Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't say that it's implementation didn't often have certain characteristics. However, to say oligarchy supposes something is false. All it does is mean "rule by a few".

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, to say oligarchy supposes something is false. All it does is mean "rule by a few".

Very true. One can see an oligarchy which is run in a total meritocratic fashion.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker
I didn't say that it's implementation didn't often have certain characteristics. However, to say oligarchy supposes something is false. All it does is mean "rule by a few".

All right then. Would "imply" be a better word?

It seems to me you're taking Harry Tuttle's rocky path:
-Democracy is only the rule of the people, therefore it has nothing to do with free speech!
-Yeah, but how are the people supposed to rule without their free speech, you moron?

and just to smooth things up:

[Kuciwalker]

Wrong. In the case of democracy, free speech is essential to the rule of the people. In an oligarchy, evilness is NOT essential to the rule of a few

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


All right then. Would "imply" be a better word?

It seems to me you're taking Harry Tuttle's rocky path:
-Democracy is only the rule of the people, therefore it has nothing to do with free speech!
-Yeah, but how are the people supposed to rule without their free speech, you moron?

and just to smooth things up:

Free speech implies that you can say something, anything really (besides FIRE! in a crowded theater) without being arrested/killed/shot for it. You can have a Democracy without free speech. Just duck when you say something.

So there, Mr. Igotmyeducationfrombadmovies.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
Someone (Urmson?, Quinton?) once remarked something like "When you see the words 'philosophical' and 'theory' conjoined, be prepared to be disappointed." Question to Agathon: "Would you say the same thing about the words 'Apolyton' and 'philosophy'?"

It used to be a bit like that. This week hasn't been so bad though.

I can't contribute much to these debates though. My specialization is in the minutiae of Platonic Metaphysics and Epistemology, surely something of great importance for most of the world's citizens.

Professional philosophy is much more tedious and nitpicking than the things people like to talk about on here. But small matters have big consequences.

I got bored of the God and free will stuff a long time ago.

[Harry Tuttle]

Ahem, further more:

free speech
n.
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.

Democracy benefits the people more when free speech is present, but it does not need to exist for a democracy to exist.

I will cite British free speech laws as an example.

But back on topic.....

[Harry Tuttle]

Hmmmm, the hamster in his brain must be running hot tonight. He hasn't responded yet.

[Berzerker]

monkspider -

I define inaction as inaction. What does she (Rand) define it as?

I don't know how she defines it, that's kind of the point. If she defines it as allowing a child to die in a well and then claims that inaction is not immoral (ala Boshko's example) then I'd have a problem with her position. But we don't know the context of her argument and I seriously doubt she was responding to someone asking about a child stuck in a well. It's like saying it is immoral to kill another human being and someone challenging that assertion by raising situations where it is moral to kill, e.g., self-defense.

UBoris -

Don't you think that the term oligarchy in itself supposes crimes long commited by ancestors which are in no way redeemable?

No, oligarchy is rule by a minority, a small minority. It doesn't pre-suppose past crimes any more than rule by the majority (democracy) pre-supposes past or current crimes.

Think of the aristocracy or the centuries-inherited family wealth. Also consider that when I said past crimes, I also meant situations much more complex than "my grandfather nicked your grandmother's bicycle".

Sure, complexities can make redress impractical or impossible, but whether or not redress is feasible matters not to what should happen in the future. Past plundering cannot justify future plundering even if the past cannot be fixed. Return the stolen loot that can be returned and stop future plundering, that's Bastiat's position and I see nothing wrong with it at all. Your "refutation" of his argument is "we can't fix the past so we should continue doing the same thing". If you object to past plundering, why do you embrace current and future plundering?

So, where does this lead? Well, that I got a free education from State-plundered funds make me a criminal of a sort- and that about anyone has benefitted in some way from welfare money, slavery accumulated family riches, or anything similar all make us some sort of criminals.

Children don't plunder the funds for public schools, politicians and their supporters do that. But your argument is: "someone else is doing it, therefore we are justified in doing it too".

What about this 2$ you saved on your last purchase, because the good was produced by a worker who is forbidden by his government to form an union? Isn't that a form of plundering that needs reparations?

Nope, no one forced that worker to agree to a contract even if you don't think it is in his best interest. How much was he making before Nike showed up to offer him a job? If it was slave labor, then stop the slavery and seek redress for the victim from the slaveholder.

And about the privately-operated states: I suggest you take a look in some history books. The history of industrialization, is, quite frankly, the story of workers brutalized by the police on behalf of the "robber barons".

Really? You mean if a workforce decided to strike and were told to leave the property if they won't work, the employers called in the police to beat the workers up as they were leaving the property? No, strikers attacked "scabs" and tried to shut down businesses that wouldn't give in. That's when police were called in - to protect the rights of others to engage in business. And that isn't an example of a weak state being overpowered by a business, it's an example of a powerful state defending an obviously weaker business that lacked the power to defend itself.

When a state says it's criminal for someone to go on strike, to protest against 80-hours weeks and near-starvation salaries, when a state uses the army to conquer mineral resources rich countries in Africa for its corporations to exploit it, then I call it privately ran by the financial oligarchy (*cough* England *cough* France).

Did these corporations do the conquering or powerful states? These aren't examples of powerful businesses overpowering weak states.

The fact is, our world is an intricate pattern of plunders and replunders about which we can do about nothing- except, IMHO, making the "plunders" more tolerable to the poor by creating welfare states. Personally, I agree with Marx conception, in which a rich man exploiting the poor's only wealth- his labor-, and imposing his own conditions because he owns the means of production, is just another form of plunder by which you "alienate" one's soul.

And that's why you don't agree with Bastiat, he wants to end all plunder and you just want a share of the loot and use the past as your justification.

Can you deny that this situation is absolutely unavoidable, when someone, through honest (or not, as long as he doesn't get caught) work, rises above the others and get a hold of the manufacturing process?

Sure it's avoidable, there have been plenty of business owners who minded their own business and there are plenty who didn't.
But how many states engaged in moral behavior? Nada? One, two...?

This is why I see the democratically ran welfare states as a counter-measure to this unavoidable, natural oligarchic system which has defined human history since the beginning. The "plunder" they impose is not only a reparation to past ones, it is also an insurance policy against future ones, in that it strives to give everyone equality in chances by providing for education and healthcare.

Earlier you denied supporting socialistic plunder and here you justify and endorse it. As I said before, welfare states aren't about plundering to rectify past plunder. They are about expanding the magnitude of the plunder with more looters waiting for their cut. Either you oppose plunder or you support it, Bastiat opposed it, and you support it. You just want to be among those deciding who gets plundered and who does the plundering, that's no different than the plunderers of the past...

[Harry Tuttle]

Berzerker, I just looked up Bastiat. I like what I see. "If free trade does not cross borders, armies will." Very true.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Hmmmm, the hamster in his brain must be running hot tonight. He hasn't responded yet.

Mind you, I hav a social life and it appewrs than tonight I'm too drunk to have half the quarter of my normal intelligence... which is not too much to say the least... going back tomorrow, you selfifsh Ayn Rand bastard!!!

[Fake Boris]

deleted

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Berzerker, I just looked up Bastiat. I like what I see. "If free trade does not cross borders, armies will." Very true.

Yes, that just shows us the fasco-capitalist mentality doesn't it?

Open your markets or we'll make you!!!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, that just shows us the fasco-capitalist mentality doesn't it?
Open your markets or we'll make you!!!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by bfg9000
Ayn Rand was the ultimate spokesman for the left hemisphere of the brain.

I see.

So all it would take for me to value her opinions would be to suffer a massive stroke?