Are libertarians our enemies?

Page 12 of 19 [ 303 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19 Next

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

23 May 2015, 2:45 am

Just FYI and all:

Humans needn't be social creatures, nor do they owe their fellow [wom]an anything if there's no goods received (and a price for said goods was agreed upon).

No one gave us a choice to sign into society. It's not implied, no matter what anyone says. It's forced. It's not for "our" own good, rather a "good" that is defined arbitrarily by people in authority (see: force).

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 May 2015, 5:29 am

Dillogic wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

In answer to your tirade: NO.
We are ultimately social animals, which means we take care of one another. That individualist bull sh*t is just that: bull sh*t. It has absolutely nothing to do with stealing to depend on society in order to survive. And as far as freedom meaning "people who can reach reach further": freedom also has to be tempered with a sense of responsibility to your neighbors. I'll take the word of my Christ over that of your Ayn Rand any day of the week.

I'm sure he's not going to ask for the same care if something happens to him, though.

So, it's fair.

Giving people the choice to pay for the welfare of others seems like the most just thing (don't pay, don't receive it either). See, Churches and donations. You just have hospitals and an organized welfare center that collects money, and since many people see it how you do, there'll be enough money to go to those in need.

Forcing someone to pay for someone else for services they in turn don't want to receive (and refuse it), is stealing, no matter how right or wrong the reason for the services. Doing a bad thing in the name of a good thing still means you've done a bad thing. You do a good thing in the name of a good thing.

We should include all ways of life in society, as long as people don't directly through physical [or negligent] violence, harm others (that's when you face consequences).

Is requiring citizens to pay for roads, or national defense, stealing? What if I don't think a new street is required, or that a war is immoral and shouldn't be supported? Is that then stealing to use my money?
And in all honesty, churches and other charities don't receive nearly enough donations to sustain everyone in need, nor do they have the scope the government has in order to reach everyone needing help.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 May 2015, 5:39 am

Dillogic wrote:

We have been social creatures from the very beginning; it's quite simply part of our biology, not a choice on our part. We can't simply turn off our biological programming for the sake of ideology. Without society, humans die, regardless if you're talking about the person who needs to be cared for in a hunter-gatherer tribe, or a person in need in a modern industrialized country. That's why every human religion and moral system emphasizes caring for the needy, even if there's no payoff.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

23 May 2015, 5:56 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Well, only if they use the roads and ask for defense. Sounds fair, right? I'm sure there'll always be enough people that will want to pay for services that they and others use.

Church is just an example of where donations can go to help others. Creating the same thing as what's in place now (collection and distribution agencies), just without compulsory attendance, doesn't seem like a problem.

In the end, it's just giving people that want to be independent, a choice to be.

Of course, people can do that now, but they're given punishments if they're caught. So it's not a choice that's without consequences from external sources, even if what they're doing isn't inherently "wrong".

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

23 May 2015, 6:03 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Sorta. Humans can live in large groups, small groups, or even solitary; what each person prefers is up to them. Forcing the latter to be like the former, is "wrong". There's probably more that prefer large and small groups, but forgetting the independent people is appealing to the majority.

Some people can survive by themselves just fine, and if it's something they want to do, then punishing them for this is "wrong".

So, in the end, it just lets people that want to be left alone, left alone, with society staying the same for the most part, otherwise.

Nebogipfel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 509

23 May 2015, 7:30 am

I notice that that LGBT folks have introduced a vocabulary which inverts the power dynamics between the gays and the straights, where "SIssy" is changed to "CIS" and it is lobbed right back at the the old Status Quo.

Ayn Rand did the same thing when she adapted the tropes of communist proletarian fiction, and switched them so that the captains of industry became the oppressed class. She thus captured leftist techniques of persuasion; the power of a certain vocabulary, to her side. These techniques have altered what is popularly considered shameful.

I dont think of this kind of ideology as much more than second hand marketing slogans and shame defining. Who its designed to benefit is pretty obvious.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 23 May 2015, 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

denpajin
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 75

23 May 2015, 7:34 am

The_Walrus wrote:

denpajin wrote:

If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t. You have no right to force others to pay for you. You have a right to not have your life taken away from you, but you don't have a right to make others protect your life.

Taking money that is not yours away from someone against their will is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Don't steal.

Freedom is a good thing, it lets the people who can reach far reach further.

Your right to property is trumped by other people's right to life, I'm afraid. That's also a very simplistic view of "freedom" - if I take some money from Bill Gates and give it to a struggling family, I have massively boosted their freedom without making a noticeable impact on his.

My right to property is absolute. If you cannot sustain yourself in any way, it is your own fault and you should not steal from anyone. Bill Gates earned that money doing some nasty stuff (http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversi ... epaper.pdf) but it is still *his* money. You have no right to take away what is not yours.

If you're really so deep in the hole that you have to resort to theft, I suggest you either go kill yourself as to not cause harm to society, or start begging instead.

denpajin
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 75

23 May 2015, 7:40 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

denpajin wrote:

Just because we are social animals, doesn't mean it's OK to steal. You are right, though. We are social animals, and we do take care of each other, through competition or through charity, the problem is that self righteous bastards forcefully relocate funds from people who have earned their money, to people who have not done so. If you want Bill Gates money, you could just ask him, he has this charity thing going on called "Bill and Melinda gates foundation", I'm sure he'll help you out if he finds you worthy.

Also, what do you mean by "tempered with a sense of responsibility for your neighbors"? Clearly define where you think the line should go, and then we'll talk.

denpajin
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 75

23 May 2015, 7:47 am

pcuser wrote:

denpajin wrote:

Read this...
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/22/7_ideas ... l_partner/

Too long: didn't read. I have better books to read, like Bernsteins "The Capitalist Manifesto".

If you could summarize it to me, I'd be glad to give you a retort.

denpajin
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 75

23 May 2015, 7:53 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

luan78zao wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

denpajin wrote:

As usual you are off target. I'm the Objectivist here; denpajin sounds more like a Nietzschean. (No Objectivist would say "If you can't live without others helping you, tough s**t.")

Anyway, why the hatred? If he proposes to live his life as he describes, neither accepting help from nor offering help to anyone else, what harm does it do you? Seems to me that if that's a "bullsh*t" way to live he'll learn that sooner or later. I would not be offended if a group of hippies wanted to go off and form their own commune – so long as no compulsion was involved. Are you so wise, that you feel entitled to dictate the terms of everybody's life?

A "social animal" is merely one which spends most of its life interacting with others. This says nothing about the nature of those interactions. There is tremendous value to be had from a society of voluntary interactions for mutual gain – but I would rather live in splendid isolation than be part of some collectivist slave pen.

So when are you going to sell off all your possessions and give everything to the poor? What color Mustang would Jesus drive?

I can in fact feel outrage over his lack of compassion for his fellow humans. And it's not a matter of selling off all my possessions for the poor, but accepting the fact that we as a society owe one another kindness and courtesy in regard to what he had written.

I probably feel more compassion for human beings than you, I just don't think that it's OK to steal from the people who work hard to give to the people who do not work hard.

So it's not you who have to sell off his possessions? My, how practical! Let's just leave that to someone else, because in the end, someone has to open their wallet for someone elses to be filled.

Also, I owe you nothing, sod off. You be kind to me? Cool. I don't *have* to be kind to you back. Maybe I will be nice, but certainly not because I ""owe"" you anything.

Just because someone is stupid enough to give away stuff for free, doesn't mean people are obliged to pay that person back for it.

denpajin
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 75

23 May 2015, 8:02 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Roads can be made privately too, you know. It's not like the state has this magic wand that only it can swing to put roads in place. Some people hire private contractors to build roads as well. Heck, I know someone personally who owns an asphalting business.

National defense is stupid as well, people can (or at least, they could, if they had guns) defend themselves, either through organized local militias, or hiring private military companies. Both are better solutions than what many countries have today.

As Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Taking away my money and using it on services that I could provide for myself, without me agreeing to it, is in fact, theft. I could have done much better choices with that money on my own.

Just because you are incapable of building a road by yourself, doesn't mean other people are incapable of getting together and hiring someone to build that road for them.

denpajin
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 75

23 May 2015, 8:06 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Just because we're social creatures, doesn't mean that socialism is the way to go. I think neurotypicals find being social to be easier than most of us, so I understand that you may have trouble getting this, but people can, in fact, be social without the state putting a gun to their head telling them to do so.

Also, I sincerely doubt that caring for humans without getting paid back is something universal in all religious and moral systems, there are people out there who think differently than you do, even if you're not aware of it.

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia

23 May 2015, 8:15 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

And in all honesty, churches and other charities don't receive nearly enough donations to sustain everyone in need

In all honesty I don't think churches are spending all of their money to help the needy. I think churches are spending most of their money to build churches.

Below is a picture of a big gaudy church. If they keep building churches like that one, how much money could they have left to help the needy?

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,160
Location: Adelaide, Australia

23 May 2015, 8:26 am

denpajin wrote:

Has he never had a government contract? Yes the state can use corporate and private contractors to do all sorts of things.

Just started rereading one of my favourite books, Snow Crash. Each major road is a corporation (and possibly a sovereign state as well). I recommend you read Snow Crash if you haven't already. It's an excellent novel and does a much better job of describing a fully privatized society than Atlas Shrugged ever could.

denpajin wrote:

Just because you are incapable of building a road by yourself, doesn't mean other people are incapable of getting together and hiring someone to build that road for them.

Yes, a large group of people could get together and hire someone to build roads for them. This group of people could all make contributions to the road funds and to have a committee to handle the contributions and determine the optimum patter of roads. We could call this large group of people a nation and call their committee the government.

_________________
The days are long, but the years are short

denpajin
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 75

23 May 2015, 8:27 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

And in all honesty, churches and other charities don't receive nearly enough donations to sustain everyone in need

Haha, this is funny, because you posted a picture of a church that was finished 18 November 1626! I haven't heard of any gaudy churches like that built here lately. Lutherans seem to be like pretty cool guys. Here is some nice reading for you: https://www.kirkensnodhjelp.no/en/about ... ntability/

denpajin
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 May 2015
Posts: 75

23 May 2015, 8:38 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:

denpajin wrote:

Just because you are incapable of building a road by yourself, doesn't mean other people are incapable of getting together and hiring someone to build that road for them.

I don't know if he ever has had a private gig, he probably has.

Cyberpunk looks interesting. Can't say I've read any of that before. I'm currently reading Atlas Shrugged, haven't come all that far yet, so no spoilers please! Haha.

The difference between what you described and what I described, is that one is voluntary and the other will put you in jail if you don't give them your money, and shoot you if you try to defend yourself.

Page 12 of 19 [ 303 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 19 Next

Jump to:

Are libertarians our enemies? Post Reply New Topic

Are libertarians our enemies?