[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? That is a false assumption.[/quote]
[quote]Vegita wrote:
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. [/quote]
I completely agree that either value can be taken to the extreme and do more harm than good, which is why I think you need to invidually evaluate each situation to determine the appropriate balance of values in that case.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.[/quote]
That is only one principle among many. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that other values exist, and that in certain cases, those values may actually trump that particular value?
You would seriously let 100 people die in order to save a man the minor inconvenience of losing his key for 5 seconds to unlock the gate, at no other cost to himself?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
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.
I completely agree that either value can be taken to the extreme and do more harm than good, which is why I think you need to invidually evaluate each situation to determine the appropriate balance of values in that case.
Extremist Positions <> Good[/quote]
This is where you are incorrect. The right to do as I see fit is basically the only thing I completely 100% own. Thats it, it’s all I have, my entire existance is a result of the choices I have made. Even when someone forces me to do something I don’t want to do, I still always have a choice, do it or fight it. Now most people will live happily when they are only forced to do very minor things and not very often, against thier true will. But the more you have people doing things against thier true will, the closer and closer the people get to CHOOSING option #2. What the philosophy is basically saying is the more you have people doing things by force that they don’t want to do, the closer and closer you are getting to people getting violent, because they would rather die fighting than living as a slave.
Use all the little benevolent scenarios or saving peoples lives you want, the fact of the matter is that probably 99% of the forced actions on this planet are for the benefit of the forcer and at the expense of the focred. Stop kidding yourself that there are all these do gooders with power out there, taking from bad priveledged people and giving to good underpriveleged people. The poor people in this country are STILL poor and always will be, no amount of stealing from the rich by the government or any other orginazation is going to change that.
[quote]kodiak82 wrote:
you guys are getting, me interested in the book. Will have to find a copy[/quote]
It is a great read, which will challenge your basic beliefs. That being said, remember that she was originally from Russia; meaning that it will also not have the same ease and flow of a polished American author. It is also a long book, a philosophy text in the guise of an adventure novel.
Probably her greatest accomplishment was to bring philosophy to the majority of people. You will now be able to read Kant, Aristotle, Nietzsche (or even Willard V.O. Quine) and have some idea of what they’re talking about.
[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.
That is only one principle among many. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that other values exist, and that in certain cases, those values may actually trump that particular value?
You would seriously let 100 people die in order to save a man the minor inconvenience of losing his key for 5 seconds to unlock the gate, at no other cost to himself?[/quote]
Stop using sensationalized scenarios, that scenario would simply never happen. And for some reason, if there is such an evil bastard out there and he truly owned the bridge, well then the people are fucked. But really, these scenarios are pure dramatic bullshit. Nobody has the right to force another human to do something against thier will. They always have a choice, so if you try to take his key, maybe he throws it in the ocean, or maybe he kills you for trying to take his key. You just don’t mess with peoples freedom.
[quote]forlife wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Because that is how it has always been. Charity has always been a free market enterprise.[/quote]
I didn’t ask if charity was a free market enterprise. I asked where is your proof that more lives are saved through voluntary contributions, which would dry up if the contributors were taxed instead.
That makes no sense. Most of the wealthy, if so inclined, contribute to charity despite being taxed. And those not so inclined are not going to start giving even more to charity than they would save by not being taxed.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
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. [/quote]
Now you’re talking in shades of gray, rather than absolutist black and white terms. That makes more sense. No single value trumps all other values. They all have to be taken into context and weighed according to the individual situation.
More lives will be saved by taxing the rich than by not taxing the rich, period. How much you tax them is a subjective call, but it’s obvious that more people will benefit with taxes than without.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.
That is only one principle among many. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that other values exist, and that in certain cases, those values may actually trump that particular value?
You would seriously let 100 people die in order to save a man the minor inconvenience of losing his key for 5 seconds to unlock the gate, at no other cost to himself?
Stop using sensationalized scenarios, that scenario would simply never happen. And for some reason, if there is such an evil bastard out there and he truly owned the bridge, well then the people are fucked. But really, these scenarios are pure dramatic bullshit. Nobody has the right to force another human to do something against thier will. They always have a choice, so if you try to take his key, maybe he throws it in the ocean, or maybe he kills you for trying to take his key. You just don’t mess with peoples freedom.
V[/quote]
BUT, BUT, BUT…
What if were all on a space ship, and theres gonna be a burst of cosmic radiation. Only problem is the only radiation shield is owned by some asshole capitalist with an 8 figure bank account. Theres enough room for us all in the shield, but his mom didn’t love him so he says we can’t share it.
What do I do now sherlock?!??!?! I can’t believe there isn’t some kind of contigency plan for situations like this.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Stop using sensationalized scenarios, that scenario would simply never happen. And for some reason, if there is such an evil bastard out there and he truly owned the bridge, well then the people are fucked. But really, these scenarios are pure dramatic bullshit. Nobody has the right to force another human to do something against thier will. They always have a choice, so if you try to take his key, maybe he throws it in the ocean, or maybe he kills you for trying to take his key. You just don’t mess with peoples freedom. [/quote]
The point of the scenario is not to describe something that would actually happen, but to make the point that no value trumps all others, without exception. Taking the guy’s key for 5 seconds is a far lesser evil than allowing 100 people to die.
[quote]
More lives will be saved by taxing the rich than by not taxing the rich, period. How much you tax them is a subjective call, but it’s obvious that more people will benefit with taxes than without.[/quote]
[quote]Unaware wrote:
Vegita wrote:
forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
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.
That is only one principle among many. Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that other values exist, and that in certain cases, those values may actually trump that particular value?
You would seriously let 100 people die in order to save a man the minor inconvenience of losing his key for 5 seconds to unlock the gate, at no other cost to himself?
Stop using sensationalized scenarios, that scenario would simply never happen. And for some reason, if there is such an evil bastard out there and he truly owned the bridge, well then the people are fucked. But really, these scenarios are pure dramatic bullshit. Nobody has the right to force another human to do something against thier will. They always have a choice, so if you try to take his key, maybe he throws it in the ocean, or maybe he kills you for trying to take his key. You just don’t mess with peoples freedom.
V
BUT, BUT, BUT…
What if were all on a space ship, and theres gonna be a burst of cosmic radiation. Only problem is the only radiation shield is owned by some asshole capitalist with an 8 figure bank account. Theres enough room for us all in the shield, but his mom didn’t love him so he says we can’t share it.
What do I do now sherlock?!??!?! I can’t believe there isn’t some kind of contigency plan for situations like this. [/quote]
It sounds so cold on the outside, that is, the idea of selfishness. But once one reads more than a simple outline, it just clicks. If your are REASONable , than it will for you too. Socialistic parasites and Mystics will have a hard time with her concepts.
She never states that you cannot help someone. You can help anyone you want… if that said person allows you to help them. However, you cannot infringe on other’s Right To Life… ie their property and right to trade. Basically, you cannot set goals outside yourself that others are not agreeable with. You cannot take the rich’s money to give to the poor. You, yourself, can give to the poor as well as anyone else, but as HH said, forcing it takes all the morality out of it.
Self-Sacrifice, ie choosing a lower value over higher value, only occurs when one is conditioned to believe in Altruism or through force. So, example, as a Jehovah Witness, you feel its your duty and obligation to commit others to your faith as well as supress your sexual urges and desires solely because your religion. Or, born in Soviet Union, you must give yourself to society or face the consequences. I guess some would say the higher value is “staying alive” so they must do whatever is possible… but I don’t believe in compromising yourself. And neither does Rand.
and ForLife, what is the greater good? I look out for me, my family, my friends, and to a very lesser extent my countrymen. I do not care if 2000 chinese die in a mine collapse or any other ‘tragic’ event that someone loses their life unless: Its someone I have a relationship with , for that is what life is … Relationships. On that note- I expect any rational person to not sacrifice their self in any moral dilemma that requires them to do so for ‘the greater good’ unless relationships are involved – for as Rand aludes to, life can become unliveable (lower value) after one dies.
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
If your are REASONable , than it will for you too. Socialistic parasites and Mystics will have a hard time with her concepts.[/quote]
I agree with Rand’s argument for Reason. What I find reprehensible is her insistence that one particular value (i.e., forcing others to do something they choose not to do) is ALWAYS morally corrupt, regardless of the inconsequential impact to the person being forced, or of the overall good that might be accomplished by doing so. Any extremist positions like that should be taken with a very large grain of salt.
When was the last time the government did that much good?
If I’m not mistaken, that much good was accomplished IN ADDITION to the taxes being paid by Gates.[/quote]
Now you are the one making assumptions. Who is to say that Mr. Gates would not have contributed an even larger sum had his cumulative tax burden instead been in his bank account?
Also almost all the money Mr. Gate contributes will be going directly to helping people.
Top of the page you remark that assuming rich people would provide more charity than if taxed is a false assumption. Then you assume that all that money taxed from rich people would simply sit in their bank accounts.
Provide some research that shows a net benefit of taxation.
