There is another way out of this, just let your beliefs about the topic alter. That's the value of other minds. It's pretty clear you have been refuted. Don't hold onto the error, move in the direction of the greater truth.

It's what I do.

Every person possess some kind of ideology, the question has to do with the concrete nature of ideology. — JerseyFlight

Maybe in some vague, general sense everyone possesses some ideology or way of viewing the world, but not everyone is equally ideologically possessed.

every quality you possess came from society. — JerseyFlight

Oh really, well thanks for letting me know. I never knew spina bifida or cystic fibrosis came from society. Never knew the amount of fast twitch muscles I had actually came from society. I never knew tongue tie came from society.

For many, me included, it is the fact that a government may force individuals to part with their wealth. — Tzeentch

1. Being a part of a community "forces" people to part with all sorts of things. In isolation, you might be able to do whatever you want all the time. If there are other people around, there must be limitations on that power or everyone will eventually just end up killing one another. This is where systems of law come from - the need to organize humans in groups. That law is encoded in governments, which provide a framework for the behavior of large numbers of individuals, and if they are good governments, they provide all sorts of services that the individual could not achieve by themselves.
2. In order to do this, governments posses two main powers of force. One is taxation, the other is policing. They are each fundamental to government's very existence and its ability to fulfill its promise of providing a working system for large groups to live in.
3. In a complex community, the notion that wealth is held by the individual is a fiction that the group agrees to support to one extent or another. The reality is that without the community as a whole and the government that organizes it, none of these people could accrue wealth in any significant measure at all. Therefore taxation is best understood in the negative - how much does your government let you keep? Ultimately, your actual labor contribution to the wealth you "possess" is quite small, unless you are very poor. Thus, the poor should be able to keep a much higher percentage of their wealth that the rich, and the richer you are, the greater the share that government can and should reasonably take.

The difference being; there's no state that gets to take one's things, to provide one with services one didn't ask for nor wishes to receive. — Tzeentch

Awesome logic. You're so right. Just send me your location and I'll send someone over to murder you and take all your stuff. Of course, you can't even describe your location without the benefit of these services you neither want nor need.

How are you managing to join this forum? The computer you're using, the electricity it runs on, the internet this information is traversing - all completely impossible without the act of government. Without the government you claim to not need, you likely would have died in childbirth, killing your mother along the way. If not, you would probably have been killed by a minor infection, been eaten by wolves, or just starved to death before reaching adulthood. You have already lived way beyond your without-government life expectancy, so if you want to be true to your "values" you should take one of the guns you're undoubtedly stockpiling with your government-given rights and use it on yourself.

You're so right. Just send me your location and I'll send someone over to murder you and take all your stuff. — Pro Hominem

I love to read discussions where people respect each other. :smile:

Ah. So you are not coerced into following the traffic rules. You choose to out of a sense of utility.

You would follow then even if they were not attached to a set of penalties.

Do you like the idea of their being penalties for other folk? Or do you think we should leave it up to other people to decide for themselves the utility of following traffic rules?

Do you support the removal of penalties so that we may each decide how to behave on the road?

Or do you think that we ought coerce other people - not you - into stopping at red lights? — Banno

Come to a point.

Is it that coercion doesn't always produce situations which are highly undesirable?

I never said it did.

What I said is that coercion is something inherently problematic. When we apply that to politics, it results in the position that government is, at best, a necessary evil (, , pay attention next time). Thus I believe government interference in individual's goings-on should be minimalized at every opportunity. A classically liberal (read: not the "modern" use of the word), perhaps libertarian, view.

There is another way out of this, just let your beliefs about the topic alter. That's the value of other minds. It's pretty clear you have been refuted. Don't hold onto the error, move in the direction of the greater truth. — JerseyFlight

You have already lived way beyond your without-government life expectancy, so if you want to be true to your "values" you should take one of the guns you're undoubtedly stockpiling with your government-given rights and use it on yourself. — Pro Hominem

Pathetic.

I love to read discussions where people respect each other. :smile: — Gus Lamarch

This is fairly obviously a tongue in cheek statement to demonstrate how asinine the logical results of his position are. Or perhaps you were referring to the fact that I am wasting my time talking to someone who is obviously deeply committed to their dangerous fantasies and I should respect myself more?

This is fairly obviously a tongue in cheek statement to demonstrate how asinine the logical results of his position are. Or perhaps you were referring to the fact that I am wasting my time talking to someone who is obviously deeply committed to their dangerous fantasies and I should respect myself more? — Pro Hominem

I am saying that using aggressive language will not lead to any conclusion other than some injured egos and - eventually - banishment. You may disagree with ech other, there's nothing wrong there, we are not yet living in times of totalitarianism.

What I said is that coercion is something inherently problematic. When we apply that to politics, it results in the position that government is, at best, a necessary evil (↪JerseyFlight, ↪Pro Hominem, pay attention next time). — Tzeentch

Your conclusion is false. Government is at worst a necessary evil. At best it is a major contributing factor to human happiness. You did get the necessary part, though, so why are you taking the inconsistent position of arguing it should not exist?

Thus I believe government interference in individual's goings-on should be minimalized at every opportunity. — Tzeentch

Ok, so you don't believe in the abolition of government. You recognize it has a critical role to play and you acknowledge that it can only do this through taxation (I realize I'm putting some words in your mouth, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). You like the idea of "small government". But you have shifted your focus from taxation to some as yet undefined sense of individual freedom. I suppose it wouldn't do any good to point out that the US government is probably less involved in people's personal lives than almost any government in history? What is your personal gripe?

A classically liberal (read: not the "modern" use of the word), perhaps libertarian, view. — Tzeentch

"Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions:

- A government to protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market.
- A common national defense to provide protection against foreign invaders.[17]
- Laws to provide protection for citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which included protection of private property, enforcement of contracts and common law.
- Building and maintaining public institutions.
- Public works that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures and building and upkeep of roads, canals, harbors, railways, communications and postal services."

So this is classical liberalism. It is exactly what we have today. You seem to be against much of this though, because the government has to take "your" wealth to do it all. For future reference, you should not misrepresent yourself as a classical liberal. You are not.

"In the mid-20th century, right-libertarian[15][18][22][23] ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opted[8][24] the term libertarian to advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources.[25] The latter is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States,[23] where it advocates civil liberties,[26] natural law,[27] free-market capitalism[28][29] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[30]"

Ah, here you are. The doctrine of "biting the hand that feeds you." Anarcho-capitalism...that sounds a lot like what you're saying. Would you say that term sounds like something pleasant? You might.

Anywho, this where I could go into a long diatribe on the practical and philosophical poverty of libertarianism. How it is self-contradictory and pointedly ignores obvious but inconvenient facts. How no one would actually want to live in the world that it envisions - watch The Running Man sometime and imagine yourself as anyone except Arnold. I could do all this, but you won't listen to any of it. Libertarians expressly avoid taking responsibility for anything, including their own ideas.

You are wrong. About almost everything. Your ideas are dangerous and if they ever become the norm, that society will be hell on Earth. I really wish there were something I could say that would help you and make a difference. Talk to a counselor or something. Unless you really are a sociopath there has to be some way for you to see value in something other than your own selfish interests. Just try.

I am saying that using aggressive language will not lead to any conclusion other than some injured egos and - eventually - banishment. You may disagree with ech other, there's nothing wrong there, we are not yet living in times of totalitarianism. — Gus Lamarch

There is net social utility in adamantly rejecting perverse and dangerous ideologies and being seen doing it. We need to make marginalizing people like this a social norm again. It is possible for people to just be wrong. Every idea does not have equal merit. Some need to be removed root and branch.

This particular formulation is a stain on American life right now. These people are stooges for their corporate overlords who want them to continue to destabilize public discourse and politics so they can continue to rape the populace without intervention. It is on par with Nazism as a backward and exceedingly dangerous anti-human ideology. I will denounce at any and every opportunity.

There is net social utility in adamantly rejecting perverse and dangerous ideologies and being seen doing it. We need to make marginalizing people like this a social norm again. It is possible for people to just be wrong. Every idea does not have equal merit. Some need to be removed root and branch. — Pro Hominem

The problem with expressions like these, is that you are using them in a situation where it is not appropriate to verbally attack another individual simply because you do not agree with them. I repeat, we do not live - yet - in times where "marginalizing people like that should be the norm".

While I understand individuals may have different opinions on the implications of this inherent tension at the center of governance, I find it disconcerting that many cannot even recognize it. — Tzeentch

I find it disingenuous, if not dishonorable, to disguise the simple desire to keep one's possessions from others by platitudes about limiting the power of government. Why not be honest about one's selfishness? My money, my property, my rights--what could be a more self-centered view of our place in the world?

What I said is that coercion is something inherently problematic. When we apply that to politics, it results in the position that government is, at best, a necessary evil (↪JerseyFlight, ↪Pro Hominem, pay attention next time). Thus I believe government interference in individual's goings-on should be minimalized at every opportunity. A classically liberal (read: not the "modern" use of the word), perhaps libertarian, view. — Tzeentch

In a perfect world everyone would be responsible and cooperate for mutual benefit. But it’s not a perfect world and those with an advantage take advantage and typically do whatever it takes to keep their advantage. People also tend to be shortsighted and unwilling to make sacrifices for those outside of their family, friends, tribe, or nation, and much less for people who don’t even exist yet.

Eleanor Roosevelt famously said that with freedom comes responsibility.

I don't know; why are you?

I didn’t address the OP. But for the record my great fathers were a blacksmith and a carpenter, my father a factory worker who escaped the city.

Come to a point — Tzeentch

I did. What you are doing now is special pleading.

I find it disingenuous, if not dishonorable, to disguise the simple desire to keep one's possessions from others by platitudes about limiting the power of government. Why not be honest about one's selfishness? My money, my property, my rights--what could be a more self-centered view of our place in the world? — Ciceronianus the White

I'll bite the bullet on this one. It is my property. It is my rights, and it is my money. These things are hugely important. It's not just about me though - I apply that standard to everyone. And if you don't you're kind of a monster, no offense. If you don't view other people's money, property, or rights seriously then you are at best immature and ignorant and at worst a monster.

This is not only desperation but blind stubbornness. You did not answer Banno's questions, you did not even engage his argument, which amounts to the total negation of your position. This is not the way serious or intelligent thinkers proceed. If he was not making a point, or demonstrated some kind of intellectual incompetence or irrelevancy, then you could attempt a justification at evasion, but this is not the case. He took the premise from your own hand and threw it back in your face... seems you didn't like it very much once it was inverted. Interact with his questions and see what happens to your position.

It is my property. It is my rights, and it is my money. — BitconnectCarlos

My family is all Native American. No lie here, my grandfather was a full blooded warrior. You want to talk about property and rights?

You have a legitimate claim here. I am not dismissing your claim. If the government or the white man or whoever takes your property and violates your rights that is a massive injustice and compensation makes sense. I'll say nothing more about the issue because I don't know the specifics, but I apply my principles universally. Everyone gets held to the same standards.

A very large number of those immigrants commit crimes. Rob and beat people. There are a lot of shootings between criminal gangs. Etnically scandinavian kids do get beaten in school. And still, wealthy, left-leaning ladys call for ”solidarity”. Is that what a upperclass person with left-leaning views are looking for? — Ansiktsburk

I would hate to be in a position to look into the minds of many people and see what they are looking for. But I would venture to say, they are not looking for people beaten up, or raped, or robbed, or killed. They are looking for equality, solidarity, and all kinds of ~ity. But they know the road is long to achieve that, and many things must be laid down for the paving of that road: education, not just formal, but about the human nature. Eradicating illicit drug trade. Eradicating extreme exploitation (slavery). etc.

What I suggest for you to learn how a privileged lady in the upper echelons of society can be motivated to preach tolerance, is to read the book "Les Miserables" in your language, I am sure it's been translated into that from French. In it, a man gets out of prison; wonders down the road, and gets overnight stay in a wealthy man's home. He gets up at night, steals a silver candle-holder, and takes off. The cops get him, take him to the rich old man's house. The rich old man immediately sizes up the situation, and says, "My good man, you forgot to take the other silver candle-holder to go with the one I gifted you with!" And to the bufflement of the cops, they need to release him, and he wonders away now with two silver candle-holders.

Another suggestion for you, seeing your attitude has been established, and i can't change it any way I try, is for you to join the Hitlerjugend that has probably sprung up in your country and you find solace and understanding with your personal views shared by many there.

So it's not about empathy, at the root of it. Honestly speaking, it's about commitment to an idea or a principle. It's about solving an idea. Solving a problem. Lets leave empathy out of it. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think we can leave empathy out of it. Because the idea of caring for the unfortunate ones can only be born out of empathy. There is no other emotional motivation to care for the downtrodden but empathy. Or maybe I am wrong. What other emotional motivation do you think could make one want to bring people out of poverty, in a strict sense, or out of suffering, in a broader sense? Please list them, because I can't think of any, but am willing to hear and learn.

Oh really, well thanks for letting me know. I never knew spina bifida or cystic fibrosis came from society. Never knew the amount of fast twitch muscles I had actually came from society. I never knew tongue tie came from society. — BitconnectCarlos

So you claim that some people among us, with Spina Bifida and/or cystic fibrosis have come from other origins than society. Are they aliens, or self-developed abiogenetic people? Or some are abiogenetic, and others are aliens from outer space? That is the decision you have to make, and then convince us of that theory's truth, if you want us to accept that some properties and qualities of humans today have NOT come from society.

Eleanor Roosevelt famously said that with freedom comes responsibility. — praxis

This is VERY true. It is also true that with slavery comes responsibility, and any position on the slavery-liberty spectrum comes with responsibility.

In fact, one could argue that since responisbibilty is an outcome of a coventant, and freedom is the loss of restrictions, that with freedom one loses his responsibilities.

I think Eleanor Roosevelt was dead on wrong with this statement, from a philosophical point of view.

In fact, I think Americans will believe anything their Presidents have ever said (until DT came along) without any or much analytical thought or criticism.

Eleanor Roosevelt was never an American president.

What responsibilities does a slave have?

You think the fact you recognize other have rights, money and property renders your insistence on having your own rights, money and property unselfish? I don't think that works.

Regardless, unless you find honesty disagreeable, I don't understand why you would object to my suggestion that we should honestly say that we don't want government taking or using our money to help others for what are essentially selfish reasons. Nor do I understand why you think that suggestion makes me a monster.

It's true, of course, that we and our objections to government doing so would in that case seem far less admirable or worthy than some might like, and perhaps even sordid if we have far more money and property than we could need, but that's often the price of honesty; particularly self-honesty. Nor would our honesty in this respect imply that that our money and property are unimportant. They obviously are very important--to us, not to others.

I find it disingenuous, if not dishonorable, to disguise the simple desire to keep one's possessions from others by platitudes about limiting the power of government. Why not be honest about one's selfishness? My money, my property, my rights--what could be a more self-centered view of our place in the world? — Ciceronianus the White

I value freedom. Not wealth necessarily. I know there's no way of getting this message across, because you seem to have already decided I must be a terrible person for having different ideas.

One can be selfless without having to be forced by government.

I'll leave it at that.

Friend, you have already been utterly refuted by Banno. This is not just an opinion, it's a fact. It's why you didn't answer his valid questions.

Friend, you have already been utterly refuted by Banno. This is not just an opinion, it's a fact. It's why you didn't answer his valid questions. — JerseyFlight

You did not answer Banno's questions, you did not even engage his argument, which amounts to the total negation of your position. — JerseyFlight

It's pretty clear you have been refuted. — JerseyFlight

What a swift refutation. :lol: :up: — JerseyFlight

You don't win arguments by repetition.