User Controls
Fuck religion.
-
2015-07-25 at 11:17 PM UTCLove is the only way forward.
Put your petty differences behind you forgive and you will be forgiven forget the past and look forward.
Holy Shit I'm A Ninga -
2015-07-26 at 12:15 AM UTC
If what you said about the right's charity was true why do the republicans STATISTICALLY donate more to charity than the left?
Are you basing that on Brooks? His methodology was questionable and better studies since then don't substantiate his findings.Also LMAO! Charity at the cost of economic suicide, oh god Lanny.
Yes, are you saying that in an austrian capitalistic system businesses which incur unnecessary costs won't eventually be overcome by their competition? Because that seems like a pretty big thing in your camp. If businesses can make suboptimal decisions and remain in business perpetually then I wonder why exactly you think thatFirst of all without government interference the economy would be over 9000 times stronger and could take 'a hit' like massive private charity.
(lol)Also you seem to believe that most people in the world are absolutely incapabale of being their own economic agents in the sense that they can't take care of themselves. It is implied, since you said the charity would need to be so great it would be economic suicide. See lanny, the anarcho-capitalist system actually believes in people, and that they are able to make their own living in a free market environment.
yeah well... anarcho capitalists are wrong there. Left entirely to their own devices most people could probably survive, sure, but mere survival of its citizens is like the "not-a-genocidal-regime" criteria, hardly desirable. Look at all the dumb shit you see people do every day in the news or even just functional adults who do fairly minor yet obviously harmful things to themselves. You can't entrust everyone's well being to themselves because making good decisions requires intelligence and exactly half the population is of below average intelligence. Under the rule of a powerful state it's possible to have everyone make the best possible decision on every subject where the truth of the matter is known.You see what i have a problem with is that the government, FORCES me to pay for people that are poor whether they be deserving or not. The notion of deserving comes from the fact if they make an effort to get their shit together or not if they do and they fail because of their own limitation i am happy to provide what economic aid i can to help a person out. But when the government gets involved and basically puts a gun to my head and is telling me YOU ARE PAYING FOR THE WELFARE STATE BECAUSE WE FUCKING SAY SO i take issue with that.
Yup, it's true you're forced to participate in, well, every sort of government. But participating in society is in your own interest, wether you think it is or not, so it's actually a moral necessity that you be forced to participate. -
2015-07-26 at 12:51 AM UTC
Yup, it's true you're forced to participate in, well, every sort of government. But participating in society is in your own interest, wether you think it is or not, so it's actually a moral necessity that you be forced to participate.
I'll write more arguments later but let me just adress your last one here. Force a moral necessity? Are you hearing yourself here? It is never moral to threaten to use of force to achieve a goal. While morality may be hard to define in an objecive manner ethics are not and it is certainly not ethical to do what you suggest. I suggest you read Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics by Molyneux. -
2015-07-26 at 1:09 AM UTC
yeah well… anarcho capitalists are wrong there. Left entirely to their own devices most people could probably survive, sure, but mere survival of its citizens is like the "not-a-genocidal-regime" criteria, hardly desirable. Look at all the dumb shit you see people do every day in the news or even just functional adults who do fairly minor yet obviously harmful things to themselves. You can't entrust everyone's well being to themselves because making good decisions requires intelligence and exactly half the population is of below average intelligence. Under the rule of a powerful state it's possible to have everyone make the best possible decision on every subject where the truth of the matter is known.
So,if people are going to do stupid and harmful things no matter what, then there is no point in maintaining an unwieldy, expensive, and oppressive 'big government'.
If people don't need a cop looking over their shoulder every minute of the day, then ultimately they don't need cops at all.
Coercing people to 'make the best possible decisions'.....how's that working out for us? Not well.... -
2015-07-26 at 6:02 AM UTC
I'll write more arguments later but let me just adress your last one here. Force a moral necessity? Are you hearing yourself here?
Yes, why exactly is force be categorically impermissible other than that it's a central dogma of libertarianism? You shouldn't act as though this is some shocking fringe position, I'd be willing to venture that the vast majority of americans think that material force is morally necessary in at least some situations. Consider policy for things like intervention in foreign genocide (think about public response to the arab spring protests), these are policies that can gain broad support. If you don't believe it that's fine, but don't pretend like NAP is a self-evident unassailable truth, there for anyone to see.While morality may be hard to define in an objecive manner ethics are not and it is certainly not ethical to do what you suggest. I suggest you read Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics by Molyneux.
Can you summarize Molyneux's argument? I heard renditions from people claiming to defend it but I'd be interested in your reading of the book.So,if people are going to do stupid and harmful things no matter what, then there is no point in maintaining an unwieldy, expensive, and oppressive 'big government'.
How did you get that out of what I posted? I said that people, when left to their own devices, will almost all make suboptimal decisions. It's my position that a strong state can reduce the rate at which people make stupid and harmful decisions and that is why an effective strong state is justified.If people don't need a cop looking over their shoulder every minute of the day, then ultimately they don't need cops at all.
How on earth does the latter follow from the former? "If people don't need to drink 30 gallons of water a day then they don't need water at all" if obviously not true, why is it suddenly a different story when we get to cops?Coercing people to 'make the best possible decisions'…..how's that working out for us? Not well….
When it's the right decision, quite well. Compulsory education has been tremendously beneficial to society, playing a large part in our ability to organize ourselves in as large social structures as we do. Compare places without coercive law enforcement to those with. Certainly the criminal system in the US is not ideal but it's doing far better than places where vigilante "justice" is the law keeping force. Roads, public utilities, mandatory vaccination, dietary supplementation are among many examples of the populace being forced into making the right choice. -
2015-07-26 at 7:06 AM UTC
How on earth does the latter follow from the former? "If people don't need to drink 30 gallons of water a day then they don't need water at all" if obviously not true, why is it suddenly a different story when we get to cops?
There is nothing a cop can do for me that I can't do for myself. Matter of fact, I have had my car stolen, and my parents house burglarized, and the cops didn't do a goddamn thing. They are too busy looking for drug forfeiture targets. I am pretty sure I know who broke into my parents house, but they are in prison right now (for drugs) so I can't do anything about it, The car thing, I have no idea who did that, but when the cops recovered my car, they had it towed by a tow company that 'doesn't have a contract with the city', so I had to pay to get my own fucking stolen car out of impound.
-
2015-07-26 at 7:14 AM UTC
When it's the right decision, quite well. Compulsory education has been tremendously beneficial to society, playing a large part in our ability to organize ourselves in as large social structures as we do. Compare places without coercive law enforcement to those with. Certainly the criminal system in the US is not ideal but it's doing far better than places where vigilante "justice" is the law keeping force. Roads, public utilities, mandatory vaccination, dietary supplementation are among many examples of the populace being forced into making the right choice.
You have no way of knowing that our modern infrastructure is the result of being compelled to do anything, and you have no way of knowing what vigilante justice would look like in our modern society.
I know, your knee-jerk reaction is to portray 'anarchy' as a hotbed of rioting and murder, all you leftists do it, but I am not convinced.
'Forced to make the right choice'? Are you sure about that? Are you sure it isn't 'we ended up like this in spite of jackass socialists trying to turn humanity into a giant ant farm'? -
2015-07-26 at 2:05 PM UTC
Can you summarize Molyneux's argument? I heard renditions from people claiming to defend it but I'd be interested in your reading of the book.
Download the audiobooks and listen to then when you're bored i can't do justice to a 130 page book full of arguments and rational proofs of ethics and the subset of morality it deals with and how it pertains to the government. Besides i am niether intelligent nor eloquent enough to present these arguments to you in a distilled manner.
If you don't feel like going through the whole thing may i suggest just reading the parts that deal with the concept of ethics. The chapters are called
A Framework for Ethics
Objective Truth
Truth and Objective Reality
Accuracy and Consistency
The Existence of “Truthâ€
Empiricism versus Rationality
The chapters where he tests his theory and goes a little deeper into the morality aspect are called:
Ethical Categories
The Seven Categories
Virtue and its Opposite
What is Missing
The First Test: Rape
The Good
The Coma Test
Capacity
Aesthetically Positive
Personally Positive
Morally Neutral
Personally Negative
Aesthetically Negative
Evil
But you should actually read the whole thing it is quite compelling. -
2019-05-06 at 10:41 PM UTCPretty much
