NY Times: Ayn Rand's Influence Growing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

Ummm, still no, if you shoot me in the head, you killed me. I did not have a choice to make, therefore my free will was never interfered with. My life sure was, which is another basic human right, obviously, but life is not the same as free will. If you tried to force me to shoot myself, then I would have free will, either shoot myself or not. You can never truly eliminate someones free will, you can try like hell, but if the person is intent on using thier free will, you will not be able to. Only if they allow you to can you. In which case, they have used thier free will to allow you to dictate it, at any point in time, because they have free will, they can decide they don’t like you controlling them any more and make a choice to stop doing what you ask.

You really need to understand this, no one can make you do anything you don’t want to do, that is what is called free will, there is a reason no one can take it from you, it’s the only thing you truly own. You were born with it and you will die with it. At any point in time, you can do anything that is physically possible given your current environment.

V

162

[quote]orion wrote:
They should, if they violate the non aggression principle.
[/quote]

So the non aggression principle only applies when you want it to, and you feel comfortable violating it in order to force others to follow it?

163

[quote]Unaware wrote:
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. [/quote]

Like I said earlier, there is no magic answer on how much altruism should be allowed to trump free will. People can and do disagree on that point.

What I’m saying is that it is a balancing act, rather than a case where one value completely and permanently trumps the other. I’m talking about extremists on either side, obviously…altruism should never unilaterally trump free will either.

164

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Ummm, still no, if you shoot me in the head, you killed me. I did not have a choice to make, therefore my free will was never interfered with. My life sure was, which is another basic human right, obviously, but life is not the same as free will. If you tried to force me to shoot myself, then I would have free will, either shoot myself or not. You can never truly eliminate someones free will, you can try like hell, but if the person is intent on using thier free will, you will not be able to. Only if they allow you to can you. In which case, they have used thier free will to allow you to dictate it, at any point in time, because they have free will, they can decide they don’t like you controlling them any more and make a choice to stop doing what you ask.

You really need to understand this, no one can make you do anything you don’t want to do, that is what is called free will, there is a reason no one can take it from you, it’s the only thing you truly own. You were born with it and you will die with it. At any point in time, you can do anything that is physically possible given your current environment. [/quote]

Obviously, life is a prerequisite to free will. If I take your life, I automatically take your free will.

If I imprison you, I take away your free will to travel to Africa this summer.

Look at your own argument. You’re saying it is impossible to take away someone’s free will. If that were true, taxes couldn’t take away someone’s free will, so you should not be opposed to them.

165

[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Ummm, still no, if you shoot me in the head, you killed me. I did not have a choice to make, therefore my free will was never interfered with. My life sure was, which is another basic human right, obviously, but life is not the same as free will. If you tried to force me to shoot myself, then I would have free will, either shoot myself or not. You can never truly eliminate someones free will, you can try like hell, but if the person is intent on using thier free will, you will not be able to. Only if they allow you to can you. In which case, they have used thier free will to allow you to dictate it, at any point in time, because they have free will, they can decide they don’t like you controlling them any more and make a choice to stop doing what you ask.

You really need to understand this, no one can make you do anything you don’t want to do, that is what is called free will, there is a reason no one can take it from you, it’s the only thing you truly own. You were born with it and you will die with it. At any point in time, you can do anything that is physically possible given your current environment.

Obviously, life is a prerequisite to free will. If I take your life, I automatically take your free will.

If I imprison you, I take away your free will to travel to Africa this summer.

Look at your own argument. You’re saying it is impossible to take away someone’s free will. If that were true, taxes couldn’t take away someone’s free will, so you should not be opposed to them.
[/quote]

Taxes don’t take away my free will, they do attempt to. I have a choice to not pay them, move to another country, go off the grid etc… At the moment for me, non of those options are better than paying my taxes, so for now, even though I’m getting robbed, it’s better than the alternative. Like if a guy walks up to me, pulls a knife and tells me to give him my wallet, I’m giving the guy my wallet, I still have a choice, it hasn’t been taken away from me, I still have free will.

Let me rephrase this again, you seem to be not understanding what I am saying. As you go through life, you go from one environment to another, each environment has scenarios and specific conditions in which you may find yourself. each of those environments and scenarios will leave you will choices, sit in a chair, climb a ladder, Start a fire, read a book, eat a meal, whatever. You as a Human, make chocies in those environments and scenarios. If the universe hands you a scenarion where you are limitid to very few possible choices, your free will has not been reduced at all, you still have it, it’s an absolute. You simply have a limited amount of choices to make. One choice may lead you to a new environment and scenario where again you have a vast amount of choices to make, andother choice may get you hurt or killed, another choice may leave you in an environment where you have even fewer choices to make. Your free will is your ability to make a decision, and it cannot be taken away from you. Even if I put you in a box, you still have free will. Do you stand or sit in the box. Do you piss your pants or hold it. Do you stop breathing and kill yourself or continue breathing and see how long you have to stay in the box.

I really don’t think this is such a hard concept to understand. And of course if you take my life you take my free will, were you suggesting that I said you could take my life but my free will would somehow remain in tact? Didn’t you watch braveheart? You can take my life, but you can never take my freedom. Shit.

V

166

And actually I take that back, I don’t think taxes take away my free will, they do take away my property though. And I also happen to believe I have a right to my property, just as I have a right to my life and my free will.

V

167

[quote]Vegita wrote:
And actually I take that back, I don’t think taxes take away my free will, they do take away my property though. And I also happen to believe I have a right to my property, just as I have a right to my life and my free will. [/quote]

Now you’re getting it. It’s not like free will is the ONLY right/value being considered here. You just listed 3 rights/values. No doubt you can think of a few more if you put your mind to it.

168

[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
And actually I take that back, I don’t think taxes take away my free will, they do take away my property though. And I also happen to believe I have a right to my property, just as I have a right to my life and my free will.

Now you’re getting it. It’s not like free will is the ONLY right/value being considered here. You just listed 3 rights/values. No doubt you can think of a few more if you put your mind to it.[/quote]

No a right is not a value. You see value in taking from the rich and giving to the poor, that is not a right. People are not born with that. People are born with rights and they die with them. I cannot possibly keep going back and forth with you. I’m now going to use my free will to stop responding to your counters. The Sky is blue not green, no matter how many times you try to tell me otherwise.

V

169

Quit focusing on semantics and address the actual point, which is that you admitted to supporting at least 3 “rights”, contrary to the one “right” you originally proposed as trumping all others.

Or don’t. You have that right.

170

[quote]forlife wrote:
Quit focusing on semantics and address the actual point, which is that you admitted to supporting at least 3 “rights”, contrary to the one “right” you originally proposed as trumping all others.

Or don’t. You have that right.[/quote]

They are all eaqual and they don’t compete with eachother, so I never have to weigh them.

V

171

One example off the top of my head:

You suffer a serious stroke and are in a coma. Your significant other with medical power of attorney now has to make a choice. She can:

  1. Remove life support (thus placing the right to property above the right to life and free will)

  2. Use your bank account to fund the ongoing medical bills (thus placing the right to life and free will above the right to property)

Which is the moral choice? People disagree, because the rights conflict with one another, and one particular right doesn’t automatically trump all others.

172

[quote]forlife wrote:
One example off the top of my head:

You suffer a serious stroke and are in a coma. Your significant other with medical power of attorney now has to make a choice. She can:

  1. Remove life support (thus placing the right to property above the right to life and free will)

  2. Use your bank account to fund the ongoing medical bills (thus placing the right to life and free will above the right to property)

Which is the moral choice? People disagree, because the rights conflict with one another, and one particular right doesn’t automatically trump all others.[/quote]

Thats a horrible example, It’s one person making a decision. She has the right to make it any way she sees fit. I have to make the same decision every day when I eat food that I had to pay for. I choose to eat food and stay alive even though it is at a loss of my property (wealth). Try again.

V

173

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.

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.[/quote]

That is a false dichotomy.

You say that there are no clear cut answers and yet you want governments to make the decision for all people.

Why not let everyone decide for themselves if and how much money they want to give to charity.

Incidentally, if you do some research you will find out that those who are against government welfare give more of their money and their time than those who are for it.

So, who is selfish and greedy?

Those who would rather care for the poor themselves with their own time and money, if and when they choose to or those who would like to throw other peoples money at the problem and would hardly sacrifice their own time.

You just want your will be done, an egalitarian of outcome but not of opinion, for if you can you will force other people do live by your ideas.

But you would very much like to be able to marry dudes, yes?

174

[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
They should, if they violate the non aggression principle.

So the non aggression principle only applies when you want it to, and you feel comfortable violating it in order to force others to follow it?[/quote]

Where did I say that?

175

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Thats a horrible example, It’s one person making a decision. She has the right to make it any way she sees fit. I have to make the same decision every day when I eat food that I had to pay for. I choose to eat food and stay alive even though it is at a loss of my property (wealth). Try again. [/quote]

You totally missed the point. What is the moral decision for her to make? Obviously, free will is not automatically the determining factor in that decision. You have to consider the other basic rights as well.

176

[quote]orion wrote:
Why not let everyone decide for themselves if and how much money they want to give to charity.
[/quote]

Because, as I just pointed out, doing so would elevate personal choice above compassion in all cases and without regard for circumstances. Sometimes reducing a person’s ability to choose is justified in the name of compassion, and sometimes not serving others is justified in the name of honoring a person’s ability to choose. It’s not either/or, and you can’t blindly give one value preeminence over all other values.

177

[quote]orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
They should, if they violate the non aggression principle.

So the non aggression principle only applies when you want it to, and you feel comfortable violating it in order to force others to follow it?

Where did I say that?
[/quote]

You said that you are justifed in using aggression against people that violate the non aggression principle.

178

[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
They should, if they violate the non aggression principle.

So the non aggression principle only applies when you want it to, and you feel comfortable violating it in order to force others to follow it?

Where did I say that?

You said that you are justifed in using aggression against people that violate the non aggression principle.[/quote]

Exactly.

Not raping, killing or stealing are pretty important qualities in human being.

179

[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
Why not let everyone decide for themselves if and how much money they want to give to charity.

Because, as I just pointed out, doing so would elevate personal choice above compassion in all cases and without regard for circumstances. Sometimes reducing a person’s ability to choose is justified in the name of compassion, and sometimes not serving others is justified in the name of honoring a person’s ability to choose. It’s not either/or, and you can’t blindly give one value preeminence over all other values.[/quote]

If you take someones money away from him there is no compassion, just robbery.

This person might have been compassionate but you have taken the means to be compassionate for virtue is either voluntary or not at all.

You want to replace charity with violence and call it “compassionate” when you in fact kill compassion.

It is like calling rape an act of love.

180

[quote]forlife wrote:
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.

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

No, I am ridding the world of garbage. Don’t worry, he’ll get a fair trial first.