Not at all, quite the contrary and I've been entirely consistent in my defense of personal liberty, whereas you have been entirely consistent in your apologies and rationalizations for tyranny in pursuit of altruism.
My question to you was posed out of genuine surprise at your assertion that you as an "enlightened" individual consider slavery immoral. An interesting assertion, when in point of fact you have been working overtime on this forum claiming that it is just and moral for the fruits of some men's labor to be forcefully appropriated by the government and given to others that did not earn them simply because they find themselves in need. Forcing one human to work for the benefit not of himself but of other humans...if that is not a working definition of slavery, what is?
Clearly, your assertion that you find slavery immoral was wholly disingenuous on your part. Or am I misunderstanding your position?
I'm not as well researched as some of you guys so maybe you can help me out with your definition of 'freedom'.
As far as I can tell, it seems like it's the freedom to have a bit more money while the less privileged in society (often through no fault of their own) don't get an education, suffer from illness and even go hungry while I have get to spend my time doing rotating security shifts at the house with my family and a shotgun all the while negotiating with the neighbours about how we're going to fix the potholes in the road, while respecting their freedom to not give a ********************?
If that's freedom, you can have it.
I get that you don't want to pay taxes, but if you equate taxes with freedom then the above is the only I can see that everyone will be 'free', because there will always be some that don't want to pay. Putoff said he doesn't want a police force. I think I might get a CB500X so I don't care about road maintenance. I'm a bit of a pacifist too, so I reckon I don't want to pay for defence. There is no way an opt-in system will work, for the same reason communism doesn't work - we are all driven by self-interest, and what we consider in our interests may not align with others.
Someone's always going to have their freedom impinged, so get over it.
I'm sure that people that have really fought and sacrificed for freedom, like Nelson Mandela or Jose Ramos-Horta, wouldn't confuse a whatever-percent tax rate with freedom.
The idea, NSU, is to have the funds, family, and friends, by the time you're old, to look after yourself.
And what if that doesn't happen? Too bad? Go die, old man? Should have thought about saving more when you were 30 and not so much about paying for your kid's college?
Your response is the purely emotional one. You want to punish people for making poor economic decisions, or at least making mistakes you believe you wouldn't have. These are people who will never be able to apply the lessons of any punishment. Therefore, it's not imposed for the benefit of the transgressor but for the delight of sadists.
Freedom from the tyranny of poverty and sickness is more valuable to more people than ameliorating whatever grievous psychic scar you feel from losing freedom from bearing responsibility for your fellow humans.
Objectivism is a monstrous inhuman fraud, and people who want to follow it are marginalized by society for a reason. Enjoy your irrelevancy.
The Following User Says Thank You to NSU For This Useful Post:
Not at all, quite the contrary and I've been entirely consistent in my defense of personal liberty, whereas you have been entirely consistent in your apologies and rationalizations for tyranny in pursuit of altruism.
My question to you was posed out of genuine surprise at your assertion that you as an "enlightened" individual consider slavery immoral. An interesting assertion, when in point of fact you have been working overtime on this forum claiming that it is just and moral for the fruits of some men's labor to be forcefully appropriated by the government and given to others that did not earn them simply because they find themselves in need. Forcing one human to work for the benefit not of himself but of other humans...if that is not a working definition of slavery, what is?
Clearly, your assertion that you find slavery immoral was wholly disingenuous on your part. Or am I misunderstanding your position?
Paying tax to a Democratically elected government is not slavery, it's the price you pay to live in a (hopefully) decent society, with safety nets for those who are unable, or cannot afford to look after themselves.
__________________
You meet the nicest people on a Honda.
I do think it's a good thing to look around other parts of the world and see how people who are less fotunate than us live, and consider ourselves very lucky to live in countries with such a high standard of living.
__________________
You meet the nicest people on a Honda.
"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." ~ Kris Kristofferson
And all this time I thought those were Janis Joplin lyrics.
Anyway, aside from a few folks getting a bit hard-lined and passionate in their points of view, I think it's pretty cool both sides expressed their opinion of what they feel the higher virtue is without the thread detonating.
@Wynne: Would you safely say this was 9 pages without people resorting to nasty name-calling, a banning, or someone leaving the forum?
__________________
C'mon, sko sko sko!
Last edited by Rusty Shackleford; 11-19-2012 at 01:24 PM.
Freedom from the tyranny of poverty and sickness is more valuable to more people than ameliorating whatever grievous psychic scar you feel from losing freedom from bearing responsibility for your fellow humans.
Regardless of your level of frustration, this right here is the core of the matter. It's the divide in world view that I use in trying to bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives I know personally when they get into this stuff on, gulp, Facebook.
I should note that, even though we may be on seemingly different sides of the fence (differing philosophies on humanity and the scope of authority), I'm aware that taxation (be it consumption, income, etc) to a degree, is a "necessary evil" to generate revenue to keep any governing body in operation. Even during the Boston Tea Party, the colonists were rejecting the terms of the taxes, not taxation as a whole out of principle. As you and I both know, there's a difference between a Libertarian and an Anarchist (the latter of which I don't support). Again, I see my view as a philosophical starting point for negotiation. My world view, in order of significance is Individual.Local.State.Federal, in contrast to the more statist philosophy of Federal.State.Local.Individual. Both have their upsides and downsides from time to time. The lesser among each camp will both call the others thieves and tyrants, and this is where I believe cooperation to be the most pragmatic solution. I wanted you to know I appreciate the depth of explanation in your dissent. You're always interesting.
__________________
C'mon, sko sko sko!
Last edited by Rusty Shackleford; 11-19-2012 at 08:56 PM.
And what if that doesn't happen? Too bad? Go die, old man? Should have thought about saving more when you were 30 and not so much about paying for your kid's college?
Your response is the purely emotional one. You want to punish people for making poor economic decisions, or at least making mistakes you believe you wouldn't have. These are people who will never be able to apply the lessons of any punishment. Therefore, it's not imposed for the benefit of the transgressor but for the delight of sadists.
Freedom from the tyranny of poverty and sickness is more valuable to more people than ameliorating whatever grievous psychic scar you feel from losing freedom from bearing responsibility for your fellow humans.
Objectivism is a monstrous inhuman fraud, and people who want to follow it are marginalized by society for a reason. Enjoy your irrelevancy.
Each person has a right to what is theirs, including their fate. People will fall through the cracks of any system. Such is life. That some fall through the cracks, is not reason to take wealth from those who have earned it. Life is what you make of it, it should never be what the government makes of it for you by taking from others.
In socialist Australia there are homeless, and there is poverty. That there are those who do worse, and those who do better, in life, is something progressives need to accept.
There is nothing inhuman in accepting the reality of life. There is something inhuman in attempting to circumvent such reality by taking from others by threat (or use) of force. We are not animals, we do not take from another because they have what we want.
