Single Issue Voter?

[David Floyd]

I'm going to drag you back a bit here. I'm still not clear why you felt uncomfortable about me using my life experiences. Do you think I'm a thief?

That's why I don't like people bringing up personal experiences - I don't WANT to call them thieves

Do you feel uncomfortable about calling me a thief because we've met in real life?

Well, if I intended to call you one, that would make me uncomfortable, yes

Look at it like this:

If I say "The US shouldn't have gotten involved in WW2", and a Jewish person responds by saying "Well, would you prefer that I be dead right now?", that's not really fair to me - it's sort of a loaded question. Of course I don't prefer that he be dead, but I still don't support fighting in WW2.

[Ramo]

So you're saying lying is equivalent to physically hitting?

I still don't see your reasoning. No one is forcing the person to buy whatever product is being sold.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

David- put your balls on the line. You sound like you're ashamed of your views when they're put into practice. If you think I've committed theft then call me a thief.

[David Floyd]

Right, but when one voluntarily engages in commerce, they have a reasonable expectation of good faith in transactions, wouldn't you say?

If someone sells you a pill, that was sold based on their guarantee that the pill would cure cancer, and the pill, in fact, does not cure cancer, and it was sold with the full knowledge of the seller that it would not cure cancer, then all that person has done is to come up with a clever new way of stealing, without using physical violence.

[David Floyd]

David- put your balls on the line. You sound like you're ashamed of your views when they're put into practice.

No, not at all. I would just prefer not to call you a thief.

But, yes, I DO consider taking advantage of social programs to be a form of theft, I just don't think it's very fair to insist that I either call someone a thief to their face or, essentially, slink away without saying anything else.

[Ramo]

Right, but when one voluntarily engages in commerce, they have a reasonable expectation of good faith in transactions, wouldn't you say?

If someone sells you a pill, that was sold based on their guarantee that the pill would cure cancer, and the pill, in fact, does not cure cancer, and it was sold with the full knowledge of the seller that it would not cure cancer, then all that person has done is to come up with a clever new way of stealing, without using physical violence.

I agree completely. I just don't see the objection to it on libertarian grounds.

Why should the "reasonable expectation of good faith" be enforced by the state?

[David Floyd]

Why should the "reasonable expectation of good faith" be enforced by the state?

I just explained why. It is an example of an individual initiating coercion against another individual. That is what government is in place to prevent.

[Ramo]

You made an example to demonstrate why it's bad. Not why it's coercive, as you generally mean the word.

[David Floyd]

It's bad because it's coercive, and it's coercive because....just reread the post!

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by loinburger The concept of "rights" doesn't exist independently of human language, so without having the social construct of language you wouldn't have any rights (since they wouldn't exist).

No, we just wouldn't be able to define them.

Neat. So can I make up some rights too? "I have a right to all of the beer I can drink." Woo-hoo, I'm off to the bar!

Have fun! Don't feel bad when the man who actually owns the beer calls the police because you are violating his property rights.

"Doesn't need" isn't the same as "Isn't benefitting from."

I agree. We do benefit from a society, so long as that society is one in which voluntary exchange is respected. I never said otherwise. In order to benefit from such a society, one must contribute. If I don't "contribute" to the Albertsons down the street, I don't get to benefit from having such a convenient store with all those convenient products. But I don't owe them if they don't give me anything in return. I pay the man who rings up the groceries, the man who stocked them, the man who brought them in his big truck, the man who arranged for the big truck to come, the man who grew or made them, etc... I don't owe my plumber next door neighbor for my groceries. You get what you pay for. Except in socialism.... you get what I pay for and vice versa.

Sure, you could make up all of the rights you wanted then, and nobody would be around to gainsay you.

No, no one would be around to take them away. Which is the only time I don't have them.... when someone takes them away.

Sociopaths aren't necessarily crazy. They're just extremely anti-social, like people who imply that they'd be better off without society.

Read my posts again. I'm quite sure I've said before that it's better to live in society than not. I believe the phrase "division of labors" was used. I don't know, it's there. If I have to keep repeating myself, let's all just go to bed.

You're the sociopath, so I guess that's all settled...

I am? Oh.... that sucks....

He should get a job, or not expect to eat.

Why should he? Everything's taken care of.

Try to put some more words in my mouth, why dontcha. Make up some more ****, since that's clearly the only way you know how to debate.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was doing anything other than carrying out your ideas to conclusions. I think that's OK, don't you? It's better than taking words out of my mouth and ignoring or forgetting what I actually said.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten that you'd automatically assume that you were living in your sociopathic utopia, as opposed to an anarchy in which your orange grove would be up for grabs since one individual would have no means of protecting it against a group of adversaries.

What? How is that at all an answer to what I said? I am not an anarchist. I believe that protection of rights is a legitimate function of government. Can you remember that now?

Okay, so first you say that "there is some Universal Law called 'property rights' that's just floating around the cosmos," then you imply that of course the concept of property exists since humans can communicate (completely missing my point in the process). Are you trying to be obtuse, or does it come naturally?

OK, what I said was a result of intellectual laziness and annoyance. What I should have said was that rights do exist and that language allows us to articulate and protect them.

It's called an "explanation." Look it up, you can learn all sorts of things in the dictionary.

Yes. I don't have a job because of .... (insert something besides myself). It's called a cop-out.

Great, so the fact that there are unskilled labor jobs available means that the economy is fantastic?

No, I'm simply stating that there are jobs to be had. For anyone. Regardless. At least there are here. I can't speak for your socialist paradise.

You really are a fool.

You know, I would think that considering your criticisms of my obnoxiousness and my use of bad debating strategy, you would really want to avoid those pitfalls, so that you could have the high ground. Well, you've lost it, if you really ever had it.

What's even worse is that you're so hung up on throwing around childish ad hominems

that you completely missed my point about rights being language dependent.

You had a point?!!?!??! What the---?!

But seriously... I believe that our rights exist because of our particular nature. I believe that one of the things that makes us different from animals is our complex form of language. Humans did have rights before they were articulated, they just had them taken away easier before that.

You could try participating in a reasonable discussion here, for starters. All you've done so far is make unsubstantiated claims, throw around insults, and put words in other people's mouths.

Oh was that me? Now wait. That's not all I've done!

Try looking up "benevolent" in a dictionary. In mine it says

1. Characterized by or suggestive of doing good.
2. Of, concerned with, or organized for the benefit of charity.

"Charity" (a non-selfish task) is "good," ergo "lack of charity" (selfishness) is "bad." Also try "philanthropy" (attempting to increase the well-being of humankind) and its antonym "misanthropy" (hatred of humankind).

Now, could you please explain how selfishness is moral?

You're using the dictionary as your moral compass? Nice....

I don't know (1.be informed 2. be aware of 3. be aqcuainted with) how to answer (1. reply 2. serve or suit 3. be responsible for) that. It's just so overwhelming (1. covering completely 2. crushing)!

Ah, so since you're allowed to do something, it therefore makes it right for you to do something.

No. The government is allowed to force me to pay taxes, and that's wrong.

The irony is that you claimed to have a superior moral system and disparaged my own, yet you apparently see nothing wrong with selfishness or complete disregard for others.

Selfishness does not equal complete disregard for others. It equals regarding yourself and your interests first. Maybe if everyone regarded his own interests, I wouldn't have to pay for their food stamps.

I have never said that I believe that I shouldn't consider the rights of others in persuit of my interests, and let me state it for the record here: I think it is morally wrong to disregard the rights of others in the persuit of my interests. If I say it twice, will you remember that I said it?

And for the record: I think it's good to help others when you can. I also think it's good to call my parents on their birthdays. And it's good to smile and say, "hi" to passers-by. And it's good to wash the dishes regularly. But do I think these things should be legislated? No. That is the difference.

A winner indeed.

Thanks! I am a winner! And I'm good enough, and I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit, people like me!

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
The "sham" part you're going to have to explain because you lost me there.

You're claiming to be good and better than ("Tandee, you have not had the benefit of this post...") And you're not.

"Thief"? When my actions fail the legal tests at both statutory level, and at the Mens Rea level at Common Law? Nope.

OK, if it helps you sleep at night.

To add more colour to the discussion, those two jobs I mention in my previous post were both government-funded.

Not my fault.

Meaning, of course, that I was actually costing the taxpayers more were I was in work than when I was unemployed.

Why? Were you not carrying out your duties efficiently?

The same would be true if I joined the army.
You were in the army at one point, weren't you? Who paid you?

Yes. And I wasn't a libertarian when I joined the Army. I became one while I was there. And now I'm not in the Army anymore.

And besides (and really, how many times do I have to say this). Protection of rights is a legitimate function of government. If our army was really about protecting our country, I wouldn't have a problem with paying them. Unfortunately...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

And isn't the act of avoiding starving to death during a serious and prolonged economic depression not a right?

[David Floyd]

And isn't the act of avoiding starving to death during a serious and prolonged economic depression not a right?

That depends on how you go about it. You have no right to prolong your life if to do so requires that you violate the rights of another person.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Tandee- you're reading an awful lot of implied insults into a post that didn't contain them. I genuinely think that if you calm down and go back over some ground then this might be more productive. The hostility is looking awfully one-sided here.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That depends on how you go about it. You have no right to prolong your life if to do so requires that you violate the rights of another person.

Two points arise here.

Firstly, I had the right to claim unemployment benefit.

Secondly, I'd happily steal to stop my daughter starving. I'd even kill to "prolong her life". I suspect any father would do the same. Does this make me a bad person?