Well Im going to step out of this one then in order to not say something stupid or wrong about something I don’t know.
No worries; I wasn’t quoting Rawls to make a substantive point. I was just reacting to the idea that he was a social democrat, which seems kinda silly in light of that quotation.
Hi…
It is not nonsense in that I do understand it…
The person who wrote this is using language that I have seen before…
It is class warfare, and guilt of wealth, well what I read of it before I said expletive this expletivehole…
I know there are a lot of people here who do not like Objectivism, the writings of or the person who was Ayn Rand at all for that matter…
This was the theme repeated over and over again by the “villans” in Atlas Shrugged, toward the begining, before the country began to really fall apart…
It is about the idea, which is wholly false, that sacrifice and poverty are virtuous, well, let us explore…
Sacrifice cannot be virtuous, it is against one’s self interest and therefore is not done without some form of coercion, either by force or by emotionalism…
Poverty shares this lack of virtuousity in the sole fact that failure is not a virtue, and poverty is the end result of economic failure…
His entire first paragraph is rife with falsehoods (Philosophers are not rarely involved but more often involved, it is just not communist philosophers that are used as such, because communism is WRONG)
Back to the Expletivehat
"The Ideal of Negative Liberty
Let us begin by interpreting the ideal of liberty as a negative ideal in the manner favored by libertarians. So understood, liberty is the absence of interference by other people from doing what one wants or is able to do. Libertarians go on to characterize their political ideal as requiring that each person should have the greatest amount of liberty morally commensurate with the greatest amount of liberty for everyone else.[53] Interpreting their ideal in this way, libertarians claim to derive a number of more specific requirements, in particular, a right to life; a right to freedom of speech, press, and assembly; and a right to property.
Here it is important to observe that the libertarian’s right to life is not a right to receive from others the goods and resources necessary for preserving one’s life; it is simply a right not to have one’s life interfered with or ended unjustly. Correspondingly, the libertarian’s right to property is not a right to receive from others the goods and resources necessary for one’s welfare, but rather typically a right not to be interfered with in regard to any goods and resources that one has legitimately acquired either by initial acquisition or by voluntary agreement.[54]"
What this person does not get is that no one has a right to property that is not earned by themselves, basically if someone else has the right to another person’s property, it must be taken, by coercion, from the second person and given to the first, and as sacrifice is not a virtue, it is not virtuous to do this, and more so, it is immoral…
“Of course, libertarians allow that it would be nice of the rich to share their surplus resources with the poor. Nevertheless, they deny that government has a duty to provide for such needs. Some good things, such as providing welfare to the poor, are requirements of charity rather than justice, libertarians claim. Accordingly, failure to make such provisions is neither blameworthy nor punishable. As a consequence, such acts of charity should not be coercively required. For this reason, libertarians are opposed to coercively supported welfare programs.”
Basically with this paragraph, he is saying that Libertarians believe people are virtuous enough to take care of the poor and do not need the government to steal from producers to give to the unproductive. In other words, he is saying that he believes people are scum and will laugh at the poor dying in the street…
Why is a nihilist coming to the defence of a humanist? Isn’t this just the sort of thing Stirner considered to be the new religion? Or did I miss something..
This is low, even for you. Firstly, although I may have erroneously claimed that Brainpolice didn’t understand the nature of property rights, you obviously don’t. If property rights is, as Brainpolice stated, an ethical construct refering to the moral use and ownership of property, then any system of ethics must have one, and any violation of it would be immoral. In your fantasy cabin, without property rights, Klemm would have no more moral right to the use of both bread or cabin as Tom, and Tom would be doing no disservice by consuming the bread and locking the cabin. How can this be a moral violation, if Klemm had no moral claim to the property in your ethical system?
Obviously your system of ethics must have property rights, whether you call them that or not. The question must then be asked, by what principle is your system based? It seems to be need, in which case you are, undoubtably, a communist.
You also never responded as to how you can justify the principles of your ethics, considering that you are so quick to criticize others for circular reasoning.
Your tirade was neither enlightening nor entertaining.
Same with you actually. Did you just come back to regurgitate this tired little mantra of yours, or revel in your own sense of superiority by musing how stupid/cranlish/whatever libertarians are (if so save it, no one cares)? Could you spell out in the concrete how Rawls’ position differs from that of a social democrat aside from their ultimate end differing (if they differ here even, because like JonBostwick pointed out democracy is more a means than an end for them, except to the extent that they conflate other ends with it, and if you push any social democrat this will surface eventually), as the term is commonly used in political discussions?
Those damn collectivist-altruists.
Well, according to these guys you’re not going to get too far as philosopher, but maybe there’s a job lined up for you in comedy somewhere.
have you considered that libertarianism is not libertine-ism? just because you can take drugs doesnt mean you must. just because you can insist others stay off your property at all times doesnt mean you must. consider that socialists who hate the idea of poor people starving and institute governments, and wealth distribution perversly promote death and poverty whereas ‘propertarians’ who dont believe in using force to reallocate resources coercively counter-intuitiviely bring about a world of greater prosperity with less misery and death.
Why should I apologise to you that a purely theoretical Klemm dies outside a theoretical Tom’s cabin?
in reality ,if people accepted the libertarian standard of morality that I propose real Klemms and Toms would lead freer, happier lives, and not encounter such disasters as often.
your turn.
I always wanted to comment on this.
Seeing as your begging to tell us…
EDIT: Found the answer a few pages back
Danny,
Why do you think there has to be a moral choice? Can’t the both be immoral?
That’s why Danny’s, Brainpolice, and Sage intellectual exercises lead them to coercion, which as I told Brainpolice is unfortunate, for their thinking is leading them to potential coercion. And your list shows what attempts they have been trying to make to justify coercion. I call it unlibertarian, but I think, as of last night, Brainpolice was beginning to take notice of his error.
Yeah that looks like a good list of the kind of coercion they are trying to justify.
She’s an ideologue just like anybody else. She throws this around when nobody wants to listen to her and agree with her. If you don’t agree with her, then you are an ideologue. If you agree with her she let’s you into her clubhouse and you are considered by her to be philosophizing.
Well some things are answered and others not. Your trying to make coercion possible - very anti-libertarian. Your intellectual exercises have you “going in circles”.
Yeah like inquiry into repercussions.
like yours, but then me saying that might assume you are a libertarian.
Ah no Brainpolice you can’t shoot out the neighbors window from your porch with your gun and your bullet. Your property doesn’t justify this action if you understand the NAP, but apparently Vichy, Danny, Sage, and you want to justify coercion. I call this list the anti-libertarians (notice I didn’t say non- ). You are not protecting liberty but trying to acquire more coercion for yourselves.
Your intellectual exercise leads to reductio ad absurdums cause you don’t focus on liberty. It’s quite simple really. Yet again that’s giving you a bit too much credit by saying you’re using logic to reach such absurd conclusions. I’m now inclining that you are not trying to reason, but instead you are trying to justify coercion.
Ah, I see, now I have been shown proof that you are anti-libertarian. The cries for justice come from statists especially communist Mother Russians. But you see I’m focused on liberty and it brings no bias. I’m able to save Klemm and keep all liberties intact. You fumble liberties and lose them. I come to the same conclusion without losing liberties. Klemm is saved and drinking hot coffee in Tom’s cabin under my scenario. In your scenario Klemm has the force of a gun pushing his way into the cabin, Tom into the corner, and Klemm’s laughing as he takes all he needs. If Klemm is this physically active one has to wonder why he can’t labor and pay Klemm back for any damages, etc…, but Klemm doesn’t need to care - yeap - Klemm needs no care cause he has the force of the gun on his side in your intellect.
It’s a simple libertarian perspective that you’re missing. That’s why this is challenging for you. You belong with the commies not with those that want liberty. And guess what. With liberty, justice is also with me. So I didn’t even lose justice either. Your losing all kinds of stuff falling all over the place. sad.
Well last time she was here she lied constantly. One had to bring up back quotes of her to show her lying, but she would say something like ‘I value different now.’ lol
Actually she’s been so dishonest I don’t really know if she’s a she.
Yeap, you nailed it Harry all the way through your post. It was a tremendous post about liberty - Thanks!
I have one small area of the post I need clarification on. You said this:
Who is the “he” that “is saying that he believes people are scum…”?
I think that is Danny. I know it is Vichy cause she has repeatedly said in this forum she is about power and people are ‘scum’ and they are ‘idiots’ and she has used much harsher language, I think ‘pathetic’ was another of hers.
This is why their focus is off and they end up being anti-liberty and pro-coercion. They have lost sight of what it means to be a libertarian and turned their aim on it’s head and now are simply commies fighting in a class warfare.
At least that’s what I gather from your post that you caught notice of this as well. Other than that last sentence threw me off a bit cause I’m not sure who “he” is.
zefreak, this post was worth a repost. I loved it! It was right on the mark. I’m glad to see so many people seeing what’s going on here especially in this being an Austrian Economic Forum.
Again Excellent Post![:D]
You guys are definately winning here, after having dealt Danny, Sage and BP a crushing blow, you proceed to do a wonderful job on the PR front. If anybody ever had any doubts about libertarians being dogmatic, closed minded and perhaps even verging on cult-like (Klemm needs to take one for the team), I daresay they were quickly confirmed. As were, no doubt, the perceptions concerning libertarian’s ability to engage in social relations (those perceptions putting most libertarians at the level of your average mute autistic person). If there were ever a more apt illustration of the modal libertarian or Randroid, I’d be pleased if somebody could show me.
That’s not to say there weren’t some suprising results of this topic, apparently libertarians think its moral to let children die, especially strange to me since I would have thought the average user on these forums could easily equal your average Muslim or Ethiopian in terms of children. And apparently the “philosophy” of objectivism has influenced the people on these forums quite a lot, which is unfortunate, because I don’t want my libertarian utopia to be comprised of lifeless homo economicus objectivists who can’t laugh at racist jokes because they’re “collectivist”, who think the fact that I drink beer is “irrational” , need to keep insisting that A is indeed, A and feel the need to use quotations from Atlas Shrugged to one another.
Is there any way I can respond to a disagreement, while remaining on topic, that would not give you the false impression that I’m grandstanding? I definitely don’t want to offend your personal sensibilities.
Do you ever add anything substantial to a topic? As much as you detest homo economicus, which is a position you strawman us for, your contributions on any subject other than economics amounts to little. Actually, considering that all you offer are strawmen and sophistry, you are a net drain on the community.
As to your quote of mine, which you apparently consider proof of my objectivism (have you not read my comments regarding “objective” ethics?), do you disagree that what I describe is communism? Consistently applied, of course. Which is certainly not an assumption I should make around you folk.
edit: (Klemm does not have to “take one for the team”. Klemm has no obligation to die, to sacrifice his children, or his kitten, or whatever combination of sweet, likeable entitys you can come up with. “The team”, so used as everyone else, likewise has no obligation to take one for Klemm; if Klemm can not sustain his life nor the lives of those who are entrusted to his care, then unfortunately he must appeal to the value that the evil libertarian Tom may or may not place on his life.
apparently libertarians think its moral to let children die
statists and socialists think its immoral to let children die whilst individualists and capitalist have so much in terms of resources that could be redistributed. the result when socialists gain positions of power, is what? the saving of children from death? or the increase in the death of children?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5851342wh544w32/
surely its better to kill theoretical children and in reality have circumstances for real children be positive
than to theoretically prohibt the death of children and in reality wreak havoc on them
comments?
The person who wrote the speech…
The person who believes that people will die in the streets from hunger without legal plunder and wealth redistribution, of course…
Obviously the speech writer is of the opinion that all people in this country were decended from only the middle and better classes prior to the New Deal, because if you are poor, you are dead without welfare, because people are scum and will not willingly give to charity…
He does not need to say it so blatantly, it is meerly the final conclusion of the argument for wealth redistribution, it is the reason why, in communist countries, the leaders often slant media to show the rich taking advantage of the poor…