NY Times: Ayn Rand's Influence Growing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if, in Rothbard/Rand-a-world, I buy up all the property surrounding another’s. What if I tell that person he can’t cross my property. Not to get to work, shop, see a doctor, or any other possible reason?

Helicopters would be cheap in this world…or you might become rich by allowing a toll way on your property.

Nope. The individual doesn’t own a helicopter, or posses the knowledge to build one from common house hold ingredients. And, I’m not interested in the pittance the person would be able to pay me. In fact, starvation could possibly free up that property.

But this is not reality. If you bar people from entry they will find an other way. You cannot stop people from pursuing their own interests no matter how hard you wish it.

But in the end, who cares? You will decide what it best for you and everyone will be happy regardless.[/quote]

How? They can’t build a helicopter (assuming airspace is in the public domain. But, why would it be?), nor can they trespass.

62

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

Both of you. And a famous person said two wrongs don’t make a right.

So, to be clear, I would be immoral for rendering aid to a man that the property owner was willing to let die? What a wonderful ethical system!

Dude, a collectivist ethic allows for concentration camps, so if you want to compare individualism vs collectivism by its extremes, collectivism loses.

Badly.

Unless of course you like concentration and reorientation camps, in that case, two thumbs up!

Actually, I charge you guys with holding to the extremes.

Guilty.

You envision a society that must allow for men dieing on the front lawns of disagreeable property owners, so as to avoid the possibility of concentration camps.

Wrong. This hardly ever happens in the real world. And even if it occasionally does it is still preferable to being forced at gun point to care for an other living human being.[/quote]

You said “wrong,” but then said it’s prefererable. So, allowing property rights to trump the life of a dieing man, is for the common good? Or, just for your good?

63

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

How could it possibly further my agenda to stop you from helping someone?

And that does not even address that extreme circumstances not only make bad laws bad also poor ethics.

Well, you have no moral obligation to help, or allow help. [/quote]

Most likley it is going to be in the best interest of the guy with the fire extinguisher to put the guy who is on fire out. I mean unless he is a criminal who just stole from the guy, or raped his wife, one would assume that you would be helping a valuable member of the community. So naturally, if people learn to apply common sense instead of having morality forced on them, the man would use his fire extinguisher to put the other guy out, unless he really was useless, in which case, who cares.

V

64

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

No, me, making you put out the fire is immoral.

What if I owned the only fire extinguisher within reach?

You: “Dude, spray that guy!” Me: “Are you serious? This is in case I have a car fire. Sorry, but that fella doesn’t even show up on my sliding scale, so go get your own.”

And, what if I make you let me onto your property to provide aid to a badly beaten man, dumped on your lawn? Whose immoral? Me, for using force to reach a badly injured man? Or, you for requiring me to use force to reach the badly injured man?

How could it possibly further my agenda to stop you from helping someone?

And that does not even address that extreme circumstances not only make bad laws bad also poor ethics.

Well, you have no moral obligation to help, or allow help.

Most likley it is going to be in the best interest of the guy with the fire extinguisher to put the guy who is on fire out. I mean unless he is a criminal who just stole from the guy, or raped his wife, one would assume that you would be helping a valuable member of the community. So naturally, if people learn to apply common sense instead of having morality forced on them, the man would use his fire extinguisher to put the other guy out, unless he really was useless, in which case, who cares.

V[/quote]

But, what if he doesn’t? You’re guilty of robbery, having snatched it out of his hands?

65

[quote]orion wrote:
There is no quandary, you have just swallowed altruism hook line and sinker.

You feel that they have the moral obligation to serve other people and you are willing to have them thrown into a cage or be killed if they resist.

[/quote]

Swallowed altruism? Lol, you make it sound like helping other people is naive.

It’s not about the moral obligation of the rich, but about my values as a voter. Because I value saving lives more than I value saving a small percentage of the wealthiest bank accounts, I vote in favor of saving lives.

66

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if, in Rothbard/Rand-a-world, I buy up all the property surrounding another’s. What if I tell that person he can’t cross my property. Not to get to work, shop, see a doctor, or any other possible reason?

Helicopters would be cheap in this world…or you might become rich by allowing a toll way on your property.

Nope. The individual doesn’t own a helicopter, or posses the knowledge to build one from common house hold ingredients. And, I’m not interested in the pittance the person would be able to pay me. In fact, starvation could possibly free up that property.

But this is not reality. If you bar people from entry they will find an other way. You cannot stop people from pursuing their own interests no matter how hard you wish it.

But in the end, who cares? You will decide what it best for you and everyone will be happy regardless.

How? They can’t build a helicopter (assuming airspace is in the public domain. But, why would it be?), nor can they trespass. [/quote]

Unless you own the entire planet you cannot stop anyone from going over or around your property. And since the air is non-homesteadable you cannot claim it as your property – though I am willing to grant you an easement.

67

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You said “wrong,” but then said it’s prefererable. So, allowing property rights to trump the life of a dieing man, is for the common good? Or, just for your good?[/quote]

I was answering wrong to your false dichotomy.

Since the dieing man is on an other man’s property it is not your responsibility/business to “save” him.

What can you do?

68

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not about the moral obligation of the rich, but about my values as a voter. Because I value saving lives more than I value saving a small percentage of the wealthiest bank accounts, I vote in favor of saving lives.[/quote]

Your naivety is what actually ends up hurting those same people. Wealthy people actually give more to charity than any amount of tax money is used to help these people – after administrative costs are taken into account. If you steal from wealthy people too much they will eventually not give a fuck and then the poor people will be stuck with no one but the inefficient government to save them.

GOOD JOB, Poindexter! Look what you allowed to happen.

69

[quote]orion wrote:
How do you measure greater good?

Hint: That has been tried and is logically impossible as far as we know.

What you are really saying is that you will substitute your judgment for somebody else’s and if he refuses to fork his income over he will, at the risk of repeating myself be imprisoned or killed.

Interestingly enough you so not like it when people deny you a piece of paper, but you are perfectly willing to take part of their income by force.
[/quote]

Obviously, there is no objective measure of the greater good. I never suggested there was. The determination of the greater good is entirely, subjectively defined by the person casting the vote.

I don’t advocate killing people who refuse to pay their taxes, where did you get that idea?

70

[quote]orion wrote:
No you don’t.

That is a primitive welfare theory and you are actually 150 years behind the debate .

Give or take a few years.
[/quote]

I have no idea where my beliefs fall in the evolution of social morality, I’m just sharing how I currently view things. Since it is all subjective anyway, it’s not like there is any absolute right or wrong answer to the question.

71

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
And what if that’s unacceptable to the wealthy? Who decided that the wealthy and the poor are equally valuable to society?

This is why charity should be an entirely private matter, not mandated through progressive taxation.[/quote]

It’s not just charity, every civil law is similarly subject to the values of the majority as reflected and enforced in their system of government.

As I said earlier, it’s a question of how personal freedom balances against humanitarianism. I value personal freedom as well, but not to the degree that I think people should be allowed to die due to a rich man’s utter selfishness.

72

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What if, in Rothbard/Rand-a-world, I buy up all the property surrounding another’s. What if I tell that person he can’t cross my property. Not to get to work, shop, see a doctor, or any other possible reason?

Helicopters would be cheap in this world…or you might become rich by allowing a toll way on your property.

Nope. The individual doesn’t own a helicopter, or posses the knowledge to build one from common house hold ingredients. And, I’m not interested in the pittance the person would be able to pay me. In fact, starvation could possibly free up that property.

But this is not reality. If you bar people from entry they will find an other way. You cannot stop people from pursuing their own interests no matter how hard you wish it.

But in the end, who cares? You will decide what it best for you and everyone will be happy regardless.

How? They can’t build a helicopter (assuming airspace is in the public domain. But, why would it be?), nor can they trespass.

Unless you own the entire planet you cannot stop anyone from going over or around your property. And since the air is non-homesteadable you cannot claim it as your property – though I am willing to grant you an easement.[/quote]

How does one go around the property without first having to go through the property to even reach it’s paremeter?

73

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Since the dieing man is on an other man’s property it is not your responsibility/business to “save” him.

What can you do?[/quote]

That’s all I was looking for, really.

74

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, you’re not immoral for wanting to help a man. You are immoral for taking something that does not belong to you. Ultimately, you are the one who has to sleep at night…I think you’ll be fine. I am just pointing out the moral distinctions that need to be clear.[/quote]

Why does taking something that doesn’t belong to you trump every other moral, in all situations, and to all degrees? Isn’t it a question of doing the math and looking at individual circumstances?

How far would you go with that?

For example, let’s say a hurricane is about to hit an island and a guy owns the one bridge leading from the island. For the sake of this example, there is no other safe way off the island except by taking the bridge. The 100 people on the island will inevitably die unless they are allowed to escape across the bridge.

Should the guy be forced to allow people to use the bridge? What if nobody else is using the bridge, the people are all penniless and can’t pay for it, and the guy would not be harmed in any way if people were to use the bridge? If he refuses out of sheer obstinacy, would it be moral to take the gate key from him and allow people to access to the bridge, against his will?

75

[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, you’re not immoral for wanting to help a man. You are immoral for taking something that does not belong to you. Ultimately, you are the one who has to sleep at night…I think you’ll be fine. I am just pointing out the moral distinctions that need to be clear.

Why does taking something that doesn’t belong to you trump every other moral, in all situations, and to all degrees? Isn’t it a question of doing the math and looking at individual circumstances?

How far would you go with that?

For example, let’s say a hurricane is about to hit an island and a guy owns the one bridge leading from the island. For the sake of this example, there is no other safe way off the island except by taking the bridge. The 100 people on the island will inevitably die unless they are allowed to escape across the bridge.

Should the guy be forced to allow people to use the bridge? What if nobody else is using the bridge, the people are all penniless and can’t pay for it, and the guy would not be harmed in any way if people were to use the bridge? If he refuses out of sheer obstinacy, would it be moral to take the gate key from him and allow people to access to the bridge, against his will?[/quote]

You take that key away from him and, poof, concentration camps popping up everywhere. Concentration camps, dude…Concentration camps.

76

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Your naivety is what actually ends up hurting those same people. Wealthy people actually give more to charity than any amount of tax money is used to help these people – after administrative costs are taken into account. If you steal from wealthy people too much they will eventually not give a fuck and then the poor people will be stuck with no one but the inefficient government to save them.

GOOD JOB, Poindexter! Look what you allowed to happen.[/quote]

Where is your proof that the wealthy would save more lives with their money if not taxed than if taxed? That is a false assumption.

77

[quote]forlife wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
And what if that’s unacceptable to the wealthy? Who decided that the wealthy and the poor are equally valuable to society?

This is why charity should be an entirely private matter, not mandated through progressive taxation.

It’s not just charity, every civil law is similarly subject to the values of the majority as reflected and enforced in their system of government.

As I said earlier, it’s a question of how personal freedom balances against humanitarianism. I value personal freedom as well, but not to the degree that I think people should be allowed to die due to a rich man’s utter selfishness.[/quote]

And it’s just this mindset that has in the other extreme, caused a man to get shot by police because he didn’t mow his lawn. So not only are we not completely to your ideal society, we already have the majority, killing people for such minor offences like, not mowing your lawn. I can’t find the story online right now but I’m sure I read it somewhere, man doesn’t mow his lawn, police officer comes to tell him to mow it, man tells cop to get off his property and goes and brings shotgun out, cop shoots man. So while you can see benefit in having certain people CONTROL the actions of others, I can see how this type of thing can be equally as bad if not worse.

V

78

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You take that key away from him and, poof, concentration camps popping up everywhere. Concentration camps, dude…Concentration camps.[/quote]

Slippery slope, anyone? I’m trying to understand why they are arguing in such absolute, black and white terms, rather than admitting that there are no easy answers. You have to do the hard work of evaluating each situation in order to make the most moral judgment you can, given the values that you hold. Arguing that a particular value is sancrosanct and should always, without exception, trump all other values, is an extremist approach that does more harm than good.

79

[quote]forlife wrote:
Should the guy be forced to allow people to use the bridge? [/quote]

No. Swim fuckers! But you know what?

On Ocracoke Island, NC there are no bridges and they have to use private companies to ferry people on and off. Because there are no “publicly” owned bridges this happens all the time – should the ferry operator be forced to work for free to carry these people off the island when it was their choice to be there in the first place during hurricane season? Should every boat owner in the area be forced to use their property to “rescue” these people?

Ha ha!

But you know from my experience it is a rare occasion that one has to be forced to “do the right thing”. It is the principle of the matter that counts though. You have no rights to someone else’s property.

80

[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Your naivety is what actually ends up hurting those same people. Wealthy people actually give more to charity than any amount of tax money is used to help these people – after administrative costs are taken into account. If you steal from wealthy people too much they will eventually not give a fuck and then the poor people will be stuck with no one but the inefficient government to save them.

GOOD JOB, Poindexter! Look what you allowed to happen.

Where is your proof that the wealthy would save more lives with their money if not taxed than if taxed?[/quote]

Because that is how it has always been. Charity has always been a free market enterprise.