Single Issue Voter?

[Rex Little]

Based on everything else I've seen them post, I'm sure they are, Groucho. As am I.

I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20 and I got over it. You will too.

I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20. (Didn't know it yet; found out a couple of years later when I started reading her books.) 33 years later, I still am.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Oh, I read it. And it's bull****. I'm sorry that you couldn't wean yourself from the nanny state. Perhaps the reason you had trouble getting a job is because your economy has been ****ed over by socialism-- just a guess. You have too much pride to beg, but stealing is A OK in your book. Skip asking, and just steal. Yes, it's stealing when you take something from someone else who didn't give it to you voluntarily. You are a thief. Thief. Thief. There's no other word for it.

perhaps you'd prefer the tax money to go to more police to quell the angry and starving masses

[- Groucho -]

So is the idea that everything should be private? No taxes, just prices?

How do you deal with the "free rider" problem in that system? If you and a bunch of the people in your neighbourhood decide to pay to have the pot holes filled on your road, how do you stop the guy who refused to chip in from driving on your new blacktop? There would be no way to force him to chip in.

[St Leo]

Argh! I was forced to transfer wealth to Electronics Boutique when trying to get Europa Universalis 2. They wouldn't let me get the fun without giving others money. Lousy commie capitalists.

[JohnT]

DF: "There are, I'm sure, quite a few subjects about which you have no inkling of the inner workings, yet still have an opinion on. "

Yes, but I don't debate them to excess on message boards. One tends to look like an ass when talking about things one (even admittedly!) knows nothing about.

I'll get back to this later - GA/FL is on. GO DAWGS!!!!!

[tandeetaylor]

You mean it gives them a dose of reality? That it requires "the opposition" (your words) to stop thinking of those who have claimed welfare as "them" (ie- the ignorant, undeserving, unwashed others), and instead realise that they are real people, who post on this very forum?

I'm not ashamed to think of you as you. And I am not ashamed to look you in the face and tell you what you are. You are a sham. And a thief. Happy?

My heart bleeds for them/you.

Let's take all logic out of this and bring in a bunch of buzz phrases. I'll go next. Think of the children.

How did this turn into another bull**** "It is moral to protect my rights while shirking my responsibilities" thread?

See, the fact is, me having my true rights does not put any responsibility on me except that of respecting the rights of others. I can't have any rights with the kind of responsibilities to which you are obviously referring.

I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20. (Didn't know it yet; found out a couple of years later when I started reading her books.) 33 years later, I still am.

Crazy.

How do you deal with the "free rider" problem in that system?

Umm... that's pretty simple-- not having any collectively-owned property.

They wouldn't let me get the fun without giving others money.

I believe the key word was "forced."

[loinburger]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
See, the fact is, me having my true rights does not put any responsibility on me except that of respecting the rights of others.

What are your "true rights"? Frop where do you derive them?

I can't have any rights with the kind of responsibilities to which you are obviously referring.

How does your responsibility to feed somebody who lacks the ability to feed themself impede your right to life, or freedom of religion, or free speech, etc.? I don't scream "My life is forfeit!" every time I pay my taxes...

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by loinburger
What are your "true rights"? From where do you derive them?

I have a right to my life, my time, and the products of my time. I have a right to do everything which does not impede the rights of others. This is derived from the nature of man. In order to survive, he must obtain certain things. In order to obtain these things, he must be free from the shackles of other men. What right do YOU have to my life, my time, and the products of my time? Please make an argument for this. Please please do.

How does your responsibility to feed somebody who lacks the ability to feed themself impede your right to life, or freedom of religion, or free speech, etc.?

I have a right to the products of my life and my time. I can choose to give them up voluntarily, but when they are forced from me with the threat of jail, my rights have been violated.

I don't scream "My life is forfeit!" every time I pay my taxes...

Good for you. Maybe you aren't as financially strained as I am. If that's the case, I'm happy for you. And maybe you don't have a "perfect sense of right and wrong" like I do. In which case, I feel very bad indeed for you.

[DanS]

Laz's story is fine for what it says, but the conclusions he draws from his experiences aren't the only ones that are valid. He does open his story up for personal criticism by posting it.

The other choices he had (or would have in our current way of doing business) are borrowing money on a credit card or similar, working part time flipping burgers, or working a temp job. I've done all three myself to make ends meet and worked during school in order that I would have options once I got out.

Point being is that there are choices available beyond the dole and his story makes it sound like there aren't. In his mind, it's either the dole or the street.

In my mind, social insurance is a good thing, but it's a tough sell for me to accept that somebody gets social insurance gratis. For instance, it doesn't appear that Laz paid into the unemployment insurance scheme, but gained a benefit. He seems to be making the argument that it is a good bet on society's part that he will "repay" the debt he has incurred by this action. This does have some merit, but it creates inequities for those who availed themselves of the other choices out there.

Btw, I think the "coersion" argument is bogus, but does contain a kernel of truth. When there are private solutions to social problems, they should be looked at first. I'm very open to the government encouraging good solutions, however. For instance, I am all for the government providing student loan guarantees to private lenders. Or by creating a public/private partnership that buys home loans of a certain type and then repackages them for sale in the private markets.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I have a right to my life, my time, and the products of my time. I have a right to do everything which does not impede the rights of others. This is derived from the nature of man. In order to survive, he must obtain certain things. In order to obtain these things, he must be free from the shackles of other men. What right do YOU have to my life, my time, and the products of my time? Please make an argument for this. Please please do.

Man is a social animal, not a solitary animal. His rights are derived from society, and in reciprocation he has a responsibility towards society. He is not completely subservient to this society, hence he has the right (even the obligation) to attempt to make this society as just as possible if he considers it to be unjust, but in order to survive he must be capable of functioning within society and thus must uphold his responsibilities towards society. I personally don't have the right to make you contribute to me since you don't derive your rights from me and as a result you don't have a reciprocal responsibility to me, but society does have the right to expect you to contribute for the benefit of society (in the form of taxation to effect welfare, in this case, or in the form of a draft as has been brought up in previous "I have rights but no responsibilities" threads). It might not be as easy to live the life of a hermit as it once was (since the world is much more populated than it once was and lonely mountaintops are harder to come by), but if somebody insists that their rights be upheld yet shirks their responsibilities then they might be happier as a hermit on a lonely mountaintop somewhere -- they're not capable of reciprocating with the society from which their rights are derived, so they're not capable of fully functioning within the society.

I have a right to the products of my life and my time. I can choose to give them up voluntarily, but when they are forced from me with the threat of jail, my rights have been violated.

You have a right to a part of these products, but without a stable, functioning society you would have no products whatsoever -- if the systems of law, commerce, etc. break down because everybody refused to meet their responsibilities towards society, then everybody suffers as a result. Hence, society charges a "user-fee" for the privilege of living in a greater level of safety and freedom than would exist without society.

Good for you. Maybe you aren't as financially strained as I am. If that's the case, I'm happy for you.

I've technically been unemployed since May due to the crappy job market, but I make ends meet by patching lawns and building retaining walls. Fortunately, there's a decent market for retaining walls since everybody around here lives on a hill.

And maybe you don't have a "perfect sense of right and wrong" like I do. In which case, I feel very bad indeed for you.

What do you mean that you have a "perfect sense of right and wrong"? If you're claiming that you've somehow developed an infallible moral system, then I call bull****.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Umm... that's pretty simple-- not having any collectively-owned property.

Really? None? So, how would you divide up the rivers? And how would cities get built when there are only private roads? And who would build the sewers? Would we need to install meters on our toilets? What about armies? How do we figure out how to get an army to just protect those who are paying for it? And the air - how do we divide up the air space for use by planes? How about the electromagnetic spectrum? How do we figure out who owns which part?

Well, good thing you've got a simple answer.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by loinburger
Man is a social animal, not a solitary animal. His rights are derived from society, and in reciprocation he has a responsibility towards society.

Wow. Wow wow. I am amazed. I am shocked, and amazed.

Are you saying that man can't live without others? Is that what you're saying? I just want to make absolutely sure that that's what you're saying.

Maybe YOU can't, but I can. I don't want to. I prefer the system of division of labors. I prefer to be able to do one thing in voluntary exchange for the products of others. But I don't NEED anyone else to survive, past childhood. I don't NEED anyone to grant me rights. All I NEED is for society to leave my rights alone.

He is not completely subservient to this society,

Bull****. That's what you think, and you can at least be honest and frank about it. Don't be half-***ed about it. There's nothing I hate more than a half-***.

hence he has the right (even the obligation) to attempt to make this society as just as possible if he considers it to be unjust,

What authority does any one man have in the face of society? Properly, we should all slink back and go eat some cheerios.

but in order to survive he must be capable of functioning within society and thus must uphold his responsibilities towards society.

But what if you're living on the products of others? You're not doing a very good job of "upholding your responsibilities towards society," are you. Bad boy.... bad bad boy.... What if you live your whole life without ever contributing a damn thing toward your fellow man while living off of him? Hmm? Those people are bad, aren't they? But they're oh so rewarded under your plan, aren't they?

I personally don't have the right to make you contribute to me since you don't derive your rights from me

That's right. And society is just a group of individuals. I don't understand how you can fail to see this.

in the form of a draft as has been brought up in previous "I have rights but no responsibilities" threads).

The problem with a draft is that it or may not have anything to do with me or my country. It may just have to do with a personal vendetta of a man in power. Or the ignorant philosophy of a bunch of people in power. Do you think every country that has ever fought in any war was right to do so? Of course, this can't be, because how can two countries fighting against each other both be right? But both countries have a right to force its citizens to fight for it, right? The logic is stunning.

It might not be as easy to live the life of a hermit as it once was (since the world is much more populated than it once was and lonely mountaintops are harder to come by),

It's not, but not for that reason. It's not easy because of the pesky governments that exist over the face of the entire world.

You have a right to a part of these products, but without a stable, functioning society you would have no products whatsoever --

Bull. In a simplistic example, what if I buy a piece of land (or find, if we're talking about old times) with some naturally growing orange trees on it, and I use those trees to create an orange grover by planting and cultivating, protecting it from predators, etc. If these trees grew naturally (because that's how they started growing, right?) how did I need anyone else to do this?

greater safety and freedom than would exist without society.

Freedom is just not what you think it is. Your society plan is not about freedom. It is about not having any freedom whatsoever.

I don't need anyone to grant me rights. Rights aren't granted. They exist. Sometimes people take them away from other people. They never give them to them. They just stop taking them away.

I've technically been unemployed since May due to the crappy job market,

Everything is always something else's fault to people like you. It's quite amusing, but sad, really.

What do you mean that you have a "perfect sense of right and wrong"? If you're claiming that you've somehow developed an infallible moral system, then I call bull****.

Oh, it's just a quote from Hannibal that I particularly liked. My moral system isn't perfect. But it is good. And it's damn good compared to yours.

[David Floyd]

Man is a social animal, not a solitary animal.

I'm with you so far...

His rights are derived from society, and in reciprocation he has a responsibility towards society.

So, then, in the absence of society, your assertion is that man has no rights at all? Further, you seem to be implying that one's basic rights can differ, based upon the subjective whim of the leaders of whichever society he happens to be in. Correct? Just to clarify your position, of course...

He is not completely subservient to this society, hence he has the right (even the obligation) to attempt to make this society as just as possible if he considers it to be unjust, but in order to survive he must be capable of functioning within society and thus must uphold his responsibilities towards society.

OK, now you're being fairly unclear. I would take the same position - that one should attempt to rectify injustice, and that one must be able to function within society and uphold his responsibilities towards society. Trouble is, I think we would define "function" and "responsibilities" differently. I would define one's function and responsibilities to simply be not to infringe upon the rights of others. Can you clarify your definition for us?

I personally don't have the right to make you contribute to me since you don't derive your rights from me and as a result you don't have a reciprocal responsibility to me, but society does have the right to expect you to contribute for the benefit of society

This brings up the obvious counter-argument that slavery could be said to function to the benefit of society. Granted, slavery is a bit of a strawman (and there are numerous other examples I could bring up), but the point is, where would you draw the line? Who defines what is necessary for society, or what is beneficial?

It might not be as easy to live the life of a hermit as it once was (since the world is much more populated than it once was and lonely mountaintops are harder to come by), but if somebody insists that their rights be upheld yet shirks their responsibilities then they might be happier as a hermit on a lonely mountaintop somewhere -- they're not capable of reciprocating with the society from which their rights are derived, so they're not capable of fully functioning within the society.

Again, I would agree with you to a large extent, based on your wording and unclarity. If one does not act appropriately within society - that is, if they violate the rights of others - they should not be within the society. That's why we invented prison.

I know what your general position on this stuff is, but really, you're not giving anyone much to respond to, and you're making some statements that are hard to disagree with, because you aren't properly defining your positions.

Go ahead and do that, and then we can go from there.

You have a right to a part of these products, but without a stable, functioning society you would have no products whatsoever...Hence, society charges a "user-fee" for the privilege of living in a greater level of safety and freedom than would exist without society.

Now this isn't true at all. Without a society, one can certainly produce goods, and one can even produce services to sell or trade to others. The point of a society (well, one of the points, the main point being the protection of rights) is to maximize potential wealth, based on the argument that the total is greater than the sum of its parts. 10 people working independently will tend to be less productive than 10 people working together, basically.

So in that way, one is already deriving all the benefit they are entitled to. Entering into a society and making voluntary agreements to work with others in order to maximize wealth does not mean that you are obligated to some other ill-defined, arbitrary, and subjective "responsibilities", in order to give others extra benefits.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by - Groucho -
Really? None? So, how would you divide up the rivers? And how would cities get built when there are only private roads? And who would build the sewers? Would we need to install meters on our toilets? What about armies? How do we figure out how to get an army to just protect those who are paying for it? And the air - how do we divide up the air space for use by planes? How about the electromagnetic spectrum? How do we figure out who owns which part?

Well, good thing you've got a simple answer.

Some of these things in no way apply towards your original question. How do we divide up the rivers? I don't know. How did we divide up land, initially? I don't know. I wasn't there. What I do know about this is that I should pay for the benefits the people who work the river provide. The water doesn't magically show up in my sink, someone worked to get it there. I'm sorry, I don't see why any of your examples have to be solved by government. I really don't see why a private company can't be paid to build and maintain sewers. Spectrums and air. I suppose whoever was using them first. Why does the government own them? What exactly did the government do to create the air?

And an army isn't property, by the way, but we can talk about that too. If I own some land, I'd better make damn sure it's protected. If it comes down to it, I defend it myself. Why does an army have to nationwide? What if the country was half the size it is, or one-tenth, or one-millionth?

Look, I'm not an anarchist. But I do think the only proper functions of government are the protection of rights. Since we sometimes need an army to protect our property rights, this is a proper function of government.

I don't know everything about everything. I do know what is right and what is wrong. Some of these things, I don't know very much about. If I took the time to learn some more about them, I'm sure I could answer your questions satisfactorily. But right now, I just don't care about the ****ing electromagnetic spectrum. I really do try to stick to what I know about.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Are you saying that man can't live without others? Is that what you're saying? I just want to make absolutely sure that that's what you're saying.

He can, and people have done so in the past, but man's natural inclination is to socialize with a group (clans, nations, whatever).

Maybe YOU can't, but I can. I don't want to. I prefer the system of division of labors. I prefer to be able to do one thing in voluntary exchange for the products of others. But I don't NEED anyone else to survive, past childhood. I don't NEED anyone to grant me rights. All I NEED is for society to leave my rights alone.

What rights? Where are you getting your rights from? Since you're deriving them from the "nature of man," and since man's natural inclination is to socialize, then your rights are derived from society, not from some sociopathic utopian ideal that doesn't actually exist.

Bull****. That's what you think, and you can at least be honest and frank about it. Don't be half-***ed about it. There's nothing I hate more than a half-***.

So you're claiming that people have never been able to effect change within a society? If not, then why is my claim bull****? If you are claiming that individuals can't have an impact upon society, then you're a fool.

What authority does any one man have in the face of society? Properly, we should all slink back and go eat some cheerios.

Government exists within the context of several higher social structures such as logic, language, and reason, which is how it is possible for a few individuals to claim moral authority over an unjust system of government -- if the government violates the precepts that exist within its social context, then it is morally bankrupt. However, your sociopathic utopian "every man for himself" ideal does not exist within our social context, nor has it even existed (except perhaps among hermits) -- mankind has always gravitated towards social behavior.

But what if you're living on the products of others? You're not doing a very good job of "upholding your responsibilities towards society," are you. Bad boy.... bad bad boy.... What if you live your whole life without ever contributing a damn thing toward your fellow man while living off of him? Hmm? Those people are bad, aren't they? But they're oh so rewarded under your plan, aren't they?

Those who remain permanently on welfare who are capable of working yet never attempt to find a job are not upholding their responsibilities. Those who have been temporarily put out of work (due to a company closing, or layoffs, or whatever have you) but who are seeking employment are not shirking their responsibilities.

That's right. And society is just a group of individuals. I don't understand how you can fail to see this.

Society consists of a group of individuals, but also consists of laws, social structures (in the case of the US this includes armies, school systems, welfare systems, etc.), and other social constructs (such as language). A solitary individual does not have a need for and will not develop a language, f'rinstance -- it takes two or more individuals for such a social construct to be formed.

The problem with a draft is that it or may not have anything to do with me or my country. It may just have to do with a personal vendetta of a man in power. Or the ignorant philosophy of a bunch of people in power. Do you think every country that has ever fought in any war was right to do so? Of course, this can't be, because how can two countries fighting against each other both be right? But both countries have a right to force its citizens to fight for it, right? The logic is stunning.

What's truly stunning is that you came up with such a long-winded strawman in response to such a simple statement on my part. Try responding to what I post, rather than to the words that you put in my mouth.

Bull. In a simplistic example, what if I buy a piece of land (or find, if we're talking about old times) with some naturally growing orange trees on it, and I use those trees to create an orange grover by planting and cultivating, protecting it from predators, etc. If these trees grew naturally (because that's how they started growing, right?) how did I need anyone else to do this?

How are you going to protect this orange grove from bandits who're after your oranges? What will you do when a blight strikes your orange grove, or when an early freeze destroys your crop? How will you supplement your diet (man does not live on oranges alone)? What will you do if you ever fall sick or suffer some temporarily crippling injury? For that matter, what will you do when you become too old and frail to tend the grove by yourself?

Freedom is just not what you think it is. Your society plan is not about freedom. It is about not having any freedom whatsoever.

Absolute freedom is the same as absolute lawlessness, and personally, I'd rather have laws to keep all of the sociopaths in check.

I don't need anyone to grant me rights. Rights aren't granted. They exist. Sometimes people take them away from other people. They never give them to them. They just stop taking them away.

"They exist"? So you believe that there is some Universal Law called "property rights" that's just floating around the cosmos, just waiting for intelligent species to evolve and recognize them? That's cute. The problem is that in order to have such a concept as property you first need two or more individuals ("property" is a meaningless concept if there's only one person in the world), and then you need for these individuals to develop some way to communicate that "this piece of land is mine" and "this rock is yours." Before they even come up with the idea of "property rights" they first come up with social constructs such as language, i.e., without socialization there are no such things as "rights." They don't exist without some form of communication.

Everything is always something else's fault to people like you. It's quite amusing, but sad, really.

The irony is that I wasn't whining (if you really believe that the job market isn't crappy then you're a fool or worse), while you've been whining throughout this entire thread ("Oh boo hoo, the mean old government won't let me behave like a greedy child, life is so unfair"). Psychologists do say that we project our worst traits onto others...

My moral system isn't perfect. But it is good. And it's damn good compared to yours.

I call bull****. Greed and selfishness are by no means "moral," nor is behaving in such an insultingly childish manner as you have been. Or do you have a natural right to insult those who disagree with you?