|
 RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
 Challenging your beliefs 
#4982543 - 11/26/05 09:23 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I have a question for everybody (but especially the libertarian/free market/"no initiation of force" posters):
What if you were exposed to some horrific reality that could be rectified by government or forced collectivist actions? Some examples are a loved-one dying and unable to afford medical treatment or a terrible disaster that destroys homes and lives.
It is easy to stand back and watch something on the news and smugly parade out your beliefs as to what should happen. But, what if the raw emotion of something made you question your beliefs? What if your reason and your logic was overwhelmed by this occurrence? Is it possible that your current philosophies could change if you were faced with some monumental event?
Edited by RandalFlagg (11/26/05 09:24 AM)
|
 Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4982650 - 11/26/05 10:09 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said:
I have a question for everybody (but especially the libertarian/free market/"no initiation of force" posters):
What if you were exposed to some horrific reality that could be rectified by government or forced collectivist actions? Some examples are a loved-one dying and unable to afford medical treatment or a terrible disaster that destroys homes and lives.
It is easy to stand back and watch something on the news and smugly parade out your beliefs as to what should happen. But, what if the raw emotion of something made you question your beliefs? What if your reason and your logic was overwhelmed by this occurrence? Is it possible that your current philosophies could change if you were faced with some monumental event?
Need you to clarify a few points for me:
1) Are you postulating the 'ideal free-market society' with no government intervention in the economy (at the least)?
2) Are you asking what would we do if such a situation arose in today's world?
3) Are you asking whether or not we would accept the government-service given (2)? Are you asking whether or not we would wish for a government-service given (1)?
--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Unagipie
Pilgrim -DBK鰻
Registered: 08/11/05
Posts: 6,300
Loc: The Trenches of France
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4982656 - 11/26/05 10:10 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I don't know
--------------------
Don't fight it. Just let the illuminados take over your mind. You be at bliss soon.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
 
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4983188 - 11/26/05 01:13 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
This reminds me of Henry George's thoughts on natural rights:
Quote:
THERE are those who, when it suits their purpose, say that there are no natural rights, but that all rights spring from the grant of the sovereign political power. It were waste of time to argue with such persons. There are some facts so obvious as to be beyond the necessity of argument. And one of these facts, attested by universal consciousness, is that there are rights as between man and man which existed before the formation of government, and which continue to exist in spite of the abuse of government; that there is a higher law than any human law -- to wit, the law of the Creator, impressed upon and revealed through nature, which is before and above human laws, and upon conformity to which all human laws must depend for their validity. To deny this is to assert that there is no standard whatever by which the rightfulness or wrongfulness of laws and institutions can be measured; to assert that there can be no actions in themselves right and none in themselves wrong; to assert that an edict which commanded mothers to kill their children should receive the same respect as a law prohibiting infanticide.
These natural rights, this higher law, form the only true and sure basis for social organization. Just as, if we would construct a successful machine, we must conform to physical laws, such as the law of gravitation, the law of combustion, the law of expansion, etc.; just as, if we would maintain bodily health, we must conform to the laws of physiology; so, if we would have a peaceful and healthful social state, we must conform our institutions to the great moral laws -- laws to which we are absolutely subject, and which are as much above our control as are the laws of matter and of motion. And as, when we find that a machine will not work, we infer that in its construction some law of physics has been ignored or defied, so when we find social disease and political evils may we infer that in the organization of society moral law has been defied and the natural rights of man have been ignored.
These natural rights of man are thus set forth in the American Declaration of Independence as the basis upon which alone legitimate government can rest:
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident -- that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as shall seem to them most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
So does the preamble to the Constitution of the United States appeal to the same principles:
Quote:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And so, too, is the same fundamental and self-evident truth set forth in that grand Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens, issued by the National Assembly of France in 1789:
Quote:
The representatives of the people of France, formed into a National Assembly, considering that ignorance, neglect, or contempt of human rights are the sole causes of public misfortunes and corruptions of government, have resolved to set forth, in a Solemn declaration, those natural, imprescriptible and inalienable rights, [and do] recognize and declare, in the presence of the Supreme Being, and with the hope of His blessing and favor, the following sacred rights of men and of citizens:
I. Men are born and always continue free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can only be founded on public utility.
II. The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man, and these rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance of oppression.
It is one thing to assert the eternal principles, as they are asserted in times of upheaval, when men of convictions and of the courage of their convictions come to the front, and another thing for a people just emerging from the night of ignorance and superstition, and enslaved by habits of thought formed by injustice and oppression, to adhere to and carry them out. The French people have not been true to these principles, nor yet, with far greater advantages, have we. And so, though the ancient r?gime, with its blasphemy of "right divine," its Bastille and its lettres-de-cachet, has been abolished in France; there have come red terror and white terror, Anarchy masquerading as Freedom, and Imperialism deriving its sanction from universal suffrage, culminating in such a poor thing as the French Republic of to-day. And here, with our virgin soil, with our exemption from foreign complications, and our freedom from powerful and hostile neighbors, all we can show is another poor thing of a Republic, with its rings and its bosses, its railroad kings controlling sovereign states, its gangrene of corruption eating steadily toward the political heart, its tramps and its strikes, its ostentation of ill-gotten wealth, its children toiling in factories, and its women working out their lives for bread.
It is possible for men to see the truth, and assert the truth, and to hear and repeat, again and again, formulas embodying the truth, without realizing all that that truth involves. Men who signed the Declaration of Independence, or applauded the Declaration of Independence, men who year after year read it, and heard it, and honored it, did so without thinking that the eternal principles of right which it invoked condemned the existence of negro slavery as well as the tyranny of George III. And many who, awakening to the fuller truth, asserted the unalienable rights of man against chattel slavery, did not see that these rights involved far more than the denial of property in human flesh and blood; and as vainly imagined that they had fully asserted them when chattel slaves had been emancipated and given the suffrage, as their fathers vainly imagined they had fully asserted them, when they threw off allegiance to the English king and established here a democratic republic.
The common belief of Americans of to-day is that among us the equal and unalienable rights of man are now all acknowledged, while as for poverty, crime, low wages, "over-production," political corruption, and so on, they are to be referred to the nature of things -- that is to say, if any one presses for a more definite answer, they exist because it is the will of God, the Creator, that they should exist. Yet I believe that these evils are demonstrably due to our failure fully to acknowledge the equal and unalienable rights with which, as asserted as a self-evident truth by the Declaration of Independence, all men have been endowed by God, their Creator. I believe the National Assembly of France were right when, a century ago, inspired by the same spirit that gave us political freedom, they declared that the great cause of public misfortunes and corruptions of government is ignorance, neglect or contempt of human rights. And just as the famine which was then decimating France, the bankruptcy and corruption of her government, the brutish degradation of her working-classes, and the demoralization of her aristocracy, were directly traceable to the denial of the equal, natural and imprescriptible rights of men, so now the social and political problems which menace the American Republic, in common with the whole civilized world, spring from the same cause.
Let us consider the matter. The equal, natural and unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does it not involve the right of each to the free use of his powers in making a living for himself and his family, limited only by the equal right of all others? Does it not require that each shall be free to make, to save and to enjoy what wealth he may, without interference with the equal rights of others; that no one shall be compelled to give forced labor to another, or to yield up his earnings to another; that no one shall be permitted to extort from another labor or earnings? All this goes without the saying. Any recognition of the equal right to life and liberty which would deny the right to property -- the right of a man to his labor and to the full fruits of his labor -- would be mockery.
But that is just what we do. Our so-called recognition of the equal and natural rights of man is to large classes of our people nothing but a mockery, and as social pressure increases, is becoming a more bitter mockery to larger classes, because our institutions fail to secure the rights of men to their labor and the fruits of their labor.
That this denial of a primary human right is the cause of poverty on the one side and of overgrown fortunes on the other, and of all the waste and demoralization and corruption that flow from the grossly unequal distribution of wealth, may be easily seen.
--------------------
Edited by Paradigm (11/26/05 01:29 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 10 months
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: Silversoul]
#4983725 - 11/26/05 04:58 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
And I will take issue greatly with some of your prophet's nonsense:
"THERE are those who, when it suits their purpose, say that there are no natural rights, but that all rights spring from the grant of the sovereign political power. It were waste of time to argue with such persons(1). There are some facts so obvious as to be beyond the necessity of argument. And one of these facts, attested by universal consciousness(2), is that there are rights as between man and man which existed before the formation of government, and which continue to exist in spite of the abuse of government; that there is a higher law than any human law -- to wit, the law of the Creator(3)
.
1. Typical copout. The facts he attests are not the least bit obvious. Nor does it "suit my purposes" to argue against them. I have no purposes. I merely argue against them because I find them incorrect.
.
2. There is no such thing as universal consciousness. Doesn't exist, never did, never will (I hope). This is the Borg. And the Bilge. I do not know when he wrote this but I suspect it was long, long ago in a galaxy that did not have any concept of quantum mechanics or the actions of neurohumors.
.
3. The moment you cite a Harvey the Rabbit entity on which your argument is based you have left the realm of serious thought and entered into the "Nonsense Zone". God or no god, to presume you know this fiction's mind is by your own definition impossible. So don't even bother. It is a logical dead end and has no value.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident -- that all men are created equal"
This is a fine legal doctrine. It is the way all people should be treated in the eyes of the law. At the time it was written, however, Negroes were actually not equal, they were 3/5ths. Women were less. Further, it is clearly fallacious in fact. Some people are clearly more....shall I say functional. I won't say useful because a great many who are more functional are less useful. They won't be used. There is a continuum of intelligence on several different scales. Some people top out on all of them. Some people bottom out on all of them. Some people are more athletic than others. Some people are total spazzes. Some people have ADD. Some don't. Equality as a legal construct is fine. Equality as a nitwit's view that we are all equally competent is absurd. This last bit might explain most economic disparity. As long as the lowest are not, as a result of conditions beyond their control, destitute this is the natural order. I do not include parenthood to be a condition beyond one's control and the greatest predictor of failed socio-economic status is teenage parenthood. It is death, economicly speaking.
.
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: Ancalagon]
#4983793 - 11/26/05 05:17 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
1) Are you postulating the 'ideal free-market society' with no government intervention in the economy (at the least)?
Admittedly, America does not have a free-market economy. We have massive amounts of income redistribution, so a lot of government spending is directed towards the "disadvantaged" at the present moment.
I guess I should say, "What do you feel about current income redistribution and any further income redistribution if something personal and raw happened to you or someone you love".
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
3) Are you asking whether or not we would accept the government-service given (2)? Are you asking whether or not we would wish for a government-service given (1)?
Both.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: Silversoul]
#4983822 - 11/26/05 05:24 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I respect your intelligence and I am intrigued by Georgism as an economic/taxation model, but I disagree with much of what he said in your post.
Edited by RandalFlagg (11/26/05 05:26 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4983832 - 11/26/05 05:27 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not too big on the whole "natural rights" thing either, but I think his writings put an interesting spin on the whole natural rights debate that libertarians agonize over so much.
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: Silversoul]
#4983837 - 11/26/05 05:29 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said:
I'm not too big on the whole "natural rights" thing either, but I think his writings put an interesting spin on the whole natural rights debate that libertarians agonize over so much.
We need to stop agonizing over ideas so much and go out and get laid more.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4984423 - 11/26/05 07:46 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I guess I should say, "What do you feel about current income redistribution and any further income redistribution if something personal and raw happened to you or someone you love".
The somewhat obvious answer I would give to that is simply that I oppose current income distribution and would regardless of my personal circumstances. However, that is not to say that I would turn down services rendered either directly or indirectly by the state today simply because I wish the state didn't render them in the first place (I believe it is important to point out here that accepting services does not at all mean I have given some sort of tacit consent). The fact that the state currently does what it does makes it impossible to tell how different the situation would be were the market and nothing else at work.
I think the sort of thing you mean to drive at (excuse me if I'm assuming wrong) is a situation in which no state (or at the very least a far smaller state than exists today) exists and a loved one needs an operation that is prohibitively expensive and that will not be covered in any way by the free market (whether through a loan, charity, whatever). The semi cop-out answer would simply be to say that I don't think such a situation would arise. I think, therefore, it is important to employ a sort of reductio ad absurdum and make your point (if I haven't fucked it up yet) clear: nuclear bomb is going to explode and destroy the city, the directions for disarming the bomb are in your house, you're out of town, are we allowed to violate your natural rights to break into your house to get the directions to disarm the bomb. I have yet to see a natural rights defense in the face of that example and I cannot give one myself.
Going back to your question then: in the heat of the moment I probably would say 'fuck my principles' and wish there was some entity that could force the doctor to provide the operation. Examining it from my comfortable chair now, I would have to say that practicality should certainly outweigh natural rights in the kind of doomsday scenario outlined above. As a result of this post I have emailed a current libertarian and natural rights scholar and inquired about how natural rights theory deals with such a scenario. I'll be glad to post his response if/when it arrives.
--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: Ancalagon]
#4985064 - 11/26/05 11:21 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
I think the sort of thing you mean to drive at (excuse me if I'm assuming wrong) is a situation in which no state (or at the very least a far smaller state than exists today) exists and a loved one needs an operation that is prohibitively expensive and that will not be covered in any way by the free market
My question is not that confined. You can give your opinion on what you would do given the current state of affairs in America or a theoretical "pure free market". Do not confine yourself to stringent criteria.
|
nonick
Stranger
Registered: 09/14/05
Posts: 537
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4985344 - 11/27/05 01:04 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Randall asked,
"What if you were exposed to some horrific reality that could be rectified by government or forced collectivist actions? Some examples are a loved-one dying and unable to afford medical treatment or a terrible disaster that destroys homes and lives."
first of all...this quesiton is pre-suppositional. it presupposes that a horrible reality could be rectified by "government or forced collective actions" so right off the bat this question is meaningless.
give me an example of some situation based in reality, and i will be glad to explain how initiation of force(government) should/should not be used because it would/would not be an effective means of solving a problem.
you vaguely give the example of a dying loved one who cannot afford health care. i think you need to spend a little time reading about how capitalism creates lower prices, due to competition. government is only capable of destroying the progress that other individuals make. Cato has a great research section on health care, and how it SUCKS so much because the government is way too involved. http://cato.org/healthcare/index.html
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: nonick]
#4985594 - 11/27/05 05:28 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nonick said:
first of all...this quesiton is pre-suppositional. it presupposes that a horrible reality could be rectified by "government or forced collective actions" so right off the bat this question is meaningless.
If something bad happened or is happening, it takes resources to fix it. If the government (or the collective) appropriates resources to do this then the government is capable of fixing or helping the situation. I of course realize all of the problems associated with this though (individuals becoming dependent on the aid, people not taking responsibility for themselves, governmental waste, excessive taxation, etc...).
Quote:
nonick said:
give me an example of some situation based in reality, and i will be glad to explain how initiation of force(government) should/should not be used because it would/would not be an effective means of solving a problem.
As I said earlier, the criteria involved in this hypothetical situation are not set in stone. Use your imagination.
Quote:
nonick said:
you vaguely give the example of a dying loved one who cannot afford health care. i think you need to spend a little time reading about how capitalism creates lower prices, due to competition.
I think you need to spend some time reading my posts that I have made over the past several years. I lean towards the libertarian way of thinking, I dislike income redistribution, and I am a free-market proponent.
|
Ancalagon
AgnosticLibertarian
Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4985886 - 11/27/05 10:40 AM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RandalFlagg said:
Quote:
Ancalagon said:
I think the sort of thing you mean to drive at (excuse me if I'm assuming wrong) is a situation in which no state (or at the very least a far smaller state than exists today) exists and a loved one needs an operation that is prohibitively expensive and that will not be covered in any way by the free market
My question is not that confined. You can give your opinion on what you would do given the current state of affairs in America or a theoretical "pure free market". Do not confine yourself to stringent criteria.
I felt the answer to your 'what would you do given the current state of affairs' question was rather unsatisfying, which is why I went into discussing the very stringent reductio ad absurdum. Again, with the current state of affairs as it is I would probably in almost any situation decide between utilizing the state and not utilizing the state on a cost-benefit analysis basis. I do not feel I am 'betraying principles' or anything of the sort by using government roads, drinking government-provided water, or by taking advantage of a government-bestowed operation that would save myself or a loved one. I would again point out that the very fact that government exists as it does distorts how many things would look in an actual free market.
--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4987841 - 11/27/05 09:06 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I have a question for everybody (but especially the libertarian/free market/"no initiation of force" posters):
What if you were exposed to some horrific reality that could be rectified by government or forced collectivist actions? Some examples are a loved-one dying and unable to afford medical treatment or a terrible disaster that destroys homes and lives.
I'd curse my luck but I wouldn't expect the government to bail me out.
Quote:
It is easy to stand back and watch something on the news and smugly parade out your beliefs as to what should happen. But, what if the raw emotion of something made you question your beliefs? What if your reason and your logic was overwhelmed by this occurrence? Is it possible that your current philosophies could change if you were faced with some monumental event?
No. Emotions are not tools of cognition.
Phred
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: Phred]
#4987857 - 11/27/05 09:09 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
Emotions are not tools of cognition.
Are you saying that there would be no possible occurrence or tragedy which might affect you so much that your emotions might sway your thinking?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Challenging your beliefs [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4987941 - 11/27/05 09:34 PM (18 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Are you saying that there would be no possible occurrence or tragedy which might affect you so much that your emotions might sway your thinking?
That's what I'm saying, yes.
The proper function of government is not to be Mommy/Daddy/Nanny who looks after us when bad things happen. The proper function of government is to keep humans from fucking with other humans. Nothing more. That means government may properly involve itself with the military and the criminal justice system, but not with finding a kidney donor for my ailing wife or rebuilding my house if it's destroyed by a tornado.
Phred
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Kratom Capsules for Sale 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
silversoul7
Innvertigo
1 2 3 4 all )
Ancalagon
DoctorJ
unbeliever