Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale Kratom Capsules for Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Buy Kratom Capsules Buy Bali Kratom Powder |
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Getting a bit edgy, are we?
The 'collective' then is an abstraction, it exists not as a distinct entity which you can point to. Your arbitrary designations of different governments as 'the collective' does not give proof that it exists other than a grouping IN YOUR MIND. So you're saying that the various levels of government only exist within my mind? E., have you been reading Bishop Berkeley again? Governments are distinct entities last time I checked. So you've accepted the propaganda of the government/military/industrial complex. Good little drone. Well, if hurling insults makes you feel better about the fact that you're spewing incoherently without presented a reasoned, cool-headed argument, be my guest dude. Please address the point and show why it is wrong, if in fact it is. You still haven''t proven that 'the collective' exists outside of your mental contruct. Open your wallet. Pull out some US currency. That's probably the most tangible evidence at hand that the state exists. Well, that must explain the great advances in the U.S. BEFORE public education (sarcasm). There certainly isn't a shortage of sarcasm in your post. How about some evidence and examples for a change? Literacy and education funded with extorted money are not always prerequisites for business success. There are ample stories of people coming to the U.S. as adult immigrants and making it without a formal education. INDIVIDUALS are hired, work and make decisions, not your amorphous 'collective.' More anecdotal evidence, which isn't even directly presented, no less. If there is a shortage of INDIVIDUALS who can read and write then the INDIVIDUALS who want to hire capable employees are kind of in a bind. Happy now? You STILL have not shown that 'the collective' is anything more than an arbitrary mental construct which you hide behind in order to deny the reality that INDIVIDUALS are what make up any grouping of people I have never denied the reality that groupings of people are made up of individuals. You, however, categorically deny that such as thing as the collective, or the common weal, or the common good, even exist. In other words whatever is good for the individual is a pure, unalloyed good. This is obviously not the case because individuals have conflicting interests. The study of the common good is precisely the study of finding ways to reconcile those conflicting interests. Get this, I stay put and I refuse to pay taxes, MEN WITH GUNS will come to either force me to pay or to put me in jail. This is force. Oh, good Lord, man, not that old MEN WITH GUNS line again! I really wish they would put out a revision to the Libertarian playbook because that one is old, old, old. Get this: you walk into a restaurant, eat their food, and try to walk out without paying, men with guns will come to either force you to pay or to put you in jail. No different. Hell, you could even stay in the US until you were 18, receive an education, receive all the benefits of public funding, and then leave the country and never pay a cent in taxes for any of it. You chose to stay, dude--fess up to that fact. I do business with individuals, you STILL have not shown that 'the collective' is anything other than a mental contruct, a grouping in you mind. Do the words "one-trick pony" mean anything to you? Your words are mere rhetoric, offering little of substance... no answers. Try again, this time use logic and some proofs instead of dodges, equivocations, and justifications based on abstractions that only exist in your mind. My words are mere rhetoric? And your words are . . .? Insults mainly. A failure to respond to a single one of the challenges I presented in my last post. And your logic and proofs? Looking, looking . . . . nowhere to be found. As far as national boundaries go, no, they do not only exist in my mind. Wish that it were so. Try and get your mind around the following* * There is no such thing as the opinion of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have opinions. * There is no such thing as the will of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have wills. * There is no such thing as the desire of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have desires. * There is no such thing as the imagination of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have imaginations. * There is no such thing as the hope of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have hopes. * There is no such thing as the effort of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals expend effort. * There is no such thing as the commerce of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals engage in commerce. * There is no such thing as the dream of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have dreams. * There is no such thing as the ambition of a country, race, society, 'collective' or of any other group. Only individuals have ambitions. I see, so your idea of "logic" and "proof" is the brute, hammering repetition of a single idea in various permutations. Here's one for you: the idea of the individual is itself an intellectual abstraction, at least in its present form, which is largely a product of 18th and 19th century European thought. A very useful abstraction, a very important abstraction, and in the life of an individual organism (which is in fact an entity and not an abstraction) an essential abstraction. But your wholly uncritical acceptance of the cult of individualism is a distorted view of reality, yet one which is not surprising because it is at the root of American culture. To think otherwise demonstrates confusion or rhetoric based on mental constructs. THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY. To persistently accuse those who have honest intellectual differences with youself of some kind of intellectual infirmity is simply juvenile. If you expect me to sit at your feet and imbibe of your wisdom, you had better tell me something I haven't heard a million times before. People may seek alliances and act in concert with others, but there is no possible guarantee that the objectives and motivations of various individuals who seek alliance and work towards particular goals are coherent. Each individual acts entirely on his own agenda, regardless of the mental groupings which humans may superimpose upon their perceptions of individuals. And if the individual persistently fails to grasp the fact that his agenda has points of correspondence with that of others and with the human race as a whole, if he persistently fails to grasp that human beings, sharing the same planet, have a shared destiny, he will only do harm both to himself and to other human beings. I'd be happy to continue this debate if you can manage to regain some composure and civility.
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Here's one for you: the idea of the individual is itself an intellectual abstraction, at least in its present form, which is largely a product of 18th and 19th century European thought.
Really? I thought Aristotle predated that time. You should check out some of the links I posted in the Philosophy Links sticky in the S&P forum. Do you a world of good.
| |||||||
Bhairabas Stranger Registered: 07/21/03 Posts: 889 Loc: Toronto Canada Last seen: 18 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
It's a part of the American dream to exclude ones self from the comunity.. As long as you and your family have food then your doing fine.. Or at least your family is.. Think about it.. What have any of you done for the community.. The truth is most of us do nothing to help the comunity except if we benefit ourselves directly.. We are encouraged to go work and come home and shut out the outside world and pretend that everything is just hunky dory.. If there's drug addict's put them somewhere where we can't see them.. Out of site out of mind.. Youth gang's same thing.. If every person on earth would try and contribute instead of just taking and ignoring then many of our problem's would not exist..
| |||||||
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
Quote: No I am not, apparently you cannot understand that we were discussing 'the collective.' Listing a group of government agencies and stating it is the collective does not provide a convincing argument. Try again. Quote: Please show 'the collective' to me. Point at it, delimit it, provide tests to show it's existence is other than a human mental construct - a grouping of individuals in the perceiver's mind. Quote: The existence of fiat currency does not constitute proof of 'the collective.' Try again. Quote: Bravo, now were getting somewhere. Quote: I do not deny that things such as 'the collective' exist, I merely am pointing out that they are mental constructs, abstractions. Classifications and groupings such as this exist IN THE HUMAN MIND. Please prove to me that 'the common weal' exists outside of human minds. Please prove to me that 'the common good' exists outside of human minds. Who defines 'the common weal' and/or 'the common good'? These are nebulous concepts that can be and have been used to justify any number of atrocities throughout human history. What makes something, 'the common good'? Is it when enlightend collectivists such as yourself decide that something is 'for the common good.' Does it rely on a unanimous opinion or a mere majority or do opinions of individuals even matter? What happens when enlightened collectivists such as yourself run into disagreements with a significant number of individuals on what constitutes 'the common good'? Quote: I did not state that nor did I imply it. Try again. Quote: You might as well study Santa Claus. Conflicting interests are hardly an indicator of a 'common good.' What you are describing could be better termed as coming to a compromise. Quote: I am sorry that you cannot come up with a rebuttal to the fact of the naked agression of the state. Perhaps it is time for your to re-examine the premises upon which your fantasy world is built. Quote: There is a difference, you are either too blind, too ignorant or too self-deluded to see it. Taxation is the moral equivalent of robbery, in this case the men with guns are in the wrong. Stealing food is stealing, in your example the patron who refuses to pay for products and services rendered is the one who is in the wrong. Quote: I see you are still unable to grasp the concept. It's a pity that your are so cognitively challenged. Quote: BULLSHIT. I can physically prove the existence of individuals. You cannot do the same with your 'collective.' You can try the consistently feeble arguments of pointing to dollar bills or government agencies while persisting in group think mode, yet you cannot show me 'the collective.' Quote: ... and this proves that 'the collective' is not an abstraction how? -------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Well done.
I see you have him stunned into silence. That is always a sign of victory.
| |||||||
Evolving Resident Cynic Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 5,385 Loc: Apt #6, The Vill |
| ||||||
... or someone who doesn't have a cable modem.
-------------------- To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
| |||||||
mntlfngrs The Art of Casterbation Registered: 07/18/02 Posts: 3,937 Last seen: 5 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
I would ask for a definition of peaceful first. I don't think that just because someone doesn't carry a gun that makes them peaceful. Or do we define peaceful solely on a physical basis?
-------------------- Be all and you'll be to end all
| |||||||
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
I am with evolving on this one. I was thinking of how Bush said Hussein's fate will be determined by the Iraqi people, but there is no collective will. Some want him hanged, some want him reinstated, some want him exiled, some want him tortured; etc. So which Iraqis will judge him? The majority? Some hand-picked jurists? A lottery? No matter what method is used, there will be no Iraqi country-wide agreement; nevermind an international one.
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
I do not deny that things such as 'the collective' exist, I merely am pointing out that they are mental constructs, abstractions. Classifications and groupings such as this exist IN THE HUMAN MIND. Please prove to me that 'the common weal' exists outside of human minds. Please prove to me that 'the common good' exists outside of human minds. Who defines 'the common weal' and/or 'the common good'? These are nebulous concepts that can be and have been used to justify any number of atrocities throughout human history. What makes something, 'the common good'? Is it when enlightend collectivists such as yourself decide that something is 'for the common good.' Does it rely on a unanimous opinion or a mere majority or do opinions of individuals even matter? What happens when enlightened collectivists such as yourself run into disagreements with a significant number of individuals on what constitutes 'the common good'?
Please prove to me that "the good of the individual" exists outside of human minds. Good and bad are themselves mental constructs, period. A collective is a grouping of individuals. You are right that the parameters of that grouping are products of the human mind. So what? We could set the boundary at the level of the nation-state, which would have a historical and possibly linguistic basis, or we could set it at the level of the human race as a whole, which has a biological basis. Who defines the "common good"? Obviously no single individual can be in a position to do that nor should even try. Generally it's a balancing act of compromise and reconciliation. Nobody is likely to be completely happy with the outcome. This is why hardcore individualists despise the very idea of the common good, because compromise is anathema to them. There are certain instances where the common good or its opposite are no brainers. If a foreign power invades your country (here, for the sake of the example, we're limiting the collective to the nation-state) and enslaves your entire population, that is obviously something that works against the common good. Conversely, having clean air is very clearly FOR the common good because air does not recognize individual property boundaries. In cases where the definition of the common good is highly contested, however, the final decision comes down to something we know by the word "politics": this is the practice of hammering out compromises, bending to the will of the majority while at the same time trying to build in safeguards to protect the fundamental rights and interests of minorities and individuals. As I mentioned earlier, this is a dirty, unscientific process that involves plenty of compromise and never leaves anybody completely satisfied. Because this is so, many people are disgusted with the whole process of politics and democratic give and take. They want some golden rule, some magical principle that will make this murky grey world of compromise just go away. One such principle is that ANYTHING at all which impinges on the rights of the individual is completely inadmissable. As far as principles go, this one is elegant and very straightforward. It does nothing, however, to address the inevitable conflicts that will arise among individuals except to say "let the courts deal with it." It does nothing to address the fact that there will often be exigencies and emergencies in which all of the members of the group face a common peril and immediate action is required: action which may necessitate violating the rights of certain individuals. Wartime is of course the prominent example of this. And by dismissing "the common good" as "a mere mental construct" and therefore unworthy of attention, it hamstrings itself intellectually so that it cannot address very real, tangible threats to the large group of individuals that for convenience's sake we may refer to as the collective. For all practical purposes, it is an unworkable principle. As far as the idea of the individual goes, it has certainly been in existence since the dawn of time (it predates even Aristotle, MM). Because the individual organism is a distinct entity with i's own life, death, memories, and thought process, it is only natural that this should be so. What I was talking about, however, was the social concept of the individual, which has differed in different times and places throughout history. In different times and places people have considered their identity as members of a tribe, or a clan, or a family, or a faith, or a guild, or a city-state, or a linguistic group, as taking precedence over their identity as individuals. They have felt this so strongly that they have even been willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of this larger entity. In other words, their sense of their own individuality was inextricably tied with something that extended beyond their physical self. I am not endorsing this particular type of worldview (although psychologists recognize it as being a pretty effective psychological mechanism for coping with the reality of the individual's inevitable death), just bringing it up to point as an example of how individuality is itself a mental construct that doesn't neatly overlap with reality. The individual's sense of himself is also a MAP, and not the territory itself. Many of the things you consider "good" for yourself are genuine needs of your bodily organism; others are products of your own free will; yet others are merely the received and unconsidered artefacts of culture, history, familial influences, and the like. You may be able to point to and delimit your physical body, but you cannot point to and delimit your "real self" or your "real individuality" as apart from all of the background noise and subconscious forces. I'm not saying this as a pointed criticism--the same is true of myself and of every other human being now alive. But if you believe that you are the complete master of your own inner world and that you control your thoughts as opposed to being controlled by them, I'm afraid there's nothing I can do to cure your delusion. That was a purely philosophical digression, wholly tangential to the nuts and bolts of things like politics and taxation, but one I had to indulge since you had such a melon up your ass about how the collective is an abstraction. Now, please explain to me why collective defense (or "group" defense if you prefer) is not necessary. You've been dodging that one for the last two posts and I'm calling you on it. Please explain to me what is FORCIBLY stopping you from removing yourself from the nation-state whose laws you consider unjust. Please explain how individuals are supposed to reconcile their conflicting interests. Please explain how the just government is to be run. Please explain how its leaders are selected. Please explain how its revenues are generated. Please explain how extra revenue is generated in times of emergency. Please explain how being overrun by a foreign power has nothing to do with the idea of the common good. PS, I try not say things like this, but unfortunately your endless, childish torrent of insults necessitates it: your grasp of history and philosophy is not even remotely as strong as you seem to believe it is. Your thinking is simplistic, reductionist, and one-dimensional--it operates on the level of slogans and catch-phrases and most definitely NOT on the level of sustained analysis and argumentation. Keep flinging insults if you wish: I have nothing to fear from you.
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Gee MM, a little while back you were harping on and on about how "we the people" are at fault for everything that's wrong with the country. So apparently you believe in collective guilt but not in the collective, eh? I suggest you review your own links on the S&P forum, and pay particular attention to the idea of "non-contradiction." Do you a world of good.
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Quote: . . . or someone who actually has a job and responsibilities that take precedence over wasting time on internet forums.
| |||||||
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 15 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Thanks a million for the link to that Abelard site. It's apparent to me that you haven't read the whole site very carefully since there's tons of stuff on there which blatantly contradicts your position. Here's one. I can find plenty more if you're in a particularly masochistic mood.
The link between ethics and the ?Tragedy of the commons? When is it reasonable to curtail the freedom of another by the establishment of ?a? law? In many human situations there exists a common nuisance, such as air pollution by car exhaust to which all transport users contribute a small part. The end result is a major problem, for it reduces the quality of life for all. Consider the single driver who decides to use a car for a 400-yard journey to a drug vendor in order to buy a tobacco fix. Clearly the driver is rather unconcerned with breathing pollution, or they would hardly choose a drug delivery system that involved the ingestion of smoke. Meanwhile, a child is rushed to hospital with breathing difficulties aggravated by traffic pollution. Cigarette smoke is but one contributor to the poor air quality among millions. If the cigarette addict were the only person to drive a car, there would exist no noticeable bad air problem. The problem arises from the mass effect of, sometimes, millions of vehicles, including the vehicle that took the gasping child to the hospital. The cigarette smoker made a calculation, ?which is most important to me? That I have to walk 400 yards or that I lower the chance of a child getting problems by a minuscule amount, even my ?own? child?? The balance came down clearly upon saving effort. Likewise, the use of the ambulance with its extra pollution was also considered profitable to the parents, health workers, local politicians and ambulance driver. A situation like this is called ?a tragedy of the commons?[15]. This technical term comes from days gone past when all villagers held a piece of land in ?common?, each villager was able to put as many animals to graze upon it as they wished. For any individual, the situation was clear: ?If I put one more animal on the common, I would improve my lot?. Trouble arose when every villager acted upon that calculation, with the end result that the common became over-grazed, the animals were weak through malnourishment and the common land became threadbare. The situation remained however for any individual: another animal was a bonus. Thus individual advantage was inevitably accompanied by village poverty. The only reasonable solution for the village is to pass a law restricting each villager to a given number of animals, such that the commons is not overloaded. Likewise to control traffic pollution, the only useful route is to ration emissions. In order to develop such laws, we have established a representative democracy. That however is another issue[16], my concern here is primarily with the empiric logic of reality, not its application beyond the requirements of illustration. Returning to the categories of law outlined previously, one prime area in which the application of law makes sense in a tolerant society is, then, where the social cost of not having a law clearly outweighs the cost of imposing any law under consideration. With such an analysis it becomes simpler to evaluate which ?crimes? are relatively victimless. (See also excluded middle.) Abelard certainly seems to accept the existence of "the commons."
| |||||||
GazzBut Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 2 months, 14 days |
| ||||||
Quote: You are lucky i enjoy disproving the illusions of idiots. Please provide me with some examples to backup your claim. Note: Constantly spewing out the tired ideas of OTHERS does not make YOU more intelligent. That ones for free fuckwit. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Quote: Gee MM, a little while back you were harping on and on about how "we the people" are at fault for everything that's wrong with the country. Hyperbole in the form of a strawman. I maintained that voters decide the outcome of an election and are therefore ultimately responsible for the class of rulers they elect. So apparently you believe in collective guilt but not in the collective, eh? Please point out where I said I didn't think the collective exists? You appear to draw conclusions out of thin air. The ontological definitions of a collective and an individual have several attributes that differentiate one from the other. Evolving has been trying to explain that but your lack of familiarity with these issues seems to have resulted in confusion for you. I suggest you review your own links on the S&P forum, and pay particular attention to the idea of "non-contradiction." Do you a world of good. Insults do not an argument make. But I realize you were only sniping. I was joking, man. I appreciate the fact that this is important to you to the degree that you spend volumes of time and effort defending your stance. But truthfully? Your long tedious posts bore me to tears. There are far too many errors in logic for me to take the time to point them out. Methinks the Lady protesteth too much. Cheers, MM
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Quote: Fuckwit? Come on Gazz. You are better than that. You know the rules and you are intelligent enough that you don't need to call names in order to argue your points.
| |||||||
Rono DSYSB since '01 Registered: 01/25/01 Posts: 16,259 Loc: Calgary, Alberta Last seen: 1 year, 19 days |
| ||||||
Keep it civil kids...don't make me get my paddle...
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
| |||||||
GazzBut Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 2 months, 14 days |
| ||||||
Apologies to all especially Evolving. That post was made as I just arrived at work an hour late with the mother of all hangovers. I shouldnt post in those circumstances.
Merry xmas! Btw, Id still like to see some examples of people who live outside of any form of collective structure. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
Anonymous |
| ||||||
alright... so far no answers to the questions... just a bunch of anger and whatnot. so far all that's been discussed is whether or not "the collective" is something that actually exists.
can we first agree on a definition of the word "collective"... i'd suggest that it symbolizes society as a whole. all people in a particular nation (or does "the collective" include all human beings?)... i do not deny the existance of "the collective"... but i do think that it is an entirely irrelevant notion. society is made up of individuals. the collective is made up of individuals. there is really no reason to even bother thinking in terms of "the collective" because it is made up entirely of individuals. when you say something is helping "society as a whole", what does that really mean? helping each and every individual? helping a majority? what? will someone please try to address the questions that have been posed about "the collective"? _________________________________________________________ 1. what is the collective? 2. how do we determine that something is helping society? by number of individuals helped X how much help is provided per individual? how? 3. do you think it is ever right to initiate force against a peaceful individual? 4. can initiating force against a peaceful person result in a net increase of "good" in society? can we help people this way? 5. if you believe that it is right to initiate force against peaceful people for some net benefit for all people, who should decide how and for what reasons it should be done? how do you think it would be right for it to be done? 6. what limits are there as to how an individual may be harmed for the good of "the collective"? i mean... if there is some action that will bring a net benefit to all people (or whatever you've decided on as to designate something as "good for society), at a loss to some, where is the line drawn as to what harm may be done to one individual to help others? where do you think the line should be drawn? what rights (if any, i suppose) cannot be taken away from an individual, even if for the net benefit of all individuals? ____________________________________________________________ ps. mntlfngrs: peaceful means refraining from using force for any other purpose than to counter force. carrying a gun doesn't make a person un-peaceful unless they use it improperly.
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
mushmaster asks:
do you think it is ever right to initiate force against a peaceful individual? Ever? Possibly. Depends on how you define "peaceful" and "individual". Is a very young child an individual? Because there are times when one must forcefully restrain a very young child lest he harm himself or others through essentially innocent actions. Likewise, in times of war (obviously an emergency situation) it may be necessary to take actions knowing ahead of time that such actions will almost certainly result in the deaths and/or serious injury of non-combatants. But as an organizing principle for deciding how members of a given society are to be permitted to deal with each other on a day-to-day basis in non-emergency situations, the answer is no. can initiating force against a peaceful person result in a net increase of "good" in society? Absent the examples I gave above, no. can we help people this way? Some people? Certainly. what is the collective? Normally in this context, "the collective" refers to the sum of all members of a given society. Where many people err in deciding whether or not an action is good for "society" is that they evaluate the effects of that action solely on a subset of that society. For example, proponents of steel tariffs consider them "good for society" because they save the jobs of 5,000 steelworkers -- a subset of "society". They ignore the fact that those same tariffs result in the loss of 26,000 jobs of those who work in the steel-buying industries. how do we determine that something is helping society? We cannot. All we can say is that a given "something" benefits various subsets of the society in question. The only thing which benefits the entire society as a whole is a mechanism to prevent the rights of the individuals within the society from being violated. by number of individuals helped X how much help is provided per individual? No. if you believe that it is right to initiate force against peaceful people for some net benefit for all people, who should decide how and for what reasons it should be done? how do you think it would be right for it to be done? I leave it to those who believe such initiation of force in non-emergency situations is correct to answer. However.... Since clearly the only "something" which benefits society as a whole is a mechanism for protecting the rights of the individuals of that society, and the continued functioning of that mechanism has a cost attached, the question arises as to whether or not the costs of the mechanism can always be covered by voluntary contributions of the individuals comprising the society. If the mechanism cannot be adequately maintained through such non-coercive methods of revenue-gathering as bequeathments, voluntary contributions, lotteries, contract insurance, etc., then it may possibly be argued that some form of taxation (NEVER income tax) may be required in order to supplement the voluntary methods. Perhaps the Georgist concept of land "leasing" vs. land ownership (I'm still thinking that one through), would suffice. Perhaps a modest tariff on imported finished goods which are also available domestically (again, I am still thinking this one through) would be allowed. For example, imported wine. My thought on this is that no member of the society in question is having his rights violated by being faced with the following choices, which he may make freely: 1) Buy French wine, knowing full well that some of the price he pays goes towards financing the mechanism. 2) Buy domestic wine for a lesser price. 3) Brew and consume his own wine. 4) Buy grape juice or beer rather than domestic or imported wine. 5) Drink French wine only on his visits to France. 6) Drink free water from a stream. pinky
| |||||||
|
Shop: Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale Kratom Capsules for Sale Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Buy Kratom Capsules Buy Bali Kratom Powder |
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
Individual Vs Collective Rights ( 1 2 3 all ) |
GazzBut | 4,633 | 45 | 03/02/05 08:52 PM by Psychoactive1984 | ||
What have muslims or islam contributed to modern society? ( 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 all ) |
Innvertigo | 13,760 | 180 | 09/24/04 07:15 PM by Phred | ||
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (UDV), No. 04-1084 | Redstorm | 1,202 | 4 | 06/14/05 02:00 PM by Redstorm | ||
Individual Rights ( 1 2 3 all ) |
silversoul7 | 1,410 | 40 | 03/03/03 10:53 PM by Anonymous | ||
Mushrooms v. murder: Sentences in Kansas don't fit | toxick | 1,072 | 3 | 12/02/03 07:27 PM by Learyfan | ||
Nation contributions to tsunami victims | RandalFlagg | 1,763 | 15 | 01/05/05 05:01 AM by Innvertigo | ||
anarchist collective ( 1 2 all ) |
JameZTheNewbie | 2,744 | 28 | 02/16/04 09:47 AM by Innvertigo | ||
Who contributed the most? ( 1 2 3 all ) |
Rono | 1,953 | 46 | 06/28/03 08:02 AM by Rhizoid |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 5,095 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||