only the "real ones,"
the ones that are derived via rational methods
and so are correspondent with reality.
Here's another premise that neo-postmortem-
arian-orthodox Objectivists don't get---if you're
going to allow the rational to be free, then you
MUST allow the irrational to be just as free.
So what you're really saying is that fear itself is
a just cause for messing with other people, when
indeed you don't believe that, when stated plainly.
jk
Charles Bell
>
> There is a difference between "denying volition"
> and "getting the volition to change." �That leaves
> only relevance for you to talk about, and how do
> you propose to do that in evasion of the difference?
>
You are engaging in the very sort of wordplay that Broese mentioned.
The reality he mentioned is that "consent" has contexutal
prerequisites. Do you not agree that a pre-pubescent child can never
give consent to engage in sexual relations with an adult over 25 no
matter how physically unforced? I use a extreme hypothetical so that
you cannot use wordplay to get out of a question, to which one answer
utterly demerits you from rational discussion on this subject. Would
you not like to have a government that might prevent such a thing
before it happens, if possible? The prevention is justifiable
initiation of force which is not coercive.
[As an aside, have you heard of the navy SEALs being court-martialed
for the manner in which they captured terrorist? http://tinyurl.com/ygek88p
]
> > It has to do with the way modern, civilized people really interact.
>
> What does? �If you're making a factual comment, then
> I agree. �If you're making some value judgment, then
> I don't follow.
>
Yes, I am making a factual comment. The final arbiter in all these
philosophical-political questions is reality.
> > There can be bullying by deception or emotional blackmail as by
> > physcial force.
>
> And half the Europeans will say it can be done by
> advertising too, you know. �You find that laughable,
> but there's a fairer case for that position than you know.
>
> After all, you can't leave out CONTEXT and when
> you start considering all the factors that are
> involved in lots and lots of advertising, the claim
> that it's coercion just like fraud is, isn't the
> wildest claim in the world.
>
> Me, I'm too simpleminded, so I just leave "force"
> with those referents that are force.
>
Well, advertising that contains fraudulent claims comes under the
category of coercion that is not physical. I am saying that /caveat
emptor/ stops at deliberate deception.
> [snip]
>
> > Someone sick or dying and someone offering cure are inherently in
> > different intellectual states; �the snake-oil salesman is solely in
> > possession of the facts as to the value of the product (none) and the
> > sick man is . . . well . . . sick.
>
> The question is, "What do you propose to do about that?"
>
As you may or may not know, I do believe in the purpose of the FDA. If
you would like to make me aware of the enormous slippery slope into
bureaucratic coercion thus created by the FDA, you are too late.
> Are you justifying not allowing the salesman to sell
> his product, or lie about it, or what exactly?
>
Yes, more or less. The marketplace is an enormous place to thus
regulate and an FDA trying to regulate anything that can be sold to
put into one's body is neither possible nor desirable. However, if
the government can give a product monopoly to a company selling a
drug, then it can regulate the conditions under which that drug may be
sold to the extent that it does what is claimed for it to do and not
kill.
> > The problem is the IoF principle simply does not refer to fraud and
> > other deceptions unless one goes around then modifying "force" to mean
> > something other than what it literally means.
>
> Right, which is why simpletons like me don't
> find it persuasive.
>
You've lost me on just what your philosophical-political position of
"force" is and the diffference (if any) you have with Rand.
> > That is one reason I
> > like the Objectivist definition of "selfish" because contained in it
> > is the meaning "so long as you do not harm someone else . . "
>
> Hmm. �I find that a bit misleading. �It's not wrong because
> in any context where one is interacting with others, the
> statement is true. �I find it misleading because it seems
> to imply that the state of those others should be the
> motivating factor for what you do. �As I'm sure you agree,
> that would be wrong.
>
Okay. You have me on that one. The grammatical purpose of "so long
as. . . " is misleading. However, I am saying that properly the
Objectivist meaning of "selfish" does *not* contain the "so long
as . . ." qualification. Moreover, it is apparent that Objectivists
have to qualify "force" in various ways (retaliatory, physical,
intentional, potential, etc. ) to clarify the meaning of the
prohibition of the initiation of force in the IoF principle, and I
consider that a bad thing in a principle, especially as many Rand-
influenced libertarians take the IoF principle to be axiomatic and are
certain that it must also apply to agents of government.
> > that
> > causes other rational egoists to have to modify their definition. �I
> > see government as an agent of force that will sometimes need to
> > initiate force, so long as that force is not *coercive* -- meaning not
> > forcing someone choosing to do nothing, to do something -- but also
> > may force him to cease doing something even prior to having harmed
> > another (that is, not retaliatory).
>
> That sure looks sensible on its face, but I just
> learned the perfect answer...
>
> "It has to do with the way modern, civilized people really interact!"
>
Reality is the final arbiter.
Charles Bell
> Plus, I always find it amusing that you and Jim Prescott
> find each other's POV as complete opposites, and I
> find them remarkably similar!
>
I believe I said this before, but Prescott has the inclination that
government should impose moral values through law, and I competely
disagree with that. He denies believing in "duty" but he actually
does, so long as it comes from law.
> > I can separate Rand's philosophical principles from her specific
> > political views. �She was mostly right in the generalities in the
> > latter but often completely wrong as well.
>
> I agree. �So does Prescott BTW!
>
No, Prescott is very clear that he disagrees with Rand in a
fundamental way on her philsophical principles, and not only on her
specific political views.
> > �She did not display any
> > holding of the value of the separation of powers in the government and
> > in balance the states-versus-federal government (Jeffersonian
> > localism).
>
> Those are two different things and I don't know
> that she gave them short shrift either. �
Never mentioned it, or only in a negative way (yucky, racist States'
Rights) against George Wallace in his run in 1968. And they are *not*
separate things. The balance of power for citizens of the U.S.A. does
not just include that in the branches of federal government but also
between the federal government and the fifty states, but this latter
has been obliterated by the Supreme Court since the beginning of the
20th century,.
> We agree wholeheartedly. �"The principle of a monopolistic
> government *necessitates* compulsory taxation."
>
> And I ask, "So therefore...what?" �Does this mean that
> monopolistic government is to be placed at the very
> acme of our hierarchy? �Or is it just all so obvious
> that we may treat it as if were so?
>
> > as in my example: B fears A and therefore
> > requires both pay taxes for police.
>
> But this is just a classic Post-Mortem mistake.
>
> Obviously you're not saying that /any/ fears on
> B's part would always justify forcing A to take
> part in its (imagined!) resolution, just because
> B happens to feel fear.
No, but it is not sufficient for A to say: "So what?" or "You're being
silly." Remember that the right to life includes EVERYTHING and
implicit in universal taxation is that A is entitled to have fears of
his own for which B must pay to defend against. The devil is in the
details, of course.
>
> No, of course you're saying only the "real ones,"
> the ones that are derived via rational methods
> and so are correspondent with reality.
>
> Here's another premise that neo-postmortem-
> arian-orthodox Objectivists don't get---if you're
> going to allow the rational to be free, then you
> MUST allow the irrational to be just as free.
Isn't that what I just said above? With universal and compulsory
taxation it is not right to pick over the "rightness" of fears of
others in providing for a common defense. The actually execution of
defense is another matter, obviously, but there is no justification to
abolish a military or police force (unless under some other defense
umbrella) or refusal to contribute in taxation.
>
> So what you're really saying is that fear itself is
> a just cause for messing with other people, when
> indeed you don't believe that, when stated plainly.
I plead a difference between preparing for a generalized defense
against all fears and the execution of the defense in the particulars
-- more $ for terrorists less $ for militantly Celtic football fans
and very little $ for syphilitic Kantian lesbian whores.
Jim Klein
> > There is a difference between "denying volition"
> > and "getting the volition to change." That leaves
> > only relevance for you to talk about, and how do
> > you propose to do that in evasion of the difference?
>
> You are engaging in the very sort of wordplay that Broese mentioned.
> The reality he mentioned is that "consent" has contexutal
> prerequisites. Do you not agree that a pre-pubescent child can never
> give consent to engage in sexual relations with an adult over 25 no
> matter how physically unforced?
CAN never give consent? No, I do not agree. Consent is
an action engaged by organisms that are able to
conceptualize alternatives and motivate themselves
pursuant to a choice between them, and I know of
no physical fact in a teenager which prevents this.
Did you mean SHOULD never give consent? Then yes,
I agree. Did you mean SHOULDN'T BE PERMITTED to give
consent? Then I agree with that too, though I think the
relevant action ought to be taken by parents. Unlike
Hillary, I do not believe that our whole village is raising
this child. Why, do you?
As far as the Law is concerned, I can agree
wholeheartedly that young 'uns should not
be viewed by the Law as having given consent.
But frankly, rational Law in a rational Society
is so far removed from the present situation,
that I'm not sure why you would even bring it up.
> I use a extreme hypothetical so that
> you cannot use wordplay to get out of a question,
No doubt you'll say I did that anyway!
> to which one answer
> utterly demerits you from rational discussion on this subject.
You sure about that? Do you seriously believe that
as a matter of fact, a teenager CANNOT give consent?
That would be absurd, so you throw in various contexts
behind that consent such that my answer is automatically
false. Who's playing the word games now?
> Would
> you not like to have a government that might prevent such a thing
> before it happens, if possible?
"Like to have"...is this the new standard for what makes
Govco actions right and wrong? Sure...just like every
moocher out there, there are all sorts of things "I'd
like to have" in this regard. The difference between
the moocher and me is that I don't view these likes
as therefore some claim on others to make them happen.
You?
> The prevention is justifiable
> initiation of force which is not coercive.
I trust you understand that you are echoing
Hillary's famous claim almost verbatim. This
position does say that the whole village is
raising the child.
> Yes, I am making a factual comment. The final arbiter in all these
> philosophical-political questions is reality.
As far as what's happening, yes. But we're discussing
what we ought to do about it. I say keep your damn
nose out of the raising of other people's children; you
say that there's such an obvious wrong that it's
therefore justifiable to bring in the guns.
I don't think "being an obvious wrong" is sufficient
cause to turn other people into thugs.
But as I've mentioned before, IMO this is easily
the toughest sub-topic where freedom is concerned.
> Well, advertising that contains fraudulent claims comes under the
> category of coercion that is not physical. I am saying that /caveat
> emptor/ stops at deliberate deception.
Uh huh. So the idiot snake-oil salesman should be
allowed to continue, but the aware one put in prison.
This, even though they're selling the same snake-oil
to the same person with the same words.
I don't see the sense of that, particularly from the
POV of the person who's supposedly being protected.
And in any event, I really don't see why the
existence of (idiot or brilliant) snake-oil
salesmen, is sufficient to turn me from a
man who deals in persuasion to one who
deals in force.
Now you're saying that not only is the consumer's
young kid under my control, but the consumer
should be too! Sorry, I disagree...he can buy
what the fuck he wants and learn his lessons
that way.
> As you may or may not know, I do believe in the purpose of the FDA. If
> you would like to make me aware of the enormous slippery slope into
> bureaucratic coercion thus created by the FDA, you are too late.
"A thing is as a thing does." You are falsely
dichotomizing "the purpose of the FDA" from
"the nature of the FDA." We probably agree
on nearly all purposive action of nearly all
purposive entities. Our difference is that I
don't think that's any justification for what
they do.
After all, with what is the road to hell paved?
> > Are you justifying not allowing the salesman to sell
> > his product, or lie about it, or what exactly?
>
> Yes, more or less. The marketplace is an enormous place to thus
> regulate and an FDA trying to regulate anything that can be sold to
> put into one's body is neither possible nor desirable.
Oh. I thought that was the purpose, more or less, of
the FDA, at least in combination with all the other
acronymed agencies that regulate everything else
that we put into our bodies.
And I thought you agreed with that purpose. But
this says you don't, I think. Sorry, I'm confused.
> However, if
> the government can give a product monopoly to a company selling a
> drug, then it can regulate the conditions under which that drug may be
> sold to the extent that it does what is claimed for it to do and not
> kill.
Once again...CAN. Sure it can. With guns, you can
pretty much do anything as long as the other party
doesn't outgun you. This is no revelation.
SHOULD it? We'd have to take a much closer look
at your antecedent here to develop an answer, and
I'm not really into that presently.
> > > The problem is the IoF principle simply does not refer to fraud and
> > > other deceptions unless one goes around then modifying "force" to mean
> > > something other than what it literally means.
>
> > Right, which is why simpletons like me don't
> > find it persuasive.
>
> You've lost me on just what your philosophical-political position of
> "force" is and the diffference (if any) you have with Rand.
AFAIK, I agree completely with Rand on this particular
point. Simply put, there is absolutely NO MEANS by
which one person can control the actions of another
EXCEPT through the use of literal, physical force.
Now politically, I have plenty of disagreements with
her about the, "Therefore..." part.
> > > That is one reason I
> > > like the Objectivist definition of "selfish" because contained in it
> > > is the meaning "so long as you do not harm someone else . . "
>
> > Hmm. I find that a bit misleading. It's not wrong because
> > in any context where one is interacting with others, the
> > statement is true. I find it misleading because it seems
> > to imply that the state of those others should be the
> > motivating factor for what you do. As I'm sure you agree,
> > that would be wrong.
>
> Okay. You have me on that one. The grammatical purpose of "so long
> as. . . " is misleading. However, I am saying that properly the
> Objectivist meaning of "selfish" does *not* contain the "so long
> as . . ." qualification. Moreover, it is apparent that Objectivists
> have to qualify "force" in various ways (retaliatory, physical,
> intentional, potential, etc. ) to clarify the meaning of the
> prohibition of the initiation of force in the IoF principle, and I
> consider that a bad thing in a principle, especially as many Rand-
> influenced libertarians take the IoF principle to be axiomatic and are
> certain that it must also apply to agents of government.
I find this mostly unresponsive to the point I was making,
but I am sympathetic to your quandary of how much
"clarification," which really means "dancing around"
there is on the point of what's force and what's not.
Like being poor, every once in a while there are
advantages to being a simpleton. While I agree
that threats can sometimes muddy the waters,
generally I have no problem identifying force usage.
Indeed, I think one of the biggest problems going, is
that so many thinkers believe that they do.
> > > that
> > > causes other rational egoists to have to modify their definition. I
> > > see government as an agent of force that will sometimes need to
> > > initiate force, so long as that force is not *coercive* -- meaning not
> > > forcing someone choosing to do nothing, to do something -- but also
> > > may force him to cease doing something even prior to having harmed
> > > another (that is, not retaliatory).
>
> > That sure looks sensible on its face, but I just
> > learned the perfect answer...
>
> > "It has to do with the way modern, civilized people really interact!"
>
> Reality is the final arbiter.
As you yourself noted elsewhere, the devil is in the
details. Well, duh. Let's see you have this discussion
with David Friedman...he'll overexamine until you're
dizzy with borderline cases and indirect harms.
All of that is off the topic, in my estimation. Either
you ought to live as a thug or you oughtn't. The
fact that others choose wrongly does not impose
upon me a requirement to be like them. It may
impose a requirement that I should be able to
defend myself against them, but it doesn't imply
that because I choose to use force, I am therefore
essentially a thug and not a man.
The problem with all of this--derived from the age-
old religious principles of altruism and retaliation--
is that it's got good people acting on the same
philosophical principles as the bad people. This
is an error of gargantuan proportions and is why
our institutions are manifesting evil actions instead
of good ones.
You can keep on believing that the right set of
arguments will somehow change it all and we'll
have an objective Rule of Law that will somehow
(how? blank-out) manifest as rationality and
not thuggery, but this simpleton will continue to
believe that choosing thuggery as one's basic
approach to social interaction will lead to a
world of thugs and not rational men.
"Reality is the final arbiter." So which one of us
has reality pegged closer to how it is?
jk
Jim Klein
> I plead a difference between preparing for a generalized defense
> against all fears and the execution of the defense in the particulars
> -- more $ for terrorists less $ for militantly Celtic football fans
> and very little $ for syphilitic Kantian lesbian whores.
I already told you that when you set up your
separate little country, you can count me in.
It's not that I believe you'll actually get the guns
to be subservient to the words, but it's so
decently intended that I'd be willing to give
it a shot.
That's CONSENT of the governed. Till then, you
can talk and write as rationally as you wish; you
are defending nothing except the motivations,
and especially the actions, of thugs. There are
not two choices out there---what Charles intends,
versus what is happening. Your mind consists
of the former; reality is comprised of the latter.
My analysis and judgment is focussed on that,
not your intentions. I have long learned that the
motivations of most people--including and
especially those who carry out the institutionalized
thuggery we see today--are usually decent and
mean to help everything and not hurt everyone.
But I see nothing but facts, and the fact of the
matter is that those good intentions have not
prevented us from paving the road to hell.
Speaking of which, you might want to consider
that it doesn't do much good to change the
portions of the road that you've already traveled!
jk
Charles Bell
> On Dec 12, 7:08 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > There is a difference between "denying volition"
> > > and "getting the volition to change." �That leaves
> > > only relevance for you to talk about, and how do
> > > you propose to do that in evasion of the difference?
>
> > You are engaging in the very sort of wordplay that Broese mentioned.
> > The reality he mentioned is that "consent" has contexutal
> > prerequisites. Do you not agree that a pre-pubescent child can never
> > give consent to engage in sexual relations with an adult over 25 no
> > matter how physically unforced?
>
> CAN never give consent? �No, I do not agree. �Consent is
> an action engaged by organisms that are able to
> conceptualize alternatives and motivate themselves
> pursuant to a choice between them, and I know of
> no physical fact in a teenager which prevents this.
>
Sorry, discussion over.
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
Jim Klein
> > CAN never give consent? No, I do not agree. Consent is
> > an action engaged by organisms that are able to
> > conceptualize alternatives and motivate themselves
> > pursuant to a choice between them, and I know of
> > no physical fact in a teenager which prevents this.
>
> Sorry, discussion over.
As you wish of course, but now I'm highly interested
in what there is about that fact that causes you to
be unwilling to discuss. That's a far more interesting
topic than this particular one. At least I told you why
I didn't want to discuss DUI.
I mean, I was very careful to define my term, as
specifically as possible. Naturally, since this led
me to offering a simple, specific, obvious fact.
I didn't mean to imply that this cuts off the issue
that you're interested in, which is the codification
of the prohibition of various sorts of behavior. I'm
confident that our judgment of such actions are
very similar, and your underlying implication with
the quick cut is that perhaps I have some judgment
system which is out to lunch.
I was just trying to answer, very directly. We
simpletons like to begin at the beginning, and
I was trying to offer the simple, beginning fact.
On the wider points, I'd say many people have
invented for themselves a bad (read: not factual)
frame of reference, built of faith, altruism and
especially collectivism. The relevant question is
NOT, "Should such behavior be stopped?" Any
decent person would stop any such behavior
in a heartbeat, and many would risk their very
lives to do it.
The relevant question is, "Does the existence of
wild animals give rise to a justification for us to
live as wild animals?"
I say, No it does not. I say we are rational beings
first and foremost and it is both unnatural and wrong
to act any other way. Now you go ahead and explain
why we will somehow benefit if we choose to
collectivize and institutionalize the acting as wild
animals, and maybe I'll go ahead and explain why
any rational being should be prepared to overcome
any wild animal that threatens him.
jk
Charles Bell
> On Dec 13, 2:38 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > an action engaged by organisms that are able to
> > > conceptualize alternatives and motivate themselves
> > > pursuant to a choice between them, and I know of
> > > no physical fact in a teenager which prevents this.
>
> > Sorry, discussion over.
>
> As you wish of course, but now I'm highly interested
> in what there is about that fact that causes you to
> topic than this particular one. �ｿｽAt least I told you why
> I didn't want to discuss DUI.
>
That's just it. Those are two very good examples of what I am getting
at w/re: force (without coercion) versus coercion (without force), and
you give me libertarian bullshit responses, and I was hoping for an
Objectivist(-ish) discussion.
'Tis not the season to go into the psychology of pedophilia w/re:
force and the law, but I would need to do so to continue the
discussion, assuming the unlikely event that you would agree with my
comments, seeing how you so readily changed my hypothetical from
"prepubescent child" to "teenager".
> I didn't mean to imply that this cuts off the issue
> that you're interested in, which is the codification
> of the prohibition of various sorts of behavior. �ｿｽ
Actually *you* were the one who wanted "codification of the
prohibition" of pedophilia (a la Prescott with his moral-legal
obligations) while I never said that.
Jim Klein
> That's just it. Those are two very good examples of what I am getting
> at w/re: force (without coercion) versus coercion (without force), and
> you give me libertarian bullshit responses, and I was hoping for an
> Objectivist(-ish) discussion.
What exactly is your point then? If it's only that you
have a better nomenclature system than others, then
that doesn't interest me. You probably do.
I'm interested in the referents of the concepts. Are you
saying, contra Rand, that there are ways of overpowering
an individual's volition besides the use of physical
force and/or the threat of it?
> 'Tis not the season to go into the psychology of pedophilia w/re:
> force and the law, but I would need to do so to continue the
> discussion, assuming the unlikely event that you would agree with my
> comments, seeing how you so readily changed my hypothetical from
> "prepubescent child" to "teenager".
Oops, my mistake; sorry. Though I'm not sure
what that particular difference has to do with
what you're saying.
Of course, maybe if I understood what you were saying,
that wouldn't be such a problem!
> > I didn't mean to imply that this cuts off the issue
> > that you're interested in, which is the codification
> > of the prohibition of various sorts of behavior.
>
> Actually *you* were the one who wanted "codification of the
> prohibition" of pedophilia (a la Prescott with his moral-legal
> obligations) while I never said that.
Both thread drift and senility have caused me to lose
track of any point there might have been. It should
be obvious that I don't want /anything/ "a la Prescott."
I just made a passing remark that to me, your
philosophical foundations, at least the political
ones, seem to have more in common than you
can bring yourself to admit. That in itself is not
a great sin (a great mistake, maybe!) and thought
it might cause you to take an even closer
look at some of your premises.
On the same point, it's noteworthy that the two
of you end up at places that aren't wholly
dissimilar from each other. While I'd agree that
his derivation is far more convoluted than yours,
that can also be taken as intellectually superior
since it derives the whole thing from the get-go,
including and especially natural resources.
What do you imagine would be some huge
differences between living under Prescott's
Constitution, and living under yours?
jk
Charles Bell
> On Dec 14, 6:31 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Actually *you* were the one who wanted "codification of the
> > prohibition" of pedophilia (a la Prescott with his moral-legal
> > obligations) while I never said that.
>
> Both thread drift and senility have caused me to lose
> track of any point there might have been. �
The thread as I entered it was "socialized healthcare is coercive
goverment IoF". To the typical libertarian, the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq (to the extent of regime change and nation-building) are
violations of the IoF, and I say they certainly are not in that
government may initiate force so long it is not coercive, and the
Taliban and Saddam Hussein were coercive without specific initiation
of force against the U.S. Rand's principle behind non-IoF was that
the only social obligation of one neighbor to another neighbor is to
do nothing (and NOT "or to allow to be doing something else", as you
stated), but also that in order to live every man must exert force,
even initiatory; thus, a clear distinction between "force" and
"coercion" is in order, rather than having to sort out all the
particulars of force in IoF that may or may not apply.
> It should
> be obvious that I don't want /anything/ "a la Prescott."
> I just made a passing remark that to me, your
> philosophical foundations, at least the political
> ones, seem to have more in common than you
> can bring yourself to admit.
I am clear that certain actions are to be prohibited -- by whatever
means -- regardless of law in the individual's moral right to life
(natural versus statutory), and Prescott says that only law, based in
morality, itself can prohibt actions (and in so doing becomes a
duty). You gave a response not unlike Prescott: mayhap some action
should not be done, then you suppose that there ought to be a law
against it, but only with respect to the law may that action be
prohibited: malum prohibitum rather than malum in se. This relates
obliquely to Rand's goverment as a monpolistic retalitory -- and only
retalitory -- force. I am arguing against Rand's specific (and
largely impractical) political application of "force" by government
but not against the first principle of the only social obligation one
has to one's neighbor.
Jim Klein
> The thread as I entered it was "socialized healthcare is coercive
> goverment IoF". To the typical libertarian, the wars in Afghanistan
> and Iraq (to the extent of regime change and nation-building) are
> violations of the IoF, and I say they certainly are not in that
> government may initiate force so long it is not coercive, and the
> Taliban and Saddam Hussein were coercive without specific initiation
> of force against the U.S.
Well, at least I understand this. This may have
been the longest discussion in history, on two
different subjects.
I think your distinction is fine and clear, as long as
it's not used to beg questions...not that anyone
would do that with definitions, of course.
I don't know who the typical libertarian is, but
I'd guess they're roughly split like everyone
else---some see it as naked imperialism and
some see it as obvious defense.
If you're referring to the common libertarian
principle of keeping the US's nose out of
other countries business, then I suppose
that's typical but it's hardly as ignorant as
you make it sound.
> Rand's principle behind non-IoF was that
> the only social obligation of one neighbor to another neighbor is to
> do nothing (and NOT "or to allow to be doing something else", as you
> stated),
As I meant it, those two are pretty close to synonymous.
I take "allow" in this usage as a wholly passive act as in
"not stop" or as you put it, "do nothing." That might not
be a great usage of "allow" since usually it does imply
some affirmative action...especially in a frame of mind
like yours!
I don't recall why I used "to be doing something else"
at the time. Using Google Groups on dialup, it's not
as easy as a simple scroll to find out, so I'm letting
it go. I'm sure it was completely sensible though!
Why...do you think we likely have some disagreement on
this particular point? If so, what?
> but also that in order to live every man must exert force,
> even initiatory;
Is this a fact to you? Are you now using "initiatory"
to just mean "getting the drop" or something like
that? Except for that--defensive force that thwarts
initiatory force--are you saying that run-of-the-mill
initiatory force, in the simple and obvious meaning,
is necessary to every man as part of his life?
If so, I'd greatly appreciate a clarification.
> thus, a clear distinction between "force" and
> "coercion" is in order, rather than having to sort out all the
> particulars of force in IoF that may or may not apply.
Like I say, that's cool as long as it's not used for
begging questions. OTOH I still don't see why
initiatory force is so tough to discern in its
various particulars. And I /really/ don't see
how force itself is tough to understand at
all. And I still don't know if you agree or disagree
that it's the only thing that can abridge a man's
volition.
[rest snipped]
jk
Charles Bell
> On Dec 15, 8:05 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > The thread as I entered it was "socialized healthcare is coercive
> > goverment IoF". �To the typical libertarian, the wars in Afghanistan
> > and Iraq (to the extent of regime change and nation-building) are
> > violations of the IoF, and I say they certainly are not in that
> > government may initiate force so long it is not coercive, and the
> > Taliban and Saddam Hussein were coercive without specific initiation
> > of force against the U.S.
>
> Well, at least I understand this. �This may have
> been the longest discussion in history, on two
> different subjects.
>
> I think your distinction is fine and clear, as long as
> it's not used to beg questions...not that anyone
> would do that with definitions, of course.
>
To say government shall act in retaliation against murder and theft is
to add nothing whatsoever to the discussion on the proper nature of
government. To then say: "Oh, yeah, let's add in fraud, even though
there's no physical force involved" is *per se* inexplicable. The
proper nature of government must include a function to deal with the
things that people actually argue over, and that is *not* murder and
theft. A neighbor decides to run a pig farm in his back yard and
keeps roosters because he likes waking up in all hours of the early
morning, or is stone deaf. Does not involve *physical* force against
me, too bad for my discomfort. Well, people get driven to all sorts
of violence just because of no adjudicating authority to decide
disputes. Government has no moral function. It is the agent of
force, though it ought to be nothing more or less than a cop on the
beat to *prevent* or dissipate disputes before they turn violent.
Similarly, a common defense prudently diffuses or eliminates threats
before violence breaks out. So what if Iran incinerates Israel so long
as it does not actually attack the U.S., but, boy, if they ever do,
they will get a stern dressing down.