NY Times: Ayn Rand's Influence Growing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
In your society, I would become a criminal. Not one that you could put your finger on. But I would befriend all the down trodden, I would arm and train them. I would rule your utopia

We would have reason on our side and you would have mindless brutes. You’d be crushed pretty quickly. Read close to the end of Galt’s speech.
[/quote]

I have assassinated all the alpha males under the guise of business deals gone wrong. Then when suspicion started to rise I did a sweep killing all the males.

142

[quote]orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
Are you that naive?

What do you think will happen if someone will not pay the taxes you need to pursue you “greater good”?

That he will be sent to bed without dinner?

No, men with guns will come and get him and his stuff and if he resists he will be shot dead.

Resisting arrest with deadly force would be the cause of the guy getting shot, not his unwillingness to pay his taxes.

Millions of Americans fail to pay their taxes, but you don’t hear about many of them being shot because of it.

Charming.

What if I come to your house to take your stuff?

I promise only to kill you if you resist me.

Would that be ok for you?

[/quote]

You are not allowed to use extreme scenarios illustrating your point, only he and sloth can. Don’t you know in thier ideal world, only certain people have the priveledges, based on thier own arbitrary values system.

V

143

[quote]Vegita wrote:
If someone violates the free will of another human, they should be removed from the system, at least IMHO.[/quote]

But isn’t “removing the person from the sytem” contrary to the free will of the person? How do you avoid the inherent double standard?

144

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I agree about incarceration and free will. I am in favor of throwing criminals into the wilderness where they cannot counter the wishes of civilization. They can have all the free will they want in the wild, living in self sufficient isolation. They will not have time to make trouble when they are trying to survive. That is the proper punishment for anti-social behavior.[/quote]

What if they don’t want to be thrown into the wilderness? By doing so, you are violating their free will.

145

[quote]orion wrote:
That might be an excellent idea for an individual but not for the assortment of sleazebags we call government.

For them it is just an excuse to do whatever the fuck they want.
[/quote]

Any system of justice can and will be abused, including the system you are proposing. The primary difference is that your system exalts one value at the expense of all others, to the ultimate detriment of society. It is an extremist position that utterly fails to account for the unique circumstances of each case.

146

[quote]orion wrote:
Charming.

What if I come to your house to take your stuff?

I promise only to kill you if you resist me.

Would that be ok for you?
[/quote]

Obviously the person getting arrested isn’t going to like it. But what is the alternative? Are you suggesting that people should never be arrested? After all, doing so would violate their free will.

147

[quote]Vegita wrote:
You are not allowed to use extreme scenarios illustrating your point, only he and sloth can. Don’t you know in thier ideal world, only certain people have the priveledges, based on thier own arbitrary values system. [/quote]

WTF? I’ve argued FOR extreme examples, as a way to illustrate the ultimate benefits and disadvantages of any proposed system.

What I’m arguing AGAINST aren’t examples for purposes of debate, I’m arguing AGAINST the idea that a system of justice would exalt one value over all other values, as if those other values are not also important and shouldn’t be taken into account.

148

[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
You are not allowed to use extreme scenarios illustrating your point, only he and sloth can. Don’t you know in thier ideal world, only certain people have the priveledges, based on thier own arbitrary values system.

WTF? I’ve argued FOR extreme examples, as a way to illustrate the ultimate benefits and disadvantages of any proposed system.

What I’m arguing AGAINST aren’t examples for purposes of debate, I’m arguing AGAINST the idea that a system of justice would exalt one value over all other values, as if those other values are not also important and shouldn’t be taken into account.[/quote]

I was being sarcastic, his example isn’t extreme at all, it’s logical and a common occurance. It is beneficial to make your points using real life examples, it makes more sense.

V

149

[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
If someone violates the free will of another human, they should be removed from the system, at least IMHO.

But isn’t “removing the person from the sytem” contrary to the free will of the person? How do you avoid the inherent double standard?[/quote]

You obviously didn’t read, they chose to be removed from the system, I didn’t choose for them, the removal is automatic. They know it will be done and made a decision using thier free will to take the action anyways. My response to thier action is not interfering with thier free will.

V

150

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I was being sarcastic, his example isn’t extreme at all, it’s logical and a common occurance. It is beneficial to make your points using real life examples, it makes more sense. [/quote]

It’s common in the legal world to consider extreme examples, to evaluate the bounds of any effects that might be produced by a particular law. Nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact it makes a lot of sense.

However, creating extreme laws based on unfounded dictums that elevate one value above all others is a fool’s errand.

151

[quote]Vegita wrote:
You obviously didn’t read, they chose to be removed from the system, I didn’t choose for them, the removal is automatic. They know it will be done and made a decision using thier free will to take the action anyways. My response to thier action is not interfering with thier free will. [/quote]

No, they didn’t choose to be removed from the system. Their free will is to perform the act, AND be able to stay in the system. By forcing them out of the system you are violating their free will.

152

[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I was being sarcastic, his example isn’t extreme at all, it’s logical and a common occurance. It is beneficial to make your points using real life examples, it makes more sense.

It’s common in the legal world to consider extreme examples, to evaluate the bounds of any effects that might be produced by a particular law. Nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact it makes a lot of sense.

However, creating extreme laws based on unfounded dictums that elevate one value above all others is a fool’s errand.[/quote]

I fail to understand how you keep harping that free will is a value. It is a basic human right, it canot be taken away as I have shown numerous times. Extreme cases in the law try to put a limit on YOUR values that you hold so dear, unfortunately they are almost never agreed upon, which means that method of determining a law is inherintly flawed. Just because the system in use now uses it, does not mean it is the best way to do it. You are trying to argue that a basic human right is in fact not a basic human right. It is no matter how many times you try to label it a value.

V

153

[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
You obviously didn’t read, they chose to be removed from the system, I didn’t choose for them, the removal is automatic. They know it will be done and made a decision using thier free will to take the action anyways. My response to thier action is not interfering with thier free will.

No, they didn’t choose to be removed from the system. Their free will is to perform the act, AND be able to stay in the system. By forcing them out of the system you are violating their free will.[/quote]

Wrong again, You have free will, You cannot defy the laws of the natural world. You can say, Hey I am going to excercise my free will be jumping into a lions cage and punching a lion in the face, then turing around and pissing on its cubs and then walking out of the cage. You can say that is your free will, but when the lion tears you to shreds, you cannot blame the lion for interering with your free will, he was only acting according to the natural laws of this planet, namely, if a retard walks into his cage and punches him in the face, he is going to tear the retard to shreds and eat him. So because someone decides to defy the natural laws of the planet (hint hint, by interfering with someone elses free will) then when the planet responds, (lion, society, guy whose house you just broke into,pack of rabid mice etc…) the man cannot claim his free will is being interfred with. I mean I can say it is my free will to breathe underwater, but in reality, I cannot, so the water is not interfering with my free will, get it?

V

154

[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
That might be an excellent idea for an individual but not for the assortment of sleazebags we call government.

For them it is just an excuse to do whatever the fuck they want.

Any system of justice can and will be abused, including the system you are proposing. The primary difference is that your system exalts one value at the expense of all others, to the ultimate detriment of society. It is an extremist position that utterly fails to account for the unique circumstances of each case.[/quote]

That is utterly wrong.

If everyone can make his own decision with his own money the individual circumstances of every case can be taken into account.

Your pseudo benevolent top down approach is positively unable to do that.

155

[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
Charming.

What if I come to your house to take your stuff?

I promise only to kill you if you resist me.

Would that be ok for you?

Obviously the person getting arrested isn’t going to like it. But what is the alternative? Are you suggesting that people should never be arrested? After all, doing so would violate their free will.[/quote]

They should, if they violate the non aggression principle.

By sending the tax man to take their stuff they do not do that, you do, yet they end up shot if they resist.

156

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I fail to understand how you keep harping that free will is a value. It is a basic human right, it canot be taken away as I have shown numerous times. [/quote]

If I hold a loaded revolver to your head and pull the trigger, I have taken away your free will with a simple twitch of my finger. Still want to argue that you can’t take away someone’s free will?

Furthermore, it’s possible to constrict a person’s free will without taking it away entirely (e.g., through incarceration).

So please stop arguing that you can’t take away a person’s free will. Obviously, you can.

157

[quote]Vegita wrote:
forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
You obviously didn’t read, they chose to be removed from the system, I didn’t choose for them, the removal is automatic. They know it will be done and made a decision using thier free will to take the action anyways. My response to thier action is not interfering with thier free will.

No, they didn’t choose to be removed from the system. Their free will is to perform the act, AND be able to stay in the system. By forcing them out of the system you are violating their free will.

Wrong again, You have free will, You cannot defy the laws of the natural world. You can say, Hey I am going to excercise my free will be jumping into a lions cage and punching a lion in the face, then turing around and pissing on its cubs and then walking out of the cage. You can say that is your free will, but when the lion tears you to shreds, you cannot blame the lion for interering with your free will, he was only acting according to the natural laws of this planet, namely, if a retard walks into his cage and punches him in the face, he is going to tear the retard to shreds and eat him. So because someone decides to defy the natural laws of the planet (hint hint, by interfering with someone elses free will) then when the planet responds, (lion, society, guy whose house you just broke into,pack of rabid mice etc…) the man cannot claim his free will is being interfred with. I mean I can say it is my free will to breathe underwater, but in reality, I cannot, so the water is not interfering with my free will, get it?

V [/quote]

The distinction Rothbard makes is between right and the power to exercise that right.

You have every right to breathe under water or to jump the Atlantic, you just do not have the power to do it.

It is an important distinction because otherwise people will claim they are not “free” when in reality they just lack the resources to do something.

Using “rights” and “powers” synonymously is a favorite socialist fallacy, as in, everybody has a right to food and shelter. While I would agree I also know that some people do not have the resources to do that yet. That does not take away that right though, nor does it allow for someone to take my money to feed them.

158

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Wrong again, You have free will, You cannot defy the laws of the natural world. You can say, Hey I am going to excercise my free will be jumping into a lions cage and punching a lion in the face, then turing around and pissing on its cubs and then walking out of the cage. You can say that is your free will, but when the lion tears you to shreds, you cannot blame the lion for interering with your free will, he was only acting according to the natural laws of this planet, namely, if a retard walks into his cage and punches him in the face, he is going to tear the retard to shreds and eat him. So because someone decides to defy the natural laws of the planet (hint hint, by interfering with someone elses free will) then when the planet responds, (lion, society, guy whose house you just broke into,pack of rabid mice etc…) the man cannot claim his free will is being interfred with. I mean I can say it is my free will to breathe underwater, but in reality, I cannot, so the water is not interfering with my free will, get it?[/quote]

Of course the water is interfering with your free will. There are many things we would like to do, which we cannot do.

The point is that your example was a VOLUNTARY removal of another person’s free will, rather than a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE. There is nothing natural about banishing someone to the wilderness, it is a consequence created by a human being in order to infringe on the free will of another human being.

159

What is the difference between the government taxing 50% of someone’s paycheck every year to pay for other peoples food, housing, cars, etc, and a guy stealing a couple hundred bucks out your wallet to pay for the same thing?

In the grand scheme of things you are relitvley wealthy forlife, what excludes your possesions from being confiscated for altruism? Can I take a grand out of your bank account to send to children in africa? They need the money more than you, and really you can afford to spare it. Just means no new TV, iPod whatever. Not really much of a sacrifice really is it?

I wonder how many of these people who harp about the altruism of taxation actually donate to charities or perform volunteer work, or if they really are only for altruism if it isn’t coming out of their back pocket.

160

[quote]orion wrote:
If everyone can make his own decision with his own money the individual circumstances of every case can be taken into account.

Your pseudo benevolent top down approach is positively unable to do that.
[/quote]

You’re not taking into account individual circumstances if you unilaterally declare that anything that infringes on another person’s free will is automatically illegal and morally corrupt, regardless of the conditions under which that occurs.

Compassion requires people to share their material wealth with others. Free will disallows people from forcing others to share their belongings. Clearly, the two values can and do come into conflict. There is no absolutist, extremist, black and white correct answer to these situations.

Make compassion your ultimate value, and you have extreme socialism. Make free will your ultimate value, and you have extreme objectivism. Neither extremist position is ideal.

You have to weigh the costs/benefits of the compassionate act against the costs/benefits of any infringement on the person’s free will, given the unique circumstances of the case, to determine what the most moral outcome would be.