Please help me with this STUPID argument!
Jaffo
Okay, I have this little Statist, Collectivist girlfriend. Frequently I hear
the phrase, "I know YOU are a good person, Michael, but these people that are
telling you these things aren't being HONEST about what they believe. I don't
believe their motives are as PURE as yours."
In the past, I'll admit I have used the Utilitarian defense for my Libertarian
idea.
Like most Libertarians, I am trying to explain my opposition to FORCE to cause
social engineering.
She is utterly incapable of understanding that argument. And I don't
understand the roots of it very well myself.
Here's a snippit from the argument we had today:
I was trying to explain how taxation is evil because it is based on COERCION.
She says she thinks community activity is very good, but she sees NO
DIFFERENCE between a community-based charity, and a government-run welfare
office.
She says, "The government is just an extension of the COMMUNITY, so this is
the same thing."
I tried to explain that while I am all in favor of community activity, I am
opposed to government activity, because government activity requires the use
of FORCE to finance it.
I tried to explain that voluntary contracts are perfectly good and moral, but
taxation is immoral because the people being taxed did not sign a contract
agreeing to it.
I conceded that if I was to join a neighborhood, and sign a contract agreeing
to pay an annual fee in exchange for water, sewage, electricity, roads,
bridges, etc. that would be perfectly good and moral, but if a government
extracted 20% of my income to pay for these same services, that would be
IMMORAL.
Here's where things start to break down. I said if I lived in an existing
community, and I did not wish to pay the fees associated with living there, I
could just MOVE to another community, so there was no way for the community to
use force against me.
Particularly if I was renting and did not actually own the property I was
living on.
Her argument was that government taxation is an implicit contract between the
citizens and the government. The government agrees to provide certain
services in exchange for certain taxes, and if we don't wish to pay these
taxes, we should LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
Her argument is that since we have the freedom to leave the U.S. at any time,
we are tacitly agreeing to pay whatever taxes are necessary to support the
current standard of living in the U.S.
She believes it is perfectly moral and just for the government to put people
in jail for not paying their taxes, because just by LIVING in the United
States, they are benefitting from the services those taxes provide.
I said the people had no choice but to pay those taxes, but she insists they
have a choice because they are free to leave the country entirely.
How should I counter this argument?
I tried to explain that even under that argument, the contract between the
citizens and the government is the CONSTITUTION of the United States. And I
would be willing to abide by the terms of that Constitution. I told her if
the Constitution was considered a contract, I consider the government to be in
VIOLATION of that contract, and thus the government actions are immoral.
She gave a flat-out defense based on her belief in the tyranny of the
majority. She said as long as "the people" vote for something, it is morally
proper for the government to enforce it.
I tried to ask her an absurd question. I asked, "If the government passed a
law saying no citizen could own two houses (she has rental property) would it
be morally right for them to force you to sell your extra house and give the
money to the government?"
She said, "That's impossible. No one would ever do that."
I said, "What's the difference between the government taking real property,
like your house, and the government taking 60% of your income in taxes. She
said, "But that's not PROPERTY. That's just money."
I said, "So it's morally proper for the government to take your income, as
long as the people vote for it? Like when we had an 80% tax rate in the
highest bracket?"
She says, "Well, yes, but those rich people could afford it! They weren't
actually HURT by it. They weren't SUFFERING because of it."
I said, "How do you know? What's the difference between the government taking
your house, and the government taking 100,000$ that could be used to BUY a
house."
She said, "You can't tell me all these people with these VAST fortunes
couldn't afford to pay these taxes. BESIDES, they put all their money in tax
shelters and they didn't really pay them any way."
I said, "Don't you see how that's immoral?"
She said, "It has nothing to do with morality! Why do you keep saying that?
These arguments about 'force' and 'morality' just make you look stupid!
Nobody will understand you if you talk like that."
I tried to make it more personal again. "So you think it would be morally
right for the majority to vote and declare your 'extra' house as illegal? You
think that as long as the people vote for something, it would be moral for
them to take your home?"
"Well, no one would even do that. How could somebody vote for something like
that. That's stupid."
I said, "Okay, suppose the media ran reports for six months on how 90% of
people with more than one house were either just using them for vacation
homes, which they don't really need, or they were renting them to other
people. Suppose they ran all these stories about how all these little rental
homes were poorly maintained, unsafe, overpriced, and unnecessary. Wouldn't
people vote to let the government take them over, make people pay the value of
the house as a fine, and set up an agency to rent them? Would THAT be
immoral?"
She said, "I don't know WHY you keep talking about morality! What does
morality have to do with it?"
I said, "Would you be willing to give up your house if the government voted to
take it away like that?"
She said, "Well, I guess if they could prove most of the houses really WERE
unsafe...."
HOW do I argue with someone like this? Can you guys think of ANYTHING I could
say to illustrate why force is immoral, why the government does NOT have a
right to take property, no matter who VOTES for it, and how do I explain that
MONEY is PROPERTY, no matter how much of it you have?
I would appreciate any suggestions you may have. I'm at the end of my rope.
Jaffo
--
"A true measure of your worth includes all the benefits others have
gained from your success." - CULLEN HIGHTOWER
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Robert J. Kolker
Dump her.
--
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you
will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is"
Brad Aisa
Jaffo,
People have free will. There is nothing you can do to insert understanding
into someone else's brain. You have to accept the fact that the most you
can do is present true ideas in a digestible form to another -- if they
cannot or will not digest it, there is nothing you can do.
You have to decide if you can tolerate having a romantic relationship with
someone whose ideas are fundamentally the opposite of yours. This will
depend, in large degree, on how *actually* important such ideas are to your
partner. If their interest is only because of your raising these issues,
then you may be able to simply refrain from discussing these issues. But if
the other person is very seriously interested in ideas in this area, then
things might be more problematic.
One rather universal characteristic of statist interventionists, is the
need to have their victims assent to the coercion, by sanctioning it. I
doubt that it would be possible to repudiate completely the moral
underpinnings of socialism, to reject categorically the right of the state
to regulate your life and expropriate your wealth, and yet remain an object
of affection to a hard-core statist.
I had to dump a lot of friends after I became an advocate of egoism and
capitalism, because the relationships became intolerable. On the other
hand, I've had many friendships with others in which there was almost no
esxplicit philosophic/intellectual element, and I didn't even much care
what their (explicitly stated) beliefs were on these subjects.
--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
Pat R. Galea
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>I said the people had no choice but to pay those taxes, but she insists they
>have a choice because they are free to leave the country entirely.
So as long as long as the USA government isn't running the *entire*
world, then rights violations are OK, 'cos you can always jump ship!
Mmm, an interesting consequence of that thought. Imagine the USA keeps
incorporating more and more existing countries. The number of states in
the union rises from 50 to 100, to 150, to 200 and so on. As long as
there is at least *one* other country, the USA (which is now immense!)
is free to impose any laws and taxes on its citizens that it likes.
However, the moment that the last remaining independent state joins the
Union, suddenly there's nowhere left to go!
Does the rights-violation only appear at that last moment, or was it
present all along?
>She said, "It has nothing to do with morality! Why do you keep saying that?
>These arguments about 'force' and 'morality' just make you look stupid!
>Nobody will understand you if you talk like that."
Umm... is it just me, or did I just hear James Taggart stop by for a
while?
>HOW do I argue with someone like this? Can you guys think of ANYTHING I could
>say to illustrate why force is immoral, why the government does NOT have a
>right to take property, no matter who VOTES for it, and how do I explain that
>MONEY is PROPERTY, no matter how much of it you have?
Yeah, yeah, but then they just argue that you only have a 'right' to a
*minimum* amount of money/property. Just enough to live. The rest is a
'social surplus', and can be skimmed off for the benefit of 'the people'
(of whom you are not one).
Cheers
Pat R. Galea - pa...@johngalt.demon.co.uk - http://www.johngalt.demon.co.uk
Citizens of the USA:
"To help fight for your freedom and that of your friends and your family"
visit http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude
Tom Scheeler
Pat R. Galea wrote:
>
> Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
> >I said the people had no choice but to pay those taxes, but she
> insists they
> >have a choice because they are free to leave the country entirely.
>
> world, then rights violations are OK, 'cos you can always jump ship!
>
A few things come to mind:
1) We're no worse than anyone else!
2) Ken Hamblin's book "Pick A Better Country" (As long as we stay a
couple feet out in front, we're okay).
3) ...well, everyone else is doing it!!
4) Well, they only raped you; at least they didn't kill you!
Hey, salute that flag when it comes by. We have so much to be proud of,
our D-, just passing grade.
Tom Scheeler
OEXCHAOS
Jaffo writes:
> Like most Libertarians, I am trying to explain my opposition to FORCE to
> cause social engineering.
>
> She is utterly incapable of understanding that argument. And I don't
> understand the roots of it very well myself.
If it is ok to steal from folks to feed the poor, then it is ok to steal
from folks to stock your wine cellar.
> Here's a snippit from the argument we had today:
>
> I was trying to explain how taxation is evil because it is based on
> COERCION.
> She says she thinks community activity is very good, but she sees NO
> DIFFERENCE between a community-based charity, and a government-run
> welfare office.
>
> She says, "The government is just an extension of the COMMUNITY, so this
> is the same thing."
>
> I tried to explain that while I am all in favor of community activity, I
> am opposed to government activity, because government activity requires
the
> use of FORCE to finance it.
Indeed. By what right does the government take your money and do these
things? What is the derivation of this right? When she comes up with it,
take it to it's logical, and absurd conclusion, i.e. when she says
"majority vote." ask her if it would be ok to gas Jews if the majority
voted on it.
EXCEPT that this contract is NOT implicit. Furthermore, the claim of
legitimacy is illegitimate. If you don't want to collect the benefits of
government, and not pay them, they won't let you. And they have no right
to ask that you leave the country, because the government doesn't have a
legitimate ownership claim for such. YOU own your land, not the
government. What land the government owns, it either bought with stolen
money, or stole (I suppose some was legitimately claimed, but that's
ancillary).
> Her argument is that since we have the freedom to leave the U.S. at any
> time, we are tacitly agreeing to pay whatever taxes are necessary to
support >the current standard of living in the U.S.
You have the freedom to leave your neighborhood if the protection racket
gets to rough too. Should you?
Rember, the government doesn't own the property in this country. The
PEOPLE who bought it do.
> She believes it is perfectly moral and just for the government to put
> people
> in jail for not paying their taxes, because just by LIVING in the United
> States, they are benefitting from the services those taxes provide.
No, by living and working in the US they are benefitting both the state
and it's citizens. If anything, by her argument, they would owe THEM.
> I said the people had no choice but to pay those taxes, but she insists
> they
> have a choice because they are free to leave the country entirely.
There is no REASON to leave the country.
> How should I counter this argument?
>
> I tried to explain that even under that argument, the contract between
the
> citizens and the government is the CONSTITUTION of the United States.
And
> I would be willing to abide by the terms of that Constitution. I told
her
> if the Constitution was considered a contract, I consider the government
to
> be in VIOLATION of that contract, and thus the government actions are
>immoral.
Interesting argument.
> She gave a flat-out defense based on her belief in the tyranny of the
> majority. She said as long as "the people" vote for something, it is
> morally proper for the government to enforce it.
>
> I tried to ask her an absurd question. I asked, "If the government
passed
> a law saying no citizen could own two houses (she has rental property)
would
> it be morally right for them to force you to sell your extra house and
give
> the money to the government?"
>
> She said, "That's impossible. No one would ever do that."
It isn't impossible, the government does just that, indirectly. If you
earn enough money, they will take half of it. Same thing.
> I said, "What's the difference between the government taking real
> property, like your house, and the government taking 60% of your income
in >taxes.
> She
> said, "But that's not PROPERTY. That's just money."
How do you get money? What do you do with money?
> I said, "So it's morally proper for the government to take your income,
as
> long as the people vote for it? Like when we had an 80% tax rate in the
> highest bracket?"
>
> She says, "Well, yes, but those rich people could afford it! They
weren't
> actually HURT by it. They weren't SUFFERING because of it."
They dont' have what is theirs. Take it to the logical conclusion. Where
does she draw the line. MAKE her draw the line.
> I said, "How do you know? What's the difference between the government
> taking your house, and the government taking 100,000$ that could be used
to >BUY a
> house."
GOOD.
> She said, "You can't tell me all these people with these VAST fortunes
> couldn't afford to pay these taxes. BESIDES, they put all their money
in
> tax shelters and they didn't really pay them any way."
>
> I said, "Don't you see how that's immoral?"
>
> She said, "It has nothing to do with morality! Why do you keep saying
> that?
What is moral, to her? Can I take whatever I want and still be moral in
her eyes? How about if all of her neighbors got together and decided to
take most of X (something she values) from her, saying that she didn't
NEED it?
> These arguments about 'force' and 'morality' just make you look stupid!
> Nobody will understand you if you talk like that."
Ugh! See Kolkers response. It IS like something out of AS.
> I tried to make it more personal again. "So you think it would be
morally
> right for the majority to vote and declare your 'extra' house as
illegal?
> You think that as long as the people vote for something, it would be
moral for
> them to take your home?"
>
> "Well, no one would even do that. How could somebody vote for something
> like that. That's stupid."
But they do. And what is to say that they couldn't?
> I said, "Okay, suppose the media ran reports for six months on how 90%
of
> people with more than one house were either just using them for vacation
> homes, which they don't really need, or they were renting them to other
> people. Suppose they ran all these stories about how all these little
> rental homes were poorly maintained, unsafe, overpriced, and
unnecessary.
> Wouldn't
> people vote to let the government take them over, make people pay the
> value of
> the house as a fine, and set up an agency to rent them? Would THAT be
> immoral?"
>
> She said, "I don't know WHY you keep talking about morality! What does
> morality have to do with it?"
EVERYTHING. She's evading the issue. Make her come back to it.
> I said, "Would you be willing to give up your house if the government
> voted to take it away like that?"
>
> She said, "Well, I guess if they could prove most of the houses really
> WERE unsafe...."
So, what if they weren't the right design for everyone's tastes? Or what
about the poor couple who were upside down on their mortgage, or were
investing in that property for long term and have to take a loss, and thus
can't pay for their kids college, or their retirement?
> HOW do I argue with someone like this? Can you guys think of ANYTHING I
> could
> say to illustrate why force is immoral, why the government does NOT have
a
> right to take property, no matter who VOTES for it, and how do I explain
> that
> MONEY is PROPERTY, no matter how much of it you have?
Keep forcing here to fundmentals, and keep taking her positions to logical
conclusions. Stay away from the utilitarian arguments.
> I would appreciate any suggestions you may have. I'm at the end of my
> rope.
You may have to let go.
See if she's learning. Make her defend her position. If she doesn't care,
really, you might find that other pursuits with her <G> out weigh the
costs of her poorly developed ethics.
Mark Steward Young
Publisher
The Steward Analytics FaxLetter
http://members.aol.com/oexchaos/premium.htm
Learn how our model account made 79% NET last year.
(no more than 20% at risk on any given trade)
Lkennon
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>Okay, I have this little Statist, Collectivist girlfriend.
My advice is to dump the broad, or just use her for sex.
lk
GRADinc
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> writes
> I have this little Statist, Collectivist girlfriend. Frequently I hear
>I was trying to explain how taxation is evil because it is based on
COERCION.
>She says she thinks community activity is very good, but she sees NO
>DIFFERENCE between a community-based charity, and a government-run
>welfare office.
Try Judo.
Agree with her -
"Yes, given current political circumstances in the
world, there is little difference between private charity and government
welfare programs."
Then go with her momentum,
"The ultimate goal of both programs is to insure that everyone has
opportunity to use their abilities to their own benefit."
and let it knock her down,
"So in the ideal world which I am working toward, all charity will
be voluntary so that everyone can use their resources to best
utilize their own abilities."
Tom Clarke
Betsy Speicher
On 19 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> Okay, I have this little Statist, Collectivist girlfriend.
> [...]
> Like most Libertarians, I am trying to explain my opposition to FORCE to
> cause social engineering.
>
> She is utterly incapable of understanding that argument. And I don't
> understand the roots of it very well myself.
>
> Here's a snippit from the argument we had today:
>
> [ ... ]
It looks like you are trying to sell ethical, political, and economic
principles to someone who does not think in principles.
Good luck.
Betsy Speicher
YOUR LIFE BELONGS TO YOU!
Sign the petition at http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude
Tom Scheeler
Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
...
> It looks like you are trying to sell ethical, political, and economic
> principles to someone who does not think in principles.
>
> Good luck.
Now that is one of the best summaries I've seen in a long time.
Thanks!!!
Tom Scheeler
JLH1942
Jaffo,
I would say you should buy your girl friend Atlas Shrugged and ask her to
read it. If see keeps insisting that morality doesn't matter then maybe
your are going out with the wrong person. If morality doesn't matter when
you are talking about politics (the way we deal with others) then it
doesn't matter when dealing with boy friends (you) and others. What is
she doing when you are looking? Can you really trust someone that says
morality doesn't matter? I don't think so. Maybe you should re-think
your relationship. As far as the arguments go I think you have pretty
much laid it down pretty good. You should point out the fallacies of the
social contract theory. Ask her, when did you sign this supposed
contract? A contract isn't valid if both people don't voluntarily sign
it. Also, how can you sign a social contract to give away certain rights
to enter into a society with gov't when a contract is a legal document and
a legal document presupposes a gov't to enforce it. You see your girl
friend is in need of a philosophical house cleaning without which you will
never be able to demonstrate that Libertarianism is the best political
system. She must understand that one's own life is the standard of value
and that reason is man's only means of knowledge. Without which she will
always look to others to tell her what they think reality is (polls or
majority rule). She sounds like a social metaphysician.
Monique6ft
This is the most useful thread I've seen in a long time. I run into the
exact same problem and it's frustrating as hell. Sooner or later
*everyone* I talk politics with says "if you don't like it you can always
leave the country." How DO you answer this effectively?
Here's the thing, doesn't this whole free market/competition thing hinge
on the fact that "you can always go somewhere else."? What keeps shops in
line is that their customers can always go somewhere else if they don't
behave. What keeps employers in line is that their employees can always
go somewhere else if they don't pay enough. Homebuyers can go somewhere
else if they don't like the rules of XYZ neighborhood association. In
David Friedman's examples customers can go somewhere else if they don't
like XYZ protection agency. And so on.
So why is it wrong to say that you can always go to another country? Why
is it okay to say that people should buy houses in neighborhoods where
they like the rules, but not okay to say they should move out of the
country? I really would like to learn how to deal with this.
Not sure this is relevant, but one thing I did notice is that I didn't
convert to anarcho-capitalism overnight. It took lots of lurking online,
which made me seek out books, which made me change my views. My point is,
had someone tried to explain it all in a conversation I would've easily
dismissed them and never looked back. Slogging through all that print is
what did it. But I can't get my friends to read any books because when I
try to explain my views they don't think "interesting", they think
"crackpot".
Maybe the subject just doesn't lend itself to persuading others by way of
verbal debate? So maybe it's pointless to try?
Monique
Mike D
Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote in article
<339c7d85...@news.onramp.net>...
> SNIP
>
> I tried to ask her an absurd question. I asked, "If the government
passed a
> law saying no citizen could own two houses (she has rental property)
would it
> be morally right for them to force you to sell your extra house and give
the
> money to the government?"
>
> She said, "That's impossible. No one would ever do that."
>
impossible? What about the seizure of property laws we have now?
> She says, "Well, yes, but those rich people could afford it! They
weren't
> actually HURT by it. They weren't SUFFERING because of it."
>
You have to be absolutely brutal here and FORCE her to draw the line. What
is rich? What is suffering? Where is the line? Follow the point to the
absolute end (which will be a blank-out!)
I had this conversation with my mom 3 times, now we dont talk much.
Tim Starr
In article <19970528010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Monique6ft <moniq...@aol.com> wrote:
>This is the most useful thread I've seen in a long time. I run into the
>exact same problem and it's frustrating as hell. Sooner or later
>*everyone* I talk politics with says "if you don't like it you can always
>leave the country." How DO you answer this effectively?
"Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artizan has a free choice to
leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from
day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert, that
a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master;
though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean, and
perish, the moment he leaves her." - David Hume, "Of The Original Contract"
>Not sure this is relevant, but one thing I did notice is that I didn't
>convert to anarcho-capitalism overnight. It took lots of lurking online,
>which made me seek out books, which made me change my views. My point is,
>had someone tried to explain it all in a conversation I would've easily
>dismissed them and never looked back. Slogging through all that print is
>what did it. But I can't get my friends to read any books because when I
>try to explain my views they don't think "interesting", they think
>"crackpot".
>
>Maybe the subject just doesn't lend itself to persuading others by way of
>verbal debate? So maybe it's pointless to try?
Think of it as planting seeds. Not all of them will take root. But perhaps
some will. Perhaps almost everyone you argue your position to will reject it.
But at least they'll be aware of an alternative to their own. Perhaps they'll
reconsider theirs someday. Perhaps also you'll persuade someone without ever
knowing it. After all, I've never seen you posting here before. But, all of
a sudden, I see there's yet another anarcho-capitalists in our midst! Maybe
some of my posts had something to do with interesting you in the subject, maybe
not. Welcome, at any rate.
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the
secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the govern-
ment--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), 1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; is...@isil.org, http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tom Scheeler
Mike D wrote:
>
> Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote in article
> <339c7d85...@news.onramp.net>...
> > SNIP
> >
> passed a
> > law saying no citizen could own two houses (she has rental property)
> would it
> > be morally right for them to force you to sell your extra house and
> give
> the
> > money to the government?"
> >
> > She said, "That's impossible. No one would ever do that."
> >
> impossible? What about the seizure of property laws we have now?
>
> weren't
> > actually HURT by it. They weren't SUFFERING because of it."
> >
That is the rationale of a leech or parasite.
>
> I had this conversation with my mom 3 times, now we dont talk much.
Welcome to the club.
Tom Scheeler
Freedom
In article <19970528010...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
moniq...@aol.com says...
> This is the most useful thread I've seen in a long time. I run into the
> exact same problem and it's frustrating as hell. Sooner or later
> *everyone* I talk politics with says "if you don't like it you can always
> leave the country." How DO you answer this effectively?
>
"I have a right to be free wherever I live - because of the being
that I am"
Or.. if you want to expound a bit on it..
What do you mean - I am always free to leave?
Ever hear about pass ports - off shore banking laws, Income tax
evasion extraditions...
Did Soviets in the gulags have this option?
Did Jews in Auschwitz have this option?
Did Chinese citizens get a chance to *leave* when they couldnt
take it anymore?
No Pal... Gal, idiot - thug (insert appropriate descriptor here)
- It doesnt matter where I live - or what the laws say - If I
violate nobody's rights - I have a right to be free - wherever I
am.
The only arguement to contradict this - is the suggestion that
living in a country is an implicit agreement on the part of all
individuals to be slaves unless they desire to leave.
Sorry - pal,gal, idiot <--insert descriptor here... you don't
have the right - in fact nobody has the right - to turn anybody
into a whipping boy simply because they live in the same
geographic area as you do or they do.
and then... if they still arent convinced - then tell them to
*fuck off* - from me personally if you feel like it.
Tell them that Meaghan Walker sends them a hearty *fuck you very
much* - if you don't feel like commiting yourself to such a
phrase.
Look at what they are saying.... Loot at what it means... That
phrase "If you don't want to pay taxes, submit to tyrnany - you
can always leave" is just One Step away from "You WILL sumbit to
Tyranny, you will be a slave - it doesnt matter about your
rights... the individual is expendable - individual rights don't
count if enough people don't believe they do"
You have to phrase it in a way that they can't disagree with you
- without questioning their own values and sense of *right* and
*wrong*.
Another hint - is make sure you explain to the person making the
suggestion that there is a big difference between a "right" and a
"legal permission"
Have fun.
MW
Freedom
In article <338B9893.B67EE41C@erase_this.worldnet.att.net>,
toms382@erase_this.worldnet.att.net says...
> > Never let anyone get away with a blank-out like that. Why is it
> > impossible? What about the seizure of property laws we have now?
> >
> > > She says, "Well, yes, but those rich people could afford it! They
> > weren't actually HURT by it. They weren't SUFFERING because of it."
> > >
>
> That is the rationale of a leech or parasite.
>
> >
> > I had this conversation with my mom 3 times, now we dont talk much.
>
> Welcome to the club.
Its even worse when you talk to your father - who gave you you
first taste of the spirit of free enterprise and love for the
concept of capitalism
And he talks the talk of the egalitarians. I don't mind it so
much because he doesnt walk the walk... but he has been
brainwashed into feeling apologetic for his greatness - and like
he owes something to this intangible thing we call society.
He said "these are all fine principles to talk about but you have
to deal with reality" when I tried to ask him "Is just because
something is legal - does that make it right"
For 23 years - he was the in my view the most principled human
being I had ever met.
I said "Dad - they made it legal in the Soviet Union to starve
and work to death 1/3 of the population - to support the other
2/3. The majority believed that this was *OK*. Does that mean it
was right...
(See I had him nailed on that one.. the first serious book I ever
read was from his collection - on the Gulag Archipelago)
He shrugged his shoulders and said "AH... I see you have improved
your debating skills dear... But when you become a taxpayer - and
you vote - perhaps what you say will have more importance"
I said :Dad - I will not pay those taxes, and I will not vote. I
see nobody worth voting for - they are all playing the same
game.. as for whether or not my paying taxes qualifies me to have
an opinion about the issues??? Thats a little like suggesting
that unless I sumbitted myself to the Gulags - or death Camps - I
shouldnt be allowed to talk about their conditions"
This is the last political conversation he and I have ever had.
He just said "Fancy Debating there dear... and I am sure you
think your ideas are noble... when you grow up a bit more you wil
understand....you will see that your Old Man isnt as dumb as you
think... (I never said or even implied that to him)
"understand what Dad - how to think I should be indebted to
people who see me as nothing more than chattel???
No thanks."
Yeah... welcome to the club.
MW
Eric Lancaster
On 28 May 1997, Monique6ft wrote:
> This is the most useful thread I've seen in a long time. I run into the
> exact same problem and it's frustrating as hell. Sooner or later
> *everyone* I talk politics with says "if you don't like it you can always
> leave the country." How DO you answer this effectively?
> Monique
Point out that the same arguement could be used by the mafia for
a neighborhood that they control - if you don't like it here, leave. Or
by any street gang - if you don't like that we might kill you for just
walking down the street, don't walk down the street.
The essential difference between the government having
unfair/arbitrary rules and (say) a home-owners association is this: you
have to sign a voluntary control with the second group or they cannot hold
you to anything at all. With the government (or the mafia), you didn't
ever agree or contract for anything, but they hold you for everything they
can get.
Hope this helps.
Eric Lancaster
Chris Wilson
Freedom says . . .
> Sorry - pal,gal, idiot <--insert descriptor here... you don't
> have the right - in fact nobody has the right - to turn anybody
> into a whipping boy simply because they live in the same
> geographic area as you do or they do.
>
> and then... if they still arent convinced - then tell them to
> *fuck off* - from me personally if you feel like it.
>
> Tell them that Meaghan Walker sends them a hearty *fuck you very
> much* - if you don't feel like commiting yourself to such a
> phrase.
I don't know, Meaghan. I tend to remain to polite if a person hasn't
given politics much thought, but under short consideration, finds that
socialism or the welfare state seems like the right alternative. _I_
used to think that socialism was the way to go, and from what I recall
from reading one of your past posts, that _you_ used to think the exact
same thing. Did _we_ deserve a hearty "fuck you very much" from the
libertarians and the Objectivists? I don't think so. I think that your
average apolitical arm-chair socialist deserves a little more
consideration and patience than this, don't you?--that is, _if_ they're
willing to discuss the subject rationally? (A welfare statist that
attempts to place a guilt trip upon you, rather than engage in rational
discussion, of course does not deserve any patience or consideration.)
A socialist or statist who has an _agenda_ however, _is_ your enemy, and
deserves your contempt. I have learned that anybody who pursues an
agenda not for the express purpose of satisfying self-interest, but for
the sake of furthering some "greater good", is almost without exception,
dishonest. If somebody pursues an extensive course of action for the
said purpose of furthering socialism, then furthering socialism is in
that person's interest. It is not in that person's interest to admit
that socialism is wrong, even if overwhelming evidence against it is
presented to them. This is why politically active and academic
collectivists are much more likely to be intellectually dishonest than
your average Joe Blow socialist.
I do think that your average Joe Blow socialist deserves more respect
than a socialist who has an agenda and a gun to back it up. He doesn't
deserve an immediate "fuck you very much." Such a comment wouldn't
persuade him to change his position anyway. It would only convince him
that the who said it is incapable of rational discussion.
CJW
Freedom's S.O.
In article <MPG.df63c2d97957a5998968d@news>,
cjwi...@gladstone.uoregon.edu says...
> Freedom says . . .
>
> > Sorry - pal,gal, idiot <--insert descriptor here... you don't
> > have the right - in fact nobody has the right - to turn anybody
> > into a whipping boy simply because they live in the same
> > geographic area as you do or they do.
> >
> > and then... if they still arent convinced - then tell them to
> > *fuck off* - from me personally if you feel like it.
> >
> > Tell them that Meaghan Walker sends them a hearty *fuck you very
> > much* - if you don't feel like commiting yourself to such a
> > phrase.
>
> I don't know, Meaghan. I tend to remain to polite if a person hasn't
> given politics much thought, but under short consideration, finds that
> socialism or the welfare state seems like the right alternative. _I_
> used to think that socialism was the way to go, and from what I recall
> from reading one of your past posts, that _you_ used to think the exact
> same thing. Did _we_ deserve a hearty "fuck you very much" from the
> libertarians and the Objectivists?
The difference is - when it boiled down to the examples I was
presented with as described above- It was no longer comfortable
to keep those ideas for myself.
In fact... when I realized what it was I had been advocating, and
where it logically concluded to - It made me litterally sick to
my stomach. I never once got Nasty with Ron when we discussed
these things in the months leading up to my dropping Socialism as
an ideology.
I give Ron a lot of credit and I to a degree model my
arguementative style from him. - He is a very tolerant and
patient sort of person - but there is a point when even he
figures - the arguement is over - when somebody maintains - even
after polite explanation - that they have a right to have the
govt take his stuff - And... the point at which they say "If you
don't like it here - you can leave".
To him - that is crossing the line.
Never in my most dogmatic socialist altruist mongering days did
I EVER think that *theft* was OK - even if it was done by the
govt. And I certainly never said to Ron as he was explaining some
of his ideas "If you don't like it - Leave"
And I believe if I had - that would have been the end of our
conversations and budding friendship.
I don't think so. I think that your
> average apolitical arm-chair socialist deserves a little more
> consideration and patience than this, don't you?--that is, _if_ they're
> willing to discuss the subject rationally?
I dunno. If the person is actually reasoning. Watch my posts
carefully... I think with few exceptions I *do* try REALLY really
hard to try and get enough of a jist of where people are coming
from in order to explain my position better. And even after being
insulted , and attempts are made to demonize me or my position on
being a capitalist - I try very hard to not let that interferre
with the rest of the arguements - or debates.
But at a certain point... the only thing appropriate to say is
"fuck you"
When somebody makes a move in an arguement like that... I say -
that is a sign of deep hostility towards you.
(A welfare statist that
> attempts to place a guilt trip upon you, rather than engage in rational
> discussion, of course does not deserve any patience or consideration.)
>
Yeah... those are the kinds of people I am talking about. Look I
have close friends who are religious - who even vote NDP - and I
don't go around saying "fuck you" to them. But then again - I
figure their religion is none of my business - and so long as
they are not trying to impose it upon me at gun point - All the
power to them....if it makes them feel better about themselves -
It doesnt concern me.
As for my friend that votes NDP and who used to say things like
"I don't mind being taxed to death.... at least we get good
services for it - and the quality of life is better for us"
etc.,.. Well I placed a few well thought out intellectual hand
grenades and waited for them to go off. Waited for 18 months...
and never talked politics with her again.
Giving arguements that make a person uneasy about their own
position - are handgrenades - is good. But some people don't even
deserve them.
I look at how Howard Roark dealt with the evil people in his life
- and he didn't. Can you honestly see Howard Roark - or Hank
Reardon - or Dagny opr John Galt wasting their effort or their
time on people that say things to them like "If you don't like it
here - Leave" . Hell no...
I recognize that I am not a Howard or a John or a Hank or a
Dagny.
I tend to think of myself as more of a Ragnar :)
And when it comes to the point where I figure a *fuck you* is
warranted - it means - I have given you enough good reason to at
least question your position - Here is where I stand... and then
I leave them alone.
David was talking about the *sins of Chris Wolf* in another post
- its is a good read.
I recall my own encounters with Dr.Friedman. And yes - he said
things that made me uncomfortable - he explained ideas that made
it not easy to maintain my position.
And yes - occasionally I bit back and needed to go away and sulk
and think about what he had said. But I recognized that is what
it was - and I came back and apologized for my emotional response
to his position.
The difference between myself and a Mr.Wolf.. is I crave meeting
people who have the ability to do things like Ron did for me - or
what David Friedman did for me. That is the ability to present a
position that makes me really think about my own position - and
perhaps gives me some new ideas about how to view the world.
I don't try to use Objectivism as some sort of weapon to weild
against people to make myself feel superior to them. I hold
objectivism as a rational set of tools by which I can lead a
decent, productive and reasoned life.
> A socialist or statist who has an _agenda_ however, _is_ your enemy, and
> deserves your contempt. I have learned that anybody who pursues an
> agenda not for the express purpose of satisfying self-interest, but for
> the sake of furthering some "greater good", is almost without exception,
> dishonest.
Yeah.... thats sort of where I get to when I go off with my *fuck
you*s.
The man who promotes his ideas on the basis of "the good of
society - " is out to steal or attempt to corrupt your soul.
I have just finnished re reading the Fountainhead and I really
wonder about how different things would have been (in a literary
sort of way) - if the Peter Keatings of this world had been able
to say "Fuck you" to Ellsworth Toohey. They always did have that
ability - they just never excercised it.
And here is the clincher.... when I say *fuck you* - no you can't
make me into a slave for your noble little scheme - and NO you
can't have my stuff taken at gun point via the State - and the
person gets *angry* - rather than *laughs it off* -
I know where the proper place to go with them is.
The people who laugh about the futility of my *fuck yous*s - are
evil.
The people who get angry, or upset that I am saying "if this is
what you really believe - and are willing to use the force of the
state to impose it upon me at gun point...then Fuck you" - are
capable of some honest and real thought.
If somebody pursues an extensive course of action for the
> said purpose of furthering socialism, then furthering socialism is in
> that person's interest. It is not in that person's interest to admit
> that socialism is wrong, even if overwhelming evidence against it is
> presented to them. This is why politically active and academic
> collectivists are much more likely to be intellectually dishonest than
> your average Joe Blow socialist.
>
I agree - most arm chair socialists don't think their ideas
through to their logical conclusions.
The one's who worry me - are the *thinking* socialists... if a
man is capapble of indipendent thinking and the ability to
analyze the evidence of history - it shouldnt be a stretch for
him to question the results of the plans he holds for the rest of
society.
These people refuse to look at the History of China, Cambodi,
Germany, the Soviet Union - they refuse to see the logical
conclusions of their *dearly held* little plans.
The funny thing is - a lot of people that do fall into the former
category *arent* really socialists. The mouth the ideology but
they don't really believe in it. They talk the talk - but they
don't walk the walk. The reason they talk the talk - is that is
what they have learned in the schools that their parents sent
them to - that is what they have encountered in most
philosophical arguements. Hell - we are living in a very
different time now than many people who we debate with have lived
through. It used to be politically correct to be a communist - or
a socialist. Now its not so popular - but the vestiges remain.
> I do think that your average Joe Blow socialist deserves more respect
> than a socialist who has an agenda and a gun to back it up. He doesn't
> deserve an immediate "fuck you very much." Such a comment wouldn't
> persuade him to change his position anyway. It would only convince him
> that the who said it is incapable of rational discussion.
>
Funny story about this... Ron was at a party - and somebody made
a pleasant joke about him being a capitalist. This young woman
walked up to him and squared herself and said "Well - I'm a
communist" She tossed it out like some sort of party favour.
And Ron said - direct quote.. "Push that idea too far you little
bitch and You'll be on the wrong end of a loaded gun - pointed in
your direction"
So - I dunno. He spent 6 months willing to meet with me most
Wednesday nights in a coffee shop to discuss philosophy - and
never even came close to saying such a thing to me. And I was an
*egalitarian* mystic , altruist Kantian.
All he said when I pronounced that I was an egalitarian was "No
youre not, you are far to bright, capable and reasonable to be an
egalitarian" . :)
NOw it could be I was better looking, or just nicer than the girl
at the party - but I somehow doubt it.
I believe there is a certain line in debate - especially on the
issue of Socialism - where once it gets crossed - a *fuck you* or
a "push that idea too far.... etc.." is more than appropriate.
I guess the other thing that was my saving grace - was I had been
raised by my father - to believe "there aint no such thing as a
free lunch" and just because you *need* something doesnt mean you
have a *right to it*.
I undertand now - that these two ideas flatly contradict
socialism - but I didnt see how when I was a socialist.
anyways... thanks for your comments... I very much enjoy
discussions on the tactics of debate.
MW
Freedom
In article <MPG.df67668f7225898968e@news>,
cjwi...@gladstone.uoregon.edu says...
> Meaghan writes:
>
> > Never in my most dogmatic socialist altruist mongering days did
> > I EVER think that *theft* was OK"
>
> myself an anarcho-nihilist at one point. I hated everything, and thought
> it would be wonderful if everybody would just die.
>
I do remember getting quite depressed about philosophy at one
point in my life.... everything that I was handed seemed to be
such complete and total crap... And nihilism is the logical
conclusion if you take some of the variants of Plato
> Since you told your story, maybe I should briefly tell mine. You might
> find it interesting. So, at risk of going off on a tangent that nobody
> wants to read . . .
>
> In my freshman year of college, I was really into Zen Buddhism and
> Taoism,
For me it was variants on TM - and A cult like affiliation with a
strain of AA people. Study of the Bible, and the Bhagvad Gita.
and later, the anti-philosophy of this Indian guy named
> Krishnamurti. At this time, I condemned politics, capitalism, and the
> use of reason. I felt that the important thing was for everybody to
> focus on their own situation in life and become enlightened. After that,
> nobody would need government because everybody would be wise.
> During the summer, after the freshman year was over, I realized that I
> was not becoming enlightened at all.
You are lucky. I know some people that keep deluding themselves
for years and years and years...
I repudiated all Eastern doctrine
> and considered it completely bogus. But because Eastern philosophy had
> wreaked total havok on my ability to think, I was unable to find any
> alternative philosophies. I became a total cynic and a complete
> misanthrope.
My prof in college was not just a Kantian - he was a special kind
of Kantian. His recommended reading list was Chogam Trumpa - and
for that I am gratefull because it gave me a healthy disrepect of
dialetical reasoning...
He also forced us to read Stephen Brookfields "On critical
thinking"
A weird fellow was this prof... he also recommened books by Milan
Kundera - and Kundera was very much anti - socialist.
I got an A in every single one of my classes with this man.
My opinion on life was, "Nobody knows anything, and nobody
> is happy." I scoffed at everybody around me. I hated everybody. I
> would often think things to myself like, "Wouldn't it be amusing if that
> guy gets run over by a car when he crosses the street." I read Camus,
> Beckett, Sartre, Kafka, and all the most depressing and destructive
> authors. I was totally miserable and depressed.
>
I think anybody who read large doses of Camus, Beckett, Sartre
and Kafka would end up miserable and depressed.
(maybe thats why socialists figure *everybody needs help* because
they figure everybody must be just as helplessly pathetic as they
feel they are after reading this shit) :)
> But then I met a friend who was a "rational" socialist. He helped me get
> out of this slump of mine. He used his superior arguing powers to
> convince me that reason was good (though he hardly understood what reason
> was)and that socialism was better than the anarcho-nihilism that I was
> spouting. He also showed me how self-control was to my advantage, and
> how wallowing in my own emotions was not.
I was raised religious - turned atheiest - turned mystic and then
back to atheiesm.
The problem as I see it - was the propganda that I had been
taught in school from the tenderest of ages made me ripe for the
socialist position.
I remember writing an essay in grade 8 about the evils of
capitalism and the industrial revolution. I got an A for that
essay and from that teacher as well. Social Studies and History..
what a joke in todays educational system.
>
> Yet this guy was an altruist in the extreme sense of the word. He
> considered it his duty to give money to worthless bums on the street when
> they asked for it. He placed great emphasis on, "social responsibility".
> He wasn't a Kantian, but a utilitarian. I asked him what his basic
> political theory was, and he said, "Whatever works."
>
Lucky for me I never could quite get over my silly bias about
things being "right" or "wrong". I was accused by all my mystic
and socialist friends of being too judgemental - and of always
seeing the world in black and white.
> "How can anybody think that selfishness is a good thing?" I thought.
> "How can anybody think that altruism is evil? What bullshit!" But
> eventually, I became so curious about why she actually held such
> outrageous ideas, I had to read her. And so I did. And it has been a
> downward spiral ever since. :-)
You know whats funny... I was very familiar with the Big Book of
AA - and all the cult type people that I knew were suspicious of
Bill Wilsons later writings - where he talked about AA being a
*selfish program*.
I understand what Bill meant by that now.. but at the time I was
just as suspsicious as you were.
>
> Unlike you, I didn't have any friends who encouraged me that capitalism
> and egoism was the way to go. In fact, they were all against me.
>
Thats a bitch.
> I don't talk to these people anymore. I actually transferred to a
> different school (U of Oregon) after I got my AA, but the people here are
> much worse!
>
> If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, we can discuss the
> people who attend school here. But that would be a VERY LONG discussion.
>
I have not been back to mainstream academia since finding
Objectivism... I will be at some point in the future - I don't
expect my experience will be any different.
I know what I found when I was there before. I have no great
expectations of the whole of academia having changed in the past
7 years.
> > - even if it was done by the
> > govt. And I certainly never said to Ron as he was explaining some
> > of his ideas "If you don't like it - Leave"
>
> Yeah, that's really a horrible thing to say. I never said that to
> anybody, because for the most part, I thought that law was stupid. Only
> during that two month period in which I was a socialist did I think that
> somebody should leave if they didn't like the laws. I thought that there
> was a social contract that everybody consented to, simply because they
> chose to live in close proximity with each other.
>
> One must consider exactly how a person says, "If you don't like it,
> Leave." In my experience, ALL socialists eventually say it, in some
> fashion or another.
Those are the two things that it boils down to in my oppinon
after years of now debating and discussing the issue. That and
they think they have a right to other people's stuff.
And in fact - I think it can be even further boiled down to "Will
they use force to compell you to go along with them".
That is the core of the problem
If somebody says, "Well, if one objects to the laws,
> they always have the option of leaving", I think they deserves a
> response. The argument is so stupid, that you just have to rebut it. It
> drives me nuts to think that people actually think that way, and when
> people express such opinions, I feel that I must say something.
>
Yeah - and my general response is "I have a right to be free
wherever I am"
And if they will hear that - then I will explain where I derive
my rights as a human being from even if that will take weeks and
hours of painstaking explanation. I have no problem with that.
But the abject refusal to accept that one's right to freedom is
not conditional is a slap in the face for any thinking person.
> > But at a certain point... the only thing appropriate to say is
> > "fuck you"
>
> I agree.
>
> > When somebody makes a move in an arguement like that... I say -
> > that is a sign of deep hostility towards you.
>
> Socialism is hostile, by nature. There is nothing that a socialist can
> say (regarding politics) that is not a sign of hostility.
On the surface it doesnt *sound* like it to them... but its when
you start plucking at the roots that they become enraged and
hostile.
I have watched Ron debate and argue on these forums - he has been
at this a lot longer than me - and invariably - it is always the
socialists that start with the insults, the smears, the gross
generalizations - and the threats...
Yet, if a
> person ingenuously believes that socialism is correct, but is interested
> in hearing my objections to socialism, I'll be polite to the person,
> because I know that hostility is not his intention.
>
Absolutely... There is a guy on ACECWW that is an anarcho
socialist. He is a very pleasant fellow - and the reason he is
pleasant is that while he believes in socialism - he is unwilling
to impose it on anybody.
> But, most socialists aren't like this at all. Most socialists are the
> type of people you want to assassinate.
>
Assisnate? I dunno. I sometimes feel there would be more
satisfaction in letting them get all the things they scream for.
> I don't know, Meaghan. Sometimes I can't make up my mind as to whether
> certain socialists deserve a rational argument or not. Sometimes I think
> that it would be nicer to shoot them. In that sense, I sympathize with
> your position, and can understand your posts to the likes of Collier and
> them.
I don't know either. I am learning. I know I am not always
correct in how I handle arguements. But my motivation is correct
- I am doing it for myself - to learn, to integrate and to work
on the philosophy. I do know that when I get to the point where I
am just sick of responding to the socialists and their crap - and
I can't make it through a night's posting without having smile on
my face at some point - its time for me to take a break from the
usenet. And I do :)
> > I look at how Howard Roark dealt with the evil people in his life
> > - and he didn't. Can you honestly see Howard Roark - or Hank
> > Reardon - or Dagny opr John Galt wasting their effort or their
> > time on people that say things to them like "If you don't like it
> > here - Leave" . Hell no...
>
> Right. There is no reason why you should waste your time arguing with
> socialists if you don't think that you would gain anything from it.
> You'll receive no disagreements from me on this point.
>
> > I agree - most arm chair socialists don't think their ideas
> > through to their logical conclusions.
>
> > The one's who worry me - are the *thinking* socialists... if a
> > man is capapble of indipendent thinking and the ability to
> > analyze the evidence of history - it shouldnt be a stretch for
> > him to question the results of the plans he holds for the rest of
> > society.
>
> > These people refuse to look at the History of China, Cambodi,
> > Germany, the Soviet Union - they refuse to see the logical
> > conclusions of their *dearly held* little plans.
>
> And these are the people who have something to loose by rejecting
> socialism. These are the people who would lose their prestige and their
> power by publicly recognizing the evil of socialism. So they lie to
> themselves and others and continue to pretend thinking that socialism is
> the answer to all our problems. These are the people who make me sick.
>
Yeah. Me too.
> > So - I dunno. He spent 6 months willing to meet with me most
> > Wednesday nights in a coffee shop to discuss philosophy - and
> > never even came close to saying such a thing to me. And I was an
> > *egalitarian* mystic , altruist Kantian.
>
> Did you actually study Kant?
Yes - I even LOL tried to use the Crititque of pure reason in
those first few weeks I had met Ron to settle our acceptance of
each other's epistemology. :)
I actually know have a few e-mail
> acquaintances who are Kantian, but at the same time are adamantly opposed
> to collectivism. I don't think socialism automatically follows from
> Kant's moral theory.
It doesnt automatically follow - however what it did do was open
up the door for others to logically follow it to their
convictions.
That is why Rand called him the most evil man in the world.
I can see now - that if Kant hadn't made the arguements he did
about the lack of effacy of our minds to understand or apprehend
reality - much of modern philosophy would probably not have been
dervived.
The blow that Kant made to philosphy was in the area of
epistemology.
MW
Chris Wilson
Meaghan writes:
> Never in my most dogmatic socialist altruist mongering days did
> I EVER think that *theft* was OK"
For awhile I did! I was quite an evil person at one point. I considered
myself an anarcho-nihilist at one point. I hated everything, and thought
it would be wonderful if everybody would just die.
Since you told your story, maybe I should briefly tell mine. You might
find it interesting. So, at risk of going off on a tangent that nobody
wants to read . . .
In my freshman year of college, I was really into Zen Buddhism and
Taoism, and later, the anti-philosophy of this Indian guy named
Krishnamurti. At this time, I condemned politics, capitalism, and the
use of reason. I felt that the important thing was for everybody to
focus on their own situation in life and become enlightened. After that,
nobody would need government because everybody would be wise.
During the summer, after the freshman year was over, I realized that I
was not becoming enlightened at all. I repudiated all Eastern doctrine
and considered it completely bogus. But because Eastern philosophy had
wreaked total havok on my ability to think, I was unable to find any
alternative philosophies. I became a total cynic and a complete
misanthrope. My opinion on life was, "Nobody knows anything, and nobody
is happy." I scoffed at everybody around me. I hated everybody. I
would often think things to myself like, "Wouldn't it be amusing if that
guy gets run over by a car when he crosses the street." I read Camus,
Beckett, Sartre, Kafka, and all the most depressing and destructive
authors. I was totally miserable and depressed.
But then I met a friend who was a "rational" socialist. He helped me get
out of this slump of mine. He used his superior arguing powers to
convince me that reason was good (though he hardly understood what reason
was)and that socialism was better than the anarcho-nihilism that I was
spouting. He also showed me how self-control was to my advantage, and
how wallowing in my own emotions was not.
Yet this guy was an altruist in the extreme sense of the word. He
considered it his duty to give money to worthless bums on the street when
they asked for it. He placed great emphasis on, "social responsibility".
He wasn't a Kantian, but a utilitarian. I asked him what his basic
political theory was, and he said, "Whatever works."
I bought his line of bull, but one day when I was brousing the through
the philosophy section at Barne's and Noble books, the title of one book
caught me completely off guard. This book was called "The Virtue of
Selfishness", and right next to it was "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal".
I looked at the back cover of TVOS and it said:
AYN RAND here sets forth the moral principles of Objectivism, the
philosophy that hold's man's life--the life proper to a rational
being--as the standard of moral values and regards altruism as
incompatible with man's nature, with the creative requirements of
his survival and with a free society.
"How can anybody think that selfishness is a good thing?" I thought.
"How can anybody think that altruism is evil? What bullshit!" But
eventually, I became so curious about why she actually held such
outrageous ideas, I had to read her. And so I did. And it has been a
downward spiral ever since. :-)
Unlike you, I didn't have any friends who encouraged me that capitalism
and egoism was the way to go. In fact, they were all against me.
I don't talk to these people anymore. I actually transferred to a
different school (U of Oregon) after I got my AA, but the people here are
much worse!
If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, we can discuss the
people who attend school here. But that would be a VERY LONG discussion.
> - even if it was done by the
> govt. And I certainly never said to Ron as he was explaining some
> of his ideas "If you don't like it - Leave"
Yeah, that's really a horrible thing to say. I never said that to
anybody, because for the most part, I thought that law was stupid. Only
during that two month period in which I was a socialist did I think that
somebody should leave if they didn't like the laws. I thought that there
was a social contract that everybody consented to, simply because they
chose to live in close proximity with each other.
One must consider exactly how a person says, "If you don't like it,
Leave." In my experience, ALL socialists eventually say it, in some
fashion or another. If somebody says, "Well, if one objects to the laws,
they always have the option of leaving", I think they deserves a
response. The argument is so stupid, that you just have to rebut it. It
drives me nuts to think that people actually think that way, and when
people express such opinions, I feel that I must say something.
> But at a certain point... the only thing appropriate to say is
> "fuck you"
I agree.
> When somebody makes a move in an arguement like that... I say -
> that is a sign of deep hostility towards you.
Socialism is hostile, by nature. There is nothing that a socialist can
say (regarding politics) that is not a sign of hostility. Yet, if a
person ingenuously believes that socialism is correct, but is interested
in hearing my objections to socialism, I'll be polite to the person,
because I know that hostility is not his intention.
But, most socialists aren't like this at all. Most socialists are the
type of people you want to assassinate.
I don't know, Meaghan. Sometimes I can't make up my mind as to whether
certain socialists deserve a rational argument or not. Sometimes I think
that it would be nicer to shoot them. In that sense, I sympathize with
your position, and can understand your posts to the likes of Collier and
them.
> I look at how Howard Roark dealt with the evil people in his life
> - and he didn't. Can you honestly see Howard Roark - or Hank
> Reardon - or Dagny opr John Galt wasting their effort or their
> time on people that say things to them like "If you don't like it
> here - Leave" . Hell no...
Right. There is no reason why you should waste your time arguing with
socialists if you don't think that you would gain anything from it.
You'll receive no disagreements from me on this point.
> I agree - most arm chair socialists don't think their ideas
> through to their logical conclusions.
> The one's who worry me - are the *thinking* socialists... if a
> man is capapble of indipendent thinking and the ability to
> analyze the evidence of history - it shouldnt be a stretch for
> him to question the results of the plans he holds for the rest of
> society.
> These people refuse to look at the History of China, Cambodi,
> Germany, the Soviet Union - they refuse to see the logical
> conclusions of their *dearly held* little plans.
And these are the people who have something to loose by rejecting
socialism. These are the people who would lose their prestige and their
power by publicly recognizing the evil of socialism. So they lie to
themselves and others and continue to pretend thinking that socialism is
the answer to all our problems. These are the people who make me sick.
> So - I dunno. He spent 6 months willing to meet with me most
> Wednesday nights in a coffee shop to discuss philosophy - and
> never even came close to saying such a thing to me. And I was an
> *egalitarian* mystic , altruist Kantian.
Did you actually study Kant? I actually know have a few e-mail
acquaintances who are Kantian, but at the same time are adamantly opposed
to collectivism. I don't think socialism automatically follows from
Kant's moral theory. Some have claimed that it's not possible to
universalize maxims that are contrary to the non-agression principle, and
therefore socialism is incompatible with the Categorical Imperative.
CJW
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 27 May 1997 03:28:41 GMT, JLH1942
wanted to share:
:Jaffo,
:I would say you should buy your girl friend Atlas Shrugged and ask her to
:read it.
She has read it and rejected it. She thinks of it as "that silly way she used
to think when she way 20." (She's 43. I'm 26.)
She likes to say when she was 20, "I was even more Libertarian that YOU are!"
: If see keeps insisting that morality doesn't matter then maybe
:your are going out with the wrong person. If morality doesn't matter when
:you are talking about politics (the way we deal with others) then it
:doesn't matter when dealing with boy friends (you) and others.
Here's the weird part. She lived her life in a very immoral manner in the
past. Well, if you consider sexual and relationship behavior a judge of
morality.
Then, she realized she was wrong. She had a daughter, and she is raising her
daughter in a profoundly Conservative way. She is an excellent mother, in the
sense that she spends time with her daughter, spends money on a PRIVATE
school, and rejects all kinds of things she did when she was younger.
However, she remains absolutely convinced that the government has a
RESPONSIBILITY to take care of the weak and helpless because people are too
damned selfish to do it. And she thinks that NEED justifys any level of
government force. And that people consent to that force because they are
represented in the government.
She doesn't understand the concept of INDIVIDUAL rights. If people get
together and vote for something, that's enough to make it moral. And if you
don't like it, you can just LEAVE THE COUNTRY.
In her mind, the very act of STAYING IN AMERICA and receiving the benefits of
the government means that you are consenting to this "Social Contract" and you
should just vote and be grateful that you have this wonderful country that
your fellow voters have made for you.
:What is
:she doing when you are looking? Can you really trust someone that says
:morality doesn't matter? I don't think so. Maybe you should re-think
:your relationship. As far as the arguments go I think you have pretty
:much laid it down pretty good. You should point out the fallacies of the
:social contract theory. Ask her, when did you sign this supposed
:contract? A contract isn't valid if both people don't voluntarily sign
:it.
"Well, it's not that kind of contract. But you get to VOTE, so that gives you
a chance to change it if you don't like it."
:Also, how can you sign a social contract to give away certain rights
:to enter into a society with gov't when a contract is a legal document and
:a legal document presupposes a gov't to enforce it.
I don't think this one would carry much weight with her, but I need to give it
some thought.
:You see your girl
:friend is in need of a philosophical house cleaning without which you will
:never be able to demonstrate that Libertarianism is the best political
:system.
:She must understand that one's own life is the standard of value
:and that reason is man's only means of knowledge. Without which she will
:always look to others to tell her what they think reality is (polls or
:majority rule). She sounds like a social metaphysician.
I need to gain a more consistent foundation of Objectivism, dammit. I just
got my library card yesterday, I'm going as fast as I can! <G>
I'm studying lots of Libertarian stuff, but that's not enough is it? I need
to find where Ayn Rand states, not in fiction, but in clear language, what I
need to know.
How do you make a link between Natural Law and taxation? What did Rand say
about the concept of Natural Law? How do I defend the right to PROPERTY on
Objectivist grounds?
I'm drowning......
Jaffo
--
"Mises was right, and Lenin was wrong. That is the great lesson
of the 20th century." -- Yuri N. Maltsev, Former Soviet Economist
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 28 May 1997 03:13:10 GMT, Freedom
wanted to share:
:"I have a right to be free wherever I live - because of the being
:that I am"
PLEASE explain more about this. I need more on this point. I need the
philosophical grounding for that statement right there! What kind of beings
ARE we? How do we know these RIGHTS we claim are inalienable? Where does
this knowledge COME from?
I am asking for the basic foundation of Objectivism. Can you give it to me in
a brief form I can present to someone else? At least until I get to a
&^*&*@!!! library?
:Or.. if you want to expound a bit on it..
:
:What do you mean - I am always free to leave?
:
:Ever hear about pass ports - off shore banking laws, Income tax
:evasion extraditions...
No dice. We can renounce our citizenship. The number of people renouncing
American citizenship or holding dual citizenship has increased sharply over
the last few years. I can hear the sound of shrugging shoulders all over the
world...<G>
:Did Soviets in the gulags have this option?
:Did Jews in Auschwitz have this option?
:
:Did Chinese citizens get a chance to *leave* when they couldnt
:take it anymore?
They were prevented from leaving by force. We aren't.
I think she would agree it is immoral to keep someone from leaving by force.
:No Pal... Gal, idiot - thug (insert appropriate descriptor here)
:- It doesnt matter where I live - or what the laws say - If I
:violate nobody's rights - I have a right to be free - wherever I
:am.
WHY?
:The only arguement to contradict this - is the suggestion that
:living in a country is an implicit agreement on the part of all
:individuals to be slaves unless they desire to leave.
:
:Sorry - pal,gal, idiot <--insert descriptor here... you don't
:have the right - in fact nobody has the right - to turn anybody
:into a whipping boy simply because they live in the same
:geographic area as you do or they do.
This is the argument I'm using. Is slavery proper if 75% of the population
votes for it? What if the slaves can run away to Canada, does that make it
right?
The response I get is a dodge, "But this isn't the same thing!"
I need to make the case that the right to PROPERTY is just as sacred as the
right to FREEDOM and LIFE. But I don't know how.
She's a modern Liberal, she understands the rights of Liberty and Life, she
just does not grant property the same level of importance.
:and then... if they still arent convinced - then tell them to
:*fuck off* - from me personally if you feel like it.
I'm holding that in reserve.
:Tell them that Meaghan Walker sends them a hearty *fuck you very
:much* - if you don't feel like commiting yourself to such a
:phrase.
:
:Look at what they are saying.... Loot at what it means... That
:phrase "If you don't want to pay taxes, submit to tyrnany - you
:can always leave" is just One Step away from "You WILL sumbit to
:Tyranny, you will be a slave - it doesnt matter about your
:rights... the individual is expendable - individual rights don't
:count if enough people don't believe they do"
She won't say that. But she won't acknowledge the Right to Property, either.
I have two challenges.
1. Present the case that morality rests with INDIVIDUAL rights, totally
independent of the collective.
2. The right to PROPERTY is just as sacred as the right to freedom and life.
:You have to phrase it in a way that they can't disagree with you
:- without questioning their own values and sense of *right* and
:*wrong*.
:
:Another hint - is make sure you explain to the person making the
:suggestion that there is a big difference between a "right" and a
:"legal permission"
What is that difference?
*Gurgle*
Jaffo
This story actually brought tears to my eyes. So many people are like your
father. This brings up a larger point about "idealism" only being appropriate
for the young and foolish.
That is the most evil thing I can imagine. Thousands of people, tossing out
their principles and beliefs, simply because peer pressure finally got to them
and convinced them it was foolish.
My SO is a lot like this. "Well, I thought like that too, when *I* was 20."
I guess these people are just "too old" for principles now.
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 28 May 1997 03:27:39 GMT, Freedom
wanted to share:
:He just said "Fancy Debating there dear... and I am sure you
:think your ideas are noble... when you grow up a bit more you wil
:understand....you will see that your Old Man isnt as dumb as you
:think... (I never said or even implied that to him)
--
Freedom
In article <338e0331...@news.onramp.net>, ja...@onramp.net says...
> In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 27 May 1997 03:28:41 GMT, JLH1942
> wanted to share:
>
> :Jaffo,
> :I would say you should buy your girl friend Atlas Shrugged and ask her to
> :read it.
>
> She has read it and rejected it. She thinks of it as "that silly way she used
> to think when she way 20." (She's 43. I'm 26.)
>
> She likes to say when she was 20, "I was even more Libertarian that YOU are!"
Throw this back at her
"A person who is a conservative when he is young has no heart - a person
who is a liberal when they are old - has no brains"
-- Stuff about your girlfriend snipped --
Uh... are you dating Carol Ann Hemingway...
These arguements she is raising sound *sooooo* familiar.
MW
Freedom
In article <339008c0...@news.onramp.net>, ja...@onramp.net says...
> But you can VOTE, so that means you CONSENT to whatever they want to do.
>
> The real defense for this point must be rooted in the concept of individual
> rights. The Hume quote comes closest, but there's got to be more.
>
Just the fact that one is allowed to vote does not *consent*.
Voting is not a *right* it is a legal permission.
MW
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 29 May 1997 06:46:22 GMT, Freedom
wanted to share:
:Just the fact that one is allowed to vote does not *consent*.
:Voting is not a *right* it is a legal permission.
I had never heard the difference between a right and a legal permission
before. This is the kind of stuff I need to learn.
Jaffo
Chris Wilson
Jaffo writes:
> :The argument is so stupid, that you just have to rebut it. It
> :drives me nuts to think that people actually think that way, and when
> :people express such opinions, I feel that I must say something.
> What do you usually say?
I think the other's have already listed some pretty good responses to
this argument. Focus on the illegitacy of political force. Speak about
how the government doesn't have a just claim upon people's lives or
property.
> :Socialism is hostile, by nature. There is nothing that a socialist can
> :say (regarding politics) that is not a sign of hostility. Yet, if a
> :person ingenuously believes that socialism is correct, but is interested
> :in hearing my objections to socialism, I'll be polite to the person,
> :because I know that hostility is not his intention.
> My SO is VERY hostile to Capitalists. She thinks there is something
> inherently immoral about having that much money. Or that simply by HAVING so
> much property, these people are giving society the right to take it away.
Uggh! I seriously would not be able to stand such a relationship. I
would never be able to love a woman who expressed such viewpoints.
> Do you know how hard it is to defend Bill Gates?
It's not too difficult. Even from a utilitarian perspective, its
possible. (One needs a pretty good grasp of economics give a successful
utilitarian argument for freedom. Most people aren't Mises's however.)
> :Right. There is no reason why you should waste your time arguing with
> :socialists if you don't think that you would gain anything from it.
> :You'll receive no disagreements from me on this point.
> I'm not compiling all these arguments to win her over. I'm compiling these
> arguments so I KNOW WHAT TO SAY!
Well, that's a much better reason to consider these arguments. If one
isn't secure in one's own beliefs, one cannot honestly adhere to them.
> I don't mind her disagreeing with me. I don't mind her having her own
> contradictory beliefs, but I cannot tolerate not knowing what to say in
> response. I cannot tolerate my own beliefs being shaky. I have to try and
> patch up these holes and form a solid foundation for my positions.
> Ayn Rand helped me by finally pointing out that I had to defend Capitalism on
> a MORAL basis, not a practical basis.
> I've been a Republican for years, arguing the practical benefits of Capitalism
> to people that were smug in their certainty that Capitalism was morally wrong.
> Every time I made a practical argument, they made a moral argument. "How
> could I let that child starve when Bill Gates had billions of dollars?"
Jaffo, you're trapped in the jaws of an altruist who is armed with a
dozen guilt-trips. I know what this is like. I have had the same
problem.
Think JUSTICE. Ask her how she can honestly JUSTIFY the forcible
redistribution of Gates' wealth TO GATES. If she says, "I don't care
whether or not Gates thinks the redistribution of his wealth is just".
then the conversation is OVER. If she says that Gates's opinion doesn't
matter, she has abandoned the possibility of a rational defense of her
position, and is claiming that her position is right solely upon the
grounds that her side has a bigger gang than Gates' side.
Ask her why Gates has any reason to accept the sacrifices that she would
impose upon him. If she refuses to provide any rational arguments, she
has conceded to the injustice of her position.
> I had to have a moral basis for the defense of Capitalism. The doctrine of
> never using FORCE in human relationships gave me that basis, but I've reached
> the end of that line. I need to know where Natural Rights COME FROM. I need
> to know why the Right to Property is just as sacred as the Right to Life.
Okay. I don't have enough time to give a lengthy explanation of this. I
can only refer you to some books. The first section of Jan Narveson's
_The Libertarian Idea_ is a terrific explanation of liberty and freedom;
the best I've read as a matter of fact (though I don't care much for his
contractarianism). Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl's _Liberty and
Nature_ is also excellent. They give an Aristotelian defense of freedom
which is quite similar to Rand's. Though the book is academic and is
difficult reading at times, I would still recommend it. Tibor Machan's
_Individual's and Their Rights_ is also supposed to be pretty good
(though I myself haven't read it). You might also pick up Rand's _Virtue
of Selfishness_, and read "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Man's Rights" in
conjunction. And of course, there is always Locke's _Two Treatises on
Government_. Outdated perhaps, but is probably still the most important
philosophical explanation of individual rights ever written. The book
gets rather long and boring, so you might wish to try a condensed
version.
All of these books are available at Laissez-Faire Books. Some of them
are available at regular bookstores.
Good luck!
CJW
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 29 May 1997 06:44:55 GMT, Freedom
wanted to share:
:I think it is not fair to yourself or to your opponent to try and get
:some sort of pat answer to this...
And in this, you are perfectly correct. Understand at this point, I can
really concieve an answer. I guess I just wanted someone to pat me on the
head and reassure me there IS an answer.
I can think of nothing more contemptible than some idiot using Objectivism a
paragraph at a time, with no understanding (or desire to understand) the
principles underneath.
I'm honestly asking these questions because I just physically do not have the
books I need yet, and we argue about this stuff in one form or another every
day.
I just moved to another city, and it took me a while to get a Driver's License
and a library card. Now that that's done, I can start pulling out the
information I need.
I'm sure the Arlington Texas Central Library is going to flip when some bozo
at some obscure branch starts ordering all their Ayn Rand stuff. <G>
During the summer I broke down and purchased a lot of books, but I was coming
from a more political perspective then and spent all my money on David Boaz,
Charles Murray, and Friedrich Hayek.
I still need to read more of Rand, Mises, Branden, and Rothbard.
:
:You are going to have to examine the principles involved.
:
:Re Read Galts speech - Then Check out the first essay in "for the new
:intellectual" - then get a hold of "the New Left - the Anti Industrial
:Revolution" Another excellent choice would be "Introduction to
:Objectivist Epistemology" - Oh another great little snippet would be
:Tooheys speech at the end of the Fountainhead to the broken Peter
:Keating.
I have AS and The Fountainhead. But I need to spend more time with them. The
others are quickly making my reading list.
:Read them - All of them... and if you don't find the principles you need
:to make your arguement then come back with your questions.
Thanks.
:The reubuttal is simply "I have a right to be free wherever I am - and I
:know it"
:
:The principles behind this need some thought though in order to defend
:this statement.
I have a premonition that I'm actually going to have an argument with my
girlfriend over whether or not life has value. I think she was profoundly
influenced by a philosophy professor when she was in college. That sentence
may explain everything. I'm wondering what this woman TAUGHT her? My SO
talks about her like Christians talk about Jesus.
:You have to discover what your nature is as a living human being - then
:you have to ask yourself - what you know - and why you know it and how
:you know it.
:
:And finnaly you have to ask yourself the question... If Morality is not
:an absolute what is the implication of the truth of morality?
:
:Answer - any way the wind blows.
:
:Drop politics for awhile - and drop even ethics - and study instead
:epistemology and metaphysics.
It's time, isn't it? I've gone as far as I can go. Lord, in another month,
I'm going to sound like everybody else in HPO. I was having fun being the
village idiot. Sometimes you can learn a lot when you make people reduce
high-powered intellectual arguments to essentials. Mst other philosophies
I've seen don't hold up to this test, and they sound absurd when stripped of
their buzz words.
:If you can't defend your position about the ethics of capitalism - you
:are on shaky grounds in your discussion - and any thinking socialist will
:tear your ideas to ribbons by questioning what you know - and how you
:know it.
Indeed.
Thanks for the help!
Chris Wilson
Jaffo writes:
> :Jaffo,
> :I would say you should buy your girl friend Atlas Shrugged and ask her to
> :read it.
>
> She has read it and rejected it. She thinks of it as "that silly way she used
> to think when she way 20." (She's 43. I'm 26.)
>
> She likes to say when she was 20, "I was even more Libertarian that YOU are!"
Uggh. Yet more evidence that the goodness of this relationship is
questionable. Not only is she a socialist, but she's old and she's
jaded. Wouldn't you prefer a hot young sexy eighteen year old who wants
to make loads of dough when she grows up? Check out some girls who are
_business majors_. You won't find any envy emanating from those girls,
just pure ambition.
But for God's sake, stay away from the sociology and anthropology
departments. The girls there will never amount to nothing. (Nothing
good anyway.)
CJW
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 29 May 1997 07:06:30 GMT, Freedom
wanted to share:
:"The right to life is the source of all rights - - and the right to
:property is their only implentation" (Virtue of Selfishness)
:
:Because man must work in order to survive - he has to be free to dipose
:of the products of his efforts as *he* see's fit. A person who produces -
:while other's dispose of what he produces *is* a slave. There is simply
:no way around that.
Excellent.
:> She's a modern Liberal, she understands the rights of Liberty and Life, she
:> just does not grant property the same level of importance.
:
:Ask her how long she would survive without food, without clothing and
:without shelter.
Excellent.
:I have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
:
:I do not have the right to *welfare* (other people's money) "Medical"
:(other peoples work, or money) "shelter" - "other people's stuff - or
:money" - "food" (Other people's money)
Here's the logic I would get from her, "But you just said people can't live
without property. So if I don't have food, I can't live. Doesn't that mean,
if people have a right to live, they have a right to food?"
My reponse would be, "They have a right to EARN food. They have a right to
KEEP the food they earn, and to dispose of it however they choose. But they
don't have a right to TAKE food from others, because that would violate
someone's right to property."
So you're saying property includes all the "tools of life" so that right to
property has to be sacred if we hold LIFE sacred. Is that right?
It's a lot easier to argue with an imitation than it is to argue with the real
thing. But I'll bet you a dollar she tries to make that connection between
life and food.
Jaffo
--
"I'm such an idiot. I should have posted about SPITTING, not chicken."
-- KMM
http://rampages.onramp.net/~jaffo/
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 29 May 1997 08:46:18 GMT, Chris
Wilson wanted to share:
:Besides, you should not be agreeing with Objectivism before you
:understand it (like you seem to be now). Study it, get a good
:comprehensive understanding of it, and THEN decide whether or not you
:agree with it. You are in no position to make this decision as of now.
You are correct.
I've read "just enough" to think I'm on to something valid, but I don't have
enough information at my disposal to accept or reject it.
I can tell when I find philosophical "stopping points" that make me
uncomfortable.
I had many such "stopping points" as a Republican, and they finally forced a
change.
I don't know if I could ever truly be an Objectivist (I have some mystic
tendencies.), but I'm on the verge of discovering something I've searched for
all my life, a real philosophical foundation for Capitalism, and I've never
found anyone or anything that could provide that before.
Jaffo
In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 29 May 1997 08:19:59 GMT, Jaffo
wanted to share:
:In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 29 May 1997 06:44:55 GMT, Freedom
:wanted to share:
:
::I think it is not fair to yourself or to your opponent to try and get
::some sort of pat answer to this...
:
:And in this, you are perfectly correct. Understand at this point, I can
:really concieve an answer.
Of course, I meant to say I CAN'T really concieve an answer.
Freedom
In article <33a649ae...@news.onramp.net>, ja...@onramp.net says...
> In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 29 May 1997 08:46:18 GMT, Chris
> Wilson wanted to share:
>
> :Besides, you should not be agreeing with Objectivism before you
> :understand it (like you seem to be now). Study it, get a good
> :comprehensive understanding of it, and THEN decide whether or not you
> :agree with it. You are in no position to make this decision as of now.
>
> You are correct.
>
> I've read "just enough" to think I'm on to something valid, but I don't have
> enough information at my disposal to accept or reject it.
>
> I can tell when I find philosophical "stopping points" that make me
> uncomfortable.
>
> I had many such "stopping points" as a Republican, and they finally forced a
> change.
>
> I don't know if I could ever truly be an Objectivist (I have some mystic
> tendencies.), but I'm on the verge of discovering something I've searched for
> all my life, a real philosophical foundation for Capitalism, and I've never
> found anyone or anything that could provide that before.
Be absolutley ruthless
Look for the holes - look for the contradictions - look for the things
that don't make sense. Look at the people who criticize - read the
arguements.
For myself I am working through every book she has written, and her
source materials - and re working my way through the philosphies that are
opposed to her ideas.
And then - if after all that you find yourself in agreement - Call
yourself an Objectivist :)
I tried for months and months to argue my way out of Rands corners. I
couldnt do it. Thats why I love Rand
She's da shit! :)
MW
Freedom
In article <33a03cbe...@news.onramp.net>, ja...@onramp.net says...
>
> Here's the logic I would get from her, "But you just said people can't live
> without property. So if I don't have food, I can't live. Doesn't that mean,
> if people have a right to live, they have a right to food?"
>
> My reponse would be, "They have a right to EARN food. They have a right to
> KEEP the food they earn, and to dispose of it however they choose. But they
> don't have a right to TAKE food from others, because that would violate
> someone's right to property."
>
And it also violates their right to their own life.
Every minute that you spend in the pursuit of obtaining a value that is
stolen from you when the govt takes that money from you is a minute of
slavery.
> So you're saying property includes all the "tools of life" so that right to
> property has to be sacred if we hold LIFE sacred. Is that right?
>
The right to property is the way that all other rights are implented yes.
> It's a lot easier to argue with an imitation than it is to argue with the real
> thing. But I'll bet you a dollar she tries to make that connection between
> life and food.
>
> Jaffo
>
Ok.. I figure from what you describe she will probably say "But what
about starving children, what about Homeless people, what about people
that don't have the means to support themselves... You think they should
all be shot...
(For some reason they always invariably bring this up)
And your answer should be..
No.. they have the right to do what they can to support themselves - they
also should be free to accept voluntary charity.
And when she says "But people won't give enough - thats why Welfare was
implented"
And here is where you nail her... You tell her to read "Henry Hazlit's
book On poverty - to look at the roots of Bismarkian Socialism - and
particularly the history of Social Security in the United States.
If you can't get a copy of that book - then simply say this..
"I am not opposed to private charity - at ALL- I think it is a good thing
to help people out when you value them... but that should rightfully be
*my* choice as to who I want to help, and how much I want to give."
And essentially the issue of *ability to give* does not even enter into
it.
Use the economist arguement...
Nobody will argue with you if you say "If I take $100.00 from Joe and
Give it To Fred - Fred is better off...- the issue that you(directing it
to her) refuse to look at is - WHAT ABOUT JOE?????
What if Joe needed that money to buy his kids shoes, or put food on his
table for his family, or put it into his business that employees people,
or to buy products that are made by other people.
When you take the money from Joe - the multiplyer effect that would have
been generated by Joes actions in the economy is going to be
signifigantly diminished.
It costs roughly a dollar to redistribute a dollar - that means
approximatley half of all money collected is used up by the process of
collection and redistribution... If she doesnt believe this.. ask her...
WHo do you think pays for the cost of enforcing taxation laws, for
processing the paper work, for the labour involved in the tax collection
action, and all the social workers and administrators etc...
That money has to come from somewhere - and it comes out of Joe's pocket.
So what happens in the economy with this *redistribution* is that even
when Fred gets the money - 50% of it has been irretrievably lost and
spent in a fruitless way. It is not pumped back into the economy to any
purpose.
Then hit her with this - the dependency ration in the US when Social
Security was implemented was close to 17:1. Now it is less than 3.8 to 1.
That means that for every 3.8 people working - 1 person is being
supported by them....
And here is where you devestate her.
You ask her... Why do you think this is??? why do you think that no
matter what changes are done in the formula - and the improvements that
have been made over the past 40 years - does the ratio keep approaching
the point where it is eventually going to level out.
And the answer is - in looking at her question about "what about the
poor, the incompetant and those unfortunates who are unable to support
themselves"
If we base morality and economics on the incompetent - it breeds
incompetence.
If we punish the action of productivity - and make it hard to achieve
results by work - people produce less and stop achieving as much.
Now... this is the scary thing.. ask her how in the world people are
going to survive when the ratio level reaches 1:1.
Ask her how she thinks she is going to manage to keep productive people
producing enough to support the indolent and the incompetent - when there
is NO - absolutely NO incentive on a moral or even an economic basis to
achieve anything.
And .. at this point - she will either start foaming at the mouth and
blanking out the sad facts about her precious *welfare* system - or she
will get very quiet and leave you alone.
Then ask her this question...
- Ask her why she assumes to think so little of her fellow human beings
that she should be able to decide how *their* money should best be spent.
AND then Ask her this..
How can people who are incapable of properly deciding on an individual
basis who they wish to support with their money - are capable of electing
a proper and representive govt that will be able to manage that task for
them.
MW
OEXCHAOS
Jaffo writes:
>:Or.. if you want to expound a bit on it..
>:
>:What do you mean - I am always free to leave?
>:
>:Ever hear about pass ports - off shore banking laws, Income tax
>:evasion extraditions...
>No dice. We can renounce our citizenship. The number of people
renouncing
>American citizenship or holding dual citizenship has increased sharply
over
>the last few years. I can hear the sound of shrugging shoulders all over
the
>world...<G>
You need to go back to fundamentals.
"You can always leave"
So can the Government.
"But the Government is voted for BY THE MAJORITY"
Does might make right? If they all voted to kill you, would THAT be right?
How about voting to kill all Jews?
Let's go back to my "right to leave". Of course I can always leave. But
WHY should I have to? The RIGHTFUL OWNER of the property has the right to
tell others to leave or follow the rules. *I* and my fellow citizens,
INDIVIDUALLY, own our property--NOT the Government. Virtually EVERYTHING
the government owns, it garnered illegitimately. EVERYTHING ELSE it claims
rights over it has no rights over. By what RIGHT does government claim
what I have? None. Government has no right to what I own because I have
not voluntarily and EXPLICITLY aggreed to give it to government. Thus, I
have NO obligation to keep giving what I have to government, and they have
no right to take it. If they don't like me not letting them take my stuff,
THEY can leave.
This isn't a glib, one liner answer. Individuals need to understand the
FUNDAMENTALS of their arguments, and you have to force them to break it
down for you so you can show them the IMPLICATIONS of the premises that
they hold. That is, if you wish to have them understand where they are
wrong (and if you want to understand, rather than FEEL, why you are
right).
Hope that helps.
Mark Steward Young
Publisher
The Steward Analytics FaxLetter
http://members.aol.com/oexchaos/premium.htm
Learn how our model account made 79% NET last year.
(no more than 20% at risk on any given trade)
Liberty
In article <MPG.df76936fbd753a2989693@news>,
cjwi...@gladstone.uoregon.edu says...
> Meaghan says...
>
> > And here is where you nail her... You tell her to read "Henry Hazlit's
> > book On poverty - to look at the roots of Bismarkian Socialism - and
> > particularly the history of Social Security in the United States.
>
> yourself can't answer their arguments. It's a sign of intellectual
> weakness. If you can't answer a person's objections to your arguments,
> accept the fact that you have been tentatively defeated, and then go back
> and do your homework and see if you can find the answer. But NEVER stoop
> so low as to offer a book title in exchange for an argument. Would you
> be impressed if a socialist wouldn't give you any answers but told you
> to go read Karl Marx? I certainly wouldn't. I'd laugh at him.
Well actually - I did say two things in relation to this
suggestion... 1 - to look at the specific arguement that
Hazlit shows regarding the inception of Social Security in
the US - with its Roots in Bismarkian Socialism -
He goes through the history of Social Security in the United
States from the beginning - right up to the late 1970's if I
am remembering correctly.
When Rossevelt called for Social Security - as Hazlit
reports in his book - it was to stop this disgracefull
business of *relief*.
Ironic.
--- I also qualified my remarks to him - if not having the
book handy to go to the next part of my arguement.
Where I laid out Hazlits premises economically in quick
format.
Have you read "On Poverty"?
--- Also - if A socialist said "perhaps I am not doing a
good job of explaining this - and you have some different
ideas about my position than it truly is. I refer you to the
actual source of my position - The Communist Mannifesto.
Its hardly a reason to *laugh* at the man.
In fact - I really do appreciate it when people tell me to
go to the source... which is to say - they are letting me
know that they trust my judgement to make up my mind based
on the actual ideas presented - first hand.
MW
Chris Wilson
Meaghan says...
> Have you read "On Poverty"?
Nope, and I don't expect to read it anytime soon. My summer reading list
is full. One of the books I'll be reading this summer is Ludwig von
Mises' _Human Action_. I imagine that will take quite some time. I just
hope I can fit the other books in.
> --- Also - if A socialist said "perhaps I am not doing a
> good job of explaining this - and you have some different
> ideas about my position than it truly is. I refer you to the
> actual source of my position - The Communist Mannifesto.
>
> Its hardly a reason to *laugh* at the man.
You're right. If he phrases it that way, he's conceded that he is having
some problems explaining his position, and he's courteously directing the
person he's arguing with to the source. That's different than saying,
"Oh yeah? why don't you read the _Communist Manifesto_?"
Maybe I didn't read your post carefully enough. (I did kind of skim it.)
My comment wasn't completely in response to what you wrote, BTW. There
was one other poster (I can remember his name) who told Jaffo to "tell
her [his girlfriend] to go read Atlas Shrugged." I just think that a
book title is a lousy replacement for an argument.
CJW
Betsy Speicher
On 29 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> In humanities.philosophy.objectivism, on 27 May 1997 03:28:41 GMT, JLH1942
> wanted to share:
>
> :Jaffo,
> :I would say you should buy your girl friend Atlas Shrugged and ask her to
> :read it.
>
> She has read it and rejected it. She thinks of it as "that silly way she used
> to think when she way 20." (She's 43. I'm 26.)
Uh oh! Not only does she not think in principles, but, at that age, her
chance of changing is just about zero.
Betsy Speicher
YOUR LIFE BELONGS TO YOU!
Sign the petition at http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude
Betsy Speicher
On 29 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
> This story actually brought tears to my eyes. So many people are like
> your father. This brings up a larger point about "idealism" only being
> appropriate for the young and foolish.
As someone who's "older and wiser" -- and an Objectivist for more than 35
years, I would have to say they are dead wrong.
> That is the most evil thing I can imagine. Thousands of people, tossing
> out their principles and beliefs, simply because peer pressure finally
> got to them and convinced them it was foolish.
Maybe they never had principles or did not hold them first-hand so that
when they came under pressure from others, they couldn't hold onto them.
> My SO is a lot like this. "Well, I thought like that too, when *I* was 20."
It should be a warning to you.
> I guess these people are just "too old" for principles now.
You would be wise to take this into account when and if you deal with
them.
Tom Scheeler
Betsy Speicher wrote:
>
> On 29 May 1997, Jaffo wrote:
>
> > This story actually brought tears to my eyes. So many people are
> like
> > your father. This brings up a larger point about "idealism" only
> being
> > appropriate for the young and foolish.
>
> As someone who's "older and wiser" -- and an Objectivist for more than
> 35
> years, I would have to say they are dead wrong.
>
>
> Maybe they never had principles or did not hold them first-hand so that
> when they came under pressure from others, they couldn't hold onto them.
>
> > My SO is a lot like this. "Well, I thought like that too, when *I*
> was 20."
>
more like a very young child. Hopefully, as someone matures as a young
adult, they outgrow these characteristics. I've heard many times how
Objectivist principles are popular with the young, supposedly immature
people, but my observation is that the opposite is true since it takes
character and maturity to be truly an independent individual.
As Ron Good stated once:
"A friend of mine once said *scratch a socialist and you will find
someone who never got used to the idea of having to let go of the apron
strings.* He said *you will notice that, when they say: who will take
care of the poor, what
they _really_ mean is: who will take care of _me_ if _I_ become poor.
In other words, these people are simply afraid, and fear seldom makes
people think rationally. These people hate the normal risks of human
existence, realize they are powerless to change reality, so they a)
have tantrums and b) try to force the folks around them (via the Nanny
State method) to replace the apron strings. You are right--it comes
from the philosophic premises.
...
In short, like children, the tantrum gets stronger as the NO gets
firmer and more undeniable. Some children actually come to terms with
the No's....the others become rabid knee-jerk socialists."
It may be that the young are often less jaded by years of living under
our collectivist notions to see past the ruse and compromise of
principle for convenience sake.
Tom Scheeler
Freedom
> Betsy Speicher wrote:
> >
> > Maybe they never had principles or did not hold them first-hand so that
> > when they came under pressure from others, they couldn't hold onto them.
> >
No - I must disagree with this statement.
My father is the only person I have ever met in my entire
life who has never lied to me - Do you hear that - not once.
He is the type of person who would see his dearest child in
jail before he would lie to protect them.
He is principled.
He started out in life with an alcoholic father who
abandoned him and his siblings and his mother when he was
10. He worked after school to support his mother and his
siblings.
He entered Mcgill University at age 15.
15 - that means he graduated from Highschool when he was 14.
His birthday is in June.
He got an ROTC and got his degree through working for the
military in the Royal Canadian Engineers - and then he went
into private business when he had paid back what the Army
felt he owed them
He bought the company he was working for in 1978.
He turned it from a 3 room office of engineers to an
international Engineering company with offices in several
parts of Canada.
He raised it from the ground.
He is the BEST at what he does. He has recieved countless
awards and commendations from countries all over the world
for his outstanding contributions to the feild of water
waste management and innovation.
He *is* a man of the mind.
I have met many people who don't *like* my dad in the sense
that they wouldnt ever try to take him out for a beer after
work. He is not a social butterfly and hates politics. But I
have never met anybody who has met my father and not
respected him. He has an aura about him - an innocence that
is just astounding. He still - at the ripe age of 56 looks
like (in many ways) a little boy dressed in his sunday best
ready to go off to church.
The reverance he holds is not for God - or for religion or
for any of that. He admires competancy and ability. That is
his religion.
He enjoys Building. He finds great joy in producing the
technology that he does - I have seen him stand outside one
of the plants he has built and just stare at his work - as
some men stare at a beautiful woman walking by.
And what is SO very very sad - is he never got the chance to
see that he did not have to be *obliged* to society for the
things that he does.
You have all read about Hank Reardon.
I grew up with Hank Reardon.
My father is what Hank Reardon was - before Francisco and
Galt got to him.
So please - lets hear none of this talk about "He may have
never had principles - or was too weak to withstand them"
By every measurable way my father is a success.
He just hasn't learned that HE is responsible for it and
should take pride in it
And that is fucking sad
Meaghan Walker
Troy Waite
Freedom <N...@way.com> writes:
.....snip just and condign praises for her Dad.............
>My father is what Hank Reardon was - before Francisco and
>Galt got to him.
So was my Dad. I have the good fortune and honor to be
raised by a Righteous man. He assumed responsibility
that he thought was his w.o. complaint and did what he
had to do to discharge it (usually brilliantly).
Alas for Pop he never acheived what Francis of Asisi prayed
for: the wisdom to changes those things he could and should
change and to accept those things he could not change as
facts, and live accordingly.
The result was aggrevation and self imposed but unnecessary
burdens. My Dad just never learned to shrug. If he had, he
would still be around to enjoy his great grandchildren.
Pop never acquired all the tools he required
to survive in a not totally nice world. I
fortunately did. And this is God Damned sad.
I may not feel your pain, but I think I understand it quite well.
Bob Kolker