This is what happens when you fail at world history and worship at the altar of Ayn Rand way way way too much.
And I will go on the record that selfishness has done just as much damage to America as HH’s imaginary altruism.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If your neighbor is being raped, would you put a gun to your room mate’s head and make him go risk his life to help her?
I think yours is a little off!
Answer his question.
His question is totaally ridiculous. No one is holding a gun to someones head making them a first responder.
Why don’t you guys answer my question as to how you would respond?[/quote]
I would go try to help her.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Wow, this place hasn’t changed a bit.[/quote]
Good to see you, Pookie.
And, you’re right.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
His question is totaally ridiculous. No one is holding a gun to someones head making them a first responder.
Why don’t you guys answer my question as to how you would respond?[/quote]
If I thought it were in my ability to stop the action by myself I would do it. If it were not I’d call up some of my heavy-lead-pipe-carrying cousins. I would not demand they help but would politely beg. We would leave him alive so he can repay his debt to his victim and her family.
His question isn’t ridiculous. It illustrates how government works. I think it ironic that a police officer can decide not to do their job at any time they want if they think their life is at risk; their “customers” have no recourse like they would if they had hired a private company under contract.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If your neighbor is being raped, would you put a gun to your room mate’s head and make him go risk his life to help her?
…
His question is totaally ridiculous. No one is holding a gun to someones head making them a first responder.
Why don’t you guys answer my question as to how you would respond?[/quote]
If you had a gun, wouldn’t you just go use the gun to shoot the rapist and protect your neighbor?
Aren’t looneytarians cute at this age?
I would help the neighbor outright, but I am picky like that, thinking that in life, there are both rights and duties, but I would probably toke it up first, per Orion, so I would think and perform more clearly while saving the neighbor with the gun I would have otherwise used to threaten someone into helping.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
His question is totaally ridiculous. No one is holding a gun to someones head making them a first responder.
Why don’t you guys answer my question as to how you would respond?
If I thought it were in my ability to stop the action by myself I would do it. If it were not I’d call up some of my heavy-lead-pipe-carrying cousins. I would not demand they help but would politely beg. We would leave him alive so he can repay his debt to his victim and her family.
[/quote]
So you would be altrusitic and try to help?
HH thinks that is the ruination o our country.
[quote]
His question isn’t ridiculous. It illustrates how government works. I think it ironic that a police officer can decide not to do their job at any time they want if they think their life is at risk; their “customers” have no recourse like they would if they had hired a private company under contract.[/quote]
A police officers job is not to risk his life to help others, while that sometimes happens it is not their duty to charge into harms way.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
So you would be altrusitic and try to help?
HH thinks that is the ruination o our country.
[/quote]
That is not what HH says. He says it is unworkable and immoral to force people to be altruistic. I do not look at it as altruism but rather look at it as looking out for my interests. I do not want rapists living in my neighborhood.
[quote]Ren wrote:
And I will go on the record that selfishness has done just as much damage to America as HH’s imaginary altruism.[/quote]
All actions have consequences. It is pointless to try and pin-point what kind of actions have “better” or “worse” consequences.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ren wrote:
And I will go on the record that selfishness has done just as much damage to America as HH’s imaginary altruism.
All actions have consequences. It is pointless to try and pin-point what kind of actions have “better” or “worse” consequences.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”[/quote]
I would think it foolish not to see what works and what does not
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So you would be altrusitic and try to help?
HH thinks that is the ruination o our country.
That is not what HH says. He says it is unworkable and immoral to force people to be altruistic. I do not look at it as altruism but rather look at it as looking out for my interests. I do not want rapists living in my neighborhood.[/quote]
Quick question, when has the US been altruistic in its policies? Foreign and/or internal examples will do.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
LankyMofo wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
…And why is it suddenly not cool to say positive things about the United States? I love this country. I’m incredibly grateful I was born and raised here. I love the entrepreneurial possibilities there are. I love that people can get rich if they want to and that people can lose their ass if they screw up.
Good post. It has become trendy to say bad things about the US. We need to bring back the 70’s phrase:
“America, love it or leave it.”
I’m tired of the whining.
Love which America? The America created with the declaration of independance, Consitution, and Bill of Rights? Or the bastard child of that America and Communism? If you love it, why would you stand by and watch it ruined? If you love something you sure as hell take an interest in it. Maybe it should be “Take an interest in American Politics and Economics or Leave”?
If you love your car, would you make repairs to it? If your child is sick or injured would you try and make them better?
To me love or leave it only applies to those that would have us move further away from the principles this country was founded on.
[/quote]
If you are really interested in “fixing” America, go do something about it. Get involved in politics or something. Sitting around the forum whining about it doesn’t make any sense.
You’re right, I love my car, so it’s worth fixing. The minute I cease loving my car is when I get rid of it. My love for my car is not unconditional. Things change, cars turn to shit, countries evolve into something they weren’t when they first began. If people here don’t love the country they live in, there is nothing stopping them from going somewhere else.
[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
Quick question, when has the US been altruistic in its policies? Foreign and/or internal examples will do.[/quote]
I don’t believe that altruism actually exists so I cannot answer that question.
I do believe that government has instituted policies that is supposed to pick up the slack for those that cannot on their own – which is mistakenly called altruism. Anytime government decides to act on behalf of one group it necessarily must do so at a cost to another group. That cannot rightly be called altruism.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
If people here don’t love the country they live in, there is nothing stopping them from going somewhere else.[/quote]
That is not true. Where can we go? To some other place with a different government though slightly more tolerable?
I do not cut and run.
[quote]Ren wrote:
but the points you make are completely laughable when you consider that this country was founded on the backs of slaves.
[/quote]
That is anti-white libel, and insulting to those of us with non-slaving owning ancestors. So most of us.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would think it foolish not to see what works and what does not
[/quote]
People make mistakes everyday.
[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…nobody has yet to answer how the new america could look like. How does this society function? Do you pay taxes at all? Is everything privatized?
If you don’t pay taxes, do you expect to be left with more money in your pocket when you have to pay for everything else? Clear this up for me please?
The idea of taxes treats humans as cattle, or perhaps milking cows. I would say that if a government can only exist by forcing its citizens to pay for it, then that government is immoral.
There are many ideas for financing that is non-extortionary. An excellent example is offering a choice, when purchasing real estate, of whether the buyer wants government protection from fraud.
Paying a small fee ensures that the government will pursue and prosecute any fraud. You have a CHOICE to not pay the fee. If you are defrauded, you’re out of luck. If you were buying property from your parents, you probably wouldn’t buy this insurance, for example. If you were buying from a stranger, you’d certainly opt for the insurance.
Government should be something you hire, NOT something you obey or else.
…who will build roads? Who will provide you with clean drinking water? Will there be a public school system? How about health care? Answer me this: will an average earner who does not pay taxes in your world have more money in his pocket after he has to pay for everything else?
Not now, but invariably in a few years, because a rising tide does indeed lift all boats.
Compare an average growth rate of 5% p.a with one that is only 3% p.a because someone “redistributes” wealth.
1,03^50= 4,38
1,05^50= 11,47
11,47/4,38= 2,62
Meaning, that if noone redistributed wealth, we would be 11,5 as rich in 50 years, were even the poorest enjoy a wealth unheard of and the ability to pay for all the things you mentioned above with plenty to spare and now we will only have
4,4 as much which is less than 40% of that.
Redistribution not only steals from the rich now, but also from the relatively rich to come, namely future generations.
The only thing that could possibly be worse is to finance a welfare system with debt because that robs your children and there children in every way possible, IF they decide to pick up the bill.
Which is of course exactly what is happening now.
[/quote]
An economy with high levels of income inequality and no redistribution or government spending will tend not to grow because there will be almost no consumption and a severe overallocation to investment/savings.
More generally for the thread-
From a more practical standpoint, show me a place in the modern world with high levels of wealth and development throughout society which has truly minimal government and next to no taxation.
The only places I can think of that are so lightly governed are damn near stone aged in development. I guess the conservative side of me wants a modicum of evidence that these radical overhauls of society wouldn’t be a profound clusterfuck before anything is seriously contemplated.
Fundementally, the minarchist model is incapable of coping with a modern, developed and populated society. It’s no coincidence that a disproportionate number of its advocated live in the boonies largely apart from the rest of society.
They might say that they live there to live closest to their ideals, but I think the causation tends to be the other way around more often; they consider government unnecessary because they live apart from society.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I would think it foolish not to see what works and what does not
People make mistakes everyday.[/quote]
The idea is to learn from them
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Ren wrote:
but the points you make are completely laughable when you consider that this country was founded on the backs of slaves.
That is anti-white libel, and insulting to those of us with non-slaving owning ancestors. So most of us. [/quote]
You have a point but it’s important to consider that so much of the capital that went into the early economy and industrialization in particular came from slavery and the slave trade that this country couldn’t have gotten where it is without it, even if it was only a small minority participating directly in the practice.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ruggerlife wrote:
Quick question, when has the US been altruistic in its policies? Foreign and/or internal examples will do.
I don’t believe that altruism actually exists so I cannot answer that question.[/quote]
Thank you for recognizing that. I wonder if HH can name some altruistic examples, since he must know what the word means.
[quote]etaco wrote:
Fundementally, the minarchist model is incapable of coping with a modern, developed and populated society. It’s no coincidence that a disproportionate number of its advocated live in the boonies largely apart from the rest of society. They might say that they live there to live closest to their ideals, but I think the causation tends to be the other way around more often; they consider government unnecessary because they live apart from society. [/quote]
Which fundamentals about the minarchist model are incorrect and why?
Just saying because people want to be left alone they are wrong will not do.