Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Happiness in the 'Free' state

Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:06:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Up until two years ago I went to a comprehensive state(public) school. Until my transition to an independent school I'd had a firm belief in the defence of the welfare state. However, as envisioned, my opinions changed and I became more fiscally rightwing.

The common message here onsite is – ‘tax is theft/against man's liberty/rational self interest' but like the Marxist functionalists say: more for the few, less for the many. It goes without saying what a free market results in, but why then do so many support it?

So, to the laissez faire libertarian, why is it that you disregard the moral criticism of your doctrine?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:08:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's supposed to be a moral criticism that we don't regard superior numbers as a license to enslave?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:09:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
and, unlike the "marxist functionalists" whoever they may be say, no, economics is not a zero sum pie.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:12:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's called the moral/practical dichotomy Rob, and most people are guilty of it in a world in which altruism is all they have learned for morality.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:13:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I thought I should get it out there:

Rational self interest -> laissez faire systems - have a seeming positive hypothetical imperative. By deontological ethics they are simply impractical!!
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:14:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:13:36 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I thought I should get it out there:

Rational self interest -> laissez faire systems - have a seeming positive hypothetical imperative. By deontological ethics they are simply impractical!!

????????
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:15:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:08:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's supposed to be a moral criticism that we don't regard superior numbers as a license to enslave?

Pardon?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:17:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:15:17 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:08:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's supposed to be a moral criticism that we don't regard superior numbers as a license to enslave?

Pardon?

"The common message here onsite is – ‘tax is theft/against man's liberty/rational self interest' but like the Marxist functionalists say: more for the few, less for the many."

"
So, to the laissez faire libertarian, why is it that you disregard the moral criticism of your doctrine?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:21:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:08:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's supposed to be a moral criticism that we don't regard superior numbers as a license to enslave?

Objectivism: "Because the idea that people are entitled to live outside of poverty if they work, and the idea that I don't deserve millions of dollars for managing a company, is slavery!"
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:23:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Indeed such an idea is-- if the managing of the company earned the money from willing payers, and yet you took it to hand out to someone far less competent at their work. ^_^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:23:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:10:01 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
So you're "fiscally right wing" but you still have moral problems with it?

I see a moral duty to value another's welfare. Why? Because a society must value the peoples stability over their social freedom. If we can maintain social equality without undermining the economic efficiency of a country then I don't see the issue.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:25:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:23:48 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:10:01 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
So you're "fiscally right wing" but you still have moral problems with it?

I see a moral duty to value another's welfare. Why? Because a society must value the peoples stability over their social freedom.
Does not follow, or even mean anything (society can't value things. And stable in what? And whose welfare? There is more than one other around).

If we can maintain social equality without undermining the economic efficiency of a country then I don't see the issue.
You can't.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:27:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:17:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:15:17 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:08:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's supposed to be a moral criticism that we don't regard superior numbers as a license to enslave?

Pardon?

"The common message here onsite is – ‘tax is theft/against man's liberty/rational self interest' but like the Marxist functionalists say: more for the few, less for the many."

"
So, to the laissez faire libertarian, why is it that you disregard the moral criticism of your doctrine?"

Oh, right. It's not slavery because your not forced into the slaver - master dialectic. Your giving a bit of your pie but you can keep 3 of the 4 slices.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:30:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:27:36 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:17:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:15:17 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:08:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's supposed to be a moral criticism that we don't regard superior numbers as a license to enslave?

Pardon?

"The common message here onsite is – ‘tax is theft/against man's liberty/rational self interest' but like the Marxist functionalists say: more for the few, less for the many."

"
So, to the laissez faire libertarian, why is it that you disregard the moral criticism of your doctrine?"

Oh, right. It's not slavery because your not forced into the slaver - master dialectic. Your giving a bit of your pie but you can keep 3 of the 4 slices.

Does not follow. Whether I am forced to give up 1 of slices or any other number or size of slices (and no, no Marxist has ever declared themselves on the side of a country accomplishing such a low ratio to my knowledge, hell, sounds less Marxist than the US today), force remains force, and A remains A.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:30:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
1 of *4* slices
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:34:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:25:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:23:48 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:10:01 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
So you're "fiscally right wing" but you still have moral problems with it?

I see a moral duty to value another's welfare. Why? Because a society must value the peoples stability over their social freedom.
Does not follow, or even mean anything (society can't value things. And stable in what? And whose welfare? There is more than one other around).
If you have 'x' to excess you should value 'x' less correct? We're giving 'x' to the others so they can have atleast a basic minimum to sustain their live given they requre it.

The stability is the social inequality that a free market brings. The welfare of another, in the welfare of those you cohabit your society with.

If we can maintain social equality without undermining the economic efficiency of a country then I don't see the issue.
You can't.
Sweeden - Myrdal
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:37:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:34:01 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:25:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:23:48 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:10:01 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
So you're "fiscally right wing" but you still have moral problems with it?

I see a moral duty to value another's welfare. Why? Because a society must value the peoples stability over their social freedom.
Does not follow, or even mean anything (society can't value things. And stable in what? And whose welfare? There is more than one other around).
If you have 'x' to excess you should value 'x' less correct?
No one has "excess." "Excess" is an amount that becomes harmful. No such amount of mere wealth exists.

We're giving 'x' to the others
There is no we. There are your thieves, and there are the victims.

so they can have atleast a basic minimum to sustain their live
without earning it.

The stability is the social inequality that a free market brings.
Stability is social inequality? I thought you advocated stability.

And no, life brings inequality. Only death defeats it.

The welfare of another, in the welfare of those you cohabit your society with.
Again, meaningless. They are not one entity. They have different interests.


If we can maintain social equality without undermining the economic efficiency of a country then I don't see the issue.
You can't.
Sweeden - Myrdal
Sweden has accomplished no such thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:38:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:35:41 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
This is all under the axiom, the lives of other lawful citizens ought to be preserved.

And my life is to be made a preservative. Since my life isn't "other," it is of no value, and the state can feel free to sacrifice any arbitrary amount of it to any favored class.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:41:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:30:12 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:27:36 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:17:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:15:17 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:08:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's supposed to be a moral criticism that we don't regard superior numbers as a license to enslave?

Pardon?

"The common message here onsite is – ‘tax is theft/against man's liberty/rational self interest' but like the Marxist functionalists say: more for the few, less for the many."

"
So, to the laissez faire libertarian, why is it that you disregard the moral criticism of your doctrine?"

Oh, right. It's not slavery because your not forced into the slaver - master dialectic. Your giving a bit of your pie but you can keep 3 of the 4 slices.

Does not follow. Whether I am forced to give up 1 of slices or any other number or size of slices (and no, no Marxist has ever declared themselves on the side of a country accomplishing such a low ratio to my knowledge, hell, sounds less Marxist than the US today), force remains force, and A remains A.

You sound like Glen Beck on Obama, gawd.

It's the lawful demand of your charitablility. It's a doctrine that exists in almost all states today. In your ideal state there will be no tax correct? Do you really see that working with a happy citizenry?

You only 'x';
You have 8 of 'x';
State takes 2 of 'x';

You still have excess, and two other subjects live.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:43:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:38:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:35:41 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
This is all under the axiom, the lives of other lawful citizens ought to be preserved.

And my life is to be made a preservative. Since my life isn't "other," it is of no value, and the state can feel free to sacrifice any arbitrary amount of it to any favored class.

You still have enough to live to a bare minimum and beyond.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:47:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:41:25 AM, Zetsubou wrote:


You sound like Glen Beck on Obama, gawd.

It's the lawful demand of your charitablility.


No such thing, unless you wish to say this:

It's the lawful demand of extortion.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:47:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:41:25 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:30:12 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:27:36 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:17:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:15:17 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:08:34 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's supposed to be a moral criticism that we don't regard superior numbers as a license to enslave?

Pardon?

"The common message here onsite is – ‘tax is theft/against man's liberty/rational self interest' but like the Marxist functionalists say: more for the few, less for the many."

"
So, to the laissez faire libertarian, why is it that you disregard the moral criticism of your doctrine?"

Oh, right. It's not slavery because your not forced into the slaver - master dialectic. Your giving a bit of your pie but you can keep 3 of the 4 slices.

Does not follow. Whether I am forced to give up 1 of slices or any other number or size of slices (and no, no Marxist has ever declared themselves on the side of a country accomplishing such a low ratio to my knowledge, hell, sounds less Marxist than the US today), force remains force, and A remains A.

You sound like Glen Beck on Obama, gawd.
Beck? That socialist?


It's the lawful demand of your charitablility.
The legislator does not have the right to enslave me. Whether I have this trait known as "Charitability" or not (I don't.)

It's a doctrine that exists in almost all states today.
Ad populum.

In your ideal state there will be no tax correct? Do you really see that working with a happy citizenry?
There is no such entity as a "Citizenry" that can be happy or unhappy. Happiness cannot be granted by government, though it can be ended thereby, only an individual can achieve it.


You only 'x';
You have 8 of 'x';
State takes 2 of 'x';

You still have excess
No I don't.

and two other subjects live.
They live in the sense a rat does, perhaps. Until I stop producing, since the productive are chumps.

Whereas if they wish to live in the sense a human does, they'll leave the state out of it and trade their labor with me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:47:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:06:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Up until two years ago I went to a comprehensive state(public) school. Until my transition to an independent school I'd had a firm belief in the defence of the welfare state. However, as envisioned, my opinions changed and I became more fiscally rightwing.

The common message here onsite is – ‘tax is theft/against man's liberty/rational self interest' but like the Marxist functionalists say: more for the few, less for the many. It goes without saying what a free market results in, but why then do so many support it?

So, to the laissez faire libertarian, why is it that you disregard the moral criticism of your doctrine?

To quote Clemenceau

"My son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:48:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:43:27 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:38:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:35:41 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
This is all under the axiom, the lives of other lawful citizens ought to be preserved.

And my life is to be made a preservative. Since my life isn't "other," it is of no value, and the state can feel free to sacrifice any arbitrary amount of it to any favored class.

You still have enough to live to a bare minimum and beyond.

That isn't how states work, nor how principles work. Either I own things or I do not. No magic number will stop a thief, once the thief knows he is unimpeded.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:49:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is no way to be three-quarters free. If one is free, the state cannot take a quarter of their stuff. If the state can take a quarter, it can take it all.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:50:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:47:13 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:06:44 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Up until two years ago I went to a comprehensive state(public) school. Until my transition to an independent school I'd had a firm belief in the defence of the welfare state. However, as envisioned, my opinions changed and I became more fiscally rightwing.

The common message here onsite is – ‘tax is theft/against man's liberty/rational self interest' but like the Marxist functionalists say: more for the few, less for the many. It goes without saying what a free market results in, but why then do so many support it?

So, to the laissez faire libertarian, why is it that you disregard the moral criticism of your doctrine?

To quote Clemenceau

"My son is 22 years old. If he had not become a Communist at 22, I would have disowned him. If he is still a Communist at 30, I will do it then."

Lol, I was actually a communist at one point.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:53:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:37:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:34:01 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:25:57 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:23:48 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:10:01 AM, Rob1Billion wrote:
So you're "fiscally right wing" but you still have moral problems with it?

I see a moral duty to value another's welfare. Why? Because a society must value the peoples stability over their social freedom.
Does not follow, or even mean anything (society can't value things. And stable in what? And whose welfare? There is more than one other around).
If you have 'x' to excess you should value 'x' less correct?
No one has "excess." "Excess" is an amount that becomes harmful. No such amount of mere wealth exists.
Harmful is subjective, in this case there greed is harmful.
We're giving 'x' to the others
There is no we. There are your thieves, and there are the victims.
I choose 'thieves', like every successful state the thieve keep people have and things going.
so they can have atleast a basic minimum to sustain their live
without earning it.
In the circumstance that they cannot earn it, you know how welfare works.
The stability is the social inequality that a free market brings.
Stability is social inequality? I thought you advocated stability.

And no, life brings inequality. Only death defeats it.
Equality, sorry.

Life brings nothing but the state of living.
The welfare of another, in the welfare of those you cohabit your society with.
Again, meaningless. They are not one entity. They have different interests.
So.


If we can maintain social equality without undermining the economic efficiency of a country then I don't see the issue.
You can't.
Sweeden - Myrdal
Sweden has accomplished no such thing.
The Sweedish "Folkhemmet" concept, Sweeden is doing very well.
http://www.theodora.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Won Myral the Nobel Prize for Economics.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2010 12:53:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/17/2010 12:47:10 AM, innomen wrote:
At 8/17/2010 12:41:25 AM, Zetsubou wrote:


You sound like Glen Beck on Obama, gawd.

It's the lawful demand of your charitablility.


No such thing, unless you wish to say this:

It's the lawful demand of extortion.

Yeah, it is.
'sup DDO -- july 2013