Should the term "capitalism" be abandoned?

[Bert]

Is the term "capitalism" so widely misunderstood that using it
simply causes more problems?

Sheldon Richman writes in "The Freeman"

My main beef with Phelps and Ammous's essay is their use of
capitalism to name the economic system that corporatism
corrupted. Like many others, they believe that word "used to
mean" the free market. To be sure, it was used that way
beginning in the mid-twentieth century. But there was an older
usage (of capitalist specifically), coined by free-market
liberals like Thomas Hodgskin who predated Marx, associating it
with government privileges for the capital-owning class. That
undertone has never left.

and

In sum, the system that most immediately threatens individual
liberty is corporatism (with its militarist component) and the
word capitalism is too closely associated with corporatism in
people's minds to be useful to advocates of the freed market.


http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/capitalism-corporatism-and-the-
freed-market/


--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[jts]

Simply define 'capitalism' as it is defined in the Ayn Rand Lexicon online.

The conventional definition of 'capitalism' is very bad. It is 'private ownership of the means of production'. Very bad. By this definition, slavery is capitalism. Slavery is private ownership of the means of production, the means of production in this case being slaves.

The correct definition of 'capitalism' is:
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html

If anyone argues against capitalism as above defined, kick the shit out of him. What is he going to do? Is he going to protest that you are violating his rights?

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/04/2012 11:59 AM, jts wrote:
> The conventional definition of 'capitalism' is very bad. It is 'private
> ownership of the means of production'. Very bad. By this definition,
> slavery is capitalism. Slavery is private ownership of the means of
> production, the means of production in this case being slaves.

Irrelevant. The definition is technically correct but omits details,
including the moral components.

Like a partial definition of /weapon/ could be: something used to kill
someone. There is no distinction between weapons used to commit murder
and weapons used to defend ourselves from murder. That is because there
is no significant difference. The same type of weapon, indeed the same
/weapon/, can be used to do both.

After correctly defining Capitalism, one may then add further
refinements to the definition such as "free market Capitalism," which
could be: Capitalism...

> ... based on the recognition of individual rights.

Which would exclude slavery. But we can't properly define free market
Capitalism if we don't properly define Capitalism. Just like the Left
can never define "fair taxation" until it finally defines "fair."
--
TommCatt
I don't need a friend who changes when I change and who nods when I nod;
my shadow does that much better. -- Plutarch

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/04/2012 08:46 AM, Bert wrote:
> Sheldon Richman writes in "The Freeman"
>
> My main beef with Phelps and Ammous's essay is their use of
> capitalism to name the economic system that corporatism

> corrupted. ...

>
> In sum, the system that most immediately threatens individual
> liberty is corporatism (with its militarist component) and the
> word capitalism is too closely associated with corporatism in
> people's minds to be useful to advocates of the freed market.

Does anyone have any idea what Richman means by "corporatism"?

Floating concepts like that provide no end of opportunities for
intellectual mischief.

--
TommCatt
Why do psychics have to ask you your name?

[Jim Klein]

On 2/4/2012 5:35 PM, Tomm Carr wrote:

>> In sum, the system that most immediately threatens individual
>> liberty is corporatism (with its militarist component) and the
>> word capitalism is too closely associated with corporatism in
>> people's minds to be useful to advocates of the freed market.
>
> Does anyone have any idea what Richman means by "corporatism"?
>
> Floating concepts like that provide no end of opportunities for
> intellectual mischief.

I didn't read the essay, or even other posts in this thread, but
the paragraph rings alright with me. I'd appeal to at least two
things these days. First is the insanity of "corporate welfare,"
whereby particular companies get earmarked in for ridiculous
competitive advantages.

Then, there's the fact that the sinkhole of money generally ends up
in the accounts of corporations, of which the PTB are the beneficiaries,
often through myriad schemes. This is the way the world actually
works, and how the loot gets to where it's intended. Sure, there
are the public unions and all the various organizations and so on,
but the big money travels through corporations until it lands in
the sick-fuck hands of those running the show. Further, this happens
at all levels, from the federal to the tiniest communities.

Then lastly, though I doubt this was a factor in the essay, there's the
whole problem of shielded liability in the first place. There
may be a zillion "practical reasons" why this supposedly makes
sense, but in the end it's just a centuries-old scam that tries
to pretend something is going on except individual volition and
action. There's not, no matter how complex the organizations may be.

Capitalism OTOH is the recognition of precisely this fact, and is
why it reduces to morality and not just economics IMO. This would
be wholly opposed to the modern "mixed economy" that might fairly
be call "corporatism."


jk

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 4, 9:19 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> I didn't read the essay,

Wow! That's shocking.

>
> Then, there's the fact that the sinkhole of money generally ends up
> in the accounts of corporations, of which the PTB are the beneficiaries,
> often through myriad schemes.

On this matter, though, as you have found that there is more for any
living entity than life or death, why would "beneficiaries" or
"victims" be important to you or anyone also aware of the alternative
to life or death?

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 4, 1:59 pm, jts <story.je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Simply define 'capitalism' as it is defined in the Ayn Rand Lexicon online.
>
> The conventional definition of 'capitalism' is very bad. It is 'private ownership of the means of production'.

That is really the socialist definition of "capitalism" . The
conventional (tautological) one is: the system of the private
ownership of capital, and government cannot own capital but rather
confiscates it through taxation or expropriation, so that there is
actually no non-private (individual) ownership of capital except in
the form of co-ops or communes within capitalist system, and they can
only exist within a capitalist free-market of price allocation (per
von MIses) or they die out. The possible difficulty of language of
"capitalism" versus "corporatism" is that through corporations,
individuals do not own the capital, too, but rather corporations as
*as if* individuals (corpus = Latin: body) do.

> Very bad. By this definition, slavery is capitalism. Slavery is private ownership of
> the means of production, the means of production in this case being slaves.
>

Yes, that is the reason Marx liked that definition -- which is
incorrect. Moreover, left-liberal and socialists like the definition
because it masks the fact that they *are* socialists because they
claim: "Oh, but we are not for the public ownership of the means of
production (as in Communism).

Corporatism comes from the right (crony capitalist) and from the left
(socialist) as a political have-cake-and-eat-it-too in which prices
can be afixed in a free market of a sort but the number of business
entities are kept to a small number of amenable corporations directed
through regulation and direct law for social purposes. Obamacare is
perfect corporatist fascism in which prices are put on a baseline far
higher than it would be in a capitalist free-market -- to make the
healthcare industry (medicine and insurance companies) happy and their
government sponsers happy as to all the social, not economic, rules
they can thus apply. It is the mafia legalized.

And, I might add, that is why anarchist advocates of gangland utopia
like David Friedman do not object to Obamacare except in the
individual mandate, perhaps, or on the vague angle of "special
interests" -- that is: he is *not* against corporatism as from the
left (as a social utilitarian), but rather he is against it as
something from the right (as a greedy crony).

Judging from this:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-is-least-bad-candidate.html

Friedman is still for Obama while possibly leaving himself deniabiity
of "I did not vote for him, even as the the lesser of the evils."

Or still, as always, not for anyone who will never legalize
recreational drugs and hoist the white flag to please the communists
and islamo-facists à la Rothbard and Chomsky and ever other anarchist-
libertarian.

> The correct definition of 'capitalism' is:
> Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights.
>
> http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/capitalism.html
>

That's Rand coming up a word to approximate an entire political
system, and she was mostly wrong in doing that {Politics in one word
[*]} . She defines a fine politcal framework and attaches a word in
English which comes close by means of defining all property in
individual ownership, and uses that word, but that word, far more than
the word "selfishness" for moral egoism, has too many various meanings
and furthermore excludes concepts like "democracy" (versus oligarchy
or anarchy) and "balance of power" (as in federalism) that ought to be
included in some fashion that Rand never does.

In re: Rand versus Milton Friedman

<<The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist
claim that it represents the best way to achieve "the common good." >>

[*] At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication
of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could
present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did
as follows:

Metaphysics Objective Reality
Epistemology Reason
Ethics Self-interest
Politics Capitalism

[Charles Bell]

Quasi-Corporatism: America's Homegrown Fascism

Freeman
January 1, 2006 | Higgs, Robert

Full-fledged corporatism, as a system for organizing the formulation
and implementation of economic policies, requires the replacement of
political representation according to area of residence by political
representation according to position in the socioeconomic division of
labor. The citizen of a corporate state has a political identity not
as a resident of a particular geographical district but as a member of
a certain occupation, profession, or other economic community. He will
probably be distinguished according to whether he is an employer, an
employee, or self-employed.

One who looks for information about corporatism is frequently referred
to fascism. (In the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
for example, the entry for corporatism reads simply, "See Fascism.")
Indeed, the corporatist ideal achieved its fullest historical
expression in Italy under Mussolini's regime. There, workers and
employers were organized into syndicates based on local trades and
occupations. Local syndicates joined in national federations, which
were grouped into worker and employer confederations for broad
economic sectors, such as industry, agriculture, commerce, banking,
and insurance. In 1934 the government made peak associations part of
the apparatus of state, with one corporation for each of 22 economic
sectors. The corporations received authority to regulate economic
activities, to fix the prices of goods and services, and to mediate
labor disputes.

In practice the Italian corporate state operated not as a grand
compromise among economic interest groups but as a collection of
sectoral economic authorities organized and dominated by the
government in the service of the dictatorship's aims. Neither
capitalists nor laborers enjoyed autonomy or private rights defensible
against the fascist regime. (See Mario Einaudi, "Fascism,"
International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences [New York: Macmillan and The Free
Press, 1968], pp. 334-41.) Other fascist regimes in Europe and Latin
America operated similarly. In light of this experience, one might
judge fascist corporatism to have been something of a fraud. The
appearance of rationalized popular participation in government failed
to mask the dictatorial character of the system.

Not surprisingly, after World War II, fascism became a dirty word and
full-fledged corporatism a discredited program. Nevertheless,
arrangements bearing some similarity to fascism's corporate state
developed in the democratic countries of western Europe, most notably
in Scandinavia, Austria, and the Netherlands, but also to some extent
in other countries. No one describes these arrangements as fascist;
most commonly they are called neocorporatist.

Neocorporatism (also known as liberal, social, or societal
corporatism, sometimes as tripartism) shares with fascist corporatism
the preference for representation according to membership in
functional economic groups rather than according to location. It
disavows, at least rhetorically, fascism's totalitarian aspects and
its suppression of individual civil and political rights.
Neocorporatists support the organization of economic interest groups
and their participation as prime movers in the formulation,
negotiation, adoption, and administration of economic policies backed
by the full power of the government.

Political scientists have concluded correctly that the United States
is not a corporate state-certainly not a corporate state comparable to
modern Sweden or Austria. American interest groups have been too
partial in their membership. Normally the government power they hope
to seize has itself been fragmented, divided at each level among
executive, legislative, and judicial branches and dispersed among the
national, state, and local levels in a federal constitutional system.
Residual allegiance to liberal ideology and its political norms and
practices, including limited government and territorial representation
in the legislature, has also impeded the development of corporatism.
The American economy is vast and complex. To bring it within the
effective control of a few hierarchical, noncompetitive peak
associations, as the fascists tried (or pretended) to do in interwar
Italy, is almost unthinkable. The closest peacetime experiment, under
the National Industrial Recovery Act during 1933-35, did not work and
was collapsing of its own weight when the Supreme Court put an end to
it.

Nevertheless, recent American history has brought forth a multitude of
little corporatisms, arrangements within subsectors, industries, or
other partial jurisdictions. They have drawn on both national and
state government powers. They operate effectively in the defense
sector, in many areas of agriculture; in many professional services,
such as medicine, dentistry, and hospital care; and in a variety of
other areas, such as fishery management and urban redevelopment. These
abundant "iron triangles" normally involve well-organized private-
interest groups; government regulatory, spending, or lending agencies;
and the congressional subcommittees charged with policy oversight or
appropriations. A political economy in which such arrangements
predominate, as they do in the United States, is commonly called
interest-group liberalism or neopluralism. (Elsewhere I have followed
Charlotte Twight in calling it participatory fascism.) But it might
just as well be called disaggregated neocorporatism or quasi-
corporatism.
Under crisis conditions, all the forces normally obstructing the
development of U.S. corporatism diminish. Since the early twentieth
century, in the national emergencies associated with -war, economic
depression, rapid and accelerating inflation, or large-scale labor
disturbances, the national government has responded by adopting
policies that consolidate power at the top and extend the scope of its
authority. With power more concentrated and more actively employed,
the incentive is greater for latent private-interest groups to
organize, increase their membership, suppress their internal disputes,
and demand a voice in policy-making.

Government Sponsorship

Far from resenting such a private coalescence of interests, the
government usually approves, encourages, and sometimes even sponsors
it. In a crisis, swift action is imperative, and the government needs
private interests with whom it can deal quickly while preserving the
legitimacy that comes from giving affected parties a role in policy-
making. When the government is imposing unusual restrictions or
requirements on the citizens, as it always does during major
emergencies, it needs to create the perception, if not the reality,
that these burdens have been accepted-better yet, proposed and chosen-
by those who bear them.

National emergencies create conditions in which government officials
and private special-interest groups have much to gain by striking
political bargains with one another. The government gains the
resources, expertise, and cooperation of the private parties, which
are usually essential for the success of its crisis policies. Private
special-interest groups gain the application of government authority
to enforce compliance with their cartel rules, which is essential to
preclude the free-riding that normally jeopardizes the success of
every arrangement for the provision of collective goods to special-
interest groups. Crisis promotes extended politicization of economic
life, which in turn encourages additional political organization and
bargaining.

In U.S. history, quasi-corporatism has risen and fallen over the
course of national emergencies, but each episode has left legacies,
accretions of corporatism embedded in the part-elitist, part-pluralist
structure of American government. By now these accretions, taking the
form of disaggregated neocorporatist arrangements scattered throughout
the economy, add up to a significant part of the political economy.*
[
Reference]
* The foregoing discussion is drawn from a much longer, fully
documented account in my book Against Leviathan: Government Power and
a Free Society (Oakland, Cal.: The Independent Institute, 2004), pp.
177-200.

[Author Affiliation]
Robert Higgs (rhi...@independent.org) is senior fellow at the
Independent Institute (www.independent.org), editor of The Independent
Review, and author of Resurgence of the Warfare State (Independent
Institute).

Higgs, Robert
Copyright Foundation for Economic Education, Incorporated Jan/Feb 2009

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/05/2012 05:37 AM, Charles Bell wrote:
> On Feb 4, 5:35 pm, Tomm Carr<tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone have any idea what Richman means by "corporatism"?
>>
>> Floating concepts like that provide no end of opportunities for
>> intellectual mischief.

> Quasi-Corporatism: America's Homegrown Fascism
>
> Freeman
> January 1, 2006 | Higgs, Robert

> ....

Very good. Thank you.

The founding Fathers separated power and responsibilities in order to
frustrate the concentration of power needed by despots. I don't know if
they knew they were also thwarting the efforts of gaining power through
economic forces, but it works well there too.

One would think that the Left, who claim to be wary of corporate power,
would also be wary of concentration of power within government, since it
is precisely that concentration that is required to enable corporate power.

But intellectual consistency like that is asking for too much, methinks.

--
TommCatt
Idealist: One who upon observing that a rose smells better than a
cabbage concludes that it will also make better soup.

[Bert]

In news:jgni1u$fa3$1...@vulture.killfile.org Tomm Carr <tomm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> One would think that the Left, who claim to be wary of corporate
> power, would also be wary of concentration of power within government,
> since it is precisely that concentration that is required to enable
> corporate power.

They expect to be part of the ruling class, while they never dream
of being successful in any business enterprise.

[RichD]

On Feb 4, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sheldon Richman writes in "The Freeman"
> > My main beef with Phelps and Ammous's essay is their use of
> >  capitalism to name the economic system that corporatism
> >   corrupted. ...
>
> > In sum, the system that most immediately threatens
> > individual  liberty is corporatism (with its militarist component)
> > and the  word capitalism is too closely associated with
> > corporatism in  people's minds to be useful to advocates
> > of the freed market.
>
> Does anyone have any idea what Richman means by
> "corporatism"?

Corruption; gov't for sale to wealthy businesses.

Which is of course endemic today, in the Soviet
States of America. For instance, GE and its
chairman, Jeff Immelt, and his green energy
'public-private' partnership with Obamarx (straight
outa Atlas Shrugged!). I've heard this leech
called an entrepreneur and capitalist.

> Floating concepts like that provide no end of opportunities for
> intellectual mischief.

True.
But strict definitions are beyond the proles' capability -

--
Rich

[RichD]

On Feb 4, 7:46 am, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Is the term "capitalism" so widely misunderstood that using it
> simply causes more problems?

Yes.

Have you folowed the surreal accusations against Romney?

--
Rich

[Tom S.]

"Bert" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9FF1A069CE8...@88.198.244.100...

They find commerce to be "dirty", but they see statism as noble and moral.

Go figure. It's also a populist notion as well. The "hard working Americans"
as given platitudes by the right-wing media, is a myth. Your typical
American wants to consume like a capitalist, but wants only to work like a
socialist.

Tom S.

(filler)
(filler)
(filler)
(filler)

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 5, 10:39 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/05/2012 05:37 AM, Charles Bell wrote:
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:35 pm, Tomm Carr<tommc...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> Does anyone have any idea what Richman means by "corporatism"?
>
> >> Floating concepts like that provide no end of opportunities for
> >> intellectual mischief.
> > Quasi-Corporatism: America's Homegrown Fascism
>
> > Freeman
> > January 1, 2006 | Higgs, Robert
> > ....
>
> Very good. Thank you.
>
> The founding Fathers separated power and responsibilities in order to
> frustrate the concentration of power needed by despots. I don't know if
> they knew they were also thwarting the efforts of gaining power through
> economic forces, but it works well there too.
>

I revisited this topic recently and it was reinforced upon me that
although Locke was the guiding philosopher behind the DOI, it was
Montesquieu who guided the framing of the Constitution -- in his
balancing of powers theory, and his proposition for federalism: there
being something innately corrupting in a Republic which is too
expansive and populous for a central government.


http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol-02.htm

Book VIII

2. Of the Corruption of the Principles of Democracy.

The principle of democracy is corrupted not only when the spirit of
equality is extinct, but likewise when they fall into a spirit of
extreme equality, and when each citizen would fain be upon a level
with those whom he has chosen to command him. Then the people,
incapable of bearing the very power they have delegated, want to
manage everything themselves, to debate for the senate, to execute for
the magistrate, and to decide for the judges.

When this is the case, virtue can no longer subsist in the republic.
The people are desirous of exercising the functions of the
magistrates, who cease to be revered. The deliberations of the senate
are slighted; all respect is then laid aside for the senators, and
consequently for old age. If there is no more respect for old age,
there will be none presently for parents; deference to husbands will
be likewise thrown off, and submission to masters. This licence will
soon become general, and the trouble of command be as fatiguing as
that of obedience . . .


16. Distinctive Properties of a Republic.

It is natural for a republic to have only a small territory; otherwise
it cannot long subsist. In an extensive republic there are men of
large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts
too considerable to be placed in any single subject; he has interests
of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy and glorious,
by oppressing his fellow-citizens; and that he may raise himself to
grandeur on the ruins of his country.

In an extensive republic the public good is sacrificed to a thousand
private views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on
accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is more obvious,
better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses
have less extent, and of course are less protected . . .

> One would think that the Left, who claim to be wary of corporate power,
> would also be wary of concentration of power within government, since it
> is precisely that concentration that is required to enable corporate power.
>

<< In an extensive republic there are men of large fortunes, and
consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too considerable to
be placed in any single subject; he has interests of his own; he soon
begins to think that he may be happy and glorious, by oppressing his
fellow-citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the
ruins of his country.>>


Consider this bit of common sense the left will not get:

http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol-02.htm

Book XIII

2. That it is bad Reasoning to say that the Greatness of Taxes is good
in its own Nature.

There have been instances in particular monarchies of petty states
exempt from taxes that have been as miserable as the circumjacent
places which groaned under the weight of exactions. The chief reason
of this is, that the petty state can hardly have any such thing as
industry, arts, or manufactures, because of its being subject to a
thousand restraints from the great state by which it is environed. The
great state is blessed with industry, manufactures, and arts, and
establishes laws by which those several advantages are procured. The
petty state becomes, therefore, necessarily poor, let it pay never so
few taxes.

And yet some have concluded from the poverty of those petty states
that in order to render the people industrious they should be loaded
with taxes. But it would be a juster inference, that they ought to pay
no taxes at all. None live here but wretches who retire from the
neighbouring parts to avoid working -- wretches who, disheartened by
labour, make their whole felicity consist in idleness.

The effect of wealth in a country is to inspire every heart with
ambition: that of poverty is to give birth to despair. The former is
excited by labour, the latter is soothed by indolence.

Nature is just to all mankind, and repays them for their industry: she
renders them industrious by annexing rewards in proportion to their
labour. But if an arbitrary prince should attempt to deprive the
people of nature's bounty, they would fall into a disrelish of
industry; and then indolence and inaction must be their only
happiness.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

> http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/capitalism-corporatism-a...
> freed-market/
>
> --
> b...@iphouse.com    St. Paul, MN

Like most political terms capitalism has a range of use (much like
liberalism can mean anything from a soft marxist to moderate
conservative with liberal views on social values. To both Russia and
America during the cold war capitalism meant what economists today
typically references as a mixed economy. To some capitalism still
means that. To others minimal government. If one takes Rand's
absolutist definition of capitalism, then no justification on earth
has ever been truly capitalist. One could even argue the US founding
fathers were socialists under that context (since they believed in
both regulation and taxation)

A bit of trivia. While the etymology of the term capitalism is much
older than when it was first popularized, it was actually popularized
by socialists! (who pitting themselves against the "capitalists")

I actually find if kind of interesting how both the moderate left and
right both take credit for our modern economies but using different
terms to describe it (one reason I can't take sides) My own feel for
capitalism is a ethical system dependent on voluntary transactions.
(rather than force which is what government largely represents)
Voluntary is the ideal most of the time. I just think in some
situations two entities may agree to something voluntarily but it
still may be unethical and/or adequately economically harmful enough
to warrant intervention. (e.g. fire safety codes)

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 15, 8:53 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:

" then no justification on earth..."

Pardon. "justification" should read "jurisdiction".

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/15/2012 06:53 PM, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> Like most political terms capitalism has a range of use (much like
> liberalism can mean anything from a soft marxist to moderate
> conservative with liberal views on social values.

The word Capitalism is a technical term that is fairly open ended. An
economic system where the productive means is privately owned can cover
a wide variety of actual economic systems. In a free society, ownership
implies control, but in other societies that does not hold. The Nazis
left ownership in the hands of private individuals -- they just took
control.

Free-Market Capitalism narrows the definition down to not just ownership
but control in the hands of the private sector. It includes not just the
technical aspects of the economic system but the moral as well.

> ... My own feel for

> capitalism is a ethical system dependent on voluntary transactions.

Right. The "Free-Market" part descibes the type of transactions.

> Voluntary is the ideal most of the time. I just think in some
> situations two entities may agree to something voluntarily but it
> still may be unethical and/or adequately economically harmful enough
> to warrant intervention. (e.g. fire safety codes)

Fire safety codes? When you mentioned voluntary but unethical
transactions, the first thing that came to my mind was a man paying a
hit man to kill his wife. The man and the mobster may be willing
participants in the transaction -- the wife certainly is not.

Safety codes are regulations. These have nothing to do with the economic
systems -- one assumes that Socialist economies have safety regulations.

I don't think Capitalism should be abandoned. It carries important
details that are needed to accurately express the economic concept. I
just add Free-Market to include the moral aspects of the definition.

"An economic system in which the means of production are privately owned
and all transactions between buyers and sellers are voluntary." What
other three-word description carries all that detail?

--
TommCatt
The Lord's Prayer is 66 words, the Gettysburg Address is 286 words,
there are 1,322 words in the Declaration of Independence, but government
regulations on the sale of cabbage total 26,911 words.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 16, 11:27 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

For the vast majority of issues I wholeheartedly support voluntary.
All I'm saying is that in some situations it does not suffice. While
someone can voluntary decide to not obey fire safety code albeit their
decision was voluntary it was still unethical (at least in situations
like say a crowded city). The associated risk to others is too great
to overlook. (sort of like waving a gun around).

> I don't think Capitalism should be abandoned. It carries important
> details that are needed to accurately express the economic concept. I
> just add Free-Market to include the moral aspects of the definition.

I'm not sure how to classify myself politically but I do believe in
private property. Their are economic efficiency reasons for it but I
also think without private property an individual would first need to
report to someone else to interact with the world. Private property is
a zone that is our little space in the world where we reign supreme.

Do you consider America a true capitalist country? Or do you
subscribe to a more Randian definition of no taxes, no regulations,
and purely police, courts, military?

[Bert]

In news:jhkl0a$e4v$1...@vulture.killfile.org Tomm Carr <tomm...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The Nazis left ownership in the hands of private individuals -- they
> just took control.

Who can claim ownership of a thing over which they have no control?

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/17/2012 12:55 AM, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> For the vast majority of issues I wholeheartedly support voluntary.
> All I'm saying is that in some situations it does not suffice. While
> someone can voluntary decide to not obey fire safety code albeit their
> decision was voluntary it was still unethical (at least in situations
> like say a crowded city). The associated risk to others is too great
> to overlook. (sort of like waving a gun around).

You've subtly changed the context here. I was speaking of transactions
being voluntary and you are talking about actions being voluntary. A
voluntary transaction means both parties are acting voluntarily. In just
about any "transaction" between two parties where only one is acting
voluntarily, what you have is a crime. Or taxation.

So someone "voluntarily" endangering the life of other people who, one
assumes, do not agree to the endangerment, is not an example of any
economic activity at all.

--
TommCatt
Have you ever imagined a world with no hypothetical situations?

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/18/2012 04:00 PM, Bert wrote:
> In news:jhkl0a$e4v$1...@vulture.killfile.org Tomm Carr<tomm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The Nazis left ownership in the hands of private individuals -- they
>> just took control.
>
> Who can claim ownership of a thing over which they have no control?

A technical distinction with little or no difference.

Like when the Oboma administration demanded that all employers,
including Catholic-owned organizations, had to provide medical insurance
that covered contraceptives and abortion. In response to a general
outrage, they "pulled back" the requirement: Catholic organizations
didn't have to provide (pay for) those previsions -- but the insurance
companies would have to provide them for free anyway.

A technical distinction with little or no difference.

So, aren't medical insurance companies privately owned? But aren't they
pretty much under total control of the government?
--
TommCatt
If aliens are smart enough to travel through space, why do they keep
abducting the dumbest people on earth?

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 18, 6:00 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:jhkl0a$e4v$1...@vulture.killfile.orgTomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > The Nazis left ownership in the hands of private individuals -- they
> > just took control.
>
> Who can claim ownership of a thing over which they have no control?
>

So you think for one second the fascist lackeys in the medical-care
and insurance industry corporations wrapped up in the packages of
Obamacare and Romneycare don't think they own Obama and Romney and the
suckers born every minute in America? What they *think* -- they think
like the socialist Potroast: there is no reality to government
coercion; it's only a matter of flexible wording -- is the issue on
the word on "capitalism" being in reality barely anything like Rand
would want it to mean, but a lot more like the socialist Potroast
would want it it to mean: free but controlled through coercion.

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 19, 1:03 am, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 02/18/2012 04:00 PM, Bert wrote:
>

> > Innews:jhkl0a$e4v$1...@vulture.killfile.orgTomm Carr<tommc...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> The Nazis left ownership in the hands of private individuals -- they
> >> just took control.
>
> > Who can claim ownership of a thing over which they have no control?
>
> A technical distinction with little or no difference.
>
> Like when the Oboma administration demanded that all employers,
> including Catholic-owned organizations, had to provide medical insurance
> that covered contraceptives and abortion. In response to a general
> outrage, they "pulled back" the requirement: Catholic organizations
> didn't have to provide (pay for) those previsions -- but the insurance
> companies would have to provide them for free anyway.
>
> A technical distinction with little or no difference.
>

Supposing that this travesty was anything other than political theatre
played 100% successfully against conservatives while the GOP
pathetically, impotently looked on?

Turn the question on the interference of the government into a
person's body in a limited way (abortion, contraception) into a
complete, universal way of every aspect of everyone's body under
socialized health care and what do conservatives complain about?

First Amendment protection.

Well, I was impressed with Santorum's response. He being the
Catholic, anti-abortion and all that, he still emphasized:

<<Be careful when you have government saying that they can give you
rights, that you have a right to health care, and government's going
to give you something, because once you are now dependant on
government, they, not only can they take that right away, they can
tell you how to exercise that right, and you can either like it or
not. And that's the problem. That's what the Catholic Bishops
Conference didn't get, that there's no free lunch here, folks. If
you're going to give people secular power, then they're going to use
it in a secular fashion. And that's why, you know, I hate to say it,
but you know, you had it coming. And it's time to wake up and realize
that government isn't the answer to the social ills. It's people of
faith, and it's families, and it's communities, and it's charities
that need to do this as it has in America so successfully for so
long.>>

Catholics, libertarians, gays, drug abusers . . . who supported
Obama . . .

You have it coming for you!

This has nothing to do with abortion or contraception or free-speech,
but rather a about nationalist-socialism of directed medical care.

As to Robert Tracinski's (Santorum Delenda Est) preceding down a
typical Objectivist political path (e.g., Peikoff for Kerry in '04):
when in doubt, depise the Christian and go with the religious-cult or
agnostic socialist . . . How's that Arab Spring working out for you,
Bob? No Christians need apply there, too.

Romney's response: "The Obama administration is forcing religious
institutions to choose between violating their conscience dropping
health care coverage for their employees . . . They are now using
Obamacare to impose a secular vision on Americans who believe that
they should not have their religious freedom taken away."

That's right: give the currently predictable "conservative" response,
and play into the left's political theatre deflecting attention away
from socialized health care in any shape manner or form is evil,
whether it is imposed by the federal government or the state of
Massachusetts.

And a woman keeping her knees tightly binding an aspirin between them
does work for contraception.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/in-defense-of-foster-friesss-aspirin-joke/2012/02/17/gIQA6K7XKR_blog.html

[a moderate, a liberal, and a conservative walk into a bar -- and the
bartender says, "Hello, Mitt."]

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 19, 12:51 am, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/17/2012 12:55 AM, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > For the vast majority of issues I wholeheartedly support voluntary.
> > All I'm saying is that in some situations it does not suffice. While
> > someone can voluntary decide to not obey fire safety code albeit their
> > decision was voluntary it was still unethical (at least in situations
> > like say a crowded city). The associated risk to others is too great
> > to overlook. (sort of like waving a gun around).
>
> You've subtly changed the context here. I was speaking of transactions
> being voluntary and you are talking about actions being voluntary. A
> voluntary transaction means both parties are acting voluntarily. In just
> about any "transaction" between two parties where only one is acting
> voluntarily, what you have is a crime. Or taxation.
>
> So someone "voluntarily" endangering the life of other people who, one
> assumes, do not agree to the endangerment, is not an example of any
> economic activity at all.

I'm just using an example but it can still still apply for
transactions between two parties as well. Lets suppose someone wants
to buy a first floor unit in a 30 story condominium in the middle of a
crowded city and turn it into a gas station. The state has to
interfere to stop the transaction. (since hundreds of families aren't
going to move out because one person moved in and the risk is too
great to others). This to me is the nature of regulation. I don't like
regulation but when associated economic (or physical) risks to others
become too great, one has to support the regulation.

Having said that, this of course doesn't mean every regulation is
rational. I believe in environmental sustainability but there are some
that are self-righteously cultish about it. They confuse good-
intention with good action. A perfect example of this is how extreme
environmental regulations killed off new nuclear development a few
decades ago. Nuclear is a great source of energy that in all
likelihood will be part of humanity's future for the a long time
(until/if some other more advanced insights into physics arise) Its
not just a matter of can we build enough solar and wind to power our
refrigerators. Its also about things like power/weight ratios and
lofty dreams like interplanetary colonization, and not excluding
others ventures where power requirements are high simply because we
shunned developing nuclear further.

It's like some people have a neo-luddite atttiude and wish us all to
live in caves. I've noticed a disproportionate number of
environmentalists are also far leftists. Such sorts seem to manipulate
environmental issues to further political goals rather than the
environment per se.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 19, 7:00 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 6:00 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>

> > Innews:jhkl0a$e4v$1...@vulture.killfile.orgTommCarr <tommc...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > > The Nazis left ownership in the hands of private individuals -- they
> > > just took control.
>
> > Who can claim ownership of a thing over which they have no control?
>
> So you think for one second the fascist lackeys in the medical-care
> and insurance industry corporations wrapped up in the packages of
> Obamacare and Romneycare don't think they own Obama and Romney and the
> suckers born every minute in America?  What they *think* -- they think
> like the socialist Potroast: there is no reality to government
> coercion; it's only a matter of flexible wording -- is the issue on
> the word on "capitalism"  being in reality barely anything like Rand
> would want it to mean, but a lot more like the socialist Potroast
> would want it it to mean: free but controlled through coercion.

I am not a socialist. I've told this many times to you before so its
not like you don't know. The fact you need to depend to
misrepresenting my views only attests to your own fanaticism. Can't
you argue truthfully?

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 19, 7:00 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> On Feb 18, 6:00 pm, Bert <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>

> > Innews:jhkl0a$e4v$1...@vulture.killfile.orgTommCarr <tommc...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > > The Nazis left ownership in the hands of private individuals -- they
> > > just took control.
>
> > Who can claim ownership of a thing over which they have no control?
>
> So you think for one second the fascist lackeys in the medical-care
> and insurance industry corporations wrapped up in the packages of
> Obamacare and Romneycare don't think they own Obama and Romney and the
> suckers born every minute in America?  What they *think* -- they think
> like the socialist Potroast: there is no reality to government
> coercion; it's only a matter of flexible wording -- is the issue on
> the word on "capitalism"  being in reality barely anything like Rand
> would want it to mean, but a lot more like the socialist Potroast
> would want it it to mean: free but controlled through coercion.

Do you comprehend that just because someone doesn't always share your
personal political views it doesn't automatically make them something
of your random choosing? You need to try listening to other people say
once and awhile rather than resorting to sophistry and demagoguery.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 19, 7:00 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

" there is no reality to government coercion; it's only a matter of
flexible wording"

This is a perfect example of how you misrepresent the views of others
(or possibly delude yourself). I never claimed there is no such thing
as government coercion. Claiming I did is a lie. Why would you have to
resort to lying? Can't you argue on the merits of what you have to say
alone? Do you grasp that constantly lying makes you sound like a
SOPHIST rather than an Oist?

Your problem is you don't understand that just because you personally
claim some particular act as coercion it doesn't actually make it so.
The American court system itself (i.e. your own country) would
ridicule some of your views on what constitutes a particular act of
coercion. In so doing, you defacto are sometimes encouraging coercion
against others.

The reason why you have this fundamental comprehension problem is
because you stubbornly believe (to your own detriment) that you own
definitions and conceptualizations of terms are indisputably the best
out there. This not only prevents you from pressing forward into new
areas of thought but it completely locks you out of having civil
debates with those who have a different feel for terms. Instead you
rant "socialist" and "fascist" to those that disagree with you on some
point until those terms are diluted to mean nearly nothing at all. In
so doing, frankly YOU sometime sound like a fascist. You claim to be
against coercion but you are oh-so-quick to support wholesale
slaughtering other human beings. (unlike Klein, Mark, or Friedman) You
even claim to be pro-reason and support Rand, yet Rand certainly did
not support mixing state and religion as you seem to prefer.

If you already know all the answers why do you bother debating at all
Charles? Why are you here? Altruism to enlighten all us little folk?

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/19/2012 11:26 AM, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> I'm just using an example but it can still still apply for
> transactions between two parties as well. Lets suppose someone wants
> to buy a first floor unit in a 30 story condominium in the middle of a
> crowded city and turn it into a gas station.

If you want to use a hypothetical situation to illustrate your point, it
has to, you know, adhere to a couple of simple rules. It must be 1)
reasonable and 2) relate to the point under discussion.

1) Reasonable. A hypothetical situation is a scenario that, while not
necessarily based on an actual event in its particulars, could very well
be a generalized summation of one or more actual events "with names
changed", so to speak, to protect the guilty -- or the innocent -- or
anyone involved at all.

Are there any actual incidents where someone has bought up the first
floor of a condominium and tried to convert into something like a gas
station? Even in Houston, Texas, where there are no zoning restrictions,
has anything similar occurred?

2) Related. Is this an example of a free-market (voluntary) transaction
gone bad? No, this is yet another attempt to substitute a non-voluntary
(or in this case fraudulent) transaction for a free-market transaction.

> The state has to
> interfere to stop the transaction.

Why? Even assuming that the seller of the property was informed of the
buyer's intent to open a gas station and found that no impediment to the
sale, why /must/ the state interfere to stop the transaction? Because
/you/ disapprove? Oh, wait, you give reasons...

> (since hundreds of families aren't
> going to move out because one person moved in and the risk is too
> great to others).

What??? The hundreds of families aren't going to move out? Why not?
Because they don't think the problem is worth the effort of moving?
Well, if so, then that is their decision to make, isn't it? But if the
risk is as great as you allude, then why wouldn't they move?

It would be precisely the risk of losing existing and potential
customers that would prevent the condominium owner from agreeing to such
a sale.

The reasons you give are not really all that coherent and certainly
don't answer the question of why the state "has to interfere."

> This to me is the nature of regulation.

Well, yes, you are correct here. The nature of regulation is this:
If people are given the freedom to make their own decisions, there is
the possibility, no matter how slight, they may do something with which
I or others like me disagree.

> I don't like
> regulation

Oh, I think you have shown quite the reverse.

> but when associated economic (or physical) risks to others
> become too great, one has to support the regulation.

Since you cannot convince many people of the importance of regulation
with cries of "This way lies great inconvenience for me," then you
resort to cries of "This way lies great danger to us all."

But once we dig through all the wild-assed hypotheticals and overblown
hyperbole, there is actually very little real danger there. And where
real danger does exist, existing laws already handle it quite efficiently.

There are two really key problems with regulation. One is "regulatory
capture," a heavily documented phenomenon but not one that fits into
this particular discussion. The other, for want of a better description,
might be called "regulatory creep." This is also heavily documented and
comes from the fact that the scope of the regulatory agency is open
ended -- and becomes more so with passage of time.

There are many reasons why that happens but a couple of very obvious
reasons are:

1) There are few realistic metrics to measure success of any government
agency. The two most commonly used metrics are amount of money spent and
number of regulations enacted. There is never a point where they say
"Enough. We have all the regulations necessary. Now all we have to do is
enforce them and everything will work as well as can be expected." They
sit around all day playing "what ifs," like you did above, and when they
hit on one that could justify a new regulation, it's high fives all
around and congratulations on a job well done.

2) Regulators like having power. And if power is good, more is better.
You may not relate to that. Maybe you have no desire to control other
people. Many of us don't. But those people exist and the most ambitious
of them become the heads of government regulatory agencies. This
mind-set was best expressed by Marthe Kent, then director of OSHA's
Safety Standards Program, in early 2000:

"I like having a very direct and very powerful impact on worker safety
and health. If you put out a reg, it matters. I think that's really
where the thrill comes from. And it is a thrill; it's a high... I love
it; I absolutely love it. I was born to regulate. I don't know why,
but that's very true. So as long as I'm regulating, I'm happy."

Oh yeah. These people need all the power over our lives we can give them.
--
TommCatt
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it. -- Aristotle

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 19, 5:00 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/19/2012 11:26 AM, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm just using an example but it can still still apply for
> > transactions between two parties as well. Lets suppose someone wants
> > to buy a first floor unit in a 30 story condominium in the middle of a
> > crowded city and turn it into a gas station.
>
> If you want to use a hypothetical situation to illustrate your point, it
> has to, you know, adhere to a couple of simple rules. It must be 1)
> reasonable and 2) relate to the point under discussion.
>
> 1) Reasonable. A hypothetical situation is a scenario that, while not
> necessarily based on an actual event in its particulars, could very well
> be a generalized summation of one or more actual events "with names
> changed", so to speak, to protect the guilty -- or the innocent -- or
> anyone involved at all.
>
> Are there any actual incidents where someone has bought up the first
> floor of a condominium and tried to convert into something like a gas
> station? Even in Houston, Texas, where there are no zoning restrictions,
> has anything similar occurred?

You make a good point about Houston. It's the exception but even an
exception is an example. Its valid criticism that my theoretical
example might not be be the best one (although. That said, I would
point out while it doesn't technically have zoning restrictions,
Houston still does have plenty of other city, state, and federal fire
regulations that don't actually invalidate the gest of my point about
associated risk (not to mention Houston has a publicly funded fire
department). Someone couldn't just buy property and do whatever they
want with it even in Houston. As far as a know there are no big cities
in the world that allow completely unregulated ownership of property.
(although feel free to point one out if you know of one)

> > This to me is the nature of regulation.
>
> Well, yes, you are correct here. The nature of regulation is this:
> If people are given the freedom to make their own decisions, there is
> the possibility, no matter how slight, they may do something with which
> I or others like me disagree.

That's not what I said. Sometimes regulation can be about trying to
control others but (at least for me) its about security. If person x
does me no harm, heck they can juggle C4 and nitro if they want. They
just can't do it near my home.

> > I don't like
> > regulation
>
> Oh, I think you have shown quite the reverse.

Putting more words in my mouth is unfair. If you want to debate some
point I'm kosher with that. You seem like a smart articulate fellow.
If you want substitute me with some stereotype and turn the discussion
into moralistic finger pointing like Charles constantly does than I'm
not going to continue further. (I enjoy occasionally chatting with you
so I'm hoping you don't)

I don't like regulation. Who wants to be told what to do by someone
else? However I can understand the sometimes need for it because some
people won't use common sense.

> There are two really key problems with regulation. One is "regulatory
> capture," a heavily documented phenomenon but not one that fits into
> this particular discussion. The other, for want of a better description,
> might be called "regulatory creep." This is also heavily documented and
> comes from the fact that the scope of the regulatory agency is open
> ended -- and becomes more so with passage of time.

We may have a different feel for how much regulation is necessary but
I agree regulations can get out of control. Some regulations are
harmful rather than helpful

> There are many reasons why that happens but a couple of very obvious
> reasons are:
>
> 1) There are few realistic metrics to measure success of any government
> agency. The two most commonly used metrics are amount of money spent and
> number of regulations enacted. There is never a point where they say
> "Enough. We have all the regulations necessary. Now all we have to do is
> enforce them and everything will work as well as can be expected." They
> sit around all day playing "what ifs," like you did above, and when they
> hit on one that could justify a new regulation, it's high fives all
> around and congratulations on a job well done.

That can indeed happen but then again some regulations do appear to
help situations. Back to fire safety codes. Not every fire safety code
in every jurisdiction in the world is necessarily worth keeping or
necessarily optimized but over all they do appear to save lives. To
completely remove them would likely lead to many premature deaths (at
least in crowded cities). Various electronics, materials, furniture,
children's toys, heating/cooling system, even the building you are in.
(assuming you live in a big city), etc.. considered fire safety.

With the case of electronics fire safety, it isn't only ad-hoc
subjective analysis. Many rules are formed based on known physics. For
instance, you don't want too many amps feeding some component on your
computer that will overheat and start a fire burning down your home.
Someone can't "voluntarily" sell you a faulty component that sets fire
to your house and be free of moral and legal culpability just because
they "promised" to you it would work. You paid for equipment that you
expected accounted for known physics not empty assurances (which would
amount to fraud)

We could avoid having some sort of fire safety review process for
electronic devices but the price of that would be more fires. Of
course if you can think of a purely free enterprise alternative that
also works, then the need for the regulation would disappear. (just in
case you think I'm arguing some particular regulation is some sort of
sacred cow)

> Oh yeah. These people need all the power over our lives we can give them.
> --
> TommCatt

I agree too much centralized power is a bad idea. Where we might
currently have a different feel for things is that I see both too much
power in government and too much accumulated corporate power as a bad
thing. I prefer meritocracy over aristocracy.

> It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle

Good quote. Shows you have an open mind.

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/19/2012 04:19 PM, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> That said, I would
> point out while it doesn't technically have zoning restrictions,
> Houston still does have plenty of other city, state, and federal fire
> regulations that don't actually invalidate the gest of my point about
> associated risk

I doubt even Houston has federal fire regulations. ;)

> Someone couldn't just buy property and do whatever they
> want with it even in Houston. As far as a know there are no big cities
> in the world that allow completely unregulated ownership of property.
> (although feel free to point one out if you know of one)

I think most of what you refer to is the law rather than regulation.

>> Well, yes, you are correct here. The nature of regulation is this:
>> If people are given the freedom to make their own decisions, there is
>> the possibility, no matter how slight, they may do something with which
>> I or others like me disagree.
>
> That's not what I said.

No, it's not. It's not what anybody says about regulation. They always
say that a few simple regulations are necessary for protecting the
public. But where are the examples of regulations that have started
simple and remained simple? And where are the examples of where
regulations have actually protected someone?

Oh sure. There are some. I guess. But there are AN AWFUL LOT OF
REGULATIONS!!! We should be elbow deep in examples of regulations
actually protecting someone.

Did regulations protect anyone from Madoff? The SEC (the regulatory
agency responsible for "protecting" investors) not only didn't notice
him on their own -- he was pointed out to them on /four separate
occasions/ and ignored every one.

Did the SEC loose any money over this? Did anyone get fired? Did anyone
even get called on the carpet?

Yeah. Right. So why does anyone expect any regulatory agency to do
anything at all meaningful?

> Sometimes regulation can be about trying to
> control others but (at least for me) its about security. If person x
> does me no harm, heck they can juggle C4 and nitro if they want. They
> just can't do it near my home.

No they can't. But it is the /law/ that stops them, not regulations. If
you see someone outside your home juggling some C4 and nitro, are you
going to call the police or some regulatory agency? And if you call
both, who is actually going to do something about it?

>>> I don't like
>>> regulation
>>
>> Oh, I think you have shown quite the reverse.
>
> Putting more words in my mouth is unfair.

No, I put words in your mouth a few paragraphs above. Not here. You've
made a defense of regulations and supplied nothing but vague,
insubstantial reasons why they are necessary. If you really don't like
regulations, why don't you, like me, demand more substantive reasons for
the existence of regulations and some real-world examples of how they
have been beneficial?

> We may have a different feel for how much regulation is necessary but
> I agree regulations can get out of control. Some regulations are
> harmful rather than helpful

Make two lists. Harmful and helpful. See just how quickly you run out of
anything to add to the "Helpful" side.

> Various electronics, materials, furniture,
> children's toys, heating/cooling system, even the building you are in.
> (assuming you live in a big city), etc.. considered fire safety.

Well, let's take, oh, toys for example. A few years ago, some toys were
pulled from the market for safety concerns. Overwhelmingly, these toys
were produced by Mattel or Fisher Price (a Mattel subsidiary) and
manufactured in China. In 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product
Safely Improvement Act. This required, among other restrictions, that
toys, clothing and jewelry for children would have to undergo extensive
(and expensive) third-party testing. There were no exceptions for small
toy makers or for toys that were being made in the same way and of the
same materials as they had for many years.

Just before the new regulations went into effect, Mattel was granted
approval to use their own, in-house testing facilities.

So, to sum up: There had been a rash of toys manufactured in China and
imported by Mattel that were found to be unsafe. So Congress enacts a
law requiring /all/ toys, domestic and imported, to go through
extensive, third-party safety testing...

...from which Mattel is exempt.

Yeah. I think that quite accurately sums it up.

If this was a exceptional example of the utter and complete regulatory
incompetence that it is, it would be in the news nightly with updates of
the Congressional hearings taking place.

But it was hardly even noticed. Because it's not really an exceptional
example. It's just more of the same.

We should feel more safe...why, exactly?

Want more examples? Sure, say when. They are not at all difficult to
find. Look as I may, though, I can't seem to uncover examples of
regulations that have, oh, /worked/.

I can find plenty of examples of /laws/ that have made us more safe (not
to say there weren't also plenty of examples that went the other way).
Just not regulations.

--
TommCatt
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 19, 1:31 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Do you comprehend that just because someone doesn't always share your
> personal political views it doesn't automatically make them something
> of your random choosing?

I understand that in North America most socialists hide their
socialism, either deliberately as a necessary political precaution [*]
or simply because they are not very bright as to the necessary
distinctions in political labels.

> You need to try listening to other people say
> once and awhile rather than resorting to sophistry and demagoguery.

What you have to say on "coercion" -- that there is objectively no
such thing -- makes you a socialist (at least).


[*] "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism." "They cut
their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within." -
Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 19, 2:46 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:00 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> " there is no reality to government coercion; it's only a matter of
> flexible wording"
>
> This is a perfect example of how you misrepresent the views of others

No. That is clearly your stated view.

> (or possibly delude yourself). I never claimed there is no such thing
> as government coercion.

You claimed there is no such thing as government coercion, when there
is government coercion. For example, a law which coerces that an
employer must choose his employees by any criteria other than that of
his own desire is government coercion, and yet you say that it is not.

> The American court system itself (i.e. your own country) would
> ridicule some of your views on what constitutes a particular act of
> coercion. In so doing, you defacto are sometimes encouraging coercion
> against others.
>

There are some coercive particulars of the criminal-justice system
that I recognize as an unavoidable form of government coercion that
can be counted on one hand: jury dury, holding a material witness,
jailing a person in contempt of court, but these are "coercive"
nevertheless, and not something else. Other than that, reference to
"ridiculing some of my views" -- lacking any detail as to *what* might
be ridiculed in *what* is coercive -- is typical of your empty,
dissembling rhetoric.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 20, 12:16 am, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/19/2012 04:19 PM, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > That said, I would
> > point out while it doesn't technically have zoning restrictions,
> > Houston still does have plenty of other city, state, and federal fire
> > regulations that don't actually invalidate the gest of my point about
> > associated risk
>
> I doubt even Houston has federal fire regulations. ;)

Fire safety isn't only about zoning and local building codes. Like
Canada, US federal fire safety related regulations exist in all sorts
of products too. As far as I know some sort of OSHA federally
recognized NRTL certification is still typically required to sell
certain kinds of electronics in the US (e.g. TVs) I'm not sure if all
jurisdictions actually enforce certification but I believe it's
legislated in most states thus companies that mass produce virtually
always look to NRTL certify their products. Whether some jurisdiction
didn't mandate the certification is a rather moot point point as they
received the benefit of the added check from elsewhere any how.

> > Someone couldn't just buy property and do whatever they
> > want with it even in Houston. As far as a know there are no big cities
> > in the world that allow completely unregulated ownership of property.
> > (although feel free to point one out if you know of one)
>
> I think most of what you refer to is the law rather than regulation.

What do you see as the distinction between law and regulation?

> >> Well, yes, you are correct here. The nature of regulation is this:
> >> If people are given the freedom to make their own decisions, there is
> >> the possibility, no matter how slight, they may do something with which
> >> I or others like me disagree.
>
> > That's not what I said.
>
> No, it's not. It's not what anybody says about regulation. They always
> say that a few simple regulations are necessary for protecting the
> public.
> But where are the examples of regulations that have started
> simple and remained simple? And where are the examples of where
> regulations have actually protected someone?

I've already agree that regulations can get out of hand. Don't blame
me for that!

> Oh sure. There are some. I guess. But there are AN AWFUL LOT OF
> REGULATIONS!!! We should be elbow deep in examples of regulations
> actually protecting someone.
>
> Did regulations protect anyone from Madoff? The SEC (the regulatory
> agency responsible for "protecting" investors) not only didn't notice
> him on their own -- he was pointed out to them on /four separate
> occasions/ and ignored every one.

Others had argued underfunding the SEC was the to blame. When someone
scams billions of dollars I have to lean towards inadequate oversight.
That said, somebody needs to figure out a way to help us from
government scams! A watcher for the watchers.

Canada just introduced a bill into parliament that would potentially
allow the federal government to monitor all our internet
communications and track us by telephone without a warrant. One
supporter of bill even argued that you are either with us or the child
pornographers. Not only is such a bill outrageous but the very fact
any MP would even seriously consider introducing such an absurd bill
should be grounds for expulsion from ever holding office again.

> Did the SEC loose any money over this? Did anyone get fired? Did anyone
> even get called on the carpet?
>
> Yeah. Right. So why does anyone expect any regulatory agency to do
> anything at all meaningful?
>
> > Sometimes regulation can be about trying to
> > control others but (at least for me) its about security. If person x
> > does me no harm, heck they can juggle C4 and nitro if they want. They
> > just can't do it near my home.
>
> No they can't. But it is the /law/ that stops them, not regulations. If
> you see someone outside your home juggling some C4 and nitro, are you
> going to call the police or some regulatory agency? And if you call
> both, who is actually going to do something about it?

Ok. Another poor example on my part. How about I think I got sick and
think it might be because I ate something with Salmonella. What's the
police going to do? They simply aren't qualified to deal with the
situation. They're experts in force not biology.

> >>> I don't like
> >>> regulation
>
> >> Oh, I think you have shown quite the reverse.
>
> > Putting more words in my mouth is unfair.
>
> No, I put words in your mouth a few paragraphs above. Not here. You've
> made a defense of regulations and supplied nothing but vague,
> insubstantial reasons why they are necessary.
If you really don't like
> regulations, why don't you, like me, demand more substantive reasons for
> the existence of regulations and some real-world examples of how they
> have been beneficial?

You should hear what posters on far left forums say about me. To some
of them I'm a right wing extremist for arguing for less deregulation
and taxation. As for the real world (i.e. during elections) I'm a
swing . I have some principles but they don't quite conform to any
ideology I'm familiar with and I'm always adjusting as I learn new
things. Hard to explain my views in a few short sentences with no
reference to point to. I've been influenced by both right and left
ideology but at the same time their are aspects of both I don't like
(perhaps because of my own ignorance)

Back to fire safety codes...

Fire safety related codes are a real world application. If you want a
precise example, the monitor in front of me must be CSA approved (or
recognized equivalent) to be sold in Canada like any other electronic
equipment. This is to help prevent my house from being burned down.
I'm fairly certain the same sort of thing happens in the US as well.
(including Houston :)

I agree many regulations are useless. Are you an absolutist about it
thought? I asked this before but I can't recall if you answered. Do
you support Rand's view of capitalism of no regulations, no taxes, and
just police, court and military? And if so, how would that minimalist
government be funded without taxation?

> But it was hardly even noticed. Because it's not really an exceptional
> example. It's just more of the same.
>
> We should feel more safe...why, exactly?

As a programmer surrounded by computer related equipment all day I
feel safer knowing that its been regulatory approved. It's not perfect
but having another set of eyes review equipment reduces chances of a
problem. There is a very real fire risks in my working environment.

Going back to my views, I am perfectly fine with a free enterprise
alternative to achieving the same ends in a non-regulatory manner
(provided it works and around the same cost).

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 20, 4:06 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:31 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > Do you comprehend that just because someone doesn't always share your
> > personal political views it doesn't automatically make them something
> > of your random choosing?
>
> I understand that in North America most socialists hide their
> socialism, either deliberately as a necessary political precaution [*]
> or simply because they are not very bright as to the necessary
> distinctions in political labels.

You just like resorting to straw man arguments (much like when you
claimed Friedman is an Obama supporter). I live in Canada not Texas.
There is no stigma with supporting socialism up here. We currently
have socialist NDP as official opposition party. Someone being a
leftist in multicultural Canada is the norm not the exception. We have
four major left parties and only one right (that only wins between the
leftists keep splitting the vote). And even then right for Canada is a
relative thing. Few of our conservatives argue for dismantling
universal healthcare. I'm not a socialist anymore than I am an Oist.
Just because I am not x does not automatically make me y. Just
because I don't like some aspect of x or y doesn't mean I don't like
some aspects of x and y. Just because I like part of x or y belief
today doesn't mean I might not change my mind to belief z tomorrow.

Perhaps because you live in two party system you've come to see
things in terms of pure polarities but the world is much richer than
two schools of thought. You may think you have life all figured out
but I sure don't. One thing I do know though is the sort of
demagoguery you often resort to is the often the tool of tyrants.

> > You need to try listening to other people say
> > once and awhile rather than resorting to sophistry and demagoguery.
>
> What you have to say on "coercion" -- that there is objectively no
> such thing --  makes you a socialist (at least).

Another straw man. I believe the exact opposite. I already said I do
believe in objective coercion. I just don't necessarily believe in
subjective opinions by you (or anyone else) that some particular act
necessarily amounts to coercion. Life is more complicated than your
personal opinions/definitions of some concept (or mine).

Since I've already corrected you in the past on the gross
misrepresentation of my views, yet you keep repeating the same straw
man arguments, it encourages a conclusion you prefer to demonize those
you debate with rather than argue honestly with an open mind.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 20, 4:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:46 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 7:00 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > " there is no reality to government coercion; it's only a matter of
> > flexible wording"
>
> > This is a perfect example of how you misrepresent the views of others
>
> No. That is clearly your stated view.

Not true. Show me where.

> > (or possibly delude yourself). I never claimed there is no such thing
> > as government coercion.
>
> You claimed there is no such thing as government coercion, when there
> is government coercion.

Not true. Show me where.

 For example, a law which coerces that an
> employer must choose his employees by any criteria other than that of
> his own desire is government coercion, and yet you say that it is not.

IT IS YOU THAT CLAIMS IT AS COERCION. Others do not define it as
coercion. Your problem is you don't grasp your conceptualization of
terms like coercion aren't the only ones out there. Your whole
philosophical outlook hinges on your complete ownership of the term to
turn yourself into a "victim" thus morally justify all your actions
under the guise of "self-defense". However coercion isn't only about
your subjective theories on it. Its much more complicated than
moralistic one liners you subscribe to. This is why we have courts
rather than just immediately jail alleged criminals.

> > The American court system itself (i.e. your own country) would
> > ridicule some of your views on what constitutes a particular act of
> > coercion. In so doing, you defacto are sometimes encouraging coercion
> > against others.
>
> There are some coercive particulars of the criminal-justice system
> that I recognize as an unavoidable form of government coercion that
> can be counted on one hand: jury dury, holding a material witness,
> jailing a person in contempt of court, but these are "coercive"
> nevertheless, and not something else.

A good example how you fail to understand (or don't want to
understand) other conceptualizations exist. Force is not a synonym for
coercion else we would all just use the word force. Party x might
punch party y in the face unprovoked If party y uses force back it is
not typically referenced as an act of coercion. It's self-defense.
Party x is being coercive not party y. Trying to make it sound like
they are both equally coercive by using coercion as somehow a synonym
for force is moral relativism...a negation of ethics. I-wanted-the-
world-to-be-a-certain-way-and-I-didn't-get-it isn't a synonym for I-am-
a-victim-of-coercion.

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 20, 3:11 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:06 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 19, 1:31 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > Do you comprehend that just because someone doesn't always share your
> > > personal political views it doesn't automatically make them something
> > > of your random choosing?
>
> > I understand that in North America most socialists hide their
> > socialism, either deliberately as a necessary political precaution [*]
> > or simply because they are not very bright as to the necessary
> > distinctions in political labels.
>
> You just like resorting to straw man arguments (much like when you
> claimed Friedman is an Obama supporter).

This year as well as 2008 Friedman has chosen Obama as the better of
all the choices.

>  I live in Canada not Texas.
> There is no stigma with supporting socialism up here.

Exactly so, so why do you lie?

> > What you have to say on "coercion" -- that there is objectively no
> > such thing --  makes you a socialist (at least).
>
> Another straw man. I believe the exact opposite.

You have stated entirely as I have charactrerized (see below)

>
> I already said I do
> believe in objective coercion.

No, you didn't, and no, you don't.

You claimed that government which forces an employer to hire an
employee according to any criteria other than entirely of his own
choosing is just fine -- that that is not (objective) coercion
(somehow).

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 20, 3:35 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 20, 4:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > You claimed there is no such thing as government coercion, when there
> > is government coercion.
>
> Not true. Show me where.
>
>  For example, a law which coerces that an
>
> > employer must choose his employees by any criteria other than that of
> > his own desire is government coercion, and yet you say that it is not.
>
> IT IS YOU THAT CLAIMS IT AS COERCION. Others do not define it as
> coercion.

The "others" being lying socialists just like you. Somehow, forcing
one to do as he otherwise would not do is not "coercion".

> However coercion isn't only about
> your subjective theories on it.

Somehow, forcing one to do as he otherwise would not do is a
"subjective theory".


x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 22, 7:14 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:11 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 4:06 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 1:31 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > Do you comprehend that just because someone doesn't always share your
> > > > personal political views it doesn't automatically make them something
> > > > of your random choosing?
>
> > > I understand that in North America most socialists hide their
> > > socialism, either deliberately as a necessary political precaution [*]
> > > or simply because they are not very bright as to the necessary
> > > distinctions in political labels.
>
> > You just like resorting to straw man arguments (much like when you
> > claimed Friedman is an Obama supporter).
>
> This year as well as 2008 Friedman has chosen Obama as the better of
> all the choices.

During WW2 the allies aligned with Stalin. Did this make them
communist and Stalin supporters?

> >   I live in Canada not Texas.
> > There is no stigma with supporting socialism up here.
>
> Exactly so, so why do you lie?

You are the liar. I support a non-existent private healthcare option
in Canada as a well as public. I support all sorts of deregulation and
less taxation in my homeland. I argue all the time with actual
socialists you Neanderthal. They laughably call me a rightwing
extremists just like you laughable call me a socialist. Your nightly
rants against "the man" trying to get others to support your "team"
remind me very much of socialists actually. You are both spear
chucking collectivists. Slandering and demagoguery through hyperbole
is your argumentative technique.

> > > What you have to say on "coercion" -- that there is objectively no
> > > such thing --  makes you a socialist (at least).
>
> > Another straw man. I believe the exact opposite.
>
> You have stated entirely as I have charactrerized (see below)

Pure manipulator. What you have "characterized below" isn't me
claiming that there is no such thing as objective coercion. I've
already said I believe in objective coercion. You apparently can't
seem to grasp that your subjective opinions on the matter don;'t
necessary always qualify as objective.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 22, 7:18 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 20, 3:35 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 4:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > You claimed there is no such thing as government coercion, when there
> > > is government coercion.
>
> > Not true. Show me where.
>
> >  For example, a law which coerces that an
>
> > > employer must choose his employees by any criteria other than that of
> > > his own desire is government coercion, and yet you say that it is not.
>
> > IT IS YOU THAT CLAIMS IT AS COERCION. Others do not define it as
> > coercion.
>
> The "others" being lying socialists just like you.  Somehow, forcing
> one to do as he otherwise would not do is not "coercion".

A serial killer would not otherwise want to be put in jail. Are you
claiming serial killers are the victims of coercion when police insist
on putting them in jail?

And I an play the same slandering game too. Can you debate honestly or
should I start referencing you as Nazi for your views in support of
mass murdering a religious group?

> > However coercion isn't only about
> > your subjective theories on it.
>
> Somehow, forcing one to do as he otherwise would not do is a
> "subjective theory".

Your conceptualization is subjective. Their are plenty of other
conceptualizations of coercion out there. You just selectively chose
your own, apply it in your own ad-hoc manner, while ignoring all the
others conceptualizations. That is subjective not objective. You have
done nothing to "prove" how your are correct in your view. All you do
is assert it.

From my perspective to determine an act of coercion one first has to
determine who is the victim and who is the perp. This is not always so
easy as you attempt to make it.

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 22, 9:33 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:14 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 3:11 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 4:06 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 1:31 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > > Do you comprehend that just because someone doesn't always share your
> > > > > personal political views it doesn't automatically make them something
> > > > > of your random choosing?
>
> > > > I understand that in North America most socialists hide their
> > > > socialism, either deliberately as a necessary political precaution [*]
> > > > or simply because they are not very bright as to the necessary
> > > > distinctions in political labels.
>
> > > You just like resorting to straw man arguments (much like when you
> > > claimed Friedman is an Obama supporter).
>
> > This year as well as 2008 Friedman has chosen Obama as the better of
> > all the choices.
>
> During WW2 the allies aligned with Stalin. Did this make them
> communist and Stalin supporters?
>

I agree with the comparison of Obama and Friedman to Hitler and
Stalin, or rather two collectivists of different stripes and methods.

> > >   I live in Canada not Texas.
> > > There is no stigma with supporting socialism up here.
>
> > Exactly so, so why do you lie?
>
> You are the liar.   I support a non-existent private healthcare option
> in Canada as a well as public

Yes, that makes you a socialist. When welfare-state liberalism
transforms into government control of private capital, that is
socialism of a fascist kind. One can rightfully claim that the health
care industry has been controlled through state regulation of
insurance in a way that there has long been no free market in that
insurance industry, but when that regulatory control reaches a
national level and the coercion is such that giving up nationality is
the only way out, that is nationalist-socialist coercion. For
example, if there is no means by which one can operate in the
healhcare market as a provider (of insurance or of the medical
practice itself) so that abortion and contraception are not dispensed
to all on the mere demand under penalty of law, that is socialism. A
product forcibly produced and/or a particular product forcibly
consumed is socialism, whether the means is by government ownership of
the capital or government coercion of private capital.

> > > > What you have to say on "coercion" -- that there is objectively no
> > > > such thing --  makes you a socialist (at least).
>
> > > Another straw man. I believe the exact opposite.
>
> > You have stated entirely as I have charactrerized (see below)
>
> Pure manipulator. What you have "characterized below" isn't me
> claiming that there is no such thing as objective coercion

Yes, you claim that an employer being coerced into hiring practices
not of his choosing is *not* coercion while also refusing to explain
how that is, other than to say the the meaning of being forced into
doing something one would otherwise would not do is not coercion.

> I've
> already said I believe in objective coercion.

A concept which, in your opinion, cannot be singularly defined by a
word or phrase is not "objective." Being forced to do as one
otherwise would not do is not as you define "coercion" because you
have no objective definition of that concept in a word, or believe
there ought to be one or can be one.

>You apparently can't
> seem to grasp that your subjective opinions on the matter don;'t
> necessary always qualify as objective.
>

A concept which, in your opinion, cannot be singularly defined by a
word or phrase is not "objective." Being forced to do as one
otherwise would not do is not as you define "coercion" because you
have no objective definition of that concept in a word, or believe
there ought to be one or can be one.

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 22, 9:50 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:18 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 3:35 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 4:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > You claimed there is no such thing as government coercion, when there
> > > > is government coercion.
>
> > > Not true. Show me where.
>
> > >  For example, a law which coerces that an
>
> > > > employer must choose his employees by any criteria other than that of
> > > > his own desire is government coercion, and yet you say that it is not.
>
> > > IT IS YOU THAT CLAIMS IT AS COERCION. Others do not define it as
> > > coercion.
>
> > The "others" being lying socialists just like you.  Somehow, forcing
> > one to do as he otherwise would not do is not "coercion".
>
> A serial killer would not otherwise want to be put in jail.

A killer has committed the coercion, not the government which acts to
retaliate or prevent. Coercion does not simply mean the use of force,
but rather the initiation of use of force to make another do as he
otherwise would not do. The distinction of "restraint" against
coercion and coercion itself is plain. Otherwise, self-defense is
"coercion" to force an attacker not continue to attack you.

> > > However coercion isn't only about
> > > your subjective theories on it.
>
> > Somehow, forcing one to do as he otherwise would not do is a
> > "subjective theory".
>
> Your conceptualization is subjective.

The concept of the initiation of force to make another do as he
otherwise would not do is not "subjective", or is it in your opinion?
The employer being coerced to hire against his desire is "subjective"
in his mind and not in the reality of penalties imposed. Is it your
claim that it is impossible in reality to be without provocation or
invitation to be forced to act as he otherwise would not do? That any
such force is imaginary?

> Their are plenty of other
> conceptualizations of coercion out there.

No there is not, there are only reasons given why coercion is
acceptable under certain circumstances. But that is not even your
apparent claim. You will not recognize the reality of being forced
without provocation or invitation to do as he otherwise would not do.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 23, 6:36 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:33 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 7:14 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 3:11 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 20, 4:06 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 19, 1:31 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > > > Do you comprehend that just because someone doesn't always share your
> > > > > > personal political views it doesn't automatically make them something
> > > > > > of your random choosing?
>
> > > > > I understand that in North America most socialists hide their
> > > > > socialism, either deliberately as a necessary political precaution [*]
> > > > > or simply because they are not very bright as to the necessary
> > > > > distinctions in political labels.
>
> > > > You just like resorting to straw man arguments (much like when you
> > > > claimed Friedman is an Obama supporter).
>
> > > This year as well as 2008 Friedman has chosen Obama as the better of
> > > all the choices.
>
> > During WW2 the allies aligned with Stalin. Did this make them
> > communist and Stalin supporters?
>
> I agree with the comparison of Obama and Friedman to Hitler and
> Stalin, or rather two collectivists of different stripes and methods.

Comparing someone that consciously murdered millions of people to
Friedman and Obama is ridiculous. You are a dishonest slanderer.

> > > >   I live in Canada not Texas.
> > > > There is no stigma with supporting socialism up here.
>
> > > Exactly so, so why do you lie?
>
> > You are the liar.   I support a non-existent private healthcare option
> > in Canada as a well as public
>
> Yes, that makes you a socialist.

No it doesn't. Socialists don't support private heathcare. I support
the freedom for people to choose the healthcare they want. I support
our universal healthcare system primarily because its way cheaper than
you healthcare. (with full coverage and no worries of bankrupcy). If
pure private healthcare worked better I would support that. Just
because someone doesn't support your views doesn't make them a
socialist. Others can label you a NAZI because you don't support their
views. Ergo are you a Nazi?

Unfortunately closed minded self-righteous fanatics can't understand
some human beings analyze situations to try an improve qualify of life
not destroy it.

> > > > > What you have to say on "coercion" -- that there is objectively no
> > > > > such thing --  makes you a socialist (at least).
>
> > > > Another straw man. I believe the exact opposite.
>
> > > You have stated entirely as I have charactrerized (see below)
>
> > Pure manipulator. What you have "characterized below" isn't me
> > claiming that there is no such thing as objective coercion
>
> Yes, you claim that an employer being coerced into hiring practices
> not of his choosing is *not* coercion while also refusing to explain
> how that is, other than to say the the meaning of being forced into
> doing something one would otherwise would not do is not coercion.

Even the US founding fathers disagreed with your conceptualization of
coercion. Not a single American administration has ever operated under
your conceptualization of coercion. Not one. They all taxed. They all
regulated. They all spent on services. Ergo - Washington, Lincoln,
Reagan were actually socialists? You have bizarre views.

>
> > I've
> > already said I believe in objective coercion.
>
> A concept which, in your opinion, cannot be singularly defined by a
> word or phrase is not "objective."

That's not what I'm saying. Things can be objective but just because
someone "claims" (keyword) that their conceptualization of some
concept is accurate doesn't make it so. You can claim the moon is made
out of cheese. The moon is what it is but that doesn't mean you
actually have that knowledge. You clearly don't realize people
(including you) sometimes argue for coercive acts while claiming to be
against coercion.

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 23, 2:24 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 23, 6:36 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 9:33 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 22, 7:14 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 20, 3:11 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 20, 4:06 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 19, 1:31 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Do you comprehend that just because someone doesn't always share your
> > > > > > > personal political views it doesn't automatically make them something
> > > > > > > of your random choosing?
>
> > > > > > I understand that in North America most socialists hide their
> > > > > > socialism, either deliberately as a necessary political precaution [*]
> > > > > > or simply because they are not very bright as to the necessary
> > > > > > distinctions in political labels.
>
> > > > > You just like resorting to straw man arguments (much like when you
> > > > > claimed Friedman is an Obama supporter).
>
> > > > This year as well as 2008 Friedman has chosen Obama as the better of
> > > > all the choices.
>
> > > During WW2 the allies aligned with Stalin. Did this make them
> > > communist and Stalin supporters?
>
> > I agree with the comparison of Obama and Friedman to Hitler and
> > Stalin, or rather two collectivists of different stripes and methods.
>
> Comparing someone that consciously murdered millions of people to
> Friedman and Obama is ridiculous. You are a dishonest slanderer.
>

First, you inappropriately brought up any such comparison, and second,
the only sensible thing I could make out of such a ludicrous
comparison is that, yes, both Obama and Friedman are collectivists,
and that "supporting" one collectivist over another must have some
signifcance other than their respective collectivism -- as in
"choosing" Hitler, a collectivist who murdered millions of people, or
"choosing" Stalin, a collectivist who murdered millions of people. As
made plainly clear by Friedman himself (
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2012/01/who-is-least-bad-candidate.html
), Friedman has no particular brief against Obama, or never mentions a
single one, and after exlcuding Ron Paul because "including him makes
the choice of least bad candidate an uninteresting one," he concludes
that choosing Obama "could also mean trying to reduce government
expenditure and regulation" because Obama would turn to the right.
Yes, that's right! Choosing Obama as the least bad choice would mean
the reduction of government expenditure and regulation if elected.

> No it doesn't. Socialists don't support private heathcare. I support
> the freedom for people to choose the healthcare they want.

So long as it is government approved and controlled toward a social
purpose. Fascism is also socialism.

> > Yes, you claim that an employer being coerced into hiring practices
> > not of his choosing is *not* coercion while also refusing to explain
> > how that is, other than to say the the meaning of being forced into
> > doing something one would otherwise would not do is not coercion.
>
> Even the US founding fathers disagreed with your conceptualization of
> coercion.

False. Cite which and how so?

>
>
> > > I've
> > > already said I believe in objective coercion.
>
> > A concept which, in your opinion, cannot be singularly defined by a
> > word or phrase is not "objective."
>
> That's not what I'm saying. Things can be objective but just because
> someone "claims" (keyword) that their conceptualization of some
> concept is accurate doesn't make it so.

You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though
never giving it) while also claiming that "coercion" means different
things to different people. How can something have objective meaning
and yet have no fixed meaning from person to person, and in any case
never one you can make yourself?

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 23, 6:55 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Comparing someone that consciously murdered millions of people to
> > Friedman and Obama is ridiculous. You are a dishonest slanderer.
>
> First, you inappropriately brought up any such comparison

You are the king of inappropriate comparisons. Everyone is a socialist
and nazi.

>, and second,
> the only sensible thing I could make out of such a ludicrous
> comparison is that, yes, both Obama and Friedman are collectivists,
> and that "supporting" one collectivist over another must have some
> signifcance other than their respective collectivism -

Every day for years on end your here arguing for collective support
for your sundry causes. Why so? Why aren't you out looking after your
self-interest? Charity work?

> So long as it is government approved and controlled toward a social
> purpose.  Fascism is also socialism.

Fascism has little to do with socialism other than the usage of the
name. In practice fascists saw socialists as a threat to them. They
sent socialists to concentration camps.

> > Even the US founding fathers disagreed with your conceptualization of
> > coercion.
>
> False. Cite which and how so?

They taxed. They regulated.. They supported services. Do you support
these causes like the majority of US founding fathers did?

> > That's not what I'm saying. Things can be objective but just because
> > someone "claims" (keyword) that their conceptualization of some
> > concept is accurate doesn't make it so.
>
> You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though
> never giving it)  while also claiming that "coercion" means different
> things to different people.  How can something have objective meaning
> and yet have no fixed meaning from person to person, and in any case
> never one you can make yourself?

Different meaning and different analysis but not everyone's opinion
matches objective reality.

The key to determining a coercive act is initiation of force.. This
does not necessarily equate to physical force though. It can relate to
indirect harm to others. A theft didn't actually agree not to steal
someone else's property and might not even see the victim but it still
amounts to an act of coercion.

However, situations are sometimes complicated thus determining who is
initiated harm is not always easy. Different individuals sometimes
create different narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.
Person x might claim a law is harmful to others. Person y claims not
having the law is harmful. Obviously they aren't both right. Only
determining the consequences can one assert who is the one arguing to
harm others not just a priori moralistic finger wagging. The
communists had plenty of principles but their principles were harmful.

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 25, 5:10 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 23, 6:55 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > Comparing someone that consciously murdered millions of people to
> > > Friedman and Obama is ridiculous. You are a dishonest slanderer.
>
> > First, you inappropriately brought up any such comparison
>
> You are the king of inappropriate comparisons. Everyone is a socialist
> and nazi.
>

Again, you brought up some analogy to Friedman choosing Obama to the
WWII allies choosing Stalin, and you turn that around to blame me for
an inappropriate comparison.

> > So long as it is government approved and controlled toward a social
> > purpose.  Fascism is also socialism.
>
> Fascism has little to do with socialism

Fascism is a variant of socialism. That is in every reference book
printed on political history.

> > > Even the US founding fathers disagreed with your conceptualization of
> > > coercion.
>
> > False. Cite which and how so?
>
> They taxed. They regulated..

"Tax" and "regulation" is not coercion, unless the tax and the
regulation is coercive. That is: not for the purpose of collecting
money for proper government functions (not coercive) and enforcing
laws against coercion (e.g., proper regulation of commerce against
fraud and coercive practices).

(1) Laws must prevent the ruling elites (i.e., nobility or any
despotic assembly) from abusing the people; by that, laws should deny
them some powers, like (2) the power to tax, and all taxation on the
necessities of life should not be taxed, but a graduated scale of
taxation should be set for consumption above necessities, and no
capitation tax (a tax on the right to breath, as in Obamacare's 2.5%
tax-penalty on a person's income, should he fail to secure health
insurance).

Into the second and third generation of Americans did the problem of
national coercive taxation come into being by protective tarriffs
disproportionally paid by Southerners for redistribution mainly into
the North for "internal improvements."

And thus, did the Founding Fathers not only did not seek coercive
taxation, but when it crept into the national commerce, a Civil War
ensued.

Coercive taxation causes poverty, mal-distribution of wealth, war,
perpetuation of a permanent ruling elite, and this is what the
Founders took from Montesquieu and Adam Smith when they created the
U.S.

> > > That's not what I'm saying. Things can be objective but just because
> > > someone "claims" (keyword) that their conceptualization of some
> > > concept is accurate doesn't make it so.
>
> > You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though
> > never giving it)  while also claiming that "coercion" means different
> > things to different people.  How can something have objective meaning
> > and yet have no fixed meaning from person to person, and in any case
> > never one you can make yourself?
>
> Different meaning and different analysis but not everyone's opinion
> matches objective reality.
>

You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning
(though never giving it) while also claiming that "coercion" means

different things to different people. IF THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY
AND YOU (YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE OF PERCEIVING IT, THEN YOU
SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU
CLAIM EXISTS.

> The key to determining a coercive act is initiation of force..

No, it is not. An initiation of force (like any force) is not always
coercive. An initiation of force is an initiation of force, and
coercive force is always initiated, but not every initiated force is
coercive.

> does not necessarily equate to physical force though. It can relate to
> indirect harm to others. A theft didn't actually agree not to steal
> someone else's property and might not even see the victim but it still
> amounts to an act of coercion.
>

A theft *is* physical force which is both initiated and coercive.
Definition is not given merely by a couple of examples. IF THERE IS
AN OBJECTIVE REALITY AND YOU (YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE OF
PERCEIVING IT, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN
OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU CLAIM EXISTS.

> However, situations are sometimes complicated thus determining who is
> initiated harm is not always easy.

The meaning of initiation of force is self-evident, but IF THERE IS
AN OBJECTIVE REALITY AND YOU (YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE OF
PERCEIVING IT, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN
OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU CLAIM EXISTS.

> Different individuals sometimes
> create different narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.

IF THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY AND YOU (YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE
OF PERCEIVING IT, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN
OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU CLAIM EXISTS.

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/20/2012 02:31 AM, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 20, 12:16 am, Tomm Carr<tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I doubt even Houston has federal fire regulations. ;)
>
> Fire safety isn't only about zoning and local building codes.

Maybe. But that was not the point under discussion.

>> I think most of what you refer to is the law rather than regulation.
>
> What do you see as the distinction between law and regulation?

Many. Among those are that the law defines unacceptable behavior and the
punishment that applies to it. Said punishment being, presumably, in
relation to the objective harm done by the action.

Regulation defines proscribed behavior and the punishment that applies
to failure to adhere to the behavior. Said punishment cannot be in
relation to any harm because no harm has been done (if harm had been
done, the violator would be charged with a crime, wouldn't he?) so it
is, pretty much by definition, arbitrary and capricious.

The law is reactive, regulation is proactive.

Laws are passive. All the laws against bank robbery, for example, effect
no one who engages in normal banking transactions. They take effect and
apply the effect only to the parties involved when an attempt is made to
rob a bank.

Regulations are active. They apply to and effect anyone who attempts to
engage in the regulated activity, whether or not they mean to do any
harm and whether or not they actually do any harm.

The law takes intent into account. Thus there are charges of murder and
manslaughter. Murder is for those who meant to kill their victim and
manslaughter is for those whose action resulted in death but that was
not their intent. This allows the law to recognize that we are each
responsible for our actions, no matter our intent.

Regulation ignores intent. It simply plays no role whatsoever.

Law protects the rights of free people. Regulation protects the powers
of the regulators.

> I've already agree that regulations can get out of hand. Don't blame
> me for that!

I blame you only for what you do: fail to follow your own words to the
next logical step.

>> Did regulations protect anyone from Madoff? The SEC (the regulatory
>> agency responsible for "protecting" investors) not only didn't notice
>> him on their own -- he was pointed out to them on /four separate
>> occasions/ and ignored every one.
>
> Others had argued underfunding the SEC was the to blame.

God, I hate passive sentences. "Others had argued..."

Really? No kidding? Has any other regulator proposed any other excuse?
What they are really saying is. "Yeah, we blew it. But tell you what,
give us more money and we /promise/ to do a better job.

Would you accept that from a restaurant? "Yes, we realize our food was
so bad it would choke a pig, but tell you what, we'll raise our prices
and you keep coming here anyway and we /promise/ the food will get better.

Yeah. Right.

> When someone
> scams billions of dollars I have to lean towards inadequate oversight.

Really? The SEC was warned on four different occasions of Madoff's scam
and ignored every single one. How is this an example of "inadequate
oversight"? It is an example of massive incompetence and/or massive
corruption. How would giving more money to a massively incompetent
and/or corrupt agency decrease the incompetence and/or corruption? How
could it not instead /increase/ the incompetence and/or corruption since
it was precisely that incompetence and/or corruption that lead to them
getting more money?

Do you still not see how nothing you advocate makes any sense at all?

> That said, somebody needs to figure out a way to help us from
> government scams! A watcher for the watchers.

That was the reason we have three branches of government (with the
Legislative branch further broken up to a bicameral institution). Each
watches the other two.

The "regulation" branch is a fourth branch of government, free of the
oversight of all three of the others. Well, in theory they are under the
oversight of Congress, who creates them, but this has rarely happened.
One of the attractive features of regulation is that it allows for the
enforcement of government policy without Congress having to take
responsibility for it. If they started exercising effect oversight, they
could no longer avoid that responsibility.

We might advocate the creation of an oversight agency for every
regulatory agency. For every SEC, for example, there would be an SEC
Oversight Commission. But all you've done is added yet another layer of
government which will also require oversight.

> Canada just introduced a bill into parliament that would potentially
> allow the federal government to monitor all our internet
> communications and track us by telephone without a warrant. One
> supporter of bill even argued that you are either with us or the child
> pornographers. Not only is such a bill outrageous but the very fact
> any MP would even seriously consider introducing such an absurd bill
> should be grounds for expulsion from ever holding office again.

Well, this again is an example of a bad law -- or potential law. I am
not overly knowledgeable of the Canadian federal government, but I
assume it has some check on improper laws. At the very least, court
challenges could weaken or even kill the law should it get all that way.

Regulatory agencies are, in effect if not intent, immune from legal
challenges. Recently, a Federal court held President Obama in contempt
of court and ordered him to lift his moratorium on off-shore drilling
permits. But the President does not directly control drilling permits.
Regulators do. So while he may obey the letter of the court ruling and
lift his moratorium, the effect has been negligible. New permits have
not been forthcoming and there is nothing the courts can do about it.

> How about I think I got sick and
> think it might be because I ate something with Salmonella. What's the
> police going to do? They simply aren't qualified to deal with the
> situation. They're experts in force not biology.

The police are not specifically qualified, but in such cases they call
on companies or government advisory agencies like CDC to advise them.
But if, say, a local lettuce farm was found to be the source and it
refused to take appropriate action, then it is the police who will step
in and shut down the farm and charge the farmer. He is, after all,
harming others by his actions and would be committing a crime.

Generally, however, this is not required. Whether local farmers or large
agribusinesses, they have almost without exception been cooperative and
taken whatever steps were necessary to contain the problem. Whether they
do so out of a sense of civic responsibility or fear of prosecution is
immaterial. Action is important, not motivation.

> If you really don't like
>> regulations, why don't you, like me, demand more substantive reasons for
>> the existence of regulations and some real-world examples of how they
>> have been beneficial?
>
> You should hear what posters on far left forums say about me.

I can well imagine. The Left tends to punish any deviation from
orthodoxy and are not at all interested in discussing any question or
concerns you may have. I would think you come here because you can
express disagreements and engage in discussions and coolly logical
examinations of your positions from which you may either reconfirm the
validity of your sound arguments or reexamine and strengthen your weak
arguments without being personally attacked.

Yes, I am aware of some well-known exemptions to that final clause.
Still, the general rule stands.

> Back to fire safety codes...
>
> Fire safety related codes are a real world application. If you want a
> precise example, the monitor in front of me must be CSA approved (or
> recognized equivalent) to be sold in Canada like any other electronic
> equipment. This is to help prevent my house from being burned down.
> I'm fairly certain the same sort of thing happens in the US as well.
> (including Houston :)

Yes, of course. But let's take a closer look.

Suppose I am shopping for a monitor and narrow my choice down to two
candidates. Different manufacturers but otherwise close enough to
identical to make little difference. Further examination shows a sticker
from a government safety agency on one but only a sticker from a
private, for-profit agency, such as Underwriter's Lab, on the other.

On which do I place more trust. Well, consider this. Suppose the
government agency makes a mistake and incorrectly certifies a monitor as
safe when it is not and a terrible tragedy ensues. The customer (or
their surviving family) can sue the manufacturer for damages. They
cannot sue the government agency because it bears no responsibility. The
manufacturer cannot offer the agency's approval in defense. The agency
will suffer absolutely no consequences for the error. In fact, citing
"underfunding," there is a good chance the agency can use this tragic
incident to increase its funding.

On the other hand, the private agency may well share responsibility. In
fact, it may offer to assume all responsibility for an erroneous rating.
In addition to the monetary losses, the private agency suffer loss of
trust and acceptance by the public. It will be more difficult to
convince manufacturers to allow it to perform the rating service.

The private company will investigate to see if human error or
malfeasance led to the faulty rating and punish the guilty parties with
up to termination.

The private ratings company stands to lose money if it issues a faulty
rating. The government agency stands to lose nothing if it issues a
faulty rating and may, in fact, gain increased funding.

So, all else being equal, which one should I place greater confidence in?

> I agree many regulations are useless. Are you an absolutist about it
> thought?

An absolutist? Li'l ol' me? Actually, no. I am prepared to admit that
there are places where government regulation cannot be performed better
and/or cheaper than any other solution. Just because I personally have
not thought of any doesn't mean one doesn't exist. That is why I have
asked for your help. Show me.

> Do
> you support Rand's view of capitalism of no regulations, no taxes, and
> just police, court and military? And if so, how would that minimalist
> government be funded without taxation?

So far, I support the no regulations part. As I said, I have yet to see
where private solutions or simple law cannot do what regulations purport
to do and do it easier, cheaper and with less corrosion of freedoms.

I differ with a "no taxation at all" stance. If government has proper
roles, then it must be funded. However, I recognize that there are more
opportunities to raise those funds with user fees, like charging
admission to national parks to cover the cost of the park. Can't raise
enough that way? Then the park (or whatever) doesn't serve a large
enough purpose to warrant it. Stop doing it.

But services like military, police and courts are not fundable through
user fees. Some taxation is required.

I do object to the level and method of current taxation, however. And a
graduated income tax? Please! If offered extremely large amounts of
money, I don't think I could come up with a method of taxation more
abusive, degrading, unfair and expensive to collect than that one.

> As a programmer surrounded by computer related equipment all day I
> feel safer knowing that its been regulatory approved.

Yes, but /why/ do you feel safer?

> It's not perfect

Perfect? It's not even /good/.

> but having another set of eyes review equipment reduces chances of a
> problem. There is a very real fire risks in my working environment.

I work in QA, so I know the value of "another set of eyes." But those
eyes have to be effective. It has to mean something else why bother?

> Going back to my views, I am perfectly fine with a free enterprise
> alternative to achieving the same ends in a non-regulatory manner
> (provided it works and around the same cost).

Well, I can guarantee that it works. However, competition being what it
is, I don't think any company would be able to charge so much as to make
the cost the same. So you have us there.

--
TommCatt
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. -- Groucho Marx

[Tim]

"Charles Bell" wrote in message
news:5cd6094d-f4de-4760...@w27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>
> Fascism has little to do with socialism

Fascism is a variant of socialism. That is in every reference book
printed on political history.

--
As usual Charlie Brown misses the ball, completely. Why don't you cite just
one of all the books on political history to back up your claim, Charlie?
--

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 26, 7:07 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 5:10 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 6:55 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Comparing someone that consciously murdered millions of people to
> > > > Friedman and Obama is ridiculous. You are a dishonest slanderer.
>
> > > First, you inappropriately brought up any such comparison
>
> > You are the king of inappropriate comparisons. Everyone is a socialist
> > and nazi.
>
> Again, you brought up some analogy to Friedman choosing Obama to the
> WWII allies choosing Stalin,

And again, Friedman isn't an Obama supporter or socialists as you try
to insinuate. He's just supporting a cause that he sees as less
harmful given his available options.

> an inappropriate comparison.
>
> > > So long as it is government approved and controlled toward a social
> > > purpose.  Fascism is also socialism.
>
> > Fascism has little to do with socialism
>
> Fascism is a variant of socialism.  That is in every reference book
> printed on political history.

According to you practical everything is a variety of socialism.
Nearly every political scientist in existence disagrees with your
classifications though. This is why people use different words to
describe their political beliefs. And some of us don't even have a
party or philosopher that matches our views.
R
As for Nazism, it was primarily about extreme nationalism rather than
socialism. This is why Nazis sent the socialists to concentration
camps (and why Nazis did allow private ownership of property). Nazis
also believed in exterminating a religious group, stationing their
obscenely large military in sovereign nations around the world,
fighting alleged preventative wars, and constantly obsessed over their
alleged nationalist interests (which were not actually in their
interests). Remind you of anyone?

> > > > Even the US founding fathers disagreed with your conceptualization of
> > > > coercion.
>
> > > False. Cite which and how so?
>
> > They taxed. They regulated..
>
> "Tax" and "regulation" is not coercion

In other words, taxation isn't necessary theft after all. Glad we
established that. I agree with you taxation can amount to coercion
when applied inappropriately as well. (see we can agree about things
too)

> unless the tax and the regulation is coercive.

And therein lays that problem. In practice who will decide which
regulations and services amount to coercion and which don't? Your
personal assertions? Or a government elected by the people of the
country itself?

>That is: not for the purpose of collecting
> money for proper government functions (not coercive) and enforcing
> laws against coercion (e.g., proper regulation of commerce against
> fraud and coercive practices).

The fact remains the US founding fathers both taxed and regulated far
beyond your definition of capitalism. According to your own
definitions of coercion and socialism the US founding fathers would
qualify as socialists. I don't think the US founding fathers were
socialists though. I think your categorizations of concepts is what is
flawed. You use socialism as basically a synonym for taxation/laws of
your ad-hoc choosing.

> (1) Laws must prevent the ruling elites (i.e., nobility or any
> despotic assembly) from abusing the people; by that,  laws should deny
> them some powers, like (2) the power to tax, and all taxation on  the
> necessities of life should not be taxed, but a graduated scale of
> taxation should be set for consumption above necessities, and no
> capitation tax (a tax on the right to breath, as in Obamacare's 2.5%
> tax-penalty on a person's income, should he fail to secure health
> insurance).

I don't know enough about Obama's healthcare bill to offer a pro or
con opinion on it. What I do know is that nations with universal
healthcare pay far less for healthcare per capita. Having said that, I
don't believe a full blown private healthcare system should be banned
like it essentially is in Canada. I see no good reason why doctors
shouldn't be allowed to cater to any patients that wanted to opt out
of public healthcare. (and a tax credit refunded to them). As far as I
can tell at the moment this would be the best of both worlds. Those
who could afford private or speedier service could pay for it And
those that couldn't would have the benefit of voluntary opt-in
egalitarian system to get basic no-frills healthcare. Win Win.

> Into the second and third generation of Americans did the problem of
> national coercive taxation come into being by protective tarriffs
> disproportionally paid by Southerners for redistribution mainly into
> the North for "internal improvements."

You have things exactly backwards and more wealth goes from North to
South. (not that geography should matter as you should be an American
first)
http://current.com/community/93670955_democratic-states-pay-for-government-programs-and-republican-states-use-them.htm

> And thus, did the Founding Fathers not only did not seek coercive
> taxation, but when it crept into the national commerce, a Civil War
> ensued.

Do you support a post office like "socialist" US founding fathers did?
Do you support Inheritance taxes like the "socialist"US founding
fathers did? Do you support progressive taxation as the "socialist" US
founding fathers did?

> Coercive taxation causes poverty, mal-distribution of wealth, war,
> perpetuation of a permanent ruling elite, and this is what the
> Founders took from Montesquieu and Adam Smith when they created the
> U.S.

I agree with many of the views of the US founding fathers and even
Adam Smith. I think you are the one that doesn't. I think you mistake
your values for their values.

> > > > That's not what I'm saying. Things can be objective but just because
> > > > someone "claims" (keyword) that their conceptualization of some
> > > > concept is accurate doesn't make it so.
>
> > > You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though
> > > never giving it)  while also claiming that "coercion" means different
> > > things to different people.  How can something have objective meaning
> > > and yet have no fixed meaning from person to person, and in any case
> > > never one you can make yourself?
>
> > Different meaning and different analysis but not everyone's opinion
> > matches objective reality.
>
>  You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning
> (though never giving it)  while also claiming that "coercion" means
> different things to different people. IF THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY
> AND YOU (YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE OF PERCEIVING IT, THEN YOU
> SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU
> CLAIM EXISTS.

Gravity exists. Can you point me to the Higgs boson then? No? Why not
if you can define and conceptualize gravity?

Just because something exists, just because we understand some aspects
of something, doesn't always mean we can always understand every
aspect. As complexity increases the probability for error typically
increases.

>
> > The key to determining a coercive act is initiation of force..
>
> No, it is not.  An initiation of force (like any force) is not always
> coercive. An initiation of force is an initiation of force, and
> coercive force is always initiated, but not every initiated force is
> coercive.
>
> > does not necessarily equate to physical force though. It can relate to
> > indirect harm to others. A theft didn't actually agree not to steal
> > someone else's property and might not even see the victim but it still
> > amounts to an act of coercion.
>
>  A theft *is* physical force which is both initiated and coercive.

You are flip flopping between using the term "initiation of force" as
non-physical and physical. I am using it in a moral "initiate harm"
sense (that can be directly physical assault or in the form of
damages). A thief may not actually use force against the physical
body of an individual.(e.g. a thief could pocket money from a wallet
with id in it) but they are still initiating harm against that
individual.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Feb 26, 10:47 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/20/2012 02:31 AM, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Feb 20, 12:16 am, Tomm Carr<tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I doubt even Houston has federal fire regulations. ;)
>
> > Fire safety isn't only about zoning and local building codes.
>
> Maybe. But that was not the point under discussion.
>
> >> I think most of what you refer to is the law rather than regulation.
>
> > What do you see as the distinction between law and regulation?
>
> Many. Among those are that the law defines unacceptable behavior and the
> punishment that applies to it. Said punishment being, presumably, in
> relation to the objective harm done by the action.
>
> Regulation defines proscribed behavior and the punishment that applies
> to failure to adhere to the behavior.

Good concise description.

> Said punishment cannot be in
> relation to any harm because no harm has been done (if harm had been
> done, the violator would be charged with a crime, wouldn't he?) so it
> is, pretty much by definition, arbitrary and capricious.

Waving a firearm around in a city street usually doesn't seem to
result in harm either but the risks involved is a sort of harm itself
(thus making it criminal behavior). Similarly breaking a regulation
can sometimes amount to criminal activity. (assuming of course the
regulation makes sense and the issue is severe enough)

In practice, many regulations are the result of politicians, police
and judges simply not being technically knowledgeable enough to either
evaluate certain kinds of situations. For instance how is someone
supposed to know what kind of chemicals are considered toxic
pollutants from a legal standpoint without some regulatory guidance?
Aside from the common sense sense aspects to some regulations, I
would even argue that some regulation cab actually help insulate
businesses from from spurious lawsuits.

>Regulations are sill laws T

> The law is reactive, regulation is proactive.
>
> Laws are passive. All the laws against bank robbery, for example, effect
> no one who engages in normal banking transactions. They take effect and
> apply the effect only to the parties involved when an attempt is made to
> rob a bank.
> Regulations are active. They apply to and effect anyone who attempts to
> engage in the regulated activity, whether or not they mean to do any
> harm and whether or not they actually do any harm.
>
> The law takes intent into account. Thus there are charges of murder and
> manslaughter. Murder is for those who meant to kill their victim and
> manslaughter is for those whose action resulted in death but that was
> not their intent. This allows the law to recognize that we are each
> responsible for our actions, no matter our intent.
>
> Regulation ignores intent. It simply plays no role whatsoever.
>
> Law protects the rights of free people. Regulation protects the powers
> of the regulators.
>
> > I've already agree that regulations can get out of hand. Don't blame
> > me for that!
>
> I blame you only for what you do: fail to follow your own words to the
> next logical step.

Logical to what ends? The far left claims lack of regulations as
oppressive. Far right claims regulation is oppressive. My own feel
(perhaps flawed) is that both positions are extreme and based on
moralizing rather than evaluation of the facts. One would not be wise
to eat soup with a fork... or a steak with a spoon. If some regulation
can be demonstrated to improve quality of life within a jurisdiction
why then would be rational to argue against it? And if some regulation
can be demonstrated to harm quality of life why wouldn't we remove it?

> >> Did regulations protect anyone from Madoff? The SEC (the regulatory
> >> agency responsible for "protecting" investors) not only didn't notice
> >> him on their own -- he was pointed out to them on /four separate
> >> occasions/ and ignored every one.
>
> > Others had argued underfunding the SEC was the to blame.
>
> God, I hate passive sentences. "Others had argued..."
>
> Really? No kidding? Has any other regulator proposed any other excuse?
> What they are really saying is. "Yeah, we blew it. But tell you what,
> give us more money and we /promise/ to do a better job.

To err is human though. Aren't government employes allowed to make
mistakes just like people in private companies do? Using the logic
that mistakes by government is a reason to get rid of most government
services strikes me like the arguments of the far left that use
examples of corruption in free enterprise to push Marxism. Why can't
we just deal with every issues on a case-by-case basis rather than
deal in absolutes?

> Would you accept that from a restaurant? "Yes, we realize our food was
> so bad it would choke a pig, but tell you what, we'll raise our prices
> and you keep coming here anyway and we /promise/ the food will get better.
>
> Yeah. Right.

I agree government employees should be held more accountable.
Politicians and unions are clearly abusing their position of power to
do things like make it next to impossible to fire government employees
and boast their own wages. They also sometimes support crony types of
capitalism (i.e. capitalism based not on free enterprise but on trying
to manipulate laws into crushing competitors)

> > When someone
> > scams billions of dollars I have to lean towards inadequate oversight.
>
> Really? The SEC was warned on four different occasions of Madoff's scam
> and ignored every single one. How is this an example of "inadequate
> oversight"? It is an example of massive incompetence and/or massive
> corruption. How would giving more money to a massively incompetent
> and/or corrupt agency decrease the incompetence and/or corruption?

I also agree with you the SEC screwed up but inadequate oversight
doesn't necessary equate to more money or more regulation. I'm just
arguing they just need to figure better methods to catch thieves like
Madoff in the future. Criminals often escape detection but I don't
image you would argue we should completely get rid of police and
courts right? The government patrols streets against common criminals
so is it so unreasonable that is should patrol for white collar
thieves too?

> How
> could it not instead /increase/ the incompetence and/or corruption since
> it was precisely that incompetence and/or corruption that lead to them
> getting more money?
>
> Do you still not see how nothing you advocate makes any sense at all?

What have I advocated beyond enforcing practices that can be
demonstrated to work? I am not pro or against regulation. I am pro-
reason. If reason suggests the net result of some law or regulation is
beneficial, I'll argue for the regulation. If it shows its harmful
I'll argue against.

I'd appreciate it if you refrain from extreme statements like "
nothing you advocate makes any sense at all' . Hyperbole like that is
highly combative (see Charles). I don't mind debate over some point
but just ask yourself how you would feel if some else argued "nothing"
you advocate makes sense.

> That said, somebody needs to figure out a way to help us from
> > government scams! A watcher for the watchers.
>
> That was the reason we have three branches of government (with the
> Legislative branch further broken up to a bicameral institution). Each
> watches the other two.

They weren't perfect (e.g. still had slavery) but I'm a big fan of the
US founding fathers (way way ahead of their time). In developing the
US constitution they had the wisdom to extract good ideas from regions
around the world while at the same time injected their own good
ones.

> The "regulation" branch is a fourth branch of government, free of the
> oversight of all three of the others. Well, in theory they are under the
> oversight of Congress, who creates them, but this has rarely happened.
> One of the attractive features of regulation is that it allows for the
> enforcement of government policy without Congress having to take
> responsibility for it. If they started exercising effect oversight, they
> could no longer avoid that responsibility.
>
> We might advocate the creation of an oversight agency for every
> regulatory agency. For every SEC, for example, there would be an SEC
> Oversight Commission. But all you've done is added yet another layer of
> government which will also require oversight.
>
> > Canada just introduced a bill into parliament that would potentially
> > allow the federal government to monitor all our internet
> > communications and track us by telephone without a warrant. One
> > supporter of bill even argued that you are either with us or the child
> > pornographers. Not only is such a bill outrageous but the very fact
> > any MP would even seriously consider introducing such an absurd bill
> > should be  grounds for expulsion from ever holding office again.
>
> Well, this again is an example of a bad law -- or potential law. I am
> not overly knowledgeable of the Canadian federal government, but I
> assume it has some check on improper laws. At the very least, court
> challenges could weaken or even kill the law should it get all that way.

We don't have a congress (a similar parliament is as close as we get)
but theoretically our supreme court is somewhat a check like the US
supreme court but I'm not sure how the two stack up in practice. I've
never been comfortable with the idea of supreme court judges being
appointed by politicians to lifetime jobs (which dilutes the
distinction between legal branches thus diminishing their autonomy).
Were it up to me Judges should earn their way into the supreme court
and be held accountable for their jobs like everyone else. (not to
mention in Canada we still have colonial rule leftover of appointed
"senators" that get paid to basically do nothing)

> Regulatory agencies are, in effect if not intent, immune from legal
> challenges. Recently, a Federal court held President Obama in contempt
> of court and ordered him to lift his moratorium on off-shore drilling
> permits. But the President does not directly control drilling permits.
> Regulators do. So while he may obey the letter of the court ruling and
> lift his moratorium, the effect has been negligible. New permits have
> not been forthcoming and there is nothing the courts can do about it.

I have no idea why some think it make sense to prevent drilling. It
sort of reminds me of the nuclear scaremongering of the early 80s that
put a halt to new nuclear plants. While I lean towards global warming
trends being real, I'm not actually convinced it's a serious man made
threat either. I look at the current situation more as risk
management (based on the views of thousands of scientists) than
absolute certainty. We should try to make sure fossil fuels are
burned cleaner (to help mitigate risk. until/if we can confirm that
CO2 isn't the serious threat most scientists today claim it is) but at
the same time it would be ridiculous to cripple our economies by
prematurely shunning a cheap energy source

> > How about I think I got sick and
> > think it might be because I ate something with Salmonella.  What's the
> > police going to do? They simply aren't qualified to deal with the
> > situation. They're experts in force not biology.
>
> The police are not specifically qualified, but in such cases they call
> on companies or government advisory agencies like CDC to advise them.
> But if, say, a local lettuce farm was found to be the source and it
> refused to take appropriate action, then it is the police who will step
> in and shut down the farm and charge the farmer. He is, after all,
> harming others by his actions and would be committing a crime.

The CDC is not even close to being equipped to handle food poisoning
cases for a country of 300 million. This is why locals do the job
(working hand in hand with regulatory guidelines that are in part
established by research from organizations like the CDC, FDA, etc.) .
Out of curiosity though... does this mean you are actually OK with
government funding of the CDC?

> Generally, however, this is not required. Whether local farmers or large
> agribusinesses, they have almost without exception been cooperative and
> taken whatever steps were necessary to contain the problem. Whether they
> do so out of a sense of civic responsibility or fear of prosecution is
> immaterial. Action is important, not motivation.
>
> > If you really don't like
> >> regulations, why don't you, like me, demand more substantive reasons for
> >> the existence of regulations and some real-world examples of how they
> >> have been beneficial?
>
> > You should hear what posters on far left forums say about me.
>
> I can well imagine. The Left tends to punish any deviation from
> orthodoxy and are not at all interested in discussing any question or
> concerns you may have.

Indeed. Unfortunately I sometimes get the same impression from some of
the right too (not everyone).

> I would think you come here because you can express disagreements and engage in discussions and coolly logical examinations of your positions from which you may either reconfirm the validity of your sound arguments or reexamine and strengthen your weak arguments without being personally attacked.

I wouldn't call all the arguments on this forum logical (or any forum
for that matter) but that's the gest of why I debate. Not to preach
but to further my horizons by examining other views.

> Yes, I am aware of some well-known exemptions to that final clause.
> Still, the general rule stands.
>
> > Back to fire safety codes...
>
> > Fire safety related codes are a real world application. If you want a
> > precise example, the monitor in front of me must be CSA approved  (or
> > recognized equivalent) to be sold in Canada like any other electronic
> > equipment. This is to help prevent my house from being burned down.
> > I'm fairly certain the same sort of thing happens in the US as well.
> > (including Houston :)
>
> Yes, of course. But let's take a closer look.
>
> Suppose I am shopping for a monitor and narrow my choice down to two
> candidates. Different manufacturers but otherwise close enough to
> identical to make little difference.

For most consumers there is little way to know the differences (unless
its a product that's simply been rebranded) Electronics today are
very complex today. They aren't like buying a lumpy pillow or spoiled
fruits.

Further examination shows a sticker
> from a government safety agency on one but only a sticker from a
> private, for-profit agency, such as Underwriter's Lab, on the other.

As far as I know even today it can be for-profit companies that does
the checks (assuming the are officially recognized) but a check must
be made my someone (at least for some kinds of devices). While such
3rd party checks could certainly be ignored by any particular
justification, completely eliminating such regulations would almost
certainly resort in far more fires.

> On which do I place more trust. Well, consider this. Suppose the
> government agency makes a mistake and incorrectly certifies a monitor as
> safe when it is not and a terrible tragedy ensues. The customer (or
> their surviving family) can sue the manufacturer for damages. They
> cannot sue the government agency because it bears no responsibility.

Much like a private company, the government can not ensure some
product is absolutely safe. It is not responsible for someone else's
flawed product. In the instance of electronics, I'm not suggesting
every regulation is sensible but I do think it's reasonable that a
third party should review products for safety. (based on physics
premises which aren't subjective).

> The
> manufacturer cannot offer the agency's approval in defense. The agency
> will suffer absolutely no consequences for the error. In fact, citing
> "underfunding," there is a good chance the agency can use this tragic
> incident to increase its funding.

The argument over funding can be applied both ways. Mistakes can be
argued as a sign of underfunding or as a sign some institution
shouldn't exist. My own tact is simply analyze costs and situations
to see what should done on a case-by-case basis rather than making a
blanket statement that applies to every situation irregardless of the
facts.

> On the other hand, the private agency may well share responsibility. In
> fact, it may offer to assume all responsibility for an erroneous rating.
> In addition to the monetary losses, the private agency suffer loss of
> trust and acceptance by the public. It will be more difficult to
> convince manufacturers to allow it to perform the rating service.
>
> The private company will investigate to see if human error or
> malfeasance led to the faulty rating and punish the guilty parties with
> up to termination.
>
> The private ratings company stands to lose money if it issues a faulty
> rating. The government agency stands to lose nothing if it issues a
> faulty rating and may, in fact, gain increased funding.
>
> So, all else being equal, which one should I place greater confidence in?
>
> > I agree many regulations are useless. Are you an absolutist about it
> > thought?
>
> An absolutist? Li'l ol' me? Actually, no. I am prepared to admit that
> there are places where government regulation cannot be performed better
> and/or cheaper than any other solution. Just because I personally have
> not thought of any doesn't mean one doesn't exist. That is why I have
> asked for your help. Show me.

I have but you choose to reject the evidence. Fire and food safety
regulations are two areas that seem to have had a tremendous affect on
lifespans and protection of both public and private property in the
20th century. You can assert such regulations are harmful but in
practice the 19th century (which didn't have nearly as many fire and
sanitation related regulations) had far more premature deaths due to
these causes.

One could certainly argue this is a non-casual correlation but in my
experience those that argue it usually seem to be basing their
argument on blanket moralizing rather than statistical analysis of
facts. Laws aren't only about control. They can also be about simply
applying common sense to our behaviors.

> > Do
> > you support Rand's view of capitalism of no regulations, no taxes, and
> > just police, court and military? And if so, how would that minimalist
> > government be funded without taxation?
>
> So far, I support the no regulations part. As I said, I have yet to see
> where private solutions or simple law cannot do what regulations purport
> to do and do it easier, cheaper and with less corrosion of freedoms.
>
> I differ with a "no taxation at all" stance. If government has proper
> roles, then it must be funded. However, I recognize that there are more
> opportunities to raise those funds with user fees, like charging
> admission to national parks to cover the cost of the park.

Then you are not an Objectivist per se. Under Rand's conceptualization
of government there would be national parks. I don't think she would
even support the CDC either. Essentially everything would be sold off
as private property (other than facilities and employes related to
Rand's minimalist government related to protection of private
property)

I've asked this many times over the years but no Oist has yet been
able to answer the fundamental question as to how exactly would
military, police courts, etc.. be paid without the use of taxation?
Some have argued " lotteries" and voluntary contributions but the
revenue figures are nowhere near enough (not to mention it would still
have to compete with free enterprise lotteries and there is a logical
inconsistency why would someone would give up their wealth to someone
else voluntarily if Rand was against altruism)

> I do object to the level and method of current taxation,

I'm really not much different, I just have different threshold of
value I think I derive from government intervention in some
situations. For example, I wouldn't want the current US healthcare
system over the current Canadian one. While I wish we had a private
healthcare option too, our universal system does have its perks. Why
would i want to fork over more than twice the money for healthcare?
(for non-universal healthcare to boot). It doesn't make economic sense
to me.

Say what you want about government inefficiency but since our
government precisely regulates what doctors can bill it for
procedures, can buy drugs in bulk, and can forgo the mess of
bureaucracy created by have a zillion different insurance companies...
the bottom line is we pay a fraction the money on healthcare and
generally have better heath stats than the US.

Normally I don't support government intervention but there are special
cases where it does seem to help. Healthcare isn't like buying a TV
or sofa (where I would be appalled if our government set prices like
it does our healthcare). Once one becomes aware of a serious health
problem shopping around for better pricing become very difficult
(especially in an emergency). Many healthcare workers know that and
end up exploiting other people's misery. (effectively price gouging)

> however. And a
> graduated income tax? Please! If offered extremely large amounts of
> money, I don't think I could come up with a method of taxation more
> abusive, degrading, unfair and expensive to collect than that one.
>
> > As a programmer surrounded by computer related equipment all day I
> > feel safer knowing that its been regulatory approved.
>
> Yes, but /why/ do you feel safer?

Because review naturally adds an extra layer of protection. As a QA
guy you should appreciate that.

> > It's not perfect
>
> Perfect? It's not even /good/.
> > but having another set of eyes review equipment reduces chances of a
> > problem. There is a very real fire risks in my working environment.
>
> I work in QA, so I know the value of "another set of eyes." But those
> eyes have to be effective. It has to mean something else why bother?

You automatically always assume government is ineffective but is that
actually always true? You yourself previously argued a 3rd party
private company can do fire safety checks on equipment. So why is it
those checks are suddenly ineffective just because it was mandated by
the government? Its still the same person doing the checks.

> > Going back to my views, I am perfectly fine with a free enterprise
> > alternative to achieving the same ends in a non-regulatory manner
> > (provided it works and around the same cost).
>
> Well, I can guarantee that it works.

However, competition being what it
> is, I don't think any company would be able to charge so much as to make
> the cost the same. So you have us there.

Private industry is usually cheaper but that has to be also put into
the context that there is no large state in the world that is both
completely deregulated and untaxed.. Essentially Rand theorized a
system that has never been demonstrated to work. I would note
communists theorized a system too. The result was much different than
their predicted results. IMO this is why it pays to be cautious before
asserting something with confidence.A single test is a worth a
thousand theories.

[Charles Bell]

On Feb 27, 4:04 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Feb 26, 7:07 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 25, 5:10 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 6:55 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Comparing someone that consciously murdered millions of people to
> > > > > Friedman and Obama is ridiculous. You are a dishonest slanderer.
>
> > > > First, you inappropriately brought up any such comparison
>
> > > You are the king of inappropriate comparisons. Everyone is a socialist
> > > and nazi.
>
> > Again, you brought up some analogy to Friedman choosing Obama to the
> > WWII allies choosing Stalin,
>
> And again, Friedman isn't an Obama supporter

Friedman supports Obama.

> or socialists as you try
> to insinuate. He's just supporting a cause that he sees as less
> harmful given his available options.
>

Friedman supports Obama.

> > > Fascism has little to do with socialism
>
> > Fascism is a variant of socialism.  That is in every reference book
> > printed on political history.
>
> According to you practical everything is a variety of socialism.

Fascism is a variant of socialism. That is in every reference book

printed on political history. I have cited from two of them in the
past.

> > > > > Even the US founding fathers disagreed with your conceptualization of
> > > > > coercion.
>
> > > > False. Cite which and how so?
>
> > > They taxed. They regulated..
>
> > "Tax" and "regulation" is not coercion
>
> In other words, taxation isn't necessary theft after all.

"Tax" and "regulation" is not coercion unless the tax and the
regulation is coercive.

> >That is: not for the purpose of collecting
> > money for proper government functions (not coercive) and enforcing
> > laws against coercion (e.g., proper regulation of commerce against
> > fraud and coercive practices).
>
> The fact remains the US founding fathers both taxed and regulated far
> beyond your definition of capitalism.

The fact is: "to regulate commerce among the states" was to avoid
conflicts among the states. The fact is: to tax was to collect money
for the purpose to run government. Neither of which is necessarily
coercive, and there are no words citable from the Founders which can
lead anyone to conclude that was ever the intention, and many that
lead one to the other conclusion.

> You have things exactly backwards

Before Lincoln took office, the South paid some 70% of national tax,
and during the 1860, it was proposed by the Republicans that
protective tarriffs on imported goods be increase another 40%.

> > > Different meaning and different analysis but not everyone's opinion
> > > matches objective reality.
>
> >  You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning
> > (though never giving it)  while also claiming that "coercion" means
> > different things to different people. IF THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY
> > AND YOU (YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE OF PERCEIVING IT,
> > THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN
> > OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU CLAIM EXISTS.
>
> Gravity exists. Can you point me to the Higgs boson then? No? Why not
> if you can define and conceptualize gravity?
>

Q.E.D. You lie when you claim you believe there is an "objective
coercion" because you simultaneously claim you cannot conceptualize of
what it it or offer a definition on what it is nor offer any objective
evidence that it exists. No one ever has to "point to the Higgs
boson" to conceptualize on and offer a defintion of and to offer
evidence of "coercion."

> >  A theft *is* physical force which is both initiated and coercive.
>
> You are flip flopping between using the term "initiation of force" as
> non-physical and physical.

Q.E.D. You lie when you believe there is "initiation of force" when
you cannot even stick to a plainly obvious meaning of "initiation of
force" which is an initiation of force.

[Tomm Carr]

On 02/27/2012 06:39 PM, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Waving a firearm around in a city street usually doesn't seem to
> result in harm either but the risks involved is a sort of harm itself
> (thus making it criminal behavior).

Exactly. Certain defined actions are not always harmful (running a red
light does not always lead to an accident) but substantially increases
the risk of harm to other people who were not able to give their consent
to the added risk.

> Similarly breaking a regulation
> can sometimes amount to criminal activity. (assuming of course the
> regulation makes sense and the issue is severe enough)

In this case, that is a large assumption. Oh, breaking a regulation can
indeed lead to criminal activity -- in which case the law will jump in
and take over. But overwhelming the "criminal activity" is nothing more
than the mere fact they broke the regulation. There was no harm nor
additional risk of harm.

Have you ever worked in a restaurant or any place that works with food?
The regulations are such that if applied to private homes, 100% of
kitchens would be condemned. Even Adrian Monk's kitchen would not pass.
Sure, it may be clean enough, but he will not have NSF certified equipment.

Traffic is not regulated (in the manner we are discussing) but covered
by law. When we drive, we accept certain risks and most of us
(regardless of the law) drive according to a common level of risk
acceptable to us. Only a few yahoos drive at a level of risk the rest of
us are not prepared to take. The law tries to punish them.

In the kitchen, when we prepare the food we are going to eat, we also
take risks. If we drop a spoon on the floor, a quick rinse is good
enough -- or even a wipe on our shirt. We even prepare food for our
children in that environment.

Regulation, however, has deemed it necessary that food prepared for sale
cannot be prepared in environments that match our own kitchens or even a
bit better. No, commercial kitchens must be at the highest level of
risk-free as it is possible to make it.

Is it possible for a restaurant to back off the risk-level to something
closer to what we find acceptable in our own kitchens, advertise that
fact, and allow those of us willing to take that risk in exchange for a
lower cost? No, we are not.

So the regulations, no matter what they purport to accomplish, no matter
what they actually accomplish, come at a cost of less freedom. This is
what I mean when I say the law protects our rights and regulation erodes
them.

> In practice, many regulations are the result of politicians, police
> and judges simply not being technically knowledgeable enough to either
> evaluate certain kinds of situations. For instance how is someone
> supposed to know what kind of chemicals are considered toxic
> pollutants from a legal standpoint without some regulatory guidance?

How are the regulators to know. They also lack the technical knowledge
to make such evaluations. They either hire that knowledge from academic
or commercial concerns or, more and more often, they use their own
knowledge such as it is or just react to public pressure.

Regulations have led to the banning of DDT, saccharine, Alar, breast
implants and any number of other perfectly sound and safe products,
often to the measurable detriment of many people (millions of
unnecessary deaths in the case of DDT) because they reacted to public
scares rather than scientific knowledge. Almost all public scares turn
out to be unfounded. But the regulations that spring from then live on
for generations.

> Aside from the common sense sense aspects to some regulations, I
> would even argue that some regulation cab actually help insulate
> businesses from from spurious lawsuits.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Now businesses can be sued by
customers (and in many cases, they don't even have to be customers or
anyone have any contact at all with the company) not for any harm or
risk endured, but because of failure to comply with some obscure regulation.

Regulatory agencies to not coordinate their rules with one another.
There are many times when a company must break one regulation in order
to comply with another. Google it yourself.

Just in the last week, I have seen several ads from a law firm trying to
drum up "victims" of a particular drug. The "crime" was not that the
pharma company had produced a drug with unannounced side effects or that
it did anything unethical or dangerous (any more dangerous than taking
any drug) or that patients had suffered unduly because of the drig but
that the FDA had determined that the warning labels were "insufficient."
Never mind the FDA had to approve the warning labels to begin with.
Never mind the company is moving to comply as fast as it can to comply
with the new requirements. Never mind that there was not any evidence
that anyone was actually harmed or was in any danger of being harmed.

No, we live in a much more litigious world than ever before. But human
beings have never lived better, longer, healthier, safer lives than we
do now. We are not suing because of harm. We are suing because of
regulations that make it much easier to sue.

>> Regulations are sill laws T
>> The law is reactive, regulation is proactive.
>>
>> Laws are passive. All the laws against bank robbery, for example, effect
>> no one who engages in normal banking transactions. They take effect and
>> apply the effect only to the parties involved when an attempt is made to
>> rob a bank.
>> Regulations are active. They apply to and effect anyone who attempts to
>> engage in the regulated activity, whether or not they mean to do any
>> harm and whether or not they actually do any harm.
>>
>> The law takes intent into account. Thus there are charges of murder and
>> manslaughter. Murder is for those who meant to kill their victim and
>> manslaughter is for those whose action resulted in death but that was
>> not their intent. This allows the law to recognize that we are each
>> responsible for our actions, no matter our intent.
>>
>> Regulation ignores intent. It simply plays no role whatsoever.
>>
>> Law protects the rights of free people. Regulation protects the powers
>> of the regulators.
>>
>>> I've already agree that regulations can get out of hand. Don't blame
>>> me for that!
>>
>> I blame you only for what you do: fail to follow your own words to the
>> next logical step.
>
> Logical to what ends?

We do not use logic to determine an end. We follow logic to whatever end
it leads. Like a river, it may or may not take us to where we would like
to go. We have to be prepared for that when we start the journey.

> The far left claims lack of regulations as
> oppressive. Far right claims regulation is oppressive.

Obviously, the Left and the Right have different definitions of
oppressive. Do you think that people have the right to define terms as
they see fit and try to find ways to meet both definitions? Or do you
think that because they differ, they are both wrong?

The Left defines oppression as "having to suffer the consequences of my
own actions." The Right defines oppression as "having my freedom reduced
or even eliminated altogether."

Only one of those definitions can I accept.

> My own feel
> (perhaps flawed) is that both positions are extreme and based on
> moralizing rather than evaluation of the facts.

So you think both are wrong. Funny, you did not specify their
definitions, how they differed and how they were similar. You just
seemingly declared both wrong.

> One would not be wise
> to eat soup with a fork... or a steak with a spoon.

I eat ice cream with a fork. I always did even my math homework in pen.
I guess I am also unwise.

> If some regulation
> can be demonstrated to improve quality of life within a jurisdiction
> why then would be rational to argue against it?

Because everything comes at a cost. Regulators never, /ever/, consider
the cost side of the equation. And because regulators are not elected,
they are free to impose those costs upon us no matter our own feelings
of their benefits.

> And if some regulation
> can be demonstrated to harm quality of life why wouldn't we remove it?

Has any regulation been demonstrated to improve quality of life?
Regulations by the train-load have been demonstrated to harm quality of
life. Yet, name the regulations that have been revoked. So your
statements are extremely easy to make and apparently near impossible to
carry out.

> To err is human though. Aren't government employes allowed to make
> mistakes just like people in private companies do? Using the logic
> that mistakes by government is a reason to get rid of most government
> services strikes me like the arguments of the far left that use
> examples of corruption in free enterprise to push Marxism. Why can't
> we just deal with every issues on a case-by-case basis rather than
> deal in absolutes?

How did you ever reach the conclusion that I opposed regulation because
government employees would occasionally make a mistake? Quote the
statement(s). Maybe I misspoke somewhere. I would like to be able to
rectify any mistake on my part.

No, the problem is not mistakes but corruption. The free market has a
quite efficient system of controlling corruption in business --
publicity. No one, not an individual customer or another business, wants
to deal with a company that has become corrupt.

The elected official in government also has that system, though
admittedly a bit less efficient than business. Corrupt officials, when
discovered, face eviction, recall or just failure to get reelected.

Regulatory agencies have no system in place to limit corruption. Any and
all of us can make mistakes? Unarguably. Any and all of us can, under
the right conditions, become corrupt? Absolutely.

Regulatory agencies will, inevitably, become corrupt. And there is no
way to prevent it, punish it, or rectify it.

>> Would you accept that from a restaurant? "Yes, we realize our food was
>> so bad it would choke a pig, but tell you what, we'll raise our prices
>> and you keep coming here anyway and we /promise/ the food will get better.
>>
>> Yeah. Right.
>
> I agree government employees should be held more accountable.
> Politicians and unions are clearly abusing their position of power to
> do things like make it next to impossible to fire government employees
> and boast their own wages. They also sometimes support crony types of
> capitalism (i.e. capitalism based not on free enterprise but on trying
> to manipulate laws into crushing competitors)

Ah. Now you brush up against the real appeal of regulations. If
governments did not have the power to regulate, businesses couldn't come
to them for special treatment for themselves and oppressive treatment
for their competitors. But they do claim that right and it is a source
of quite a lot of money. And a good deal of that money makes it into the
pockets of the regulators and legislators, not the treasury.

> I also agree with you the SEC screwed up but inadequate oversight
> doesn't necessary equate to more money or more regulation. I'm just
> arguing they just need to figure better methods to catch thieves like
> Madoff in the future. Criminals often escape detection but I don't
> image you would argue we should completely get rid of police and
> courts right?

At a high school ball game, a player's father was sitting in the stands
and accidentally overheard two businessmen's discussion. They had been
talking about a certain company so the man decided, what the hey!, he
would buy some stock in that company.

The SEC prosecuted that man -- successfully -- for insider trading.

Congratulations, SEC, for a job well done. Of course, one could ask
"Whom did that man hurt?", "Who lost money because of that man buying
that stock?", "What about the people who just happened to buy that stock
at that time -- did they hurt anyone?"

In other words, just what was the man's crime? Regulation!

Yet, people who actually steal money from people seem to get away with
it -- until they are finally caught the old fashioned way.

It's not that police and the courts fail to catch every criminal or
solve every crime. It's that regulations fail to do anything beneficial
at all.

> The government patrols streets against common criminals
> so is it so unreasonable that is should patrol for white collar
> thieves too?

Well, the government uses law (legislation), law enforcement (police)
and the courts to patrol the streets. And they are relatively safe and
what crimes are committed are small. Rarely is a bank robbed for more
than a few thousand dollars.

The government uses regulations to patrol...well, wherever white collar
crimes are committed. Crimes there can run into the millions (and, as we
saw with Madoff, occasionally /billions/) of dollars.

White-collar crime is actually controlled more by regular law than by
regulation. Remember that Madoff is finally sitting in prison because he
stole money (crime) rather than because he failed to submit a proper
form (regulation). I wouldn't doubt he strictly held to the letter of
all applicable regulations.

>> Do you still not see how nothing you advocate makes any sense at all?
>
> What have I advocated beyond enforcing practices that can be
> demonstrated to work?

You keep saying that yet you have failed to reference any such
demonstration. You keep making vague references to fire safety and such.

Ok, let's, for the sake of discussion, say you could and did show some
area where regulations have "worked."

Regulations are, by their very nature, corrosive of freedom. Even when
they work, are they worth it? Even when they work, would nothing else
have worked instead? Even when they work, what about all the hundreds or
thousands of innocent victims who simply ran afoul of the regulations
themselves but did or risked no harm for every one actual criminal
caught by the regulations?

Even if you could present us with some few examples of regulations that
"worked," I have a feeling it would be all too easy to show much better
alternatives.

But I could be wrong. I have been wrong in the past. A few years ago, I
thought I had made a mistake. Turns out I hadn't.

Let's put it to the test, shall we?

> I am not pro or against regulation. I am pro-
> reason. If reason suggests the net result of some law or regulation is
> beneficial, I'll argue for the regulation. If it shows its harmful
> I'll argue against.

There is a time to debate theory and there is a time to debate results.
You have been arguing theory and I have been arguing theory and results.
We really need for you to start arguing more results. You have implied
results, but never actually referenced any.

> I'd appreciate it if you refrain from extreme statements like "
> nothing you advocate makes any sense at all' . Hyperbole like that is
> highly combative (see Charles).

You're right, and I try (and hopefully succeed) in keeping such personal
comments to a minimum. But I have addressed your points time and again
only to have you do nothing more than restate your original assertion.
Assertions are not proof. Provide some examples.

> I don't mind debate over some point
> but just ask yourself how you would feel if some else argued "nothing"
> you advocate makes sense.

I would check to see if they were right. If they were right, oops, I
have to correct my defects. If they were wrong, I show them where I had
made sense, they failed to show how I had made no sense and invite them
to add more detail.

>> Regulatory agencies are, in effect if not intent, immune from legal
>> challenges. Recently, a Federal court held President Obama in contempt
>> of court and ordered him to lift his moratorium on off-shore drilling
>> permits. But the President does not directly control drilling permits.
>> Regulators do. So while he may obey the letter of the court ruling and
>> lift his moratorium, the effect has been negligible. New permits have
>> not been forthcoming and there is nothing the courts can do about it.
>
> I have no idea why some think it make sense to prevent drilling.

Good, but really doesn't matter. My point is that regulatory agencies
are a good deal isolated from any oversight. This is a perfect breeding
ground for the growth of incompetence and corruption, which we have seen
bear out time and time again.

> The CDC is not even close to being equipped to handle food poisoning
> cases for a country of 300 million.

So? Since when do we require one and only one place to perform any
service? Any local lab can handle food poisoning.

> Out of curiosity though... does this mean you are actually OK with
> government funding of the CDC?

I'm not OK with the government funding the CDC, but not for any reason
discussed here. The CDC is an information clearinghouse, not a
regulatory agency.

>> Suppose I am shopping for a monitor and narrow my choice down to two
>> candidates. Different manufacturers but otherwise close enough to
>> identical to make little difference.
>
> For most consumers there is little way to know the differences (unless
> its a product that's simply been rebranded) Electronics today are
> very complex today. They aren't like buying a lumpy pillow or spoiled
> fruits.

You have an annoying habit of introducing irrelevancies.

> Further examination shows a sticker
>> from a government safety agency on one but only a sticker from a
>> private, for-profit agency, such as Underwriter's Lab, on the other.
>
> As far as I know even today it can be for-profit companies that does
> the checks (assuming the are officially recognized) but a check must
> be made my someone (at least for some kinds of devices). While such
> 3rd party checks could certainly be ignored by any particular
> justification, completely eliminating such regulations would almost
> certainly resort in far more fires.

More speculation which is really irrelevant. When I make my point, you
failed to address that.

>>...

>> So, all else being equal, which one should I place greater confidence in?

See? No answer.

>> An absolutist? Li'l ol' me? Actually, no. I am prepared to admit that
>> there are places where government regulation cannot be performed better
>> and/or cheaper than any other solution. Just because I personally have
>> not thought of any doesn't mean one doesn't exist. That is why I have
>> asked for your help. Show me.
>
> I have but you choose to reject the evidence. Fire and food safety
> regulations are two areas that seem to have had a tremendous affect on
> lifespans and protection of both public and private property in the
> 20th century.

What evidence. You repeatably refer to fire and safety but even you
can't bring them up without hedging. They "seem to" have an effect? This
shows even you are not all that confident in this "evidence."

> You can assert such regulations are harmful but in
> practice the 19th century (which didn't have nearly as many fire and
> sanitation related regulations) had far more premature deaths due to
> these causes.

Perhaps it is my studies in economics that give me alternative ways of
viewing what you just said. We are a richer people now than then. As a
people grow richer, they can and do require more safety because they are
better able to afford it. For no other reason, I would fully expect that
we live in a safer world.

Has regulation played any role whatsoever in that increased safety? Has
that role been positive or perhaps negative? Every indication I can find
points toward the negative. There have been assertions of a positive
influence, but no correlation.

> One could certainly argue this is a non-casual correlation but in my
> experience those that argue it usually seem to be basing their
> argument on blanket moralizing rather than statistical analysis of
> facts.

You are certainly not referring to me. I have kept moralizing a minimum
and used only clear statements of fact with real-life examples.

> Laws aren't only about control. They can also be about simply
> applying common sense to our behaviors.

True enough. Now apply that to regulations!

>> I differ with a "no taxation at all" stance. If government has proper
>> roles, then it must be funded. However, I recognize that there are more
>> opportunities to raise those funds with user fees, like charging
>> admission to national parks to cover the cost of the park.
>
> Then you are not an Objectivist per se.

No, I'm pretty much an Objectivist through and through. Yes, there are
some points where I may differ with Objectivist orthodoxy (and it pains
me to write the word "orthodoxy" in reference to Objectivism) but that
doesn't make me less an Objectivist. In fact, I claim it makes me more
an Objectivist because there can be no rigid acceptance of orthodoxy
except as a matter of faith. I accept nothing based on faith and that is
about as Objectivist as it gets.

> Under Rand's conceptualization
> of government there would be national parks. I don't think she would
> even support the CDC either. Essentially everything would be sold off
> as private property (other than facilities and employes related to
> Rand's minimalist government related to protection of private
> property)

This was Rand's personal views and opinions and (as strange as it may
seem) has nothing to do with Objectivism. If Objectivism is indeed an
objective philosophy, it does not rely on the personal views and
opinions of even its founder.

So I may agree or disagree with any view or opinion of any other
Objectivist, even Rand herself, without enhancing on endangering my own
claim of being an Objectivist.

> I've asked this many times over the years but no Oist has yet been
> able to answer the fundamental question as to how exactly would
> military, police courts, etc.. be paid without the use of taxation?

Just look to the past. The United States went through a tremendous
growth spurt with nothing more that use, excise and other taxes. That
is, without an Income Tax. Now the Income Tax has become so
all-pervasive that we just say the word "tax" in regards to the Federal
government and we all assume (rightfully) that we are referring to the
Income Tax.

So just because I approve of the concept of taxation does not mean I
approve of all methods of taxation. The Income Tax is an absolute no-no.

> Normally I don't support government intervention but there are special
> cases where it does seem to help. Healthcare isn't like buying a TV
> or sofa (where I would be appalled if our government set prices like
> it does our healthcare).

Strictly from an economic level, there is no difference between health
care and consumer electronics -- or automotive or housing or clothing or
mining or any other industry. Brain surgery and teeth cleaning are
effected by all the same economic principles as effect TVs or sofas.

We are talking about reality here, which is amazingly indifferent to our
hopes and desires.

> Once one becomes aware of a serious health
> problem shopping around for better pricing become very difficult
> (especially in an emergency). Many healthcare workers know that and
> end up exploiting other people's misery. (effectively price gouging)

Exploiting other people's misery. Yes, I've heard that a lot, especially
in the debate of government health care. Doctor's exploit people's
misery, pharmaceutical companies exploit people's misery, health
insurance companies exploit people's misery, and on and on.

Apparently, everyone who receives recompense for the crime of reducing
pain and suffering in our world is guilty of exploiting other's misery.

What a bleak way of looking at the concept.

So anyone who sells me food is exploiting my hunger. Well, maybe he is.
But the only way he can exploit my hunger is to relieve my hunger. The
only way anyone can exploit people's misery is to relieve that misery.

So the argument is not that doctors et all do bad. No, assuredly they do
good, vast amounts of good. The argument is 1) they do well and 2) they
do it for the wrong reasons.

Each of those arguments requires an extensive answer (which I have made
in other threads and other venues) but they don't directly concern
regulation so I will forgo for now.

>>
>> Yes, but /why/ do you feel safer?
>
> Because review naturally adds an extra layer of protection. As a QA
> guy you should appreciate that.

No, not why do you feel safer because of review -- why do you feel safer
because of government review?

> You automatically always assume government is ineffective but is that
> actually always true? You yourself previously argued a 3rd party
> private company can do fire safety checks on equipment. So why is it
> those checks are suddenly ineffective just because it was mandated by
> the government? Its still the same person doing the checks.

Sigh. I have detailed precisely why the government agency is incapable
of the effectiveness and efficiency of private business. Let me give an
analogy.

Say you have two part-time jobs, different companies but the work is the
same. You are paid to load trucks.

In the morning, you work for a company that holds you to a schedule. So
many trucks have to be loaded by the end of the shift and there is a low
tolerance for mistakes (loading an item in the wrong truck, improper
stacking, etc.). You face having your pay docked or even termination if
you fail to perform. On the other hand, you are given bonus pay if you
reach certain performance goals.

In the afternoon, you work for a company that doesn't seem to care if
you load any trucks or not or how well you load them. Your pay is the
same if you load one truck or ten trucks.

Are you going to tell me you are going to work just as hard and
conscientiously every afternoon as you do every morning? You may start
out trying to, but you will quickly learn that it just foolish to try.

It's not laziness. You will not suddenly become lazy just because it's
the afternoon. If you can do something a difficult way or an easy way,
and you accomplish the same thing either way, it is just inefficient to
do it the difficult way.

Government workers are not rewarded for good work or penalized for poor
work. Government workers are not necessarily lazy. But they are efficient.

> Private industry is usually cheaper but that has to be also put into
> the context that there is no large state in the world that is both
> completely deregulated and untaxed.. Essentially Rand theorized a
> system that has never been demonstrated to work. I would note
> communists theorized a system too. The result was much different than
> their predicted results. IMO this is why it pays to be cautious before
> asserting something with confidence.A single test is a worth a
> thousand theories.

Empty words based on nothing. In the early days of the US (and Canada
too, I would imagine) taxation was very low and regulation was
essentially non-existent. Yet growth and wealth generation was
phenomenal, probably unmatched in all of human history. So Rand was not
just theorizing, she was looking at recent history.

Besides, the basis for your entire line of argument thus far was that
regulation was necessary for safety. Are you now claiming that
regulation allows for more efficient (cheaper) operation of private
businesses? If so, you really have your work cut out for you to support
that.
--
TommCatt
Occam's Razor: the simpler an explanation, the more likely it is to be true.
Murphy's Blunt Instrument: the more convoluted and conspiratorial an
explanation, the more likely it is to be believed.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Mar 1, 4:38 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02/27/2012 06:39 PM, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > Waving a firearm around in a city street usually doesn't seem to
> > result in harm either but the risks involved is a sort of harm itself
> > (thus making it criminal behavior).
>
> Exactly. Certain defined actions are not always harmful (running a red
> light does not always lead to an accident) but substantially increases
> the risk of harm to other people who were not able to give their consent
> to the added risk.
>
> > Similarly breaking a regulation
> > can sometimes amount to criminal activity. (assuming of course the
> > regulation makes sense and the issue is severe enough)
>
> In this case, that is a large assumption. Oh, breaking a regulation can
> indeed lead to criminal activity -- in which case the law will jump in
> and take over. But overwhelming the "criminal activity" is nothing more
> than the mere fact they broke the regulation. There was no harm nor
> additional risk of harm.

Real harm can (sometimes) be caused by not following regulations. It's
true the law subsequently steps if serious harm results but the
foundation of justice that ensures afterwards often considers what
regulations that weren't followed. (you yourself elsewhere said
litigation is sometimes the result of not following regulation)

e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire#Investigation

> Have you ever worked in a restaurant or any place that works with food?
> The regulations are such that if applied to private homes, 100% of
> kitchens would be condemned. Even Adrian Monk's kitchen would not pass.
> Sure, it may be clean enough, but he will not have NSF certified equipment.

Different situation. We feed ourselves so we suffer the consequences.
Restaurants, grocery stories, meat packing plants, etc.. could
theoretically poison hundreds if not thousands of people. (which was
far more common in the past than today)

> So the regulations, no matter what they purport to accomplish, no matter
> what they actually accomplish, come at a cost of less freedom. This is
> what I mean when I say the law protects our rights and regulation erodes
> them.

Someone can also state that any law, no matter what it purports to
accomplish comes at the cost of less freedom. Do you believe a
criminal should have the "freedom" to steal your property? Of course
not. You support limits to the freedoms of others when you perceive
their actions start to infringe on your own freedom and safety.
Granted individuals can have a different feel for that but it doesn't
mean that our personal subjective feels are always necessarily
correct.

> > In practice, many regulations are the result of politicians, police
> > and judges simply not being technically knowledgeable enough to either
> > evaluate certain kinds of situations.  For instance how is someone
> > supposed to know what kind of chemicals are considered toxic
> > pollutants from a legal standpoint without some regulatory guidance?
>
> How are the regulators to know. They also lack the technical knowledge
> to make such evaluations. They either hire that knowledge from academic
> or commercial concerns or, more and more often, they use their own
> knowledge such as it is or just react to public pressure.

Most regulators are highly knowledgeable in their field. If anything
I would argue its the politicians that pass stupid regulations that
don't know what they're doing not the regulators themselves. (who are
just doing their jobs much like police enforce laws)

> Regulations have led to the banning of DDT, saccharine, Alar, breast
> implants and any number of other perfectly sound and safe products,

They FDA has also banned plenty of unsafe products too.

Constantly completely putting aside positive examples and resorting to
exaggerations comes across as you having already made your mind up
rather than examining evidence pro/con. I can understand weighing
evidence differently but if one completely excludes facts that don't
support one's thesis it reduces the chances our decision was
objective.

> often to the measurable detriment of many people (millions of
> unnecessary deaths in the case of DDT) because they reacted to public
> scares rather than scientific knowledge. Almost all public scares turn
> out to be unfounded. But the regulations that spring from then live on
> for generations.
>
> > Aside from the common sense sense aspects to some regulations,  I
> > would even argue that some regulation cab actually help insulate
> > businesses from from spurious lawsuits.
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. Now businesses can be sued by
> customers (and in many cases, they don't even have to be customers or
> anyone have any contact at all with the company) not for any harm or
> risk endured, but because of failure to comply with some obscure regulation.

I said *some* (keyword) regulations not all. I completely agree with
you obscure regulations sometimes are used to facilitate frivolous
lawsuits. The punitive damages awarded in particular can ridiculous
(e.g. someone unemployment slips in the local McDonalds and sues for
hundreds of thousands). I think part of the problem is also the court
system itself. Civil law need to be adjusted to more accurately
reflect damages and apply a more balanced approach to moral and
economic culpability. (rather than have businesses effectively
blackmailed by someone trying to milk some incident)

> Obviously, the Left and the Right have different definitions of
> oppressive. Do you think that people have the right to define terms as
> they see fit and try to find ways to meet both definitions? Or do you
> think that because they differ, they are both wrong?
>
> The Left defines oppression as "having to suffer the consequences of my
> own actions." The Right defines oppression as "having my freedom reduced
> or even eliminated altogether."
>
> Only one of those definitions can I accept.
>
> > My own feel
> > (perhaps flawed) is that both positions are extreme and based on
> > moralizing rather than evaluation of the facts.
>
> So you think both are wrong. Funny, you did not specify their
> definitions, how they differed and how they were similar. You just
> seemingly declared both wrong.

That's not what I'm saying. Just because I don't support x or y
political position completely doesn't mean negate everything either
side says. I just believe that every situation calls for a unique
evaluation of the facts before concluding a given regulation makes
sense or not. By default I do not support regulations. I see the onus
on those who want to introduce some regulation to explain why it more
harmful to not have it than to not have it. I don't support the
regulatory nightmare leftists tend create but at the same time I don't
completely negative the usefulness of regulations.

> > One would not be wise
> > to eat soup with a fork... or a steak with a spoon.
>
> I eat ice cream with a fork. I always did even my math homework in pen.
> I guess I am also unwise.

Bet you also used a pencil and eraser when doing math sometimes. You
could of course choose to always use pen, but it may be unwise in some
situations (e.g. a time limited exam). This isn't to say that you
should be mandated by the state to always use a pen on pencil but to
say the state shouldn't be mandated by the left or right to always use
a pencil or always a pen when it decides if it makes sense (or not) to
have a regulation.

> > If some regulation
> > can be demonstrated to improve quality of life within a jurisdiction
> > why then would be rational to argue against it?
>
> Because everything comes at a cost. Regulators never, /ever/, consider
> the cost side of the equation.

That's not true. Exaggeration.

And because regulators are not elected,
> they are free to impose those costs upon us no matter our own feelings
> of their benefits.

As far as I know regulators don't typically pass regulations.
Lawmakers are responsible for that.

> > And if some regulation
> > can be demonstrated to harm quality of life why wouldn't we remove it?
>
> Has any regulation been demonstrated to improve quality of life?
> Regulations by the train-load have been demonstrated to harm quality of
> life. Yet, name the regulations that have been revoked. So your
> statements are extremely easy to make and apparently near impossible to
> carry out.

The standard of living has dramatically improved in the US (and around
the world) since the beginning of the 20th century. We live in a far
more regulated world today than that era. One could certainly argue
the relationship isn't causal but it certainly isn't evidence against
the claim that regulations can improve quality of life.

>
> > To err is human though. Aren't government employes allowed to make
> > mistakes just like people in private companies do? Using the logic
> > that mistakes by government is a reason to get rid of most government
> > services strikes me like the arguments of the far left that use
> > examples of corruption in free enterprise to push Marxism. Why can't
> > we just deal with every issues on a case-by-case basis rather than
> > deal in absolutes?
>
> How did you ever reach the conclusion that I opposed regulation because
> government employees would occasionally make a mistake? Quote the
> statement(s). Maybe I misspoke somewhere. I would like to be able to
> rectify any mistake on my part.

My impression is you blanket believe every regulation is wrong...
irregardless of the facts behind the specifics of the situation. Am I
mistaken to believe this?

> No, the problem is not mistakes but corruption. The free market has a
> quite efficient system of controlling corruption in business --
> publicity. No one, not an individual customer or another business, wants
> to deal with a company that has become corrupt.

Again exaggeration. Everyone cares about corruption when they are the
target but often lose interest when it comes time to their own pocket
books. Cigarette companies were directly responsibly for the premature
deaths of tens of millions around the world before it became widely
established their products cause cancer. They fought tooth and nail
for decades against scientists that showed their products were
poisonous.

They are still in business today. Addicts want to smoke and cigarette
companies are perfectly content exploiting their addiction to make
money. Tobacco growers want to make money too. Shippers of materials
want to make money. Convenience stores want to make money. Everyone
well knows cigarettes still prematurely kill millions globally
annually but personal greed overrules ethics. It shouldn't be illegal
but at the same time its not exactly evidence free markets are always
a synonym for ethics.

I'm not saying this is evidence that government is some absolute
panacea either but I think examining situations case-by-case makes
more sense than ethical assertions pro or con some regulation or law
that don't depend on examining facts behind situation first.

> The elected official in government also has that system, though
> admittedly a bit less efficient than business. Corrupt officials, when
> discovered, face eviction, recall or just failure to get reelected.
>
> Regulatory agencies have no system in place to limit corruption. Any and
> all of us can make mistakes? Unarguably. Any and all of us can, under
> the right conditions, become corrupt? Absolutely.
>
> Regulatory agencies will, inevitably, become corrupt. And there is no
> way to prevent it, punish it, or rectify it.
>
> >> Would you accept that from a restaurant? "Yes, we realize our food was
> >> so bad it would choke a pig, but tell you what, we'll raise our prices
> >> and you keep coming here anyway and we /promise/ the food will get better.
>
> >> Yeah. Right.
>
> > I agree government employees should be held more accountable.
> > Politicians and unions are clearly abusing their position of power to
> > do things like make it next to impossible to fire government employees
> > and boast their own wages. They also sometimes support crony types of
> > capitalism (i.e. capitalism based not on free enterprise but on trying
> > to manipulate laws into crushing competitors)
>
> Ah. Now you brush up against the real appeal of regulations. If
> governments did not have the power to regulate, businesses couldn't come
> to them for special treatment for themselves and oppressive treatment
> for their competitors. But they do claim that right and it is a source
> of quite a lot of money. And a good deal of that money makes it into the
> pockets of the regulators and legislators, not the treasury.

No argument here. One thing I can't understand though is why some on
the right then go on to be against limits against corporate campaign
contributions to help reduce that exact sort of crony capitalism?

> > I also agree with you the SEC screwed up but inadequate oversight
> > doesn't necessary equate to more money or more regulation. I'm just
> > arguing they just need to figure better methods to catch thieves like
> > Madoff in the future.  Criminals often escape detection  but I don't
> > image you would argue we should completely get rid of police and
> > courts right?
>
> At a high school ball game, a player's father was sitting in the stands
> and accidentally overheard two businessmen's discussion. They had been
> talking about a certain company so the man decided, what the hey!, he
> would buy some stock in that company.
>
> The SEC prosecuted that man -- successfully -- for insider trading.
>
> Congratulations, SEC, for a job well done. Of course, one could ask
> "Whom did that man hurt?", "Who lost money because of that man buying
> that stock?", "What about the people who just happened to buy that stock
> at that time -- did they hurt anyone?
> In other words, just what was the man's crime? Regulation!

I can't speak about the case in question but let me play role of
devil's advocate. What's to prevent all inside traders from saying
they simply "overheard"? (or getting someone they know to "over hear")

>
> Yet, people who actually steal money from people seem to get away with
> it -- until they are finally caught the old fashioned way.
> It's not that police and the courts fail to catch every criminal or
> solve every crime. It's that regulations fail to do anything beneficial
> at all.

Are you saying that the SEC doesn't catch any real crooks? That much
like the police, its very existence doesn't discourage many would be
thieves?

From my perspective its you that's arguing theory. We both live in
highly regulated countries (Canada and US) not some theoretical
Randian governments that have no-tax and no regulations. You are the
one arguing Hume's ought to be rather than what is.

> We really need for you to start arguing more results. You have implied
> results, but never actually referenced any.
>
> > I'd appreciate it if you refrain from extreme statements like "
> > nothing you advocate makes any sense at all' . Hyperbole like that is
> > highly combative (see Charles).
>
> You're right, and I try (and hopefully succeed) in keeping such personal
> comments to a minimum. But I have addressed your points time and again
> only to have you do nothing more than restate your original assertion.
> Assertions are not proof. Provide some examples.

I agree assertions are not proof. Name me one country without taxes
and without regulations. (other than tiny offshore banking tax
shelters)

> > I don't mind debate over some point
> > but just ask yourself how you would feel if some else argued "nothing"
> > you advocate makes sense.
>
> I would check to see if they were right. If they were right, oops, I
> have to correct my defects. If they were wrong, I show them where I had
> made sense, they failed to show how I had made no sense and invite them
> to add more detail.
>
> >> Regulatory agencies are, in effect if not intent, immune from legal
> >> challenges. Recently, a Federal court held President Obama in contempt
> >> of court and ordered him to lift his moratorium on off-shore drilling
> >> permits. But the President does not directly control drilling permits.
> >> Regulators do. So while he may obey the letter of the court ruling and
> >> lift his moratorium, the effect has been negligible. New permits have
> >> not been forthcoming and there is nothing the courts can do about it.
>
> > I have no idea why some think it make sense to prevent drilling.
>
> Good, but really doesn't matter. My point is that regulatory agencies
> are a good deal isolated from any oversight. This is a perfect breeding
> ground for the growth of incompetence and corruption, which we have seen
> bear out time and time again.
>
> > The CDC is not even close to being equipped to handle food poisoning
> > cases for a country of 300 million.
>
> So? Since when do we require one and only one place to perform any
> service? Any local lab can handle food poisoning.

Sorry. I though you previously suggested the CDC would handle all food
poisoning cases.

Just to be clear about something. I don't think a government worker
needs to necessarily do the actual checks. The work can be farmed out
to certified private companies who bid for the work. However, I do
believe checks should be mandatory. People can and do die from mass
food poisoning. Countries that lack monitoring have far higher rates
of premature death by food poisoning. (see any third world country)

> > Out of curiosity though... does this mean you are actually OK with
> > government funding of the CDC?
>
> I'm not OK with the government funding the CDC, but not for any reason
> discussed here. The CDC is an information clearinghouse, not a
> regulatory agency.

> >> Suppose I am shopping for a monitor and narrow my choice down to two
> >> candidates. Different manufacturers but otherwise close enough to
> >> identical to make little difference.
>
> > For most consumers there is little way to know the differences (unless
> > its a product that's simply been rebranded)  Electronics today are
> > very complex today. They aren't like buying a lumpy pillow or spoiled
> > fruits.
>
> You have an annoying habit of introducing irrelevancies.
>
> > Further examination shows a sticker
> >> from a government safety agency on one but only a sticker from a
> >> private, for-profit agency, such as Underwriter's Lab, on the other.

I don't object to private for-profit companies doing the work. What I
object to is there not being a regulation making a third party check
mandatory. (at least for some kinds of high current devices where fire
safety is real issue). While someone claim "its my own risk"... if 100
families live in the apartments above them that's just not true.

> > As far as I know even today it can be for-profit companies that does
> > the checks (assuming the are officially recognized) but a check must
> > be made my someone (at least for some kinds of devices).  While such
> > 3rd party checks could certainly be ignored by any particular
> > justification, completely eliminating such regulations would almost
> > certainly resort in far more fires.
>
> More speculation which is really irrelevant. When I make my point, you
> failed to address that.

> >> So, all else being equal, which one should I place greater confidence in?
>
> See? No answer.
>
> >> An absolutist? Li'l ol' me? Actually, no. I am prepared to admit that
> >> there are places where government regulation cannot be performed better
> >> and/or cheaper than any other solution. Just because I personally have
> >> not thought of any doesn't mean one doesn't exist. That is why I have
> >> asked for your help. Show me.
>
> > I have but you choose to reject the evidence. Fire and food safety
> > regulations are two areas that seem to have had a tremendous affect on
> > lifespans and protection of both public and private property in the
> > 20th century.
>
> What evidence. You repeatably refer to fire and safety but even you
> can't bring them up without hedging. They "seem to" have an effect? This
> shows even you are not all that confident in this "evidence."

Its not speculation. You are the one speculating that removing all
fire regulations would result in less fires. If turn of the 19th
century comparisons count for anything that's just not true. Fire
deaths have been dropping for decades compared to less regulated fire
safety situations from earlier periods. Big city fires were far more
common before fire regulations and public fire departments.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates/trend_overall.shtm
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:19th-century_fires>

> > You can assert such regulations are harmful but in
> > practice the 19th century (which didn't have nearly as many fire and
> > sanitation related regulations) had far more premature deaths due to
> > these causes.
>
> Perhaps it is my studies in economics that give me alternative ways of
> viewing what you just said. We are a richer people now than then. As a
> people grow richer, they can and do require more safety because they are
> better able to afford it. For no other reason, I would fully expect that
> we live in a safer world.
>
> Has regulation played any role whatsoever in that increased safety? Has
> that role been positive or perhaps negative? Every indication I can find
> points toward the negative. There have been assertions of a positive
> influence, but no correlation.
>
> > One could certainly argue this is a non-casual correlation but in my
> > experience those that argue it usually seem to be basing their
> > argument on blanket moralizing rather than statistical analysis of
> > facts.
>
> You are certainly not referring to me. I have kept moralizing a minimum
> and used only clear statements of fact with real-life examples.

You are moralizing when arguing fire safety though. The evidence seems
to point to the exact opposite of your claim that regulations never
work (at least when it comes to rational fire regulations). Most
statistics I've seen suggest the chance of a fire today in a big city
is dramatically less than it was 50 years ago. (and big city fires are
very rare today unlike early centuries)
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_safe/presentations/21-02/ctif.pdf

Fire safety wasn't a big deal in small villages and communities in
early centuries were city living wasn't as common. The threat was
usually limited to burning one's own property down. However when
someone takes risk in a city with nearby homes and busineses nearby,
one is also adding (unwanted) risk to others.

Its quite rational that you think a philosophy should be adaptable to
facts but according to my understanding of Peikoff's views you
wouldn't qualify as Objectivist. The Kelley/Peikoff split is precisely
about this difference between following Rand's views and following
spinoffs of Rand's views.

>
> > I've asked this many times over the years but no Oist has yet been
> > able to answer the fundamental question as to how exactly would
> > military, police courts, etc.. be paid without the use of taxation?
>
> Just look to the past. The United States went through a tremendous
> growth spurt with nothing more that use, excise and other taxes.

That's still taxes. In addition the US federal government regulated
and provided services nearly from day one (albeit not nearly as much
as after the New deal. Your current positions seem to put you closer
to Libertarian than Oist.

That
> is, without an Income Tax. Now the Income Tax has become so
> all-pervasive that we just say the word "tax" in regards to the Federal
> government and we all assume (rightfully) that we are referring to the
> Income Tax.

I don't like paying taxes but I understand that the government needs
to fund itself. My own preference would be higher inheritance taxes
and less taxes during our lifetime. This way every generation would
start around the same place (i.e. meritocracy rather than
aristocracy)

>
> So just because I approve of the concept of taxation does not mean I
> approve of all methods of taxation. The Income Tax is an absolute no-no.
>
> > Normally I don't support government intervention but there are special
> > cases where it does seem to help.   Healthcare isn't like buying a TV
> > or sofa (where I would be appalled if our government set prices like
> > it does our healthcare).
>
> Strictly from an economic level, there is no difference between health
> care and consumer electronics -- or automotive or housing or clothing or
> mining or any other industry. Brain surgery and teeth cleaning are
> effected by all the same economic principles as effect TVs or sofas.
>
> We are talking about reality here, which is amazingly indifferent to our
> hopes and desires.
>
> > Once one becomes aware of a serious health
> > problem shopping around for better pricing become very difficult
> > (especially in an emergency). Many healthcare workers know that and
> > end up exploiting other people's misery. (effectively price gouging)
>
> Exploiting other people's misery. Yes, I've heard that a lot, especially
> in the debate of government health care. Doctor's exploit people's
> misery, pharmaceutical companies exploit people's misery, health
> insurance companies exploit people's misery, and on and on.
>
> Apparently, everyone who receives recompense for the crime of reducing
> pain and suffering in our world is guilty of exploiting other's misery.
>
> What a bleak way of looking at the concept.

The problem isn't making money (nor am I insinuating every health care
worker is exploitative) Making money from curing the sick is actually
a very honorable way to make a living. However when one charges an arm
and leg for a procedure it can make health care inaccessible to many
(and can lead to bankruptcies where all our worldly assets disappear
because one of our family members happened to get sick through no
fault of our own) One can live without a TV. Sometimes one cannot live
with a medical treatment.

>
> So anyone who sells me food is exploiting my hunger. Well, maybe he is.
> But the only way he can exploit my hunger is to relieve my hunger. The
> only way anyone can exploit people's misery is to relieve that misery.

Food is a different situation. Free market works at keeping costs
down because there is far more competition. Its not a situation where
we have to depend on a small number of highly trained medical
professionals. If food prices became too high, people would start
growing things themselves. This helps keeps prices low.

Your example isn't valid though. The US founding fathers system of
government was certainly less taxed and less regulated than today but
it certainly wasn't objectivist either (not to mention their quality
of life was far inferior today). It is you that does not have a single
working example of state completely run by Rand's principles. (at
least not nothing bigger than say a small tax shelter)

To be clear, I'm not saying its impossible that such a system might
work. Perhaps there are free enterprise workarounds for all the
problems I describe. It so I would happily eat my words. I'm not
stubborn solely to say I'm right. I'm flexible to change... provided
the evidence is there some system works better than the mixed
economies we currently have. Asserting something before the fact, is
hubris. Objectivity on issues as complex as new forms of governance is
stating something along the lines "I believe this might work better so
lets give it a try." rather than "I am certain it is so".

[Charles Bell]

On Mar 7, 10:47 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> Someone can also state that any law, no matter what it purports to
> accomplish comes at the cost of less freedom.

Socialists like you (and anarchists) who support a subjective meaning
for "coercion" can claim that any law is necessarily a limit on
freedom -- depending only on opinion as to who is or is not being
coerced and not on any such thing as fact as to who is or is not being
coerced.

> > Obviously, the Left and the Right have different definitions of
> > oppressive.

Socialists like you (and anarchists) -- all leftists and only leftists
-- who support a subjective meaning for "coercion" can claim that any
law is necessarily a limit on freedom -- depending only on opinion as
to who is or is not being coerced and not on any such thing as fact as
to who is or is not being coerced.

.
> > Do you think that people have the right to define terms as
> > they see fit and try to find ways to meet both definitions?

You do. See: everything you have written on "coercion" An employer
who is coerced to hiring a person he otherwise would not hire is not
coercon in your opinion because "people define terms as they see fit."

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Mar 8, 6:51 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 10:47 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > Someone can also state that any law, no matter what it purports to
> > accomplish comes at the cost of less freedom.
>
> Socialists like you (and anarchists) who support a subjective meaning

I don't support "a subject meaning" troll. I am not a "socialist"
troll. Learn to read "troll"..

[Charles Bell]

In a sense, it does not matter as to the exact label one may apply to
you in that all who profess to the specifics [*] as you do are evil
and evil must lie to survive. It is the lying that manifests the evil,
not what the substance of what you actually say. It has been just
that such hpo "trolls" like Paul Robinson who actually came in
claiming affinity to Rand (has "read Atlas Shrugged ten times) are
more obvious than such as you (and David Friedman, initially) You
even lie for David Friedman, now, which he no longer does in hpo or
elsewhere in the Internet that I can see -- as to his support for the
malignancy in the Whitehouse, and that he is openly collectivist. not
pretending to any affinity to Rand's radical individualism.

[*] You lie: You believe in an objective "coercion"

> I've
> already said I believe in objective coercion

. . . though you say:

> However, situations are sometimes complicated
> thus determining who is
> initiated harm is not always easy.

> Different individuals sometimes create different
> narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.

You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though
never giving it) while also claiming that "coercion" means different
things to different people. IF THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY AND YOU
(YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE OF PERCEIVING IT, THEN YOU SHOULD BE
ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU CLAIM
EXISTS.

The fact of the matter there is no objective {anything} for evil
people.

Ayn Rand is the first to idenitfy this.

<<Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man's survival--not
by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your
whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life.>>


To lie about what is good (non-coercion) or evil (coercion) is to
confuse what is good as what is sometimes evil, or vice-versa;

> Different individuals sometimes create different
> narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.

IOW "initiating harm" is not harm which is inititated but rather is
subject to "different narratives" A fact is not a fact when one lies.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Mar 18, 7:29 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:03 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 6:51 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 10:47 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > Someone can also state that any law, no matter what it purports to
> > > > accomplish comes at the cost of less freedom.
>
> > > Socialists like you (and anarchists) who support a subjective meaning
>
> > I don't support "a subject meaning" troll. I am  not a "socialist"
> > troll. Learn to read "troll"..
>
> In a sense, it does not matter as to the exact label one may apply to
> you in that all who profess to the specifics [*]  as you do are evil

I hate to use the word evil but as far as I can tell you come close to
matching it you lowlife patronizing intolerant prick.

Your endless dishonest straw man arguments show you don't give a crap
if you lie through your teeth. You clearly mistake Rand's rational
self interest with amoral anything goes sophistry. You bizarrely
believe your extremist fringe political views represent the views of
the US founding fathers (who were generally good principled men also
interested in the welfare of the American people... not purely selfish
attention seeking trolls like you)

You are an apologist for torture (i.e. war crimes), wars for
illusionary WNDs(i.e. war crimes), you want to murder millions of
Muslims (i.e. war crimes) - on their own homelands - while trying to
portray yourself as fighting for "freedom". You are a manipulative
unprincipled bigot that doesn't give a crap about freedom, morality or
even whats good for your country. All you care about is Charles Bell.

Rather than try to be tolerant towards the differences in the world
around you, to grow as a human being by contemplating the views of
others, violent trolls like you (see Taliban) blabber on and on about
how everyone else is immoral and fucked up. Earth to your brain. You
are fucked up. During high school you were the kid that bullied around
the shy or clumsy kids to feel important. The best therapy for self-
righteous loudmouths like you would be a good old fashion ass whooping
you low life Nazi cunt. It would put some common sense in you to show
some politeness to others you pretentious prick. You are not the
ubermensh dear. You're just some dude with personal insecurities that
terrorizes the internet to get attention to make up for your pathetic
existence. Rather than contribute something positive to this world,
you rant on and on about everyone else. You disgust me.

Are you interested in a civil conversion or shall we continue along
this lines?

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Mar 18, 7:29 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

"You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning
(though
never giving it) while also claiming that "coercion" means different
things to different people"

I have described my views on coercion but you clearly don't bother to
read them. Instead you just substitute with your sundry straw man
stereotypes. Clearly your brain can't function in a universe beyond
two schools of thought.

You.... versus.... everyone else part of some giant socialist
Islamofascist Nazi <throw in some naughty word here> conspiracy.
Paranoia is a usually a sign of mental illness.

[Charles Bell]

On Monday, March 19, 2012 3:10:28 AM UTC-4, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> I have described my views on coercion

> I've
> already said I believe in objective coercion
>

> However, situations are sometimes complicated
> thus determining who is
> initiated harm is not always easy.

> Different individuals sometimes create different
> narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.


You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though never giving it) while also claiming that "coercion" means different things to different people. IF THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY AND YOU (YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE OF PERCEIVING IT, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU CLAIM EXISTS

[Charles Bell]

On Monday, March 19, 2012 3:02:41 AM UTC-4, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Mar 18, 7:29 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 11:03 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 8, 6:51 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Mar 7, 10:47 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >
> > > > > Someone can also state that any law, no matter what it purports to
> > > > > accomplish comes at the cost of less freedom.
> >
> > > > Socialists like you (and anarchists) who support a subjective meaning
> >
> > > I don't support "a subject meaning" troll. I am  not a "socialist"
> > > troll. Learn to read "troll"..
> >
> > In a sense, it does not matter as to the exact label one may apply to
> > you in that all who profess to the specifics [*]  as you do are evil
>
> I hate to use the word evil

Of course you do because "evil" would have such a multiplicity of meanings, just like "coercion", according to one's individual narrative, as you say.

You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though never giving it) while also claiming that "coercion" means different things to different people. IF THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE REALITY AND YOU (YOU, PERSONALLY) ARE CAPABLE OF PERCEIVING IT, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ATTACH A DEFINITION TO AN OBJECTIVE "COERCION" YOU CLAIM EXISTS

> I've
> already said I believe in objective coercion


. . . though you say:


> However, situations are sometimes complicated
> thus determining who is
> initiated harm is not always easy.

> Different individuals sometimes create different
> narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.

x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.

xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Mar 20, 6:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2012 3:10:28 AM UTC-4, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > I have described my views on coercion
> > I've
> > already said I believe in objective coercion
>
> > However, situations are sometimes complicated
> > thus determining who is
> > initiated harm is not always easy.
> > Different individuals sometimes create different
> > narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.
>
> You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though never giving it)

Indeed I have said it has an objective meaning.I have also said
initiating harm is part of my conceptualization of coercion not only
your not doing things we would otherwise not want to do. Prisoners
don't want to go to jail. Police aren't using "coercion" to put them
there. They are using force. Force is not a synonym for coercion else
it would negate morality during any sort of disputes were both sides
use force.

What you don't get is that determining coercion not always so easy as
our personal opinions.. For instance, I consider an owner of condo
not following some sort of fire safety as risky enough behavior to be
considered an initiation of harm. (sort of like waving a gun around).
There might be hundred families in the same building that could die if
a single person is irresponsible - thus I support some kinds of fire
regulations. (e.g. mandatory fire escapes , fire alarms, and fire
extinguishers in buildings over a certain height) However, if there
was a method around some of these regulations but safety remained
intact I wouldn't oppose changing the regulation.

This is unlike cigarettes or even narcotics where I believe a person
has a right to do as they wish despite that it can prematurely kill
them (since they are the ones that suffer the consequences of their
choices not others). However, even with that there are sometimes
caveats. I don't believe private companies should have the "freedom"
to sell children cigarettes (since most children are net yet mentally
equipped to make that choice). I don't believe someone should have
the "freedom" to drive drunk.

Freedom in a community is not about doing whatever we want. For that
sort of freedom someone should go live alone on some deserted island
and leave the rest of us in peace. Set fire to their hut and make
love to seashells if they like. Its none of my business. However,
freedom in community is about being considerate to those we live
around. Callously destroying other people's property, health and lives
isn't 'freedom". It's coercion.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

The problem is coercion can be ambiguous due to complexity.

Consider the great "global warming" debate. There are four big
questions.

1. Is the earth warming?
2. If so, is the cause man made?
3. If so, does it it present a threat that needs addressing?
3. If so, what needs to be done.

Some on the right suggest its a scam. Some the left many claim its
impending doom. Objectively speaking.... there is an absolute answer
out there as to whether global warming is a threat or not. Given the
political polarity over the issue though, clearly politics not science
is deciding the opinions of those that are "sure" one way or another.
The reality is given the complex science behind the issue the vast
majority of people that are "sure" really have no clue whether its a
threat or not. They simply aren't qualified to have an opinion on the
matter (and I include myself in that)

Unfortunately we forced to have an opinion any how because we have to
make choices based on available evidence we are familiar with. If the
threat was real... then those that argued again action... would have
been involved in a coercive act (since they would have been
endangering our potential survival as who knows what can happen if Co2
starts to build up in the atmosphere) On the other hand, if the
threat was not real.... all sorts of money and effort that could have
been dedicated to other more beneficial uses was wasted (i.e. an act
of coercion)

No matter what position one takes... they might be wrong. This
precisely why we have to be tolerant of others. Sometimes we are the
ones initiating harm to others (even if unintentionally) and why I say
that although coercion is objective the answers as to who exactly is
being coercive can sometime be slippery.

[Charles Bell]

<spar...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:9af7c8a3-e84e-4d45...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 20, 6:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 19, 2012 3:10:28 AM UTC-4, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > I have described my views on coercion
> > > I've
> > > already said I believe in objective coercion
> >
> > > However, situations are sometimes complicated
> > > thus determining who is
> > > initiated harm is not always easy.
> > > Different individuals sometimes create different
> > > narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.
> >
> > You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though
> > never giving it)
>
> Indeed I have said it has an objective meaning.I have also said
> initiating harm is part of my conceptualization of coercion

No, you were very clear, and I have directly quoted you several times, that
the "conceptualization" of initiating harm can be a matter of personal
narrative, rather than of objective reality. Thus, you claim that
"coercion" in part constitutes an initiation of harm while denying that the
initiation of harm has objective meaning and rather varies from individual
to individual

* I've
* already said I believe in objective coercion

. . . though you say:

* However, situations are sometimes complicated
* thus determining who is
* initiated harm is not always easy.

> Different individuals sometimes create different
> narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.

..

> not only
> your not doing things we would otherwise not want to do. Prisoners
> don't want to go to jail.

Prisoners guilty of crimes are thus because they have committed acts of
coercion. It is easy enough to say, and I have, that the criminal justice
system operates sometimes by coercion -- in jury duty, in holding a material
witness, imprisoning someone before there is a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt, but I do not pretend that these are not coercion but rather a handful
of allowable, limted and clearly prescribed (coercive) acts of government
that nevertheless come about, and only come about, because somewhere,
someone did commit an act of coercion, and not just because government says
government coercion is, in principle, allowable *ab initio* under any
circumstance as "personal narratives" demand.

> What you don't get is that determining coercion not always so easy as
> our personal opinions.

Defining "coercion" -- which you have yet to do -- is not the same as
detecting and proving who has coerced.

> For instance, I consider an owner of condo
> not following some sort of fire safety as risky enough behavior to be
> considered an initiation of harm.

So you do, but it is not. It is "risky" to invest in the stock market and,
indeed the socialist like you in the Whitehouse has deemed some investors
"too risk-taking" and thus a danger to society.

On the other hand, the owner of a condo agrees as a condition of his
ownership by contract to obey association rules which include obediance to
fire-safety rules. The coercion is by a violater of that contract.

>
> This is unlike cigarettes or even narcotics where I believe a person
> has a right to do as they wish despite that it can prematurely kill
> them (since they are the ones that suffer the consequences of their
> choices not others).

Nonsense. The drug addicted do harm others by their behaviors directly
associated with their drug addiction, but by what philiosophic-legal right
does society have to determine restraint on their behaviors? Moreover,
(legal) restaint is not the same as (legal) coercion. The former would be
means implemented to keep one from doing something that may harm another and
the latter means to force someone to do something (for whatever reason) like
forcibly take drugs or buy health insurance or hire an employee he does not
want.

> However, even with that there are sometimes
> caveats. I don't believe private companies should have the "freedom"
> to sell children cigarettes (since most children are net yet mentally
> equipped to make that choice). I don't believe someone should have
> the "freedom" to drive drunk.
>

Doing anything via children is a matter of informed consent which is assumed
to be at the time of adulthood. "Informed consent" and the abilty to have
it is relevant to coercion as in fraud.

> Freedom in a community is not about doing whatever we want.

Freedom is about doing what one wants without coercion (to and fro).

<<Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a
positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by
his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose
no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating
his rights.>> AR, VOS, "Man's Rights"

[Charles Bell]

<spar...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1be6b423-1802-494d...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> The problem is coercion can be ambiguous due to complexity.
>
> Consider the great "global warming" debate. There are four big
> questions.
>
> 1. Is the earth warming?
> 2. If so, is the cause man made?
> 3. If so, does it it present a threat that needs addressing?
> 3. If so, what needs to be done.
>
> Some on the right suggest its a scam. Some the left many claim its
> impending doom.

Under no circumstance whatsoever is any government morally empowered to do
anything about "global warming" whether it is real or not and whether it is
man-made or not. The individual has natural rights against such government
coercion.

On the other hand, collectivist-socialists like you do believe that one
collective is a threat to another -- protected -- collective by the mere
instance of breathing by every individual of that one collective .

The very argument for "global warming" is that the act of exhaling two of
several so-called greenhouse gases, water and carbon dioxide, by any
individual is a threat to all other individuals, and that some individuals
of a protected class have more right to life than other individuals not of
that protected class. There is simply no end to the argument put by
enironmentalists that any and all acts by any and all individuals will harm
everyone. There is no science to any enviromentalist/hard-green argument
and thus no objective basis to any of their calls for government coercion.
That is not to say that a soft-green environmentalist like Lomberg who
labelled himself a "skeptical evironmental" will not diminish the "science"
of global warming to a deserved trivial scale as far back as twenty years
ago, even though I am personally inclined to dismiss all evirnomentalist
claims, hard or soft green, as bad science

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Mar 24, 7:37 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <spare...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

>
> news:9af7c8a3-e84e-4d45...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 6:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 19, 2012 3:10:28 AM UTC-4, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > I have described my views on coercion
> > > > I've
> > > > already said I believe in objective coercion
>
> > > > However, situations are sometimes complicated
> > > > thus determining who is
> > > > initiated harm is not always easy.
> > > > Different individuals sometimes create different
> > > > narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.
>
> > > You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though
> > > never giving it)
>
> > Indeed I have said it has an objective meaning.I have also said
> > initiating harm is part of my conceptualization of coercion
>
> No, you were very clear, and I have directly quoted you several times, that
> the "conceptualization" of initiating harm can be a matter of personal
> narrative, rather than of objective reality.

You are MIS-quoting me by repeatedly changing context. I did indeed
suggest their are many differing views of what a coercive act might
be. And this is indeed subjectiveness.

However.... I have also repeated stated that I don't agree with this
sort of subjectiveness. I believe in an objective reality... including
an objective coercive behavior. The problem is that although we have
this highlevel placeholder concept of "coercion", the exact details of
how it operates are not as simple as you one liner as you dishonestly
attempt to suggest.

You of course believe your conceptualization is absolute and everyone
else is wrong. This is nothing unique. Get in line with most of the
rest of the world who all believe much like you they know what acts
constitute coercion and which don't.

> > not only
> > your not doing things we would otherwise not want to do. Prisoners
> > don't want to go to jail.
>
> Prisoners guilty of crimes are thus because they have committed acts of
> coercion.

No kidding but doesn't change the fact they are being forced to do
something they would otherwise not do. You are again adding
qualifications beyond your original definition of things that you
would otherwise do.... thus I once again return to the observation
your original definition of coercion is incomplete. There is a moral
component to determining coercion that you conveniently left out and
that's the exact part that most matters.

Who determined if a prisoner committed an act of coercion to justify
subsequent force? The definitions of the law... aka other human
beings with the ability to enforce their decisions. And if they are
wrong... the law are the ones committing coercion.

Laws are useful for obvious situations where everyone can agree
(burglary murder, etc..) but the what if its a tax cheat that goes to
jail? What if its an abortion doctor who aborted a 1 month
pregnancy.... or another one that did a 6 month one? What if its
someone the believes its typically an act of coercion not to have some
sort of fire escape in high rise apartment buildings?

The best method we have at the moment to resolve disputes is electing
governments but even that is imperfect. Democracy just helps us
decide a course of action during for intractable disputes not that we
are or aren't right on some issue. However its the best method we
currently have. There are no all seeing Gods that are always right.
Perhaps one day if computers are powerful enough they can solves some
of these issues.

> So you do, but it is not. It is "risky" to invest in the stock market and,
> indeed the socialist like you

I realize its hard for trolls like you to think outside of your black
and white universe of two philosophical schools of thought but that's
your mental issue to deal with not mine. Seeing as I have told you
this many times now I am not a "socialist".., and you chose to
misrepresent my own stated position... from now on I'm going to refer
to you as a Nazi every time you say it. Since you seem to be
suggesting our own stated positions don't matter and substitute your
own.... I too can make analogies.

> > This is unlike cigarettes or even narcotics where I believe a person
> > has a right to do as they wish despite that it can prematurely kill
> > them (since they are the ones that suffer the consequences of their
> > choices not others).
>
> Nonsense.  The drug addicted do harm others by their behaviors directly
> associated with their drug addiction, but by what philiosophic-legal right
> does society have to determine restraint on their behaviors?

We are not disagreeing. Drugs can impair cognition but the
associated bad behaviors that cause problems for others are not
universal or a direct consequence of the drug. Not everyone that
smokes crack robs gas stations to pay for their habit. Not everyone
that drinks drives drunk, etc. Many try drugs experimentally but
most of them don't harm anyone. The person that does high risk
activities like constant recreational drug use is just more likely to
also consistently make other poor choices. The mixing of the two only
compounds the probability of a bad outcome.

IMO drugs, much like alcohol, are best regulated not banned outright.
This way it decriminalizes usage for those that won't harm anyone
else, leaves some controls in place, and even leaves room for a sin
tax to help fund cleaning up the problems that a disproportionately
high number of recreational drug users do create. (Portugal being a
good example)
http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/01/prohibition

 Moreover,
> (legal) restaint is not the same as (legal) coercion. The former would be
> means implemented to keep one from doing something that may harm another and
> the latter means to force someone to do something (for whatever reason) like
> forcibly take drugs or buy health insurance or hire an employee he does not
> want.

More qualifications. I thought you claimed your definition of coercion
was absolute and the only one out there? Apparently even you don't
believe that.

The reality is I was stating a fact that there exists multiple
definitions of coercion but you foolishly argued against me because
you are more concerned with you

>
> > However, even with that there are sometimes
> > caveats. I don't believe private companies should have the "freedom"
> > to sell children cigarettes  (since most children are net yet mentally
> > equipped to make  that choice). I don't believe someone should have
> > the "freedom" to drive drunk.
>
> Doing anything via children is a matter of informed consent which is assumed
> to be at the time of adulthood.  "Informed consent" and the abilty to have
> it is relevant to coercion as in fraud.

Once again you are adding qualifications as to what "coercion"
constitutes. This is actually rational. Whats not rational was
pretending your original one liner was a complete conceptualization of
coercion.

Coercion also includes a moral assessment of behaviors and effects
that sometimes can be very complex. Harm has to be committed against
someone else. I find those that think its always easy to
determine...typically are most likely to resort to extreme coercive
acts. They have impatient self-righteous intolerant minds that can't
deal with the discomfort of not knowing thus rush to claim answers.

The moral component of coercion is largely the function of the law.
Even though we might want the "freedom" to do everything clearly
others feel our opinions some times constitute an act of coercion. You
might have the personal view you shouldn't pay any taxes. However your
own government and fellow Americans dramatically disagree with you.

From a practical standpoint democracy trumps our personal
conceptualizations of coercion. We elect leaders to decide for you
(and me) what coercion represents despite that we might disagree on
some particular issue.

> > Freedom in a community is not about doing whatever we want.
>
> Freedom is about doing what one wants without coercion (to and fro).

I generally agree but "God" is in the details of what constitutes a
coercive act. That cannot be decided until we understand the larger
consequences of some behavior on others (or at minimum have a high
degree of confidence) .There is an empirical component to determining
if an act was harmful not simply asserting it like gospel from the
Koran.

From my philosophical perspective, debating what constitutes coercion
can sometimes be like two fools asserting who is more foolish. Given
how limited our ape derived mind still is (relatively to the
complexity of the universe around us) I think all of us constantly not
only argue for harm towards others but actually do harm to others
(some consciously but most of us unwittingly). The law, better than
nothing at all, is our attempt to address some of that. The optimist
in me likes to believe we are are getting better at it.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Mar 24, 8:00 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <spare...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

>
> news:1be6b423-1802-494d...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The problem is coercion can be ambiguous due to complexity.
>
> > Consider the great "global warming" debate. There are four big
> > questions.
>
> > 1. Is the earth warming?
> > 2. If so, is the cause man made?
> > 3. If so, does it it present a threat that needs addressing?
> > 3. If so, what needs to be done.
>
> > Some on the right suggest its a scam. Some the left many claim its
> > impending doom.
>
> Under no circumstance whatsoever is any government morally empowered to do
> anything about "global warming" whether it is real or not and whether it is
> man-made or not.

If global warming happened to be a serious threat (or any serious
threat) it would be irrational not to use every reasonable means at
our disposal (including government intervention if necessary). It
would be morally indefensible not use it.

If tomorrow it was discovered an asteroid threatened to sterilize the
earth, and Ayn Rand Space Guard program genuinely believed strapping
you to the tip of an ICBM was the only way to save both herself and
and the planet, you'd get a free trip to outer space.

> The individual has natural rights against such government
> coercion.
>
> On the other hand, collectivist-socialists like you do believe that one
> collective is a threat to another -- protected -- collective by the mere
> instance of breathing by every individual of that one collective

On the other hand, collectivist Nazis like you are typically first in
the line to go crying to the police and military to deal with some
threat (real or imagined.. aka coercion)

> The very argument for "global warming" is that the act of exhaling two of
> several so-called greenhouse gases, water and carbon dioxide

I'm sure no one else has considered your deep observation. Must be
nice to live an existence where all the answers are so simple.

> , by any
> individual is a threat to all other individuals, and that some individuals
> of a protected class have more right to life than other individuals not of
> that protected class. There is simply no end to the argument put by
> enironmentalists that any and all acts by any and all individuals will harm
> everyone.  There is no science to any enviromentalist/hard-green argument
> and thus no objective basis to any of their calls for government coercion.
> That is not to say that a soft-green environmentalist like Lomberg who
> labelled himself a "skeptical evironmental" will not diminish the "science"
> of global warming to a deserved trivial scale as far back as twenty years
> ago, even though I am personally inclined to dismiss all evirnomentalist
> claims, hard or soft green, as bad science

I am not fond of anyone that would reference themselves as purely an
"environmentalist". That said, anyone that wholesale dismisses every
environmental claim without considering empirical evidence is clearly
more interested in their moral theories than with science (or reason).
Rand on the other hand believed that a philosophy should includes an
empirical component not only a priori ethical assertions. .

[Charles Bell]

On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Mar 24, 7:37 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <spare...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> >news:9af7c8a3-e84e-4d45...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Mar 20, 6:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, March 19, 2012 3:10:28 AM UTC-4, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > I have described my views on coercion
> > > > > I've
> > > > > already said I believe in objective coercion
>
> > > > > However, situations are sometimes complicated
> > > > > thus determining who is
> > > > > initiated harm is not always easy.
> > > > > Different individuals sometimes create different
> > > > > narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.
>
> > > > You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning (though
> > > > never giving it)
>
> > > Indeed I have said it has an objective meaning.I have also said
> > > initiating harm is part of my conceptualization of coercion
>
> > No, you were very clear, and I have directly quoted you several times, that
> > the "conceptualization" of initiating harm can be a matter of personal
> > narrative, rather than of objective reality.
>
> You are MIS-quoting me by repeatedly changing context. I did indeed
> suggest their are many differing views of what a coercive act might
> be. And this is indeed subjectiveness.
>

And so you are either lying when you claim coercion is objective or
you actually believe objective is subjectiveness.

> I have also repeated stated that I don't agree with this sort of subjectiveness . .

You are either lying or being stupid. You cannot genuinely
simultaneously offer no objective meaning for "coercion", claim the
use of force -- the initiator of that force -- is a matter of personal
narrative, and say you don't agree with this sort of subjectiveness
you describe as necessarily part of your claim.

> No kidding  but doesn't change the fact they are being forced to do
> something they would otherwise not do

That does not change the fact that they initiated the force for
coercion,.and any force used against them is retaliatory, not
initiated. The word-concept "coercion" is intertwined with the
initiation of force. [*] I hit someone back in self-defense; the
person who initiated the force, to cause the self-defense, is the
coercer -- except to someone like you who believes in a subjective
"coercion" as a matter of personal narrative: basically agreeing with
any excuse the coercer will give to say that I made him hit me first.
As to the matter of inititation of force, it is always an inititation
of force, but you deny that because you believe the objective is
subjectiveness and an initiation of force is thus not necessarily an
initiation of force, but rather according to personal narrative [His
narrative is that I made him hit me first even if I never used any
force at all].

[*] It is logically impossible to "make another do as he otherwise
would not do" [to coerce] without initiating force, but it is also
possible to initiate force without it being coercive, as in
"restraint", to prevent someone from doing what he otherwise would
do. The applying of force as within a state of intertia is only free
for the actor when there is no opposing force. "Freedom" to continue
on within this inertial state of unopposed force can only be from
UNCOERCED CHOICE; otherwise freedom is compromised, figurative
momentum moved to or generated to a different direction, by coercion,
the opposing force, which must have been initated elsewhere, just as
force may be initiated elsewhere in order to restrain, to slow down or
stop direction, to dampen the inertia, but the opposing force to
coerce *causes* action and the opposing force to restrain *stops*
action. In *that* there is a fundamental and unambiguous difference
between "coercion" and "restraint" and further examination within
morality means that UNCOERCED choice can only exist without coercion
(let's call that "liberty") and UNRESTRAINED choice can only exist
without restraint (let's call that "libertine-ism"), and whereas the
moral purpose for force to restrain is to preserve UNCOERCED choice
for the other than just the self (to preserve "liberty" for all),
there is no moral purpose for force to coerce (to preserve "libertine-
ism" for all). [**]

The moral-political direction to preserve uncoerced choice is moral
selfishness (Objectivist ethics) and the (a)moral-political direction
to preserve unrestrained choice is immoral selfishness (hedonism,
anarchism, amoral utilitariansim, &cetera)

[**] Interestingly this is the best explanation for Marxist anarchism:
that the populace has to be coerced into anarchy, forever thence
unrestrained by the State.
.

[Charles Bell]

On Mar 26, 5:35 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:00 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <spare...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> >news:1be6b423-1802-494d...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The problem is coercion can be ambiguous due to complexity.
>
> > > Consider the great "global warming" debate. There are four big
> > > questions.
>
> > > 1. Is the earth warming?
> > > 2. If so, is the cause man made?
> > > 3. If so, does it it present a threat that needs addressing?
> > > 3. If so, what needs to be done.
>
> > > Some on the right suggest its a scam. Some the left many claim its
> > > impending doom.
>
> > Under no circumstance whatsoever is any government morally empowered to do
> > anything about "global warming" whether it is real or not and whether it is
> > man-made or not.
>
> If global warming happened to be a serious threat (or any serious
> threat)

The point is: there is no such thing as "global warming" which can be
a serious threat. There may indeed a threat by a coming Ice Age (that
would take 100's of thousands of years to come about) that is a
serious threat, as in the Permian Ice Age which destroyed 99% of all
life on earth, but there has never been a period in which there was
such an even higher global temperatures and consequent higher
atmospheric CO2 levels than are projected in worst-case aGWT models
which was not very good for life on earth (Cambrian and Devonian).

>
> > The individual has natural rights against such government
> > coercion.
>
> > On the other hand, collectivist-socialists like you do believe that one
> > collective is a threat to another -- protected -- collective by the mere
> > instance of breathing by every individual of that one collective
>
> On the other hand, collectivist Nazis like you are typically first in
> the line to go crying to the police and military to deal with some
> threat (real or imagined.. aka coercion)
>

Wars are real; aGWT is not. The surest proof that all socialists lie
because they must lie is Climategate.

x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.

xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

No. I have repeatedly made a distinction between noting subjective
definitions (that's observable to anyone if one cares to listen
carefully) and agreeing with such a situation (which I don't).

When you repeatedly claim I believe that or you reference me a
"socialist"... despite that I repeatedly tell you I believe in neither
weeks on end....it's extremely irritated. On one side (especially
given your rudeness) I want to simplify your behavior as a vague
trolling and end this conversation. Yet on another level you've
intrigued me. Are you.....

a. ..a conscious liar?
b. ...someone that actual believes what they're saying?

Putting aside my emotions for a moment, your tenacity, the behavior
to some leftists that seemingly similarly troll me (except
substituting the words "right wing extremist" for "socialist"), and
your seeming mis-characterization of others on this forum.... makes my
rational side give you the benefit of the doubt and lean towards "b" .
(although is still "a" is still an option)

Your belief being genuine is plausible if married to the idea that
language. (especially metaphor, analogy, and other comparisons), is
subtlety distorting our views of concepts rather than always dealing
with objective reality (the ideal). How "much" someone believes x is
like z (or not) plays a key role in determining our perception of both
the definition of words and the entities they describe. )This is not
intrinsically wrong but can be when those comparisons are used to
conceptualize key terms (like coercion) in ad-hoc ways (rather than
objective definitions universal for all). This becomes the backbone
of propositions that could lead someone to subscribe to a distinct
philosophical outlook that might be inappropriate but is rationally
consistent with the context of how they are applying words. (thus why
you don't see the parts of you that are analogous to Nazi beliefs like
I see and similarly explain why you see me as analogous to a
"socialist" despite that i don't see myself that way)

As a consequence of those differences some go on to claim that all
views are subjective but in doing so are, typically unwittingly, are
subtlety arguing for the negation of both logic and values (since its
a self-contradictory position that one's values hold that no more
truth than values of anyone else)/ You, quick mistakenly believe I
believe this. What you don't grasp is that what I'm saying is just
noting the logical inconsistency of subjective moral beliefs and
pointing out someone else's views as subjective///.. isn't actually
evidence that one's own beliefs are objective. To escape the
proverbial box one has to provide a rational and complete argument
that's consistent with observable reality. (which given the
complexities of existence is much easier said then done)

> > I have also repeated stated that I don't agree with this sort of subjectiveness . .
>
> You are either lying or being stupid.

Funny given you should say that. Given your repeated inability to
comprehend your narration of my views contradict my actual views. it
leading me to believe that of you..

>  You cannot genuinely
> simultaneously offer no objective meaning for "coercion", claim the
> use of force -- the initiator of that force -- is a matter of personal
> narrative, and say you don't agree with this sort of subjectiveness
> you describe as necessarily part of your claim.
>
> > No kidding  but doesn't change the fact they are being forced to do
> > something they would otherwise not do
>
> That does not change the fact that they initiated the force for

> coercion,. and any force used against them is retaliatory, not
> initiated and any force used against them is retaliatory, not
> initiated.

... a qualification that wasn't in your original definition of
coercion that you claimed as airtight and complete.

From my standpoint (for he aforementioned reasons in above paragraph)
if someone's conceptualization of coercion is lacking... its entirely
possible they are arguing FOR coercion despite that they claim to be
against it.

> [*] It is logically impossible to "make another do as he otherwise
> would not do" [to coerce] without initiating force, but it is also
> possible to initiate force without it being coercive,

Ok. We are in agreement on this point. My own own point is all your
subsequent qualifications weren't part of your original definition
(especially with regards to the important role defining ethics plays
in determining what does or doesn't qualify an act as coercive)

as in

>
> The moral-political direction to preserve uncoerced choice is moral
> selfishness (Objectivist ethics) and the (a)moral-political direction
> to preserve unrestrained choice is immoral selfishness (hedonism,
> anarchism, amoral utilitariansim, &cetera)
>
> [**] Interestingly this is the best explanation for Marxist anarchism:
> that the populace has to be coerced into anarchy, forever thence
> unrestrained by the State.
> .

I believe that explanation early revolutionaries of the soviet union
gave was that dictatorship as a temporary necessary evil to do away
with the old guard. The irony is that although communists claimed to
be for equality, it typically ended up in extreme form of inequality
(essentially the great leader that not only controlled the economy of
the state but controlled with a few words who lived and died) I think
some groups experimented with electing their tyrants but that really
wasn't much better. (e.g. Hitler was elected too)

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Mar 26, 8:07 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 5:35 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 8:00 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > <spare...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1be6b423-1802-494d...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > The problem is coercion can be ambiguous due to complexity.
>
> > > > Consider the great "global warming" debate. There are four big
> > > > questions.
>
> > > > 1. Is the earth warming?
> > > > 2. If so, is the cause man made?
> > > > 3. If so, does it it present a threat that needs addressing?
> > > > 3. If so, what needs to be done.
>
> > > > Some on the right suggest its a scam. Some the left many claim its
> > > > impending doom.
>
> > > Under no circumstance whatsoever is any government morally empowered to do
> > > anything about "global warming" whether it is real or not and whether it is
> > > man-made or not.
>
> > If global warming happened to be a serious threat (or any serious
> > threat)
>
> The point is: there is no such thing as "global warming" which can be
> a serious threat.

No.The point is most layman are even less qualified to have an
absolute pro or con view on GW than they are qualified to design a
spacecraft to Mars (which is currently less complex and more
understood than the enormous numbers of variables and uncertainties
facing climate researchers). Lay persons that claim they are sure
are defacto mostly speculating and often voting their politics rather
the science. Anyone that's actually spent even a little effort doing
collage level physics knows scientists on both pro and con camps have
considered simplistic one liners about solar activity, cold and hot
weather snaps, ancient fossil records , ice core samples, that we
breath in CO2 , and countless other factors.... using complex models
that include details that most of those that are "sure" haven't
imagined much less capable of doing the math to back up claims. Blind
scientific assertions without being familiar with the complex science
behind it is pretty much the definition of crackpot science. The only
time "scientific" opinions of that sort matter is when it comes time
to voting for politicians that will end up deciding what to do or not
on the matter. It's not that those are unqualified to have an opinion
are morally wrong for leaning towards a view. Even neutrality based on
self-admitted ignorance results in a decision of sorts. However when
one is almost entirely guessing based on extremely weak knowledge of
some topic, its irrational (and dishonest) to claim expertise.

[Charles Bell]

There is no such thing in reality as "subjective definitions" --
something which anyone who follows a philosophy of objective reality
would understand. Even something which is not real can only be
defined by objective definitions: a unicorn has a horn in the middle
of its forehead. A "subjective definition" of some concept would shift
from whats-it to thats-it according to whim -- exactly as you do on
"coercion". A "subjective definition" of a unicorn would perhaps have
a horn in the middle of its forehead or perhaps have a horn in the
middle of its back or perhaps have no horn at all according to
feelings of the definer, exactly as you do on the cord "coercion."

> Your belief being genuine is plausible if married to the idea that
> language. (especially metaphor, analogy, and other comparisons), is
> subtlety distorting our views of concepts rather than always dealing
> with objective reality (the ideal).

Inasmuch as I will define "coercion" as force to compel one to do as
he otherwise would not do, and I have always defined "coercion" as
force to compel one to do as he otherwise would not do, and I will
always define "coercion" as force to compel one to do as he otherwise
would not do, there is no doubt that I am one who will define words
according to an objective reality, in contrast to you who will not
define "coercion" as anything fixed in realty but rather as a matter
of personal narrative.

> > > I have also repeated stated that I don't agree with this sort of
> > > subjectiveness . .
>
> > You are either lying or being stupid.
>
> Funny given you should say that. Given your repeated inability to
> comprehend your narration of my views contradict my actual views. it
> leading me to believe that of you..
>

I understand completely your narration of your view on "coercion" --
it is exactly as a socialist would have it: a matter of the narrative
of a collective wishing to coerce the individual.

> > You cannot genuinely
> > simultaneously offer no objective meaning for "coercion", claim the
> > use of force -- the initiator of that force -- is a matter of personal
> > narrative, and say you don't agree with this sort of subjectiveness
> > you describe as necessarily part of your claim.
>
> > > No kidding but doesn't change the fact they are being forced to do
> > > something they would otherwise not do
>
> > That does not change the fact that they initiated the force for
> > coercion,. and any force used against them is retaliatory, not
> > initiated and any force used against them is retaliatory, not
> > initiated.
>
> ... a qualification that wasn't in your original definition of
> coercion that you claimed as airtight and complete.
>

There is no coercing a coercer; there is only force used to
retaliate, to prevent, to defend, and force used to retaliate, to
prevent, to defend is by definition of each of those words, not
coercion. Freewill though uncoerced choice is freewill through
uncoerced choice; there is no acting through freewill when freewill is
compromised by an opposing coercive force [see explanation in previous
post]. Retaliate: to act with force against a wrong. Such force as to
retaliate or to defend is NOT to make one do as he otherwise would not
do, but rather to meet force with force, to right a wrong, to overcome
evil. The intent itself has nothing to do with force to make another
to do as he otherwise would not do; whereas to intend to coerce is
always to make another do as he otherwise would not do with no
"retaliation" or "defense" or "prevention" in mind. Coercion is
always initiated, but retaliation, defense, and prevention is not.
Force used for prior restraint or threatened force usable for prior
restraint or the actual force used in restraint -- all execution of
laws, not coercive, are thus -- is indeed a force, not coercive, that
can be initiated but never morally as matter toward actual coercion,
that is: there must be or have been a coercive prior act to initiate
the threatened use of prior restraint, and, of course, pre-emptive
self-defense may be (cautiously) seen as so.

Even if in a simple-minded way, to jail a coercer is to use force to
make the coercer do as he otherwise would not do (i.e., go to jail),
by the reasoning above and explanation given in my previous post --
individual freewill cannot be free with coercive force opposed to it
-- the moral intent that the right to life is never to be compromised
is to maintain individual freewill for all those who will not coerce,
for those who do sanction the individual's moral right to life, by
using the force of restraint or the force of defense-retaliation-
prevention against all coercers.

> From my standpoint (for he aforementioned reasons in above paragraph)
> if someone's conceptualization of coercion is lacking... its entirely
> possible they are arguing FOR coercion despite that they claim to be
> against it.
>

That is exactly the reason why you do *not* give an objective
defintion for "coercion" -- you desire to have the word flexible
enough to apply for socialist purposes.

> > [*] It is logically impossible to "make another do as he otherwise
> > would not do" [to coerce] without initiating force, but it is also
> > possible to initiate force without it being coercive,
>
> Ok. We are in agreement on this point. My own own point is all your
> subsequent qualifications weren't part of your original definition
> (especially with regards to the important role defining ethics plays
> in determining what does or doesn't qualify an act as coercive)
>

It is similar to having to define for the ignorant "selfishness" as to
act with self regard WITHOUT HARMING ANOTHER when the actual
definition (for the wise) includes implicitly WITHOUT HARMING ANOTHER,
for harming another is never selfish.

There simply is no such thing as coercion which is not an initiated
force, and similarly there is no such thing a retaliatory force which
is an initiated force. There thus only remains to explain force for
restraint, which may or may not be initiated.

I also happen to believe that Rand fell short with her Initiation of
Force Principle and thus created much confusion as to attaching her
philosophy to libertarianism even if it can be a chicken-or-egg as to
which came first (IoF or Nonaggression Principle or Do No Harm). It is
apparent to me that Rand searched around for politics that fit her
philosophy rather than creating a unique Objectivist politics.
Certainly, "Capitalism", her meta-word description of her politics,
came before Objectivism.

[Charles Bell]

No, there is no valid science behind aGWT as there never was a valid
science behind eugenics or phrenology.

A real threat is observable by any human being. An asteroid racing
thorugh space that would hit the earth, a threat of nature requiring
collective action, can been seen by anyone looking into a telescope,
but as far as climate goes, it has been observed by every human being
a cycle of 33 years (or rather two cycles of 16.5 years each) of deep
warming/slight cooling then slight warming/deep cooling for the last
two thousand years.

Proof that socialists not only do lie but must lie -- who are you
going to believe me or your own lying eyes? -- is Climategate.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

Ah. You already have an absolute answer where most of the scientists
around the world that study the subject in detail claim they aren't
sure (obviously the scientists are crackpots unlike layman like you).

So what specific algorithms did you use when modeling? How did you
incorporate Nernst's heat theorum? Was a Maxwell--Boltzmann
distribution model used to determine the thermodynamics? Was Neumann
entropy a relevant factor? And how was the dataset collected? How did
you account for the thermal capacity of so many inputs? How in the
world does one incorporate so many isothermal diabatic processes? Did
you also build a quantum computer to finally overcome the capacity
problem of dealing with so many particles?

I could go on for days...weeks.... with questions. My guess is you
can't actually answer most (it any) of them.... yet you "sure" about
the science?

You probably are not believe I'm not saying the below in anger but
I'll try any how.

It's painfully obvious your absolute assurance is just a guess. Who
knows. You might be right by sheer chance alone but such guesses
hardly qualifies as "science" when you are doing essentially zero
science that resolves the matter to arrive at your assertion (and no,
parroting political pundits talking points that reference some
scientist that flavors their opinion does not qualify) It's common
sense assurances are essentially worthless without expertise in the
appropriate field and subsequent real world experience. There is no
shame in not knowing. We can't be experts in everything . I am a
lifelong learner that studied fairly complicated physics and math in
college/ I consider myself reasonable proficient in a tiny section of
fairly complicated technology. And consider myself utterly unqualified
to have a "scientific" opinion on GW. It would be simpler telling a
dentist to do open heart surgery. Its not that dentists are too stupid
to learn but they just don't know.

Your angry rants piss me off but on a certain level I also feel sorry
for you. I can see you are social misfit that has few friends. I'd
guess that's one reason you were driven to this forum. You've come to
see the world as about being alone. If I had to play Freud I'd even
guess your constant posing is a side effect of trying to get
attention. Getting perpetually angry (as you likely will with this
post) is unlikely to improve your situation. While on this earth most
don't want to perpetually listen to the gestapo tell them how great
they are. They just want to expand their horizons and enjoy some
friendly banter.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

Exactly. Its irrational for the meaning of words to be moving around.

Unfortunately that's exactly whats currently happening (and has been
happening since the beginning of early human civilization).The effect
is very subtle because the differences in meaning can be very subtle.
However when one combines as all these subtle differences in concepts
it can lead to substantially different conclusions. Its logically if
the building blocks for one sentences are different conceptually
(obfuscated by the fact it sounds exactly the same), the conclusions
will be different. People are following their individual programming
like computer. They can't escape the values of the variables they've
defined. Even more unfortunately many political factions are so busy
ranting at each others conclusions on some ethical point then never
bother to wonder they might disagree in the first place. (writing it
off to some mysterious catch-all we call "evil") With physical
concepts its not quite as problematic because there is a sensory layer
to words. When two people look at the same object they see the same
thing. Any subtle biological differences that might make them
interpret some object slightly different (e.g. color blindness) is
rare and largely inconsequential. With abstract concepts though the
effect is more pronounced because aside from the lack of sensory input
the words are being chained together with even more abstract concepts.
Sentences like "the 10 inch balloon floated by" communicates generally
the same view. "He was a good man that believed in justice" can mean
radically different things

Or take for example. Does "taxation" constitute "theft" and thus
"evil"? According to some yes but where is their conceptualizations
coming from? It's their own subjective associations of words not
established conocepts.. From one perspective their conceptualizations
are valid. If one conceptualizes theft as taking a person's property
away through coercion (not unreasonable)....and conceptualizes
coercion in such a way that individual instances of two-way voluntary
interactions override all other ethical considerations..... then it
is indeed theft. Someone is being forced against their will to fork
over money. Might as well be robbery even though its the government
doing it.

However there are other ways of looking at it too. If one considers
theft as taking a person's property away through coercion (again not
unreasonable)...and defines coercion in such way that considers that
taxation was a result of a community VOLUNTARILY voting it for it...
then taxation is not theft. Taxation without representation or taxes
going to some royal coffers was the original Tea Party's argument....
not no taxation. The fact is they voted in a government they knew
they would tax them (as do people today)

I can see both perspective but at the same time there are problems
with both (albeit I don't claim to have some absolute watertight
conceptualization of ethics either)

The obvious problem with the collective will view is that some
individuals still don't want to pay taxes. Next perhaps the community
will decide that burning them as witches is ethical after all. Or
perhaps the collective will vote their way to forcing children to pray
to Jesus in schools (or even Allah). Maybe the collective will even
decide we should all be at the whim of the state (back to Hitler being
voted in)

On the other hand, the problem with treating individual transactions
as supreme...perhaps one day wealth will be so concentrated that
newborns will effectively be born into serfdom not through their own
choices but because of choices of distant ancestors (see game called
"Monopoly") Or perhaps X desperate to save his dying child, agrees to
be eaten in exchange for Y paying for the life saving operation.
(effectively legalizing murder/suicide as just an expensive
transaction...or any action whatsoever as long as someone can afford
to pay)

This is why I can't completely accept either view.. They aren't
necessarily wrong in any given instance but they are both open to
abuses. My own observation is that whether a choice is made by an
individual or a community... it can be harmful. And both individuals
and communities can profoundly regret their own decisions that lead to
their own misery. We can even make choices that lead to not only our
premature death as individuals but even potentially the extinction of
life on this planet. (a result we don't desire and the anti-thesis of
reason). Thus I don't see ethics primarily through the lens of
subjective choices by individuals or collectives. There is no magical
decision making process that excludes an individual decision as being
the wrong one simply because the collective choice believed otherwise
(or vice versa). There is one objective reality and ethnic choices
must conform to it to be ethical... no matter what process is making
the decisions. If we adhere to that reality, we reach the right
answers (that extend our lives, our happiness, etc) if we don't, we
are much more likely to reach the opposite.

On a practical level, I support individual choices because for the
most part we currently simply don't know how to calculate some
ultimate effect for most of our actions. We typically only perceive
the scope of their effects a tiny number of steps. We don't really
know if flapping our arms in Brazil is going to cause a tornado in
Texas. In addition I fear both individuals and cults that want to run
our lives because they claim to know all the answers. They are
irrational megalomaniacs that profoundly overestimate their own
competence. I'll take my own stupidity over someone else's thanks.
However, there are still some situations out there where the
collective view is the right one too. Everyone under the sun has a an
opinion about something but not everyone is right. A rational being
should not accept every claim on par. Just because someone claims that
some small asteroid hurling at the earth is just the friendly space
Leprechauns visiting so don't be coercive and blow it up... doesn't
make it so.. Someone concerned with reason cannot put their lives in
the hands of those that pursue a policy of their own mutual
destruction. (even if the harm was unintended)

- exactly as you do on
> "coercion".  A "subjective definition" of a unicorn would perhaps have
> a horn in the middle of its forehead or perhaps have a horn in the
> middle of its back or perhaps have no horn at all according to
> feelings of the definer, exactly as you do on the cord "coercion."
>
> > Your  belief being genuine is plausible if  married to the idea that
> > language. (especially metaphor, analogy, and other comparisons),  is
> > subtlety distorting our views of concepts rather than always dealing
> > with objective reality (the ideal).
>
> Inasmuch as I will define "coercion" as force to compel one to do as
> he otherwise would not do, and I have always defined "coercion" as
> force to compel one to do as he otherwise would not do, and I will
> always define "coercion"  as force to compel one to do as he otherwise
> would not do, there is no doubt that I am one who will define words
> according to an objective reality,

No. You (and I) are defining words according to our *perceptions*
(keyword) of objective reality. Sometimes we get it right. Other
times notsomuch.

in contrast to you who will not
> define "coercion" as anything fixed in realty but rather as a matter
> of personal narrative.

Except that not how I see coercion (or reality) That's just you once
again misrepresenting my views.

MY view on the matter coercion (rather than your narrative of my
views) is clearly completely alien to you. That's not your own fault
in one respect. No one can be expected to know someone else's views.
However, you are to blame when you repeatedly keep trying to
substitute my stated views for someone else's views. You are
basically stereotyping me with people you disagree with. Since they
disagree with some aspect of your views you assume I am one of them.
The funny thing about the situation is I often disagree with for many
of the same people you find disagreeable for many of the same reasons
you do.

I am not on either of the two teams we roughly reference as left or
right. I even believe the terms are transitory and new ones will
replace them (as they have in the past were different political
concepts were defined and catagorized using other priorities). Life if
complicated. It isn't getting more complicated but we are becoming
more and more aware of its complexities.The concepts various political
factions stand for are still too superficially defined and the models
are too simplistic. Maybe one day we'll figure out how to build
starships too but its not today.

> I also happen to believe that Rand fell short with her Initiation of
> Force Principle and thus created  much confusion

Objectivism, according to Rand is defined by Rand's views. Any
variations thereof is not Objectivism (a term coined by Rand). On the
other hand, Rand was arguing for a rational philosophy. A philosophy
that depends on a single person for all its inputs to the end of time
is not rational. It's more of a cult devoted to following the views of
that one person. Rand didn't actually believe in that either. Her
philosophy believed in empiricism too. She knew man is fallible
(including herself I imagine) so that naturally requires some
adaptability. So there is a contradiction to be found there. She
probably was trying to protect the integrity of her views (from being
twisted into something else) but at the same time she doesn't seem to
have fully considered the subsequent contradiction. Its still
unresolved (given the Kelley/Peikoff split and so many Oists that
disagree with some aspect of Rands views but in agreement with
others)

Objectivism is a relatively new philosophy but already a victim of the
interpretation problem that splinters other philosophies, political
parties and religions. This is largely because most concepts lack a
clear definition that indicates how many properties of x does the
entity need to have before it becomes reclassified as y.

> philosophy to libertarianism even if it can be a chicken-or-egg as to
> which came first (IoF or Nonaggression Principle or Do No Harm). It is
> apparent to me that Rand searched around for politics that fit her
> philosophy rather than creating a unique Objectivist politics.
> Certainly, "Capitalism", her  meta-word description of her politics,
> came before Objectivism.

In practice (i.e. political parties, common usage) support for
capitalism and socialism typically mean policies somewhere in the
middle of the two extremes. For example, Adam Smith didn't believe in
capitalism in Rand's absolute sense of no government regulation or
taxation (assuming he even knew the word). During most of the cold war
"capitalism" meant "mixed economy" (and for the most part still does
as even the Republican party doesn't vote capitalism in the sense.
Most Swedish socialists (or socialists of most nations) don't support
the obliteration of private property. The Soviets basically hijacked
the word socialism. (which even preceded Marx and Engels) ,

Capitalism before Rand was what most economists would call "mixed
economy" today. (Socialist being used as a synonym for the extreme of
no private property/complete state control and capitalism for the
extreme of no state intervention beyond protection of private
property) I think it was a mistake for economists to adopt that usage
though. Too much moral and political baggage exists with those terms.
They should have invented new more precisely defined terms because it
creates all sorts of confusion and unnecessary ill will between
various political factions that don't necessary subscribe to either
position (as many assume the ultimate goal of the other factions is
the extreme position because they use the terms)

[Charles Bell]

On Mar 28, 2:03 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:14 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> > No, there is no valid science behind aGWT as there never was a valid
> > science behind eugenics or phrenology.
>
> Ah. You already have an absolute answer where most of the scientists
> around the world that study the subject in detail claim they aren't
> sure (obviously the scientists are crackpots unlike layman like you).
>

No one is bound by the opinions of experts who have been shown to be
liars and intellecutal thugs.

[Charles Bell]

On Mar 28, 9:51 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 27, 2:58 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 7:51 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 4:57 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 24, 7:37 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > <spare...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:9af7c8a3-e84e-4d45...@9g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 20, 6:16 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, March 19, 2012 3:10:28 AM UTC-4, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I have described my views on coercion
> > > > > > > > > I've
> > > > > > > > > already said I believe in objective coercion
>
> > > > > > > > > However, situations are sometimes complicated
> > > > > > > > > thus determining who is
> > > > > > > > > initiated harm is not always easy.
> > > > > > > > > Different individuals sometimes create different
> > > > > > > > > narratives as to who exactly is initiating harm.
>
> > > > > > > > You claim simultaneously that "coercion" has objective meaning
> > > > > > > > (though
> > > > > > > > never giving it)
>
>

> > > > And so you are either lying when you claim coercion is objective or
> > > > you actually believe objective is subjectiveness.
>
> > > No. I have repeatedly made a distinction between noting subjective
> > > definitions
>
> > There is no such thing in reality as "subjective definitions" --
> > something which anyone who follows a philosophy of objective reality
> > would understand.  Even something which is not real can only be
> > defined by objective definitions: a unicorn has a horn in the middle
> > of its forehead. A "subjective definition" of some concept would shift
> > from whats-it to thats-it according to whim -
>
> Exactly. Its irrational for the meaning of words to be moving around.
>

Therefore you cannot have claimed an "objective coercion" and at the
same time provide no definition that limits its meaning to objective
terms, and even more, claim that coercion is a matter for personal
narrative.

> However there are other ways of looking at it too. If one considers
> theft as taking a person's property away through coercion (again not
> unreasonable)...and defines coercion in such way that considers that
> taxation was a result of a community VOLUNTARILY voting it for it...
> then taxation is not theft. Taxation without representation or taxes
> going to some royal coffers  was the original Tea Party's argument....
> not no taxation.  The fact is they voted in a government they knew
> they would tax them (as do people today)
>

There is no purpose to put meaning to "coercion" by anecdotal
renderings. It either has a clear, objective meaning or it does not.
In this manner of yours, however, one can take "coercion" to mean as
one wants "taxation" to be coercive or not. If taxation were entirely
voluntary (and it can be), then coercion would likewise be voluntary.
This is exactly your *subjective* treatment of "coercion" according to
personal narrative in which to be coerced can be volunary, just like
to be taxed can be voluntary.

To allow two contradictories: (a) all taxation is coercive and (b) all
taxation is not coercive, the meanings of "taxation" and "coercive"
must be precise, and even if "coercive" may be precisely given as
{compelling one to do as he otherwise would no do} the word "taxation"
can never be precise unless it is so broadlly defined as any money
received by a government to be spent at its discretion. Thus -- again
-- such money as given to the government without the government even
asking for it could be called taxation. There is therefore no such
contradictories as (a) and (b) and the most that can be stated is in
two contrary statements (c) some taxation is coercive (d) some
taxation is not coercive.

> > Inasmuch as I will define "coercion" as force to compel one to do as
> > he otherwise would not do, and I have always defined "coercion" as
> > force to compel one to do as he otherwise would not do, and I will
> > always define "coercion"  as force to compel one to do as he otherwise
> > would not do, there is no doubt that I am one who will define words
> > according to an objective reality,
>
> No. You (and I) are defining words according to our *perceptions*
> (keyword)  of objective reality. Sometimes we get it right. Other
> times notsomuch.
>

This is your weasel way out of your stated contradiction: Of course,
"coercion" is objective, but what is objective is only as real as
one's perceptions of reality are real, and since we all know that
perceptions are not always real, then what can be objective can only
be real to those whose perceptions are real.

The Objectivist short answer: all perceptions are real regardless of
the perceiver, and there is no reality that cannot be perceived.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

As someone that knows virtually nothing about the complex science
necessary to arrive at a solid answer on this difficult
issue..... .yet claims he is sure global warming is a hoax.... seems
to me you are the one that's being the "intellectual thug" by trying
to bully others (including scientists that do study the issue) into
accepting your clearly speculative views based purely on your
politics. You remind me of far leftist environmentalists that blindly
sign wavers against the impending H20 threat.. What happened to
individualism and reason? Is your plan to go the rest of your life
just to parroting whatever pundits tell you to think on issues?

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

That's just it. We (currently) do not have a clear objective
conceptualization. We have a bunch of people who *claim* their
conceptualization is objective. (where typically everyone else is the
perp and they are the victims) Coercion is real and I believe there
is a solid objective conceptualization of it out there but I don't
believe we have wrapped our heads completely around it quite yet. We
are still somewhat describing the phenomena like middle age peasants
describing the moon. I don't claim to know what the right definition
is but I don't need to know to know the moon is not made of
cheese..Definitions are useful as a starting point to
conceptualization but are only a starting point not the phenomena
itself.

Everyone wants to do whatever we want to do but it's common sense we
don't live in a vacuum either. Sometimes the desires of other
individuals conflict with our own. There has to be a mechanism to deal
with this in a manner that conducive to human life..(and ideally
optimized for it). Someone proudly claiming they are fighting for
freedom... is not the same as actually fighting for freedom.
Individuals define key abstractions like "coercion" (along with others
like freedom, justice, etc..) to build the sentences.... to create
ideologies....that end up in our various forms of civilization. The
basis of their beliefs is largely the building block word definitions
they originally used. If those definitions are off though they aren't
working for the cause of justice. They are working for the cause of
another concept....oppression. (see communists, see religious
fundamentalists, etc..)

To be clear here... I'm not saying that my conceptualization of terms
are the right ones either. Perhaps yours are closer to the objective
truth than my own. However, I do strongly believe there is a problem
with subjective floating definitions that needs to first be resolved
before we can have any hope of confidently answering that question.
The problem is very subtle. Because abstractions sound the same many
erroneously believe they are conceptualizing terms in the same manor
(not to mention most haven't even considered the matter). This is not
so much the flaw of individuals though but flaws in language itself. T

> In this manner of yours, however, one can take "coercion" to mean as

> one wants "taxation" to be coercive or not. If taxationwere entirely

> voluntary (and it can be), then coercion would likewise be voluntary.

It taxation was being decided voluntary where does the part of doing
that which we do not want to do come in? That makes no sense
according to your definition of coercion. Again you're not exactly
wrong but your definition is incomplete. Its just a starting point to
understanding a complex issue.

> The Objectivist short answer: all perceptions are real regardless of he perceiver, and there is no reality that cannot be perceived.

I can agree with that but would add qualification that there is a
distinction between raw sensory input *perceptions* and *perceptions*
in the context of our minds interpretation of that raw data. (again,
depends how individuals are defining concepts)

The bottom line (for me) is I strongly believe there needs to be a
more precise method of communication that can reduce both the
subjective use of definitions and the wordiness of communication. I
see the situation sort of like when we first moved from a grunting
sound into basic language. The demands of our society are much more
complex and thus it makes sense we should to improve the tools for
working with that complexity. With dictionaries getting larger by the
moment (making many terms even completely incomprehensible without
significant effort), creating some new compact form of language would
be the next logical evolutionary step in communication. (that's also
considered how to optimize transfer of concepts from a mathematical
efficiency perspective rather than get stuck in pomo land debating the
"real" meaning of terms forever)

[Charles Bell]

On Apr 10, 3:39 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Apr 3, 7:01 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > There is no purpose to put meaning to "coercion" by anecdotal
> > renderings. It either has a clear, objective meaning or it does not.
>
> That's just it. We (currently) do not have a clear objective
> conceptualization.

You claim there to be an objective "coercion" and also claim there is
no clear objective conceptualization -- being a matter for personal
narrative.

[Charles Bell]

On Apr 9, 11:56 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > No, there is no valid science behind aGWT as there never was a valid
> > > > science behind eugenics or phrenology.

> >

> > > > No one is bound by the opinions of experts who have been shown to be

> > > > liars and intellecutal thugs. [ www.climategate.com ]


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/full_is_the_new_empty/

funny, if it weren't so sad.


There is always money to be made at both ends of the scam, proposal
and then later recant:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html


Jame Lovelock, new-age, science-y kook, after two books - Revenge of
Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save
Humanity, and The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It
While You Can - is writing a third, "admitting they were
'alarmist.'" No mention of his CFC/ozone layer blunder that has cost
the world billions in unnecessary conversion away from safe, effective
and cheap freon.

>
> As  someone that knows virtually nothing about the complex science
> necessary to arrive at a solid answer

Yes, you are indeed that someone.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On Apr 26, 6:13 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:56 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > > No, there is no valid science behind aGWT as there never was a valid
> > > > > science behind eugenics or phrenology.
>
> > > > > No one is bound by the opinions of experts who have been shown to be
> > > > > liars and intellecutal thugs. [www.climategate.com]
>

> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailyteleg...

>
> funny, if it weren't so sad.
>
> There is always money to be made at both ends of the scam, proposal
> and then later recant:
>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-...

>
> Jame Lovelock, new-age, science-y kook, after two books - Revenge of
> Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save
> Humanity, and The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It
> While You Can -  is writing a third,  "admitting they were
> 'alarmist.'"  No mention of his CFC/ozone layer blunder that has cost
> the world billions in unnecessary conversion away from safe, effective
> and cheap freon.

You likely know about as much about CFCs as you do global warming.. or
building a energy positive fusion reactor.

> > As  someone that knows virtually nothing about the complex science
> > necessary to arrive at a solid answer
>
> Yes, you are indeed that someone.

Cherrypicking a couple of sources that suit you isn't science. Much
like some leftist environmentalist extremists, when it comes to
environmental issues you practice pseudo-science quackery based on
matching your political views rather than anything of substance.
Parroting talking points of political pundits isn't science (nor even
individualism for that matter).

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

I also claim that there is no *current* (keyword) clear objective
conceptualization of "dark matter".... and yet I see physics as
objective. It's common sense just because we can observe a phenomena
and claim to have objectively defined/described it... doesn't always
make it so.

And this the case with coercion. It's not just as simple as just not
doing what we don't want to do as you previously claimed. When we
drive most of us would prefer if at full speed but traffic prevents
us. That traffic isn't others being "coercive", It's essentially the
desires of others competing against our own.

It's easily observable even today private citizens, philosophers,
lawyers, politicians, etc..... advocate behavior that sometimes
morally contradicts your subjective views on coercion. Almost without
fail we describe ourselves as victims to someone else. My guess as
to why this happens is a combination of complexity coupled with self-
interest interferes with an objective analysis of the situation.

I'm not saying I support this sort subjectivity I'm strongly opposed
to it. The confusing morass of opinions posing as morals sometimes
negates ethics because the virtuous and evil act are put at moral and
intellectual par. However, claiming objectivity on the matter and
actually being objective are not the same. Few ever narrative
themselves into the villain of a situation yet villainous acts exist.

I believe there is an ultimate description of what we roughly term
coercion out there (which I see as one of the goalposts of
philosophy). I base that on the observation we can describe some
aspects of existence (including some aspects of coercion) with
confidence. My own feel for some sort of ultimate conceptualization is
it should be rationally consistent within a framework of what kinds of
behavior does it take for intelligent life to thrive (i.e. a rational
philosophy). This isn't to say if aren't behaving in some optimal
fashion we are necessarily being coercive. Humans error is part of our
existence too. I just can't see how a description of coercion that's
not consistent within that holistic context would be an ideal
conceptualization of the phenomena. It's like describing airplane
wings without the accompanying airplane. Incomplete.

[Charles Bell]

On Apr 28, 3:22 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:56 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 3:39 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 3, 7:01 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > There is no purpose to put meaning to "coercion" by anecdotal
> > > > renderings. It either has a clear, objective meaning or it does not.
>
> > > That's just it. We (currently) do not have a clear objective
> > > conceptualization.
>
> > You claim there to be an objective "coercion" and also claim there is
> > no clear objective conceptualization -- being a matter for personal
> > narrative.
>
> I also claim that there is no *current* (keyword) clear objective

When confused by a simple truth, you admit to your lying. Yes,
indeed, you lied when you claim to accept an objective "coercion"
while all along believing that "coercion" is a matter of of "personal
narrative."

But on the other hand, socialist propaganda depends on that "personal
narrative" of coercion -- that "coercion" has a kinder, gentler
purpose, as determined by socialists, and thus you will keep to the
lie that coercion has an objective meaning, but that no one knows (or
can know?) what it means.

>
> And this the case with coercion. It's not just as simple as just not
> doing what we don't want to do as you previously claimed.

. . that "coercion" means compelling one to do as he otherwise would
not do . .

It is one thing to dispute a particular (objective) meaning given to a
word, but it is intellectual convolution attributable to all
socialists to simultaneously claim that the word has an objective
meaning while refusing to give that meaning, as it differs from the
one commonly accepted in a particular language, because "It's not as
simple a that."

> I believe there is an ultimate description of what we roughly term
> coercion out there (which I see as one of the goalposts of
> philosophy).

Typical blather by intellectual convolution from the socialist who
sees an upside to "coercion."

>  I just can't see how a description of coercion that's
> not consistent within that holistic context would be an ideal
> conceptualization of the phenomena.

More of same.

[Charles Bell]

On Apr 27, 10:42 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Apr 26, 6:13 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > There is always money to be made at both ends of the scam, proposal
> > and then later recant:
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-...
>
> > Jame Lovelock, new-age, science-y kook, after two books - Revenge of
> > Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save
> > Humanity, and The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It
> > While You Can -  is writing a third,  "admitting they were
> > 'alarmist.'"  No mention of his CFC/ozone layer blunder that has cost
> > the world billions in unnecessary conversion away from safe, effective
> > and cheap freon.
>
> You likely know about as much about CFCs as you do global warming..

Yes, that is correct. What ever ozone hole there has been has had no
connection to CFC's and any perceptible aGWT effect has long since
been disproven to be significant against other forces of nature.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_cfc_ban_global_warmings_pi.html

The other significant coincidence that happened about this same time
was that DuPont, a major CFC manufacturer, was poised to lose its
patent on one of the most widely-used CFCs. Three Canadian investors
who owned 25% of the company led the campaign to ban CFCs. DuPont
initially fought the CFC phase out, but the company finally acquiesced
when it had secured a patent on a CFC substitute. After all, billions
of dollars were at stake.

The media never seemed to report the real economic impact of the CFC
ban. Replacing CFCs was not at all easy. There really are no suitable,
safe, and affordable replacements for Halon fire control systems. Most
propellants were not too difficult to replace (although many are
flammable). One notable exception is the CFC propellant used in
metered dose inhalers of asthma medication. CFCs were ideal for this
application because they are both chemically and biologically inert.
Eventually, the pharmaceutical industry found a solution:
hydrofluoroalkanes (HFA). Of course, this new delivery method meant
that previously inexpensive generic drugs (e.g., albuterol) suddenly
became expensive proprietary drugs. The CFC ban effectively tripled
the cost of managing asthma.

From the time the "Freon phase out" began, virtually hundreds of
millions of refrigeration systems worldwide had to be replaced. This
included automobiles, homes, businesses, and food and medical
refrigerators. The systems still functioned, but they could not be
economically recharged with CFCs (does this sound familiar?). This
enormous cost continues to be silently passed on to consumers. It is
important to recognize that the alternatives to CFCs are many orders
of magnitude more expensive than CFCs themselves. This is roughly
analogous to comparing the cost per kwh of electricity produced by
coal versus solar or wind.

In the end, a global ban on CFCs was enacted based on a theory that
continues to be challenged to this day. Chemists remain uncertain of
the rate and extent of ozone depletion due to chlorine. In fact, the
exact role of atmospheric CFCs remains uncertain. It appears that the
primary catalyst of ozone depletion is atmospheric chlorine, and the
most atmospheric chlorine by far is out-gassed from the oceans or
emitted by volcanoes. Mankind's contribution is miniscule (does this
sound familiar?). Further, natural processes have by far the greatest
influence on the ozone layer (e.g., solar influence).

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On May 1, 5:29 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:42 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 6:13 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > There is always money to be made at both ends of the scam, proposal
> > > and then later recant:
>
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-...
>
> > > Jame Lovelock, new-age, science-y kook, after two books - Revenge of
> > > Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save
> > > Humanity, and The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It
> > > While You Can -  is writing a third,  "admitting they were
> > > 'alarmist.'"  No mention of his CFC/ozone layer blunder that has cost
> > > the world billions in unnecessary conversion away from safe, effective
> > > and cheap freon.
>
> > You likely know about as much about CFCs as you do global warming..
>
> Yes, that is correct.

Right. You know basically nothing about the science of CFC's either.
All you likely know is a few references you heard some pundit mention
or caught your eye in some article.. Like some leftist extremists you
are trying to shoehorn science to your beliefs rather than first
comprehend the science. (which you don't)

I'm not going to debate ozone hole depletion because, much like you,
I'm simply unqualified to have a scientific opinion on it. Unless you
are something along the lines of a physicist, chemist, etc... you are
a layman. It's not wrong to speculate per se. We are all curious about
issues whether we actually know the answers or not. However someone
without the expertise in the field shouldn't be going around claiming
"certainty". Hubris isn't reason. Claiming with certainty "I don't
know" or "I'm unsure"... is more rational that claiming certainty when
one doesn't actually know. (and more honest)

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On May 1, 5:15 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:22 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 26, 5:56 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 3:39 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 3, 7:01 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > There is no purpose to put meaning to "coercion" by anecdotal
> > > > > renderings. It either has a clear, objective meaning or it does not.
>
> > > > That's just it. We (currently) do not have a clear objective
> > > > conceptualization.
>
> > > You claim there to be an objective "coercion" and also claim there is
> > > no clear objective conceptualization -- being a matter for personal
> > > narrative.
>
> > I also claim that there is no *current* (keyword) clear objective
>
> When confused by a simple truth, you admit to your lying.  Yes,
> indeed, you lied when you  claim to accept an objective "coercion"
> while all along believing that "coercion" is a matter of of "personal
> narrative."
>

Either you have reading comprehension problems or you are consciously
lying. Which is it? Why do you constantly edit out portions of what I
say? How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Do you understand that just because someone *claims* their
conceptualization of coercion as objective... doesn't actually mean
it's objective? Do you grasp there is a difference between someone
*claiming* to be a victim of coercion and actually being a victim of
coercion? None of the preceding sentences mean I don't believe in
objective coercion, I just have never heard an adequate
conceptualization. They are all lacking in different ways. Things we
would not otherwise not do is "sort of" but does encompass all of
it. .

You want precise words. So do I. However, arbitrary creating your own
conceptualizations without first fully comprehending the phenomena
doesn't actually solve the issue. I can define "justice" as "like
eating hot chili" but is it a bulletproof conceptualization? All you
are doing is deluding yourself like some Islamist that clings to the
words of the Koran as immutable. They are stuck in a loop of belief in
part because they can't grasp words that appear solid can actually
have alternate meanings. And if they adopted those other meanings
much like a computer running a program they would end up with a
different result.

That's not the reality of language in its present form. I didn't
create this problem. Its just currently too flexible when it comes
to abstract terms. Hopefully one day someone figures our how to make
it more precise and coherent. (closer to mathematics)

[Charles Bell]

On May 3, 1:12 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On May 1, 5:29 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 10:42 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 6:13 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > There is always money to be made at both ends of the scam, proposal
> > > > and then later recant:
>
> > > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-...
>
> > > > Jame Lovelock, new-age, science-y kook, after two books - Revenge of
> > > > Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back and How We Can Still Save
> > > > Humanity, and The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: Enjoy It
> > > > While You Can -  is writing a third,  "admitting they were
> > > > 'alarmist.'"  No mention of his CFC/ozone layer blunder that has cost
> > > > the world billions in unnecessary conversion away from safe, effective
> > > > and cheap freon.
>
> > > You likely know about as much about CFCs as you do global warming..
>
> > Yes, that is correct.
>
> Right. You know basically nothing about the science of CFC's

The issue was always the effect of radical chorine atoms, from all
sources, in the atmosphere against ozone and (1) what happens in bench
experiments and models therefrom versus (2) what happens in reality.
The reality, in thirty years of study since, is that whatever
contribution may been from CFC's did not effect observed, isolated
depletions of ozone whatsoever (oh, but the socialists have simply
pushed forward the timeline 50 years). It was bad science then, and
it became a political and financial violation of individual rights by
government coercion just like eugenics were for the national
socialists, fabians, and progressives of early 20th century.

[The absurdity of the CO2-atmospheric temperature correlation proposed
by aGWT is that it has been long known that the increase of
atmospheric CO2 correlates SUBSEQUENTLY, nor prior to, global
temperature rises, so that unlike Cl atom sourced in nature (volcanos,
oceans from HCL and CH3Cl) is, AT LEAST, prior to ozone depletion, not
subsequent, and that Cl from CFC's would be higher in concentration
than from natural sources, unlike CO2 from man-made sources versus
natural sources.]

> I'm not going to debate ozone hole depletion because,

Ozone layers: Dynamics, Not Chemistry
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html

The debate is over. Socialists like you then never bothered to debate
in any case, for whatever are the facts are irrelevant to socialists.
The citation referenced from the American Thinker is exactly on point:
the Montreal Protocol was the exact model for Kyoto with the same
purpose: to enrich government and government parasites at the expense
of individuals. The unsung hero in this was President George W. Bush
and a few Senators like Sen. Inhof who killed the opportunity for
parasites like Gore and Obama to enrich themselves at the expense of
the individual through government coercion.

http://tinyurl.com/824tsq5

Through never materialized cap-and-trade legislation, it is estimated
Al Gore alone would have raked in 15 billion dollars just in the first
year of now-defunct CCX. Of course, Obama's "commissions" would have
been held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated
to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he left office in 2013.
[tinyurl.com/2a8zxr5]

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

Environmental science is so complex even experts can disagree with one
another. You are not even a trained specialist that has studied CFC
or global warming, You are unqualified chauvinistic Nazis (since you
analogize me to a "socialist") To asserting claims of certainty is
plain ridiculous Herr Charles. Nature doesn't respond to the personal
subjective assertions of the gestapo. It responds to the facts.

Neither you nor Obama know the science of CFC or global warming beyond
trivial assertions. Speculation alone is not science. The way you
are forming your views on the matter isn't you personal insight into
the methods the data was collected or deep wisdom about mathematical
models used.

You base your assertion on a combination of your trust of the
scientists who actually are qualified to have an opinion..... and by
your politics, The more someone untrained claims they are "certain",
the more obvious it becomes their politics are playing a role in their
decision making process. This doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong.
Perhaps they are correct through sheer chance alone. However, it's
certainly not evidence of reason on their part. Someone reasonable
(and honest) would admit they aren't sure when the don't have
adequate data to confidently assert an answer.

[Charles Bell]

On May 3, 9:12 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:

> Neither you nor Obama know the science of CFC or global warming beyond

Of course I do, and Obama does not. Or alternatively, Obama stood to
gain $$$ (however it could be calculated - http://tinyurl.com/2a8zxr5
), and I did not, through the Chicago Climate Exchange, so in that way
Obama knew exactly what he was doing, and one might suppose I did not.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On May 4, 6:05 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 3, 9:12 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > Neither you nor Obama know the science of CFC or global warming beyond
>
> Of course I do, and Obama does not.

Of course you don't. Even if you were a physicist (which seems
unlikely given your oversimplifications), unless you've have spent
massive amounts of time specifically studying the issues in detail,
you simply are unqualified to have an expert opinion on the matter.
Claiming otherwise amounts to me claiming because I'm a programmer
that studied electrical engineering, that makes me an expert in on the
Shuttle's computer subsystems. You are likely more qualified to
perform brain surgery because you've read a few things about brains
over the years than offer up a cogent airtight scientific assessment
on global warming.

You are guilty of the very thing some leftist environmentalist
extremists do - claim certainty over complex environmental issues
based on empty political rhetoric rather than science. It is one thing
to offer an opinion based on self-admitted speculation. Quite another
to claim to know.

[Charles Bell]

On May 5, 1:25 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On May 4, 6:05 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 3, 9:12 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > Neither you nor Obama know the science of CFC or global warming beyond
>
> > Of course I do, and Obama does not.
>
> Of course you don't.

Yes, of course I do. And the facts speaks plainly to this. Obama stood
to gain handsomely on the Chicago Climate Exchange ( http://tinyurl.com/2a8zxr5
), and the fact that he did not, and could not, demonstrates the
impossibility of "climate change" causally altering human behaviors as
predicted by that alleged, imminent climate change. It is entirely the
same as speculating that a potato famine will cause the future price
of potatoes to soar but that famine never happens, and, moreover, even
when the government or some other collective carries out a program to
destroy potatoes to simulate the appearance of a famine (that is:,
likewise as to conjure a climate-change hoax) and STILL the
speculators on potato famine lose (that is: likewise the speculators
on CCX lose), it goes to show how wrong the predicted potato famine/
climate change is. There is nothing whatsoever in nature to force the
market (i.e, aggregate human behavior) in the direction of
consideration massively disruptive climate change: alternate, non-
fossil-fuel energy sources continue to fail in the market because
there is no need. It is socialist coercion and only socialist
coercion that keeps pushing human behavior, by government taxation and
other schemes, to consider any unusual climate change as a
possibility. Frankly, the whole global warming alarmism is starting to
look like a faddish religious cult that keeps losing adherents.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On May 5, 5:56 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Assertions are not mathematical models and physics.

[Charles Bell]

On May 5, 8:21 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On May 5, 5:56 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Assertions are not mathematical models and physics.

That is why there is no valid science to "climate change". And the
facts speak plainly to this. Obama stood

to gain handsomely on the Chicago Climate Exchange ( http://tinyurl.com/2a8zxr5
), and the fact that he did not, and could not, demonstrates the
impossibility of "climate change" causally altering human behaviors as
predicted by that alleged, imminent climate change.

Moreover, climategate (I and II) demonstrated that not only that
there is no valid science to "climate change" [models being made to
conform to pre-determined outcomes - http://tinyurl.com/bs5ea6s ] but
there has been an active conspiracy to dull, stall and obfuscate that
conclusion.

"The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to
overestimate their models... They come to believe models are real and
forget they are only models. My objections to the global warming
propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do
not know much, but it's rather against the way those people behave and
the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

"I am not an expert, and that's not going to change. I am not going to
make myself an expert. What I do think I have is a better judgment,
maybe because I have lived a bit longer, and maybe because I've done
other things. So I am fairly confident about my judgment, and I doubt
whether that will change. But I am certainly willing to change my mind
about details. And if they find any real evidence that global warming
is doing harm, I would be impressed. That's the crucial point: I don't
see the evidence..."

Freeman Dyson, Princeton physicist, June 2009

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On May 5, 9:00 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

"I am not an expert, and that's not going to change. I am not going to
make myself an expert."

"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over
the technical facts, about which I do

not know much...."

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

Some of the left play a game they are "sure" about GW because they see
it as a method to "prove" that regulations are sometimes necessary.
For some it's also a sly way to pickpocket others. Some of the right
play a game of they are "sure" GW isn't real because their politics
dictate regulations are always bad. A potential global threat of this
sort would put the absoluteness of that belief into question. GW has
become a poster child of how irrational politics can be. Nature
doesn't care about our political opinions.

As far as I know there currently is no major scientific organization
that claims GW isn't a a potential threat. They may be wrong. All it
takes is a little misunderstanding about a single piece of physics or
a little piece of missing data. And even if GW is real. How much of a
threat is a few degrees of temperature versus the trillions of dollars
to convert to non-fossil fuels? However, its irrational (and even
paranoia) to believe such a large number of scientists are part of
some conscious elaborate conspiracy. (see American Association of
Petroleum Geologists)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Despite that I remain unconvinced because IPCCs reports, arguably the
single most important documents, do not claim certainty and there are
some opposing accredited independent voices that do study GW. Heck,
for all I know a slight raising of temperature might very well be good
for the environment but until the tide of scientists turns the other
way I have no other way to judge.

My own feel for this issue is essentially the same as Rex Tillerson
(aka CEO of Exxon - the company that has the most to lose). While I'm
not convinced either way given the large number of qualified
accredited scientists that are alarmed over the issue some risk
management seems prudent. Trust in authority isn't perfect but much
like judges depend on forensic experts to assess data outside their
expertise, lay people have little rational option but to depend on the
opinions of those most qualified to have them. If the scientific
tide among those that do study the issue changes, regulations and
taxes related to it should be removed. More power to Exxon for funding
sceptics. If those sceptics turn out to be right it saves me money at
the pump.

[Charles Bell]

On May 5, 10:22 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca, quoting Freeman Dyson, not
knowing the import as to the scientific merit of anything scientific,
such a man would impart even if here weren't an "expert"

One does not have to be an "expert" mechanic to know when the "expert"
has put one's car together in such a way so that it does not run, that
"expert" is a fake.

What is most important Dyson draws on facts knowable to anyone, not
just "experts":

Dyson: <<There's hidden assumptions there, which I question, that you
can describe the climate by a single number. In the case of the Ice
Age, that
might be true, that it was cold everywhere. The ice was only in the
northern regions, but it was also much colder at the equator in the
Ice Age.

That's not true of this change in temperature today. The change that's
now going on is very strongly concentrated in the Arctic. In fact in
three respects, it's not global, which I think is very important.
First of all, it is mainly in the Arctic. Secondly, it's mainly in the
winter rather than summer. And thirdly, it's mainly in the night
rather than at the daytime. In all three respects, the warming is
happening where it is cold, not where it is hot.>>

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

Of course, as a physicist, Dyson knows that the very concept of a
single, point-in-time "global termperature" is problematic at best,
and likely mythical in reality. Lomberg in his /Skeptical
Environmentalist/ points this out.

Dyson: <<Of course. No doubt that warming is happening. I don't think
it is correct to say "global," but certainly warming is happening. I
have been to Greenland a year ago and saw it for myself. And that's
where the warming is most extreme. And it's spectacular, no doubt
about it. And glaciers are shrinking and so on.

But, there are all sorts of things that are not said, which decreases
my feeling of alarm. First of all, the people in Greenland love it.
They tell you it's made their lives a lot easier. They hope it
continues. I am not saying none of these consequences are happening. I
am just questioning whether they are harmful.>>

Moreover, the fact that Greenland was warmer during the same period
that it was being settled by Vikings and later abandoned by them (10th
century - 15th century) because of increasing coldness due to the
onset of the Little Ice Age (15th century - 19th century) is exactly
the reason why the socialist-scientists lied ("climategate") in order
to "hide the decline" after the medieval warming period until the
begining of the industrial age.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On May 6, 7:25 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On May 5, 10:22 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca,  quoting Freeman Dyson, not
> knowing the import as to the scientific merit of anything scientific,
> such a man would impart even if here weren't an "expert"
>
> One does not have to be an "expert" mechanic to know when the "expert"
> has put one's car together in such a way so that it does not run, that
> "expert" is a fake.

Fake? What in Hades does that even mean? Do you actually believe
thousands of independent scientists in labs all over the world are all
part of some elaborate conscious hoax? If you actually believe that
you are literally suffering from paranoia.

> What is most important Dyson draws on facts knowable to anyone, not
> just "experts":

One problem with politics is anyone unfamiliar with some issue can
cherry pick any source or narrative to suit any ideological agenda.
Dyson (who I respect as a physicist - but not as a climatologist)
admits he's neither an expert nor is he familiar with the technical
details He's essentially a non-source. There are 6 billion plus people
on this planet.

The fact remains the overwhelming number of scientific institutions
claim GW is a problem. This of course doesn't actually mean it's true
(or even if real.. maybe its not a threat) but unless you can provide
scientific evidence to contradict their claim (in far far more detail
then the simplistic evaluations you offer) you are just parroting
opinions. You, much like some leftists claim they are "sure" GW is a
threat, have no clue if GW is problem or not. Reading a few magazine
articles on nuclear physics does not make you a nuclear physicist.
Reading a few newspaper opinions pieces on healthcare does not make
you a neurosurgeon. And Googling "global warming hoax" does not make
you a climatologist.

Its fine to have an opinion on the matter but good grief don't claim
you are "sure" when you have virtually no knowledge of the complex
material in question.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

Not sure what you're looking for here. The expectation I'm going to
take your layman's "scientific" word on climate change? I trust your
"scientific" assurances about as much as I trust the "scientific"
views of unqualified far leftist environmentalist extremists that
claim they are "sure". The scientific equivalent of a post modernist
generator. Random words being sputtered without any real understanding
of the concepts behind them because you "feel" you are right about
something. You don't have a remote clue of just how simplistic your
arguments are from a scientific standpoint . GW is an incredibly
complex issue to resolve. If you don't believe me. write a paper on
your scientific views and have it peer reviewed.

[Tomm Carr]

On 05/03/2012 06:12 PM, spar...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> Environmental science is so complex even experts can disagree with one
> another. You are not even a trained specialist that has studied CFC

> or global warming, ...

How is it we can have quite intelligent debates concerning string theory
or quantum mechanics or what-have-you here and never hear anyone accused
of "not being a trained specialist"?

Nor is the fact that a preponderance of scientists who lean toward a
particular theory ever used as de facto evidence of the truthfulness of
that theory.

Until the day he died, in 2001, Sir Fred Hoyle argued against the Big
Bang Theory, a theory almost universally held among cosmologists. He was
never accused of being "anti-science."

One would almost get the impression that Global Warming is not a
scientific debate at all. Rather a lot of politicking going on...

--
TommCatt
It's not Area 51 I'm worried about- it's Areas 1 through 50.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On May 6, 11:42 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

"It's not Area 51 I'm worried about- it's Areas 1 through 50."

Hilarious.

[spar...@yahoo.ca]

On May 6, 11:42 pm, Tomm Carr <tommc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/03/2012 06:12 PM, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > Environmental science is so complex even experts can disagree with one
> > another.  You are not even a trained specialist that has studied CFC
> > or  global warming, ...
>
> How is it we can have quite intelligent debates concerning string theory
> or quantum mechanics or what-have-you here and never hear anyone accused
> of "not being a trained specialist"?

We are all curious to know the true nature of the world around us.
However, casual internet discussions using speculative opinions are
not the same as claiming certainty on some issue. For instance, I buy
into the multiverse theory posited by some string theorists and many-
worlds interpretations of QM. My rationalization for this isn't purely
empirical though. It's my perception of reason. If the universe began
13 billion or so years ago as big bang theory suggests, the simple
question arises... what was before that? And can something arise from
nothing whatsoever? I don't believe that makes sense. What seems more
plausible is that existence (not necessary a synonym from universe)
has always existed. Thus our universe, much like our galaxy, much like
our solar system, much like our planet, much like our nations, much
like our cities, much like our neighbourhoods... is part of a greater
whole.

That does not mean I'm a qualified string theorist that should be
going around boldly claiming certainty about my view though. Where is
my empirical data to back up my claim? Perhaps it's a epicycle
universe. Perhaps big bang theorists have missed something and it
never actually happened. Perhaps we are part of an advanced simulation
running on some uber-computer. etc... We don't know with certainty yet
because we lack adequate empirical evidence. It's even very plausible
we may never know for certain some ultimate cosmological view as we
will always be limited to the range of our technology and own
imagination.

> Nor is the fact that a preponderance of scientists who lean toward a
> particular theory ever used as de facto evidence of the truthfulness of
> that theory.

I agree completely with your point. I've never arguing that the
majority of current opinion proves the truthfulness of a belief. All
majority views does is help decide directions of laws in
democratically principled republics. This very well may be a case of
calling wolf. We may have may more cases of wolf in the future. With
problems this size can we as layman afford to be wrong even once by
not taking cries by thousands of highly accredited experts seriously?

> Until the day he died, in 2001, Sir Fred Hoyle argued against the Big
> Bang Theory, a theory almost universally held among cosmologists. He was
> never accused of being "anti-science."

I don't consider all skeptics of GW anti-science any more than I
consider all supporter of GW anti-science. In fact I think it's
especially important to take care not to demonize individual
scientists that don't agree with the majority (as Dyson rationally
points out). It goes against the open minded spirit of science.
However, equally minded, I also consider those that personally attack
scientists that do study the issue and do support GW... anti-science
(especially laymen that claim certainty when they clearly lack
inadequate data and knowledge to back up their claims) Let scientists
that study the issue do their job without political interference of
the public. They know much more about the material than any of us do.

> One would almost get the impression that Global Warming is not a
> scientific debate at all. Rather a lot of politicking going on...

I agree Tom. One reason I'm swing is I'm tired of listening to
collectivized proselytizing on scientific issues. The polarized divide
on GW clearly shows how politics can distort reasoned response. The
rational answer for most laymen on such a complex issue amounts to
"not sure but here is my opinion and some of my concerns".