|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#231
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 1:30*pm, Bret wrote:
On Jan 25, 1:26*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 24, 10:41*pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 24, 10:37*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Bret" wrote in message ... I never mentioned my beliefs on this subject. How about the fire department? Are they evil too? Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Imagine that. *People are so altruistic, they must be coerced into being altruistic. If people were altruistic, they'd do those things without a state. There is no "kind and gentle" way to take people's property and basically threaten them with death if they insist on defending it. The state is wholly unnecessary to perform these altruistic acts if people are indeed altruistic and value these things. *What it amounts to is a ruler class denoting value to all others. *The word for that is tyranny. What the statist -- the petty tyrant -- cannot stand is the idea that not everyone agrees with him/her. It is basic obfuscation of simple language. *You've been had. *You have (intentionally?) confused/conflated means and ends. Tyranny is altruism Coercion is defense Destruction is creation Stealing is giving Violence is kindness "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." *--- George Orwell, "1984" I hate to put words in your mouth, but I take from this and your many previous postings on the subject that you consider all taxation to be evil. A necessary evil? You never say what we should do instead. To put it in a sentence, if "we" must have government, then that government must be (and stay that way) chained by severe restraints on what it may do. This doctrinal position is sourced from certain facts of human nature. In principle, that was exactly the type of general (federal) government that was formed -- a "constrained via enumerated powers" entity. That written constitution has not been amended in a way that allows the general government to do the breadth of things it does today. No honest debater could say such a thing. Thus the current US government is not legitimate /on its own terms/. (Leaving aside the more general question if a given government is legitimate even if it did obey its own laws.) I'm a philosophical dumbass but the one thing I took away from the stupid humanities elective in engineering school is that philosophy is the study of questions that have no one perfect answer. You and Tom are so certain you have that answer, but you both sidestep the fire department question. If you are saying I believe there is "perfection" to be had in the rules of conduct of a given society (and duty-based requirements in an authoritarian societal structure), then you are indeed putting words in my mouth. I know of no such grand unifying social theory. I think you do not understand the weakness of your "fire department question." |
Ads |
#232
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article
], Ryan Cousineau wrote: In article , Howard Kveck wrote: In article ], Ryan Cousineau wrote: In article , Michael Press wrote: I could not read Ayn Rand at length. Never got any traction, and had to quit. And every time somebody kindly offers a quotation that I take to be a succinct embodiment of one of her notions I read it closely, scratch my head, read it closely again, think, puzzle, associate, fit concepts together as if they are jigsaw pieces, then throw up my hands and admit that it is beyond my ken. Seriously, Michael, agree or disagree, Ms. Rand's quote up there isn't that hard to parse, even with the crazy structure. She means that altruism is evil. She says that Stalinism was the essential, pure, extreme form of altruism. The first part says that she feels that subconsciously, modern intellectuals (of all political ilks) know this, and it makes them anxious. I, as a good Catholic boy (albeit one with a weird libertarian bent that has no business being there) think this is completely wrong: a mad equivalency of totalitarianism and altruism. But it's not that hard to understand. The 2008 version of this is Jonah Goldberg's recent book that purports to show that liberals are fascists. How I got involved in this political discussion, I don't know (actually, I do know: because I am a dumbass). But while I haven't read the book, I did hear him interviewed at length, and his subject is, more precisely, that the statist impulses of fascism (and he's talking generally about all the fascists here; Mussolini as much as Hitler, and probably Franco too), and modern-day instances of the totalitarian dream. He notes that in the rise of fascists, "totalitarianism" was the selling point, not the nightmare. This is me speaking, but it might make sense to think of totalitarian meaning to happy fascists what "holistic" is taken to mean today: an all-encompassing philosophy. Let's just say that the totalitarian impulse can be summed up by the phrase, "it takes a village to raise a child." Goldberg's a pretty serious small-government, borderline libertarian right-winger, and his real concern is that he wishes to avoid the totalitarian dream. I doubt he mentions it in the book, but in the interview he specifically called out Huckabee as a disaster-candidate (in his opinion) for his essentially populist-totalitarian impulses. Found it: http://instapundit.com/archives2/013336.php ObBike: why have the Germans never acquired a reputation for making serious road bikes? Is there some boutique make I'm missing? Warning: Gratuitous Ethnic Stereotyping. Hide the kiddies. http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,00.html -- Michael Press |
#233
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 5:00*am, Bill C wrote:
On Jan 25, 2:47*am, Ryan Cousineau wrote: How I got involved in this political discussion, I don't know (actually, I do know: because I am a dumbass). But while I haven't read the book, I did hear him interviewed at length, and his subject is, more precisely, that the statist impulses of fascism (and he's talking generally about all the fascists here; Mussolini as much as Hitler, and probably Franco too), and modern-day instances of the totalitarian dream. He notes that in the rise of fascists, "totalitarianism" was the selling point, not the nightmare. This is me speaking, but it might make sense to think of totalitarian meaning to happy fascists what "holistic" is taken to mean today: an all-encompassing philosophy. Let's just say that the totalitarian impulse can be summed up by the phrase, "it takes a village to raise a child." *More good stuff snipped. *IMO he's out to lunch with Coulter, but that's not the point. *He's using the fact that "liberals" frequently make noises like Marx and Mao, and celebrate their ideas, and support people who spout their ideas.\ *The problem with this is that everytime those have been put into practice fully you end up with something remarkably like Fascism. *You have State control of all resources, and products, for the benefit of the State. You have total State control over the people, for their own good, and the good of the State. You have a massive, and abusise security force. You have a handfull of people at the top voilently exploiting the people for their own benefit, which is the same as the State. *This is why the language is useless, or at best difficult. The Stalinist/Maoist regimes haven't been functionally, significantly different than the fascist is real world result. *IMO if you support Castro, and Chavez you support a fascist, and proto-fascist. I have to say, you nailed it this time, Bill. free monkeys dot com summarizes nicely: http://freedomkeys.com/isms.htm "This is why the language is useless, or at best difficult." -- Bill C "If language restricts what you may do, destroy it." -- The Socialist |
#234
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 3:34*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Jan 25, 1:30*pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 25, 1:26*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 24, 10:41*pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 24, 10:37*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Bret" wrote in message ... I never mentioned my beliefs on this subject. How about the fire department? Are they evil too? Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Imagine that. *People are so altruistic, they must be coerced into being altruistic. If people were altruistic, they'd do those things without a state. There is no "kind and gentle" way to take people's property and basically threaten them with death if they insist on defending it. The state is wholly unnecessary to perform these altruistic acts if people are indeed altruistic and value these things. *What it amounts to is a ruler class denoting value to all others. *The word for that is tyranny. What the statist -- the petty tyrant -- cannot stand is the idea that not everyone agrees with him/her. It is basic obfuscation of simple language. *You've been had. *You have (intentionally?) confused/conflated means and ends. Tyranny is altruism Coercion is defense Destruction is creation Stealing is giving Violence is kindness "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." *--- George Orwell, "1984" I hate to put words in your mouth, but I take from this and your many previous postings on the subject that you consider all taxation to be evil. A necessary evil? You never say what we should do instead. To put it in a sentence, if "we" must have government, then that government must be (and stay that way) chained by severe restraints on what it may do. *This doctrinal position is sourced from certain facts of human nature. In principle, that was exactly the type of general (federal) government that was formed -- a "constrained via enumerated powers" entity. *That written constitution has not been amended in a way that allows the general government to do the breadth of things it does today. *No honest debater could say such a thing. *Thus the current US government is not legitimate /on its own terms/. *(Leaving aside the more general question if a given government is legitimate even if it did obey its own laws.) I'm a philosophical dumbass but the one thing I took away from the stupid humanities elective in engineering school is that philosophy is the study of questions that have no one perfect answer. You and Tom are so certain you have that answer, but you both sidestep the fire department question. If you are saying I believe there is "perfection" to be had in the rules of conduct of a given society (and duty-based requirements in an authoritarian societal structure), then you are indeed putting words in my mouth. *I know of no such grand unifying social theory. I think you do not understand the weakness of your "fire department question."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Do you believe or not that there is an absolute answer to the question of state funded altruism being evil? If so, why wouldn't the fire department be a valid example? |
#235
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 2:49*pm, Bret wrote:
On Jan 25, 3:34*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 25, 1:30*pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 25, 1:26*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 24, 10:41*pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 24, 10:37*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Bret" wrote in message ... I never mentioned my beliefs on this subject. How about the fire department? Are they evil too? Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Imagine that. *People are so altruistic, they must be coerced into being altruistic. If people were altruistic, they'd do those things without a state. There is no "kind and gentle" way to take people's property and basically threaten them with death if they insist on defending it. The state is wholly unnecessary to perform these altruistic acts if people are indeed altruistic and value these things. *What it amounts to is a ruler class denoting value to all others. *The word for that is tyranny. What the statist -- the petty tyrant -- cannot stand is the idea that not everyone agrees with him/her. It is basic obfuscation of simple language. *You've been had. *You have (intentionally?) confused/conflated means and ends. Tyranny is altruism Coercion is defense Destruction is creation Stealing is giving Violence is kindness "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." *--- George Orwell, "1984" I hate to put words in your mouth, but I take from this and your many previous postings on the subject that you consider all taxation to be evil. A necessary evil? You never say what we should do instead. To put it in a sentence, if "we" must have government, then that government must be (and stay that way) chained by severe restraints on what it may do. *This doctrinal position is sourced from certain facts of human nature. In principle, that was exactly the type of general (federal) government that was formed -- a "constrained via enumerated powers" entity. *That written constitution has not been amended in a way that allows the general government to do the breadth of things it does today. *No honest debater could say such a thing. *Thus the current US government is not legitimate /on its own terms/. *(Leaving aside the more general question if a given government is legitimate even if it did obey its own laws.) I'm a philosophical dumbass but the one thing I took away from the stupid humanities elective in engineering school is that philosophy is the study of questions that have no one perfect answer. You and Tom are so certain you have that answer, but you both sidestep the fire department question. If you are saying I believe there is "perfection" to be had in the rules of conduct of a given society (and duty-based requirements in an authoritarian societal structure), then you are indeed putting words in my mouth. *I know of no such grand unifying social theory. I think you do not understand the weakness of your "fire department question."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Do you believe or not that there is an absolute answer to the question of state funded altruism being evil? If so, why wouldn't the fire department be a valid example?- You think coincidence means identical. You confuse means with ends. The frame of your question is defective. Of course I would not ever say in a general sense that saving a dwelling from destruction by fire is wrong. This is another of those "well then, you must hate children" questions. |
#236
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 4:09*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
On Jan 25, 2:49*pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 25, 3:34*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 25, 1:30*pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 25, 1:26*pm, SLAVE of THE STATE wrote: On Jan 24, 10:41*pm, Bret wrote: On Jan 24, 10:37*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Bret" wrote in message ... I never mentioned my beliefs on this subject. How about the fire department? Are they evil too? Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Imagine that. *People are so altruistic, they must be coerced into being altruistic. If people were altruistic, they'd do those things without a state. There is no "kind and gentle" way to take people's property and basically threaten them with death if they insist on defending it. The state is wholly unnecessary to perform these altruistic acts if people are indeed altruistic and value these things. *What it amounts to is a ruler class denoting value to all others. *The word for that is tyranny. What the statist -- the petty tyrant -- cannot stand is the idea that not everyone agrees with him/her. It is basic obfuscation of simple language. *You've been had. *You have (intentionally?) confused/conflated means and ends. Tyranny is altruism Coercion is defense Destruction is creation Stealing is giving Violence is kindness "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." *--- George Orwell, "1984" I hate to put words in your mouth, but I take from this and your many previous postings on the subject that you consider all taxation to be evil. A necessary evil? You never say what we should do instead. To put it in a sentence, if "we" must have government, then that government must be (and stay that way) chained by severe restraints on what it may do. *This doctrinal position is sourced from certain facts of human nature. In principle, that was exactly the type of general (federal) government that was formed -- a "constrained via enumerated powers" entity. *That written constitution has not been amended in a way that allows the general government to do the breadth of things it does today. *No honest debater could say such a thing. *Thus the current US government is not legitimate /on its own terms/. *(Leaving aside the more general question if a given government is legitimate even if it did obey its own laws.) I'm a philosophical dumbass but the one thing I took away from the stupid humanities elective in engineering school is that philosophy is the study of questions that have no one perfect answer. You and Tom are so certain you have that answer, but you both sidestep the fire department question. If you are saying I believe there is "perfection" to be had in the rules of conduct of a given society (and duty-based requirements in an authoritarian societal structure), then you are indeed putting words in my mouth. *I know of no such grand unifying social theory. I think you do not understand the weakness of your "fire department question."- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Do you believe or not that there is an absolute answer to the question of state funded altruism being evil? If so, why wouldn't the fire department be a valid example?- You think coincidence means identical. *You confuse means with ends. The frame of your question is defective. Of course I would not ever say in a general sense that saving a dwelling from destruction by fire is wrong. This is another of those "well then, you must hate children" questions.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A fire department is not a valid example of state funded altruism because the frame of my question is defective. Got it. We need to choose our guiding philosophies without reference to real world situations. Otherwise we'll be led astray by defective framing. For the second time today I'm reminded of Dilbert. |
#237
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article ,
Michael Press wrote: ObBike: why have the Germans never acquired a reputation for making serious road bikes? Is there some boutique make I'm missing? Warning: Gratuitous Ethnic Stereotyping. Hide the kiddies. http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,00.html That's not UCI-legal. Some kind of recumbent? -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook. Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing |
#238
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
"Bret" wrote in message
... On Jan 24, 10:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Because a fire department isn't altruistic and if you even tried to think about it for a minute you'd realize that. |
#239
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 8:50*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Bret" wrote in message ... On Jan 24, 10:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: Ahh yes, the old saw that if something bad is bad than anything else is equally bad. I didn't say anything was bad. You made an absolute statement that state funded altruism is evil. Tell me why the fire department doesn't fit that statement. Or are you not committed to the absolute truth of your statement? Because a fire department isn't altruistic and if you even tried to think about it for a minute you'd realize that. "In the two male-dominated fields (more than 97 percent of firefighters and 96 percent of CEOs nationally are men), the fact that number one was a tie between the altruistic, brawny fireman and the bring-home-the-bacon CEO speaks volumes about what we find sexiest in men." -- hot-firefighters.com http://hot-firefighters.com/blog2/?p=162 |
#240
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 25, 6:50*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article , *Michael Press wrote: ObBike: why have the Germans never acquired a reputation for making serious road bikes? Is there some boutique make I'm missing? Warning: Gratuitous Ethnic Stereotyping. Hide the kiddies. http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,SoldierTech_Leopard2A6,,0.... That's not UCI-legal. Some kind of recumbent? I'm pretty sure "Economical Uberpanzer" was an late-80s early-90s industrial band. I might have seen then opening for The Fall once. Howard probably remembers them better than I do. Ben |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who's Surprised? | [email protected] | Racing | 39 | October 22nd 07 05:38 PM |
I'm surprised... | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 3 | September 5th 06 03:50 AM |
Surprised it hasnt been said but... | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | February 20th 06 12:07 AM |
Surprised, not surprised | db. | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 23rd 06 11:48 PM |
Surprised you people aren't talking about this | Lame Acer | Racing | 1 | August 20th 04 06:53 PM |