If I'm being obtuse, Prospero, will you do me the courtesy of explaining why or in what sense?
Printable View
If I'm being obtuse, Prospero, will you do me the courtesy of explaining why or in what sense?
You acknowledge that racism has been driven underground. So, there is your reason why someone who believes Arabs are inferior and wants to impart that ethic would say they're savages and not be more explicit about it. I have never heard anyone make a statement with the specificity you would require to have it be racist.
Now Mel Gibson may not have been mincing his words, so why did he not say Jews cause all wars because they're Jewish? He didn't think he had to. He could impart his meaning that Jews are bad apples without saying they have no choice in the matter. In fact, if he believes they are immutably evil, but wanted to condemn them in a way that imparts maximum damage he could pitch the idea that they choose to be evil. Again, his statements were descriptively wrong but part of racism is believing a group is in some way corrupt even if you aren't clear about the causes.
Do you think those on the hard right that claim homosexuals choose to be gay actually believe it? My guess is they don't care but are trying to inflict damage to homosexuals by pretending it is a choice and therefore within the realm of morality.
Anyhow, you're acting as though I am a smear merchant for condemning the statement as racist. I was just trying to be objective about it. I even said above I think her problem is more fundamental than racism, and that her racism is a symptom of her broader philosophy.
broncofan, "You acknowledge that racism has been driven underground. So, there is your reason why someone who believes Arabs are inferior and wants to impart that ethic would say they're savages and not be more explicit about it. I have never heard anyone make a statement with the specificity you would require to have it be racist [I have, but I agree it is rare, which is one reason why I think racism is rarer than you might think... I think the explanation people would just as readily put forward is culturalist; my conclusions on this are unsupported by anything other than personal observation; it seems to me that the most one might rationally say of the claim that "arabs are savages" is that it creates a rebuttable presumption that the speaker is racist or culturalist. Rand, as I think we all agree, is quite happy to speak in provocative terms. I have little doubt that did she blame Arabs as Arabs for savagery then she would be quite as home saying so]
Now Mel Gibson may not have been mincing his words, so why did he not say Jews cause all wars because they're Jewish? He didn't think he had to [yes, for sure, or maybe he was just drunk and stupid]. He could impart his meaning that Jews are bad apples without saying they have no choice in the matter [while I think your example of Gibson's rant is helpful, his rant is also too stupid and drunk to merit serious analysis]. In fact, if he believes they are immutably evil, but wanted to condemn them in a way that imparts maximum damage he could pitch the idea that they choose to be evil. Again, his statements were descriptively wrong but part of racism is believing a group is in some way corrupt even if you aren't clear about the causes [I think you're wrong there. If you're a racist, you believe that a particular race is in some way inferior specifically because it is inherent to that race].
Do you think those on the hard right that claim homosexuals choose to be gay actually believe it? [Probably, they do, yes, very few people go through life wondering how to be, act and say things that are deliberately wicked or mischievous. Most people believe what they believe because it is central to their conception of themselves as good, or nice] My guess is they don't care but are trying to inflict damage to homosexuals by pretending it is a choice and therefore within the realm of morality [Having said the forgoing, I wouldn't in the example you give, discount the possibility of a certain mischievous malice among the critics you've identified, which they may justify to themselves as being in the best interests of those they castigate].
Anyhow, you're acting as though I am a smear merchant for condemning the statement as racist [I've enjoyed corresponding with you, broncofan, I apologise if I caused offence, but I think you're wrong on your analysis of Rand and I think self-styled progressives are too quick to bring the charge of racism]. I was just trying to be objective about it. I even said above I think her problem is more fundamental than racism, and that her racism is a symptom of her broader philosophy [whether or not you think she personally was a racist, you surely agree that she was an individualist and that her characterisation of racism as the oldest form of collectivism is spot on, so to associate her broader philosophy with racism is spurious]."
No - please offer me your stereotypes about Jewish mothers first....
Ok, only slightly tongue in-cheek: fussy, neurotic, niggly, smothering their sons, constantly worrying...
Happy now?
ha ha.... are you a smothered Jewish son then?
Me? No, WASP to the core.
Now, as to that obtuseness...
As a Jewish son, this list almost makes me want to be a Libertarian. So, is the state a fussy, smothering mom. Are we talking Fran Drescher or Barbra Streisand? :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
Oy an8150, you have to pay your taxes. How come you never call your mother on tax day? Haven't you ever heard of a civic duty? I wish I never named you an8150, it's such a gentile name. How can you grow up and be a Rabbi with a name like an8150? Oy, I think I'm developing a cold.
You see these stereotypes are relatively harmless though. Not all are you know? ;
You haven't caused offense. I gave you your only positive votes in here:). I thought you brought up some good points. I didn't want to go into what I think would be the failings of the private litigation system in lieu of more formal regulation so I ignored it and gave you a thumbs up. Some good points in that post. There are enforcement problems when you use litigation, particularly torts such as negligence because you encourage willful blindness. Negligence does ask what an individual "should have done" but it does not typically charge them with doing independent research to ensure safety, but asks this question respecting generally available information. So strict liability might be the ticket. But then you only have enforcement after damage is done and companies could set aside a slush fund to essentially pay for the lives of those injured by their products. Prevention is preferable.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
You also have detection problems as without the advance research into drugs and products you might not detect risks that could take decades to develop in people. You might not detect them anyway, but I think if businesses only had disgorgement of profits as a consequence you'd see all sorts of reckless behavior. Maybe heightened criminal liability for corporate actors, but again, criminal law doesn't typically require you to ferret out risks, only not to take malevolent action. So, anyhow, good points. Not saying litigation wouldn't work to keep businesses in line but it might be cumbersome to enforce on a case by case basis. Cheers.
[QUOTE=an8150;1231551]
I'd have been better off saying that Israel was surrounded by states committed to its destruction], in spite of the fact that this is not the case with Jordan (or Egypt [not since Camp David in 1978 or 1979]
--the Treaty still stands, it has not been violated by Egypt.
Nothing evasive about Munich [I didn't say there was; I said your description of it as a political act was evasive], if you can't handle the political reality don't dismiss it in compensation for your own incompetence [I certainly don't dismiss the Munich atrocity, hence the strength of my reaction to your dismissal of it as akin to a piece of interpretive dance or a letter to a newspaper editor]. The bleak truth about Munich is that as an act of violence, it was symptmatic of the disarray that affected the different factions of the PLO as they tried to make sense of their situation following their expulsion from Jordan in 'White' September, 1970 [evasive claptrap: the bleak truth it that it was an act of murder, slice it where you like]. The simple fact was that violence was counter-productive [not according to you; you categorise it with townhall meetings and million mum marches]
-I don't understand your response: far from being evasive about any aspect of the Munich incident, I was trying to explain it to you in the context in which it developed and took place -that it was an atrocity is not in doubt -the issue is why it happened and what it tells you about the role violence had played in Palestinian politics up to that point, and why it was in this period in the early 1970s that Arafat had difficulty controlling those elements even in his own group, Fateh, who wanted to continue the armed struggle when others wanted to call a halt to it. None of this is 'elusive claptrap' because it was central to the whole trajectory of Palestinian politics at the time; and I thought I was emphatic in describing the violence committed by Palestinian groups as counter-productive -what you are referring to in 'townhall meetings and million mum marches' is beyond me, but you are free to import any weird ideas you have.
I suspect you are not that interested in the history anyway, that you have decided there are good guys and bad guys, that the bad guys lost and should 'go away' somewhere. That doesn't deal with the issues the people who live in the Middle East must cope with every day; nor does it unravel the many different strands of politics that interweave across the region. Ay Rand showed no interest in the history or the politics of the region, she had a decisive view of one set of people rather than another, in spite of the fact that many Israelis then and now have sought a closer and more peaceful relationship with the Palestinians in particular and the Arabs in general. There is a lot more to Israel than Ayn Rand or Netanyahu, and much of it is more positive and accommodating of change than you appear to be.
Stavros, " There is a lot more to Israel than Ayn Rand or Netanyahu, and much of it is more positive and accommodating of change than you appear to be."
I agree. And talking of goodies and baddies, nice guys and savages, there are palestinian israelis and palestinian members of the knesset. On the other hand, a jew who sets foot in Gaza is toast.
And you're right, I'm not interested in the personal or political histories of murderers where those histories are used for mealy-mouthed equivocation over the precise nature of the murderous act.
A townhall meeting is a political act. As is a letter to a newspaper, or a million mum march (and I forget my other erstwhile example). Wearing a GOP pin badge or a "support Obama" bumper sticker is a political act. Murdering athletes is not a "political act". It's an act of murder. It is among the most wicked of all human behaviour, and your circumlocutions on the subject reveal a moral vacuum.
broncofan, I hadn't noticed that I had any positive votes. I'm probably too used to revelling in my role as a victimised minarchist. But thank you.
Victimised ROFL.... you are the one with a hatred of the disease of liberal democracy.
That's a non sequitur, Prospero.
so what... just as no one forces you to post here no one is forcing me to .. well whatever.. too tired to deal with your tiresome and wholly unrealistic and utopian nonsense. You DO realise that you are on a highway to nowhere...
The highway to nowhere? Yes, that'd be utopia. I'll assume you intended the pun.
Still, look on the bright side: you've learned about fascism, objectivism, the coercive nature of state action and minarchism.
Election Day Perspective: 6 Things to Keep in Mind:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...n-mind/264590/
Well, congratulations to you, Americans, on your last democratic exercise...
Democracy
Leonard Cohen
It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that it ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming through a crack in the wall,
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming from the sorrow on the street
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of G-d in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on
o mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
past the Reefs of Greed
through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on
It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
that the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming to the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on
o mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
past the Reefs of Greed
through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on
I'm sentimental if you know what I mean:
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Congrats to the USA.... but there is hard work and there are hard years ahead
[QUOTE=an8150;1231734]Stavros, " There is a lot more to Israel than Ayn Rand or Netanyahu, and much of it is more positive and accommodating of change than you appear to be."
I agree. And talking of goodies and baddies, nice guys and savages, there are palestinian israelis and palestinian members of the knesset. On the other hand, a jew who sets foot in Gaza is toast.
-And as I am sure you are aware, Arab Israelis are second class citizens in Israel, their mosques and churches have been set ablaze by fanatics, mostly settlers crossing the border to commit these crimes, and of course Israel's occupation of the West Bank is illegal, as are the settlements there.
-You will also be aware that HAMAS, which was promoted by the Israelis in 1988-89, has more than once offered to negotiate and work with Israel. It is the government of Benjamin Netanyahu that has consistently worked to undermine the Oslo Accords.
And you're right, I'm not interested in the personal or political histories of murderers where those histories are used for mealy-mouthed equivocation over the precise nature of the murderous act.
A townhall meeting is a political act. As is a letter to a newspaper, or a million mum march (and I forget my other erstwhile example). Wearing a GOP pin badge or a "support Obama" bumper sticker is a political act. Murdering athletes is not a "political act". It's an act of murder. It is among the most wicked of all human behaviour, and your circumlocutions on the subject reveal a moral vacuum.
-I don't know what 'townhall meetings you are referring to in the context of Munich, and I don't know what a million mum march refers to either.
My attempt to provide you with an historical context was not mealy-mouthed, the language and reasoning I used was simple and clear; it was not an equivocation as I took a clear moral stand: Munich was a crime, and as a political act considered counter-productive by Arafat and his closest associates in Fateh, except of course for Abu Iyad, who in spite of Munich offered to negotiate a two-state deal with the Israelis.
The issue is not me making these comments in a moral vacuum, but you creating one by first stripping out the whole of the context and reducing all comment on the conflict between Israel and Palestine to violent acts. This suggests it doesn't matter to you if the Provisional IRA had a political agenda in the 1970s and 1980s, and that the same was true of say, the Brigate Rosse in Italy at the time; but also suggests that the Irgun who bombed the King David Hotel in Jersusalem in 1946 cannot be seen as political activists, but as murderers, which means that when, every year, Netanyahu takes part in the celebrations of this crime, he is celebrating murder, and not just the murder of British soldiers, of Arabs, but also of the Jews were who killed on that day.
King David Hotel, 1946; Munich 1972: what's the difference?
Or it could be that I have misunderstood you, and that you are a pacificst and condemn all forms of killing, with no regard to the cause.
We learned that the actions of a people who are engaged in democratic self-rule are, by definition, self-willed actions and by definition not coercive. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to play a game of gin-rummy and adhere to the rules. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to post in this thread and follow the rules of grammar at least to the extent as to make yourself understood. By participating in the democracy, by playing the game, by posting on this thread you have already agreed to the respective rules and agreed to the penalites for not following them.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
We learned that neither liberty nor property exist if they are not recognized and respected by those around you. They are man-made notions; neither god given nor woven into the fabric of the universe.
We learned that when interpreted literally rational self-interest is too narrow a notion from which to derive the notions of liberty and property; that when interpreted more broadly rational self-interest is too weak a notion to support and guarantee liberty and property.
Stavros, "but also suggests that the Irgun who bombed the King David Hotel in Jersusalem in 1946 cannot be seen as political activists, but as murderers, which means that when, every year, Netanyahu takes part in the celebrations of this crime, he is celebrating murder, and not just the murder of British soldiers, of Arabs, but also of the Jews were who killed on that day.
King David Hotel, 1946; Munich 1972: what's the difference?"
Answer: none.
trish, "We learned that the actions of a people who are engaged in democratic self-rule are, by definition, self-willed actions and by definition not coercive [if that were true, I could refuse to pay my taxes in that proportion I deemed were spent on things of which I disapprove and, thus refusing, not be prosecuted and thrown into prison for doing so; you persist in the distortion that by existing within the status quo I give my approval to it; if that were true, there would be no point in anyone at all voting] . The self-willed actions of a democracy [in the context in which you use the word, a democracy is an abstract, no more capable of will than is a religion] are no more coercive than your self-willed action to play a game of gin-rummy and adhere to the rules [except I can't be prosecuted and thrown into prison for failing to follow the rules of gin rummy. The clue is in the word: coercion. It means to be forced physically to do something]. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to post in this thread and follow the rules of grammar at least to the extent as to make yourself understood [this is no more true than your observations on gin rummy]. By participating in the democracy [I use the roads because I have to to, not as an endorsement of their funding by the state; if the state licensed breathing, and I bought a breathing license, am I endorsing state licensing of breathing?], by playing the game, by posting on this thread [this thread, this forum, btw, is a paragon of libertarian principle ; it follows that this forum has no point of similarity with a democracy of the type under discussion] you have already agreed to the respective rules and agreed to the penalites for not following them [you mean I can be thrown in prison and be dispossessed of my property if I upset the wrong person on this forum?].
We learned that neither liberty nor property exist if they are not recognized and respected by those around you [they can, but I suspect you're confusing law enforcement with the convenience afforded by one's neighbour not smashing one's windows]. They are man-made notions [I agree, but what of it?]; neither god given nor woven into the fabric of the universe [I haven't suggested that either is the case].
We learned that when interpreted literally rational self-interest is too narrow a notion from which to derive the notions of liberty and property [here, I can't even guess what aspect of the thread you're referring to]; that when interpreted more broadly rational self-interest is too weak a notion to support and guarantee liberty and property [ditto, with bells on!]."
A good sign for so-called democracy -- :)
Early figures show fewer Americans cast votes in 2012 race than in 2008
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ear...892/story.html
Yes the clue is in the word coercion and most people live happy lives; they obey the traffic laws, pay their taxes etc. and are never physically forced by the government to do anything. (And if you cheat at gin rummy with the wrong people you may find there are consequences you'd rather not pay).
trish, "Yes the clue is in the word coercion and most people live happy lives; they obey the traffic laws, pay their taxes etc. and are never physically forced by the government to do anything [you mean they would do all these things regardless of whether failing to do them was a criminal act? you say, then, for instance that people would pay the same tax as they do now even if not required by law to do so? if you're right, why is law needed to make people pay that tax?]. ... "
I think we've got to the heart of the matter.
Every action has a reaction. Everything you do touches someone else. There are consequences to everything you do, & there's no such thing as a right to impunity. You can refuse to pay your taxes. No problem. Just don't snivel about the consequence that you already know is near certain. Go hang out by Walden Pond & think about it.
Do you think people proudly perform their duties only out of fear of the authorities, or only for a paycheck? Then how do we get by with an underpaid volunteer military? But don't be facetious, the law is there to take care of unmotivated freeloaders.
Jesus, these people who constantly complain about taxes are the most boring people in the country. Operative word: constantly. I don't mind someone making a reasoned argument against taxation or for less taxes, but most of these people are just tedious because they never stop. Something about feeling that they're clever or charming or something by repeating themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by an8150
They act like they have a fundamental right to freeload on the labor of others. When you explain their rights are granted by the very people they would cheat against they even agree yet continue to repeat their claim ad nauseum.
"...these people who constantly complain about taxes... "
Actually I'm complaining about coercion. The taxes, are a secondary point.
On your broader point, Odelay, you sound like you're channelling Marie Antionette: why don't these peasant ever stop complaining!?
hipifried, "Every action has a reaction [if you say so. my reaction to being coerced is to complain about it which, under the circumstances, is remarkably well-behaved of me]. Everything you do touches someone else [meaningless drivel and also untrue]. There are consequences to everything you do, & there's no such thing as a right to impunity [what are you talking about?]. You can refuse to pay your taxes. No problem. Just don't snivel about the consequence that you already know is near certain [I can refuse to do as i am ordered, but I shouldn't complain if my bosses wreck my life as a result? you are talking like a slave]. Go hang out by Walden Pond & think about it. "
trish, "Do you think people proudly perform their duties [duties? duties? what duty do I owe you?]only out of fear of the authorities [if they don't, why is coercive law needed to make people buy driving licenses and pay taxes?], or only for a paycheck? Then how do we get by with an underpaid volunteer military? [American military spending is larger than that of, I think, the next ten countries combined, and 40% of the world's military spending. And you don't get by on it. When did you last win a war?] But don't be facetious, the law is there to take care of unmotivated freeloaders [you sound like a cross between an enforcer for the mob and a Soviet commissar threatening beatings until moral improves]."
trish, "They act like they have a fundamental right to freeload on the labor of others [you're the one demanding I fulfill my supposed duty to you by paying you money; if anyone is freeloading, it's you, demanding the fruits of my labour]. When you explain their rights are granted [liberties are taken, they are not given; to think otherwise is the creed of slaves] by the very people they would cheat against they even agree yet continue to repeat their claim ad nauseum. "
I can hardly believe I am corresponding with Americans.
And I can hardly credit your absurd use of the word slave in so many of your posts and your obsession with coercion as - which you seem to see, in your constant return to it - the worst crime that can be committed. What you see as coercion i see as a mutually agreed system of co-operation. Then in an otherwise civilised discussion with Trish you suddenly accuse of her of talking like Soviet commissar or mafia enforcer.
Your political philosphy is based on a naivety about human nature. Of course a very large number - dare i speculate on it being a majority - of people will not pay tax given the chance. Most of us are in many respects selfish and given the chance,will keep the money. We need a government, a structure, to safeguard us from all kinds of things - to take concerted action on climate change, to limit the greed of massive corporations, to protect the rights of the weaker in society etc etc.
I take it you do not believe in society?
That many Governments have failed to do as well as one would hope is no argument to support your curious notion of vitually no Government at all or no taxes.
If you are british i assume you are opposed fundamentally to the NHS, to state funding of education, to the provision of an old age pension for those who require it and for much more that makes us a relatively ciilised society.
Yes i did intend my reference to the road to nowhere and utopia to chime together. Utopia is of course nowhere and your political philosophy has as much chance of playing out in any way in the real world as seals do of attaining a professorship at Yale. I wholly support your freedom to cleave to these absurdities, to argue for them and indeed to apply them to your own life. But you do so knowing the potential legal outcome. Thanks.
Prospero,"And I can hardly credit your absurd use of the word slave in so many of your posts and your obsession with coercion as - which you seem to see, in your constant return to it - the worst crime that can be committed [I take it, Prospero, that you agree that what I have described as coercion is indeed coercion. The worst crime? Perhaps not, but if I held a gun to your head and demanded whatever fruits of your labour were to be found in your wallet, I suspect you'd be pretty dismayed. Yet that is the system you advocate. You perhaps haven't perceived it as such, because when it's done by the state we all recognise that resistance is futile and the gun therefore need not be shown, but it is there nevertheless, buried under piles of paperwork and backing up every bureaucrat's injunctions. I see no moral distinction between the state doing this, and a street mugger doing it. Both have their uses for the money. At least the street mugger has the guts to do his own dirty work]. What you see as coercion i see as a mutually agreed system of co-operation [if it were mutually-agreed, there'd be no need for coercive law to back it up; what you're describing is a co-operative society on the Victorian model. Nothing wrong with that model, I can see that it makes plenty of sense to some people in some circumstances. But I say there is a key moral distinction between between voluntary action and coerced action]. Then in an otherwise civilised discussion with Trish you suddenly accuse of her of talking like Soviet commissar or mafia enforcer [Oh, come off it! I've been on the receiving end of gratuitous smears throughout this thread. My description of trish at least has the merit of a relationship to reality].
Your political philosphy is based on a naivety about human nature [Not in the slightest, I'm quite content with human selfishness when practised voluntarily, I see nothing wrong with it and indeed celebrate it]. Of course a very large number - dare i speculate on it being a majority - of people will not pay tax given the chance [and there we have it: who are you to say that people should not be given the chance? Can you hear how monstrously arrogant it is to rejoice in a system that denies people their nature?]. Most of us are in many respects selfish and given the chance,will keep the money [good for us]. We need a government [to a very limited extent, I agree], a structure ][you can't structure your life without a government? such pathos!], to safeguard us from all kinds of things - to take concerted action on climate change, to limit the greed of massive corporations, to protect the rights of the weaker in society etc etc. [btw, why aren't you greedy for demanding the fruits of other people's labour?]
I take it you do not believe in society? [do I believe it exists as a tangible reality? no, it's an abstract concept, but a useful one in describing the world around us]
That many Governments have failed to do as well as one would hope is no argument to support your curious notion of vitually no Government at all or no taxes [I haven't made the argument from government incompetence, that's a pragmatic argument and we're still in the foothills of principle].
If you are british i assume you are opposed fundamentally to the NHS, to state funding of education, to the provision of an old age pension [yes, to all] for those who require it [require? if someone hasn't provided for his retirement, why should he retire?] and for much more that makes us a relatively ciilised society [in fact I say welfare has made us less civilised, less caring, less willing to participate in civic endeavour and more brutish].
Yes i did intend my reference to the road to nowhere and utopia to chime together. Utopia is of course nowhere and your political philosophy has as much chance of playing out in any way in the real world as seals do of attaining a professorship at Yale [as a matter of electoral politics, I agree; quite aside from anything else, social democracy creates a massive dependent client state, which isn't going to vote for an end to its freebies . On the other hand, when social democracy bankrupts itself, we'll see what emerges from the ashes. In Greece, Spain and Italy, history is on the side of military dictatorship. In the Anglospere, all bets are off]. I wholly support your freedom to cleave to these absurdities, to argue for them and indeed to apply them to your own life. But you do so knowing the potential legal outcome [indeed I do. Hence my complaint about coercion. At root, you are a theocrat. You say, "I know what's morally best and everybody should be compelled to act accordingly". Most people agree with you on the compulsion part. The problem is, you theocrats don't all agree on what's morally best and, as I've pointed out, once you've sold the pass on compulsion, or coercion, you left with no argument to confront those theocrats who'd use it against that which you hold dear. If you think providing someone else with free healthcare is the civilised thing to do, then in my view you should be free to provide that healthcare. What you should not have is the power to compel or coerce my assistance. I'm quite capable of making my own moral choices. And after all, that the essence of morality, that we choose to do what's right]. Thanks. "
Atomistic nonsense. Your ideas which, very thankfully, will never be played out in the real world in my lifetime (or yours) would lead to the collapse of our slight civilisation.
Either you live in society or out of it.
Go live in a commune with your foolish friends.
No distinction between a mugger and the state. Trite.
A theocrat. Ludicrous.
Looking again at your last post, it is clear that yours is a philosophy of the utmost selfishness. Your remarks on retirement for instance. "If they cannot afford to retire, then don't retire." Piffle. Many would choose not o retire but that choice is removed - including by reasons of illness. Old age, a lifetime of working, illness, weakness and an working world that boots the older out for many reasons, but often because it is is cheaper to employ younger people. All of these argue for a safety net provided by the state because the selfish -who you celebrate - will not do it.
Onc again we fall back on the weak deserve to go to the wall. Those of us who have property, vast wealth etc - often founded on complex factors including the exploitation of the weak and less intelligent - deserve to keep it all. Not to participate in helping the weak, the old, the poor, the sick etc - except that we choose to do it entirely from our own free will without societal structure which require us to be concerned about our fellow men and women (whose energy and industriousness we benefit from) How have your laissez faire notions worked in the eras before the 20th century. Not so well.
And regarding co-ercian your minarchist world is right to co-erce us to pay for defence? Yet that is one area where, given a choice, many would NOT see their money spent. So are they allowed to opt out? or would co-ercian be okay here?
And notions of defence need to be discussed surely? Do you mean external enemies? Do you mean terrorists? Do you mean criminals ? Those who would prey on the weak, the old, the defenceless? Muggers/ Rapists? Child abusers? THose behind honour killings? Gangs who would run riot without police to safeguard us against those they rob, rape and kill? How will that work in you minarchist world? What about protection against those greedy people who will play with the funds in the city - and lose their companies and investors billions of pounds or dollars unless rules exist (and rules perhaps better enforced than now). Rules of hygiene enforced by law in hospitals and places where we go to eat? Or are restaurants yhat have cockroaches and rats running around be okay in a Minarchist world rather than having rules which compel them to pay attention to regulations about hygiene and safety? Why not let children work as chimney sweeps again or spend their childhoods down in the darkness of the mines? Hospitals with rats in operating theatre and where you can only go anyway if you can afford to pay? Airlines not rquired to obey safety regulations. Or trains drivers. I could go on - but i think you get the picture. Do you really believe that human nature will prevail and give us all a nice harmonious world? Or would we return to a world where life was nasty, brutish and short for all but the most privileged?