Attention all those who want to be proper Americans, an especially to those who want to hark back to a word by word interpretation of the intentions of the founders:
From the Declaration of Independence:
"... certain unalienable Rights, that among those are the right to life..."
Apparently the founders thought that the protection, preservation and prolongation of life are "Rights". The Declaration continues:
" ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...."
On Nov 5, 10:32 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> Attention all those who want to be proper Americans, an especially to > those who want to hark back to a word by word interpretation of the > intentions of the founders:
> From the Declaration of Independence:
> "... certain unalienable Rights, that among those are the right to > life..."
How many people do you have a right to kill or enslave to save your life?
On Nov 6, 5:11 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 07:56, Piet de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 10:32 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote: > > How many people do you have a right to kill or enslave to save your > > life?
> How many people will you allow to die of neglect > to maximise your individual liberty?
I'd allow all necessary to die, because life without liberty isn't worth living. Why do you think it's ok to steal my life and give it to someone else?
On Nov 13, 7:05 am, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:11 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I'd allow all necessary to die, because life without liberty isn't > worth living. Why do you think it's ok to steal my life and give it to > someone else?
Let me argue for you, as there's only one logical argument following your flawed reasoning abilities:
> You can't give up just a little of your money to save some moron starving to death in Zimbabwe!?
No, I can not. I don't know nor care about some asshole starving to death in Zimbabwe because he's too lazy to either produce something of value to trade for food, or grow the food himself. Don't even try your pity argument of "But he NEEDS food!" I need my life. Stealing my money and attempting to justify it with pity is still stealing a part of my life to give to someone else; if I don't value my own life, how can I value anyone elses? What does that say about me if I'm willing to determine that someone I don't even know is worth more than I am?
Whether I'm willing to *give* that person my time and/or money is an entirely separate issue. It's my decision what to do with my life, and I'll do as I see fit.
On your premise, though, why don't you volunteer any of *your* money to starving people? Or is it just other people's money that you want to give away? My suspicion is that you want to take care of the world with wealth that you have not earned and does not belong to you, or that you have something to gain from the government looting of others.
On 13 Nov, 12:28, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 7:05 am, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 5:11 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Let me argue for you, as there's only one logical argument following > your flawed reasoning abilities:
> > You can't give up just a little of your money to save some moron > > starving to death in Zimbabwe!?
> No, I can not. I don't know nor care about some asshole starving to > death in Zimbabwe
That is a psychological argument, not an ethical one. You can't justify driving yuor car into a crowd of pedestrians on the basis that they're assholes and you don't care about them. Try makign that stand up in court.
> because he's too lazy to either produce something > of value to trade for food, or grow the food himself.
Or the government has taken it off him to buy weapons. Do you read the papers?
> Don't even try > your pity argument of "But he NEEDS food!" I need my life. Stealing my > money and attempting to justify it with pity is still stealing a part > of my life to give to someone else;
No it isn't. There isn't a fixed amount of life-force attached to evey dollar. Check out the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utilty some time.
>if I don't value my own life, how > can I value anyone elses?
Usual false dichotomy thinking. Valuing your own life doesn';t equation to hanging on like grim death to every dime.
> What does that say about me if I'm willing > to determine that someone I don't even know is worth more than I am?
"Worth more than I am" is a straw man.
> Whether I'm willing to *give* that person my time and/or money is an > entirely separate issue. It's my decision what to do with my life, and > I'll do as I see fit.
> On your premise, though, why don't you volunteer any of *your* money > to starving people?
Sometimes I do.
>Or is it just other people's money that you want > to give away? My suspicion is that you want to take care of the world > with wealth that you have not earned and does not belong to you, or > that you have something to gain from the government looting of others.
Your suspicion has nothing to do with my actual arguments. Objectivists can never defeat my actual arguments, only caricature them.
> On 13 Nov, 12:28, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 7:05 am, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 5:11 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Let me argue for you, as there's only one logical argument following > > your flawed reasoning abilities:
> > > You can't give up just a little of your money to save some moron > > > starving to death in Zimbabwe!?
> > No, I can not. I don't know nor care about some asshole starving to > > death in Zimbabwe
> That is a psychological argument, not an ethical one. > You can't justify driving yuor car into a crowd of pedestrians > on the basis that they're assholes and you don't care about them. > Try makign that stand up in court.
No, it's not psychological. I don't run my car into a crowd of pedestrians because I value liberty. I'm not willing to grant someone the liberty to run a car into me, therefore I will not perform the same action to another, because of my values.
> > because he's too lazy to either produce something > > of value to trade for food, or grow the food himself.
> Or the government has taken it off him > to buy weapons. Do you read the papers?
How exactly does buying weapons relate?
> > Don't even try > > your pity argument of "But he NEEDS food!" I need my life. Stealing my > > money and attempting to justify it with pity is still stealing a part > > of my life to give to someone else;
> No it isn't. There isn't a fixed amount of life-force > attached to evey dollar. Check out the Law > of Diminishing Marginal Utilty some time.
I need my life far more than you do, trust me.
> >if I don't value my own life, how > > can I value anyone elses?
> Usual false dichotomy thinking. Valuing your > own life doesn';t equation to hanging on > like grim death to every dime.
It'd actually be called ad hominem, but I digress. I could value another person's life more than mine, but my point was that my life would become useless, and therefore I'd have no reason to live.
> > What does that say about me if I'm willing > > to determine that someone I don't even know is worth more than I am?
> "Worth more than I am" is a straw man.
Not a straw man, see above. When my life becomes worth less to me than another person's, I will have no purpose left to live.
> > Whether I'm willing to *give* that person my time and/or money is an > > entirely separate issue. It's my decision what to do with my life, and > > I'll do as I see fit.
> > On your premise, though, why don't you volunteer any of *your* money > > to starving people?
> Sometimes I do.
So you wish to impose your will on others as well? Why should I act on your whim?
> >Or is it just other people's money that you want > > to give away? My suspicion is that you want to take care of the world > > with wealth that you have not earned and does not belong to you, or > > that you have something to gain from the government looting of others.
> Your suspicion has nothing to do with my > actual arguments. Objectivists > can never defeat my actual arguments, only > caricature them.
Is my suspicion correct? You dodged this one.
My reasoning is correct. You can only cause more harm from taxing productive people to give to the "needy."
On Nov 13, 9:33 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What does that say about me if I'm willing > > to determine that someone I don't even know is worth more than I am?
> "Worth more than I am" is a straw man.
Why is that a straw man? Even if you think it's a poor argument, it's precisely on point.
You are unambiguously saying that /some/ production-- doesn't matter how you measure it, a percentage of earnings or some hours of time--should properly go to /other/ people (including people not known) rather than being kept to dispose of as one sees fit.
If that's not saying that the other(s) is worth more than the agent, then I don't know what would.
Hence, the comment was directly on point.
And unsurprisingly, remains unanswered. That would put it in the class of all the other facts that have been brought to your attention.
And akin to the absence of facts throughout your so-called arguments and positions.
> >Or is it just other people's money that you want > > to give away? My suspicion is that you want to take care of the world > > with wealth that you have not earned and does not belong to you, or > > that you have something to gain from the government looting of others.
> Your suspicion has nothing to do with my > actual arguments.
Firstly, you've offered no arguments technically. You've offered endless cliches and mushy platitudes, all of it with nothing behind them except more of the same.
Secondly, what you call your arguments are exactly what led to the suspicions at issue here. You DO "want to take care of the world with wealth that you have not earned and does not belong to you..."
I mean, that seems almost a trivial charge against you. Surely you don't deny that everything you've supported amounts to that. You're not claiming that YOU earned the money that's taken from others through taxation, are you?
You may be crazy, but you don't seem delusional.
The first part of the dysjunction is blatantly true, rendering the claim true. Thus, it's irrelevant whether or not you personally gain from the loot.
> Objectivists > can never defeat my actual arguments, only > caricature them.
That's one thing you can rest easy about--NOBODY could caricature your so-called arguments. They're already fanciful to the max!
On 13 Nov, 16:59, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > because he's too lazy to either produce something > > > of value to trade for food, or grow the food himself.
> > Or the government has taken it off him > > to buy weapons. Do you read the papers?
> How exactly does buying weapons relate?
It relates to you attempt to make it look as though the poor are always responsible for their condition.
> > > Don't even try > > > your pity argument of "But he NEEDS food!" I need my life. Stealing my > > > money and attempting to justify it with pity is still stealing a part > > > of my life to give to someone else;
> > No it isn't. There isn't a fixed amount of life-force > > attached to evey dollar. Check out the Law > > of Diminishing Marginal Utilty some time.
> I need my life far more than you do, trust me.
You have completely missed the point. Nobody is proposing to take your life. There isn't a fixed amount of life-force attached to evey dollar.
> > >if I don't value my own life, how > > > can I value anyone elses?
> > Usual false dichotomy thinking. Valuing your > > own life doesn';t equation to hanging on > > like grim death to every dime.
> It'd actually be called ad hominem, but I digress. I could value > another person's life more than mine, but my point was that my life > would become useless, and therefore I'd have no reason to live.
You don't have to value someone's life more than yours. That is a straw man.
> > "Worth more than I am" is a straw man.
> Not a straw man, see above.
Where?
>When my life becomes worth less to me than > another person's, I will have no purpose left to live. > > > On your premise, though, why don't you volunteer any of *your* money > > > to starving people?
> > Sometimes I do.
> So you wish to impose your will on others as well?
Non-sequitur.
>Why should I act on > your whim? > Is my suspicion correct? You dodged this one.
> My reasoning is correct. You can only cause more harm from taxing > productive people to give to the "needy."
On 14 Nov, 02:52, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:33 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > What does that say about me if I'm willing > > > to determine that someone I don't even know is worth more than I am?
> > "Worth more than I am" is a straw man.
> Why is that a straw man?
The idea tha valuing someone else's life involves devaluing one's own.
>Even if you think it's a > poor argument, it's precisely on point.
What point? All I can see is endless repetition of Rand';s straw-man arguemnt against altruism
> You are unambiguously saying that /some/ production-- > doesn't matter how you measure it, a percentage of > earnings or some hours of time--should properly go > to /other/ people (including people not known) > rather than being kept to dispose of as one sees fit.
Yep. However, that has nothing to do with devaluing oneself or sacrificing oneself to the point of death.
> If that's not saying that the other(s) is worth more > than the agent, then I don't know what would.
What it is saying is that disposable income can be disposed in a way that preserves life. It is more a case of life being more valuable than an extra holdiay or somehting, rahter than one person being intriniscally nore valuable than another.
> Hence, the comment was directly on point.
No. You are guessing at one justification for taxation when the actual justification is somehting else.
> Firstly, you've offered no arguments technically. You've > offered endless cliches and mushy platitudes, all of it > with nothing behind them except more of the same.
Calling arguments platitudes is just name-calling.
> Secondly, what you call your arguments are exactly > what led to the suspicions at issue here. You DO > "want to take care of the world with wealth that you > have not earned and does not belong to you..."
I am not exempting myself. And I don't engage in the intelectual error of beleiving in wealth-creation ex nihilo.
> I mean, that seems almost a trivial charge against > you. Surely you don't deny that everything you've > supported amounts to that. You're not claiming > that YOU earned the money that's taken from > others through taxation, are you?
No. As I have made it abundantly clear, I don;t regard propery owndership as an inviolable absilute,. so it is completely pointless of you to keep telling me that I don't, as if that was some kind of argumentative show-stopper.
About the only thing you wrote worth the data space it uses. I think you meant it to apply to me though, which it doesn't.
If life is finite, then so must every ounce of labor of one's life. Labor is a direct representation of the life of a person; every hour you spend laboring is an hour of your life you can not retrieve. You receive compensation for you life when you trade it to another for payment; therefore every dollar *does* in fact represent a portion of someone's life.
Your other assertions are simply restating your opinions on matters which follow no rhyme nor reason. Please come up with a reasonable argument.
On Nov 15, 9:08 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 14 Nov, 02:52, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 9:33 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > What does that say about me if I'm willing > > > > to determine that someone I don't even know is worth more than I am?
> > > "Worth more than I am" is a straw man.
> > Why is that a straw man?
> The idea tha valuing someone else's > life involves devaluing one's own.
No, the idea is that valuing another's "needs" above every productive member of society's is preposterous.
> >Even if you think it's a > > poor argument, it's precisely on point.
> What point? All I can see is endless > repetition of Rand';s straw-man arguemnt > against altruism
And you offer nothing to refute that every society based off of "needs" has necessarily collapsed in the past. You offer nothing because there is absolutely nothing to prove that altruism actually provides a better lifestyle.
> > You are unambiguously saying that /some/ production-- > > doesn't matter how you measure it, a percentage of > > earnings or some hours of time--should properly go > > to /other/ people (including people not known) > > rather than being kept to dispose of as one sees fit.
> Yep. However, that has nothing to do with devaluing oneself or > sacrificing oneself to the point of death.
already replied to this one above.
> > If that's not saying that the other(s) is worth more > > than the agent, then I don't know what would.
> What it is saying is that disposable income > can be disposed in a way that preserves life. > It is more a case of life being more valuable > than an extra holdiay or somehting, rahter > than one person being intriniscally nore > valuable than another.
Yes, disposable income should be used as the INDIVIDUAL see's fit. I find nothing wrong with helping people, if you actually value the people that you're helping. What altruism posits is that all humans are equal in their ability, which is simply untrue. Forcing productive people to help unproductive people is wasting the productive person's life.
> > Hence, the comment was directly on point.
> No. You are guessing at one justification for > taxation when the actual justification is somehting > else.
Taxation can already be justified; by preserving individual's rights to liberty and property. Really, liberty and property shouldn't have to be stated independently, as one requires the other.
> > Firstly, you've offered no arguments technically. You've > > offered endless cliches and mushy platitudes, all of it > > with nothing behind them except more of the same.
> Calling arguments platitudes is just name-calling.
> > Secondly, what you call your arguments are exactly > > what led to the suspicions at issue here. You DO > > "want to take care of the world with wealth that you > > have not earned and does not belong to you..."
> I am not exempting myself. And I don't engage > in the intelectual error of beleiving in wealth-creation > ex nihilo.
> > I mean, that seems almost a trivial charge against > > you. Surely you don't deny that everything you've > > supported amounts to that. You're not claiming > > that YOU earned the money that's taken from > > others through taxation, are you?
> No. As I have made it abundantly clear, I don;t > regard propery owndership as an inviolable absilute,. so > it is completely pointless of you to keep telling me that I don't, > as if that was some kind of argumentative show-stopper.
If you do not believe that property has nothing to liberty, then you can't possibly understand one of the two. The only way to attain liberty of actions is if you have the right to the product that you produce. If you do not have the right to own what your mind has produced, then you are not free, you are enslaved.
On Nov 15, 3:54 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If life is finite, then so must every ounce of labor of one's life.
> that sentence no verb
Why do you consistently pretend that you don't understand your interlocuter, when you do?
> > Labor is a direct representation of the life of a person; #
> representation is not identity
His mistake...should've used "manifestation" or something like that.
> >every hour > > you spend laboring is an hour of your life you can not retrieve.
> likewise every hour you don't
Sure, but every hour you don't is not one that can be realistically used--or taken or mooched-- by someone else.
> >You > > receive compensation for you life when you trade it to another for > > payment;
> You are using life to mean labour and they don't mean the same thing
"Leg" and "tail" don't mean the same thing, but the cat has both. What, have you disproved Forrest Gump, that a thing is what a thing does?
> >therefore every dollar *does* in fact represent a portion of > > someone's life.
> A portion is not the whole. If $10 can save the whole of someone's > life, why shouldn't it?
It should. Too bad that's not the issue under discussion.
The question is whether /someone else/ ought to take that fraction to save the life. And the answer to that is, "No!" Among other problems, you are confusing "should" with "must." There are many, many things that a person ought to do to help others...even as the reason for such action is to help himself.
Your conclusion is that therefore he ought to be forced to do them. This is horribly wrong, and a complete evasion of the hierarchical nature of morality.
Interestingly, this is very close to an error that many so-called Objectivists make, owing to the religious nature of ARIanism. In simple terms, they are so enamored of rationality that they believe it--or really, what its manifestations are--should be forced on everyone.
They too ignore the hierarchy, even as Rand herself made no such mistake.
> even by your logic, $10 is only a fraction of a life.
You're dichotomizing "life" from the animal that has that life...big mistake. The fraction, even in this wild scenario, saves "so-and-so's life," not just "a life." While I happen to agree with you that the actor ought to save so-and-so's life for such a tiny fraction, you're clearly wrong that to the actor, that life should be worth more than his own.
And you're doubly wrong that your or my belief in this ought, gives rise to some justification for treating the actor as a wild animal rather than a person. Effectively, that takes life--here meaning life MQM--from all of us. Not a lot of benefit, there.
On 16 Nov, 12:41, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > A portion is not the whole. If $10 can save the whole of someone's > > life, why shouldn't it?
> It should. Too bad that's not the issue under discussion.
It's exactly the issue. If someone is taxed an affordable sum his life is not being taken in any genuine sense at all.
> The question is whether /someone else/ ought to take > that fraction to save the life. And the answer to that is, > "No!"
You need to support that claim with an argument.
> Among other problems, you are confusing "should" > with "must." There are many, many things that a person > ought to do to help others...even as the reason for such > action is to help himself. > Your conclusion is that therefore he ought to be > forced to do them. This is horribly wrong, and a > complete evasion of the hierarchical nature of > morality.
The correct hierarchy is just the point in question. If life, not liberty is at the top of the hierarchy then liberty can be encroached on to save life. That justifies the "must".
> You're dichotomizing "life" from the animal that > has that life...big mistake. The fraction, even in > this wild scenario, saves "so-and-so's life," not > just "a life." While I happen to agree with you > that the actor ought to save so-and-so's life for > such a tiny fraction, you're clearly wrong that to > the actor, that life should be worth more than his > own.
The donor doesn;t have to recognise the recipients life as more valuable than his own, because he is not sacrificiing his own life. His $10 is not his life.
> And you're doubly wrong that your or my belief > in this ought, gives rise to some justification for > treating the actor as a wild animal rather than a > person.
On Nov 16, 7:41 am, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> ... you're clearly wrong that to > the actor, that life should be worth more than his > own.
A healthy society is essential for the selfish benefits of its individual members. Taxes paid for the health care of other members of society are not a sacrificial act but a selfish investment for a return many times greater than the individual cost. But of course, taxes would have to be raised "at the point of a gun".
To put the Objectivist concept of government to the test, picture an Objectivist society. In that society the only functions of government would be national defense and the adjudication of legal disputes. Legal disputes would be adjudicated according to law and laws would be "objective". In theory objective laws would deal only with property rights, including the right to life (slavery, murder, etc.). (I am ignoring the impossibility of writing objective law by a consensus of elected legislators). That society would seek to address the ravages of unregulated human acquisitiveness after the fact, leaving behind the cadavers of the victims that have fallen before the courts have rendered their verdict. That would make an ideal playing ground for the prudent predator, without eliminating the need for intrusive, forcible investigation of the cases that come to court.
For financial support, such a society would reject redistribution of wealth "at the point of a gun" in the form of taxes, but would depend on redistribution of wealth by voluntary methods such as lotteries, undermining both its arguments of redistribution and anti-"mooching" because the government would ostensibly protect all the citizens. Since the "pointed gun" is in its holster, those who have not voluntarily participated in the money raising method will still get the dreaded free ride.
In such an unregulated society, investigations would involve only cases that have been brought to court. "Looters" would be free to abuse others until (and if) they get caught.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Objectivist scholars have not yet come up with a respectable Objectivist constitution.
On Nov 16, 7:59 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The correct hierarchy is just the point in question. If life, > not liberty is at the top of the hierarchy then liberty can be > encroached on to save life.
As if that means something. Hell, this time /you/ forgot the article before "life"!
That's about as referentless as anything could be. It'll be longevity tables when you're talking about societies, the success rate of infant mortality units when talking about that, or the survey ratings of hospices when talking about death. IOW it'll be whatever makes whatever point you think you're making.
Liberty is as much a part of being a rational animal, as is food or drink. In each case, it's only a matter of time till death comes around.
About the only thing I can say about the moocherism you've presented, is that it's as bold as any I've seen. I guess that makes you good in achieving at least one goal, but why you'd choose that goal is beyond me.
You've bored me with the rest, but I'd be happy to hear anything you've got to say about that.
On Nov 16, 1:49 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
> A healthy society is essential for the selfish benefits of its > individual members.
Big deal; take it as stipulated. Are you one of those who thinks you can make it a negative for each member, but somehow make it positive for the total?
> Taxes paid for the health care of other members of > society are not a sacrificial act but a selfish investment for a > return many times greater than the individual cost.
Sounds sensible generally. Who wouldn't want a return many times greater than the individual cost?
But wait...that can't be true for all individuals, can it?
The point is that it doesn't matter. The sacrifice is what you offer in the next breath...
> But of course, > taxes would have to be raised "at the point of a gun".
Speaking of being bold, huh? People should be able to tell that times have changed because looters, moochers and thugs can be very open about what they believe.
Of course you believe in using the point of a gun. What else do you have?
> To put the Objectivist concept of government to the test,
That's some test, running something through your mind.
Lucky for me, I don't have to tolerate such a test since in no way am I an Objectivist on political matters. The best I can give any of 'em, including Rand, is that they had decent reasons to be so wrong. In my most charitable moment, I'd like to think the same of you.
|
