Which is more important to the US?

[David Floyd]

Seriously -- can you have a democracy that does not protect invidividual rights?

Sure, by the very definition of democracy. If you want a government that may not violate individual rights, you aren't really talking about democracy.

Compared to real non-democratic nations like China, North Korea and Iraq are the democratic ones saints.

I don't care what they're compared to - that's a silly argument. That's like saying that a common murderer is a saint compared to a serial killer. Of course he isn't, one is just worse than the other.

[Wraith]

--"In 1999 Argentina according to the IMF was the model that the nations in development should follow."

Appeal to authority. Too bad this authority does not understand economics. The IMF is notorious for making extremely bad loans, and continuing to do so long beyond the point any reasonable lender would have stopped.

--"If I recall correctly the subsidies are not to inflate the prices, but to make them lower."

You are incorrect. Modern farming methods are highly efficient, and a farmer in the US can be paid not to grow things (it's that supply and demand thing, again, with the government artificially reducing supply, which raises prices).

--"People have to eat, but they can import the food from other countries who make it cheaper, better and without subsidies."

Importation of food makes sense only in certain areas. The long-distance transportaion of fresh foods is actually one of the bigger current problems. We can easily make enough food to feed everyone in the world, the problem is getting it where it needs to be. In most cases it is much more efficient to simply buy relatively local goods.

--"Of course that does not works, and only the state intervention of the Keynes welfare system took the US out of their crisis."

I don't suppose anything I could possibly say would change your mind, and I get really tired of trying to give basic econ lessons, so I shan't bother.

--"After all, Hitler came to power by his own labor."

Heh. He got voted in. Politicians are, by nature, parasitic creatures, not creative ones. This also has everything to do with political power, not economic power.
Your definitions of oppressive in regards to economics, btw, either do not square with mine or are referring to things I would place under protection of rights.

--"education is a RIGHT, not something that have to be BOUGHT or something you have to beg others for"

See, this is where the language problem comes in. Education can never be a right. It requires the active participation from someone else. It requires someone to labor to produce it for you. Rights can only demand that others do not do things to you, they can not demand that others do things for you.

And yes, government can defend rights -- actual rights -- without interferring in the economy.

--"I can safely tell that there is much less inequalities and difference between the richest and the poorest in our European countries than in US."

This entire topic is irrelevant in any case. Economic inequality is not oppression, just reality. Just like strength inequality is not oppression, just reality. Other actions have to happen before oppression can be involved, and that is where government can step in.

--"What the majority wants is because of that by defenition: good, right and the best possible choose."

You must have missed my earlier quote on democracy.
Don't forget that Hitler rose to power and started his Holocaust in a democracy.

Wraith
"I object to power without purpose, and to authority without restraint."
-- Mr Spock

[Akka]

--"Of course that does not works, and only the state intervention of the Keynes welfare system took the US out of their crisis."

I don't suppose anything I could possibly say would change your mind, and I get really tired of trying to give basic econ lessons, so I shan't bother.

Regardless of who's right on the issue, I would just like to say that a bit of modesty be welcome. You do not own absolute economical knowledge, and there is as much economics that support free capitalism that economists that support regulations.

--"After all, Hitler came to power by his own labor."

Heh. He got voted in. Politicians are, by nature, parasitic creatures, not creative ones. This also has everything to do with political power, not economic power.

That's biased. If someone get economic power, you say it's because of his work and he deserve it. If he gets political power, you say he's a parasite. What I see is that both had to provide the same amount of work and needed the same amount of skills. According to the "you can enjoy what you get with your skills and works", there is no difference.

Your definitions of oppressive in regards to economics, btw, either do not square with mine or are referring to things I would place under protection of rights.

I suppose it's a little of both.

--"education is a RIGHT, not something that have to be BOUGHT or something you have to beg others for"

See, this is where the language problem comes in. Education can never be a right. It requires the active participation from someone else. It requires someone to labor to produce it for you. Rights can only demand that others do not do things to you, they can not demand that others do things for you.

Right to live require other to not infringe your rights. It requires a police force to protect you, a government to set laws and enforce them, and it require that anyone finding you in a potentially lethal situation helps you if it does not put him at risks. So this natural right require others to labor for you.

And yes, government can defend rights -- actual rights -- without interferring in the economy.

Here we have completely opposed ideas.

--"I can safely tell that there is much less inequalities and difference between the richest and the poorest in our European countries than in US."

This entire topic is irrelevant in any case. Economic inequality is not oppression, just reality. Just like strength inequality is not oppression, just reality. Other actions have to happen before oppression can be involved, and that is where government can step in.

Political oppression is just reality too. I don't make the difference you do between politics and economics. It's two parallel (parallelic ? Spelling ?) forces that can have harmful or benefic effect depending on the way they are used by people or against people. Hence the need to regulate them properly.

[Wraith]

--" You do not own absolute economical knowledge,"

Nor do I claim to, but I have yet to see an significant amount of economic theory supporting anything other than capitalism stand up to scrutiny.

--"If he gets political power, you say he's a parasite."

Of course, because politics can be nothing but parasitic. This is in the nature of government; all government are parasitic. Period. They do not create. They can prevent, they can police, they can tax, they can spend, but they never have and never will create. That is not what the purpose of government is.

--"Right to live require other to not infringe your rights"

And that is all it requires. To have other people let you alone. It does not reqiure a police force, or a government. You can live without either of them. It most certainly does not require that anyone help you in any way, shape or form.
You have a right to self-defense, so if someone tries to deny you your right to life you can fight them for it. Doesn't mean you'll suceed, but by no means do you require a government to have a right to life. If you are alone on a desert island, you have just as much of a right to life as you do in the continental US.

You are still operating on an incorrect definition of rights. You seem to be having trouble with the fundamental concept as well. The right to life does not imply a guarantee to life, which is what you seem to be assuming.

--"Political oppression is just reality too."

And you completely missed the point I was trying to make. No advantage is in and of itself opressive. If I am smarter than someone else, I am not automatically oppressing them. If I am taller than someone else, I am not automatically opressing them. By the same token, if I am richer, or better connected politically, I am still not automatically opressing anyone. I have to take action to be opressive. I have to lie, cheat, steal, bully, etc. Those are the actions government should curtail, and they have nothing at all to do with whatever strength is being used to do it.

Wraith
"It is not true that life is one damn thing after another - it is one damn thing over and over."
-- Edna St. Vincent Millay

[TCO]

blablabla

[Ecthy]

that's the most blatant, silliest and whatnot piece of yankspam I have ever seen

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--" You do not own absolute economical knowledge,"

Nor do I claim to, but I have yet to see an significant amount of economic theory supporting anything other than capitalism stand up to scrutiny.

Rectification : you have yet to understand the point of view about anything but capitalism. It's not that there is nothing about it, it's just that you disagree with the arguments.

--"If he gets political power, you say he's a parasite."

Of course, because politics can be nothing but parasitic. This is in the nature of government; all government are parasitic. Period. They do not create. They can prevent, they can police, they can tax, they can spend, but they never have and never will create. That is not what the purpose of government is.

Again, it's not because it's your opinion of government that it's a reality. I see the government as much more than parasits.

--"Right to live require other to not infringe your rights"

And that is all it requires. To have other people let you alone. It does not reqiure a police force, or a government. You can live without either of them. It most certainly does not require that anyone help you in any way, shape or form.
You have a right to self-defense, so if someone tries to deny you your right to life you can fight them for it. Doesn't mean you'll suceed, but by no means do you require a government to have a right to life. If you are alone on a desert island, you have just as much of a right to life as you do in the continental US.

That's a completely flawed argument. If nobody is ever able to infringe your rights, then you're living in a perfect world. If you're living in a perfect world, you don't need any governemnt, you don't need police, you don't need justice, as all will always work as it should.
As we don't live in such a world, you NEED police forces to protect the rights, hence you NEED people to work for the police, hence you NEED people to work for you, just as in education.

You are still operating on an incorrect definition of rights. You seem to be having trouble with the fundamental concept as well. The right to life does not imply a guarantee to life, which is what you seem to be assuming.

Again, I've not incorrect definition of rights. I've just a slightly different point of view about them than you have. It does not make me de facto wrong, as last time I checked you were not God himself, holding the Absolute Truth.
Right of life, for me, doesn't just guarantee that nobody will kill you. It also guarantee that if you're bleeding on the ground, dying, and someone pass by, he will HAVE to do something to save you.

--"Political oppression is just reality too."

And you completely missed the point I was trying to make. No advantage is in and of itself opressive. If I am smarter than someone else, I am not automatically oppressing them. If I am taller than someone else, I am not automatically opressing them. By the same token, if I am richer, or better connected politically, I am still not automatically opressing anyone. I have to take action to be opressive. I have to lie, cheat, steal, bully, etc. Those are the actions government should curtail, and they have nothing at all to do with whatever strength is being used to do it.

Ok, I was misunderstanding your point.
To avoid further misunderstanding, I'll try to sum up this :
You agree on the fact that government should prevent oppression from any force whatever the source ; that if someone has an advantage over another one (which it be political advantage, or economical, or being physically stronger, or being smarter) and then take action to make this advantage oppressive, then the government has to prevent this action.
Is it your point ?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
that's the most blatant, silliest and whatnot piece of yankspam I have ever seen

you like it?

[David Floyd]

As we don't live in such a world, you NEED police forces to protect the rights, hence you NEED people to work for the police, hence you NEED people to work for you, just as in education.

Actually you're misunderstanding the role of government - I do not advocate a massive police force that will stop crimes before they happen. Rather, individuals are primarily responsible for initial protection through being armed in whatever manner they choose.
The role of government is to punish violations of individual rights through the use of "retaliatory force", not prevent violations from occurring through the "initiation of force".

Again, I've not incorrect definition of rights.

Yes you do. Get a dictionary and look up the difference between "rights" and "entitlements".

Right of life, for me, doesn't just guarantee that nobody will kill you.

Nor for me. Right to life simply guarantees that it is wrong for someone to kill me, not that it won't necessarily happen.

It also guarantee that if you're bleeding on the ground, dying, and someone pass by, he will HAVE to do something to save you.

OK, what if someone is being violently assaulted, and on the verge of being beaten or stabbed to death - does his right to life trump your right to life, by forcing you to place your life in danger?

Further, you're also missing the other two critical rights - liberty and property. The right to life is pretty meaningless if you don't have the right to act freely in your interest and own property. Forcing one to act in another's interest violates their right to liberty, and one natural right cannot be said to trump another natural right.

[OzzyKP]

I'm amazed at how many threads develop into libertarian vs. communist arguments. The two camps are everywhere. After many years of Marxist ideas existing in the world the Libertarians are starting to build and it seems there will be a major shift in political philosophy in the next century. The two large camps will be Libertarian and Communist and we will duke it out for a while.

It is very interesting thinking of the future of history. I'm glad to know I'm on the right side though

Libertarian Hordes! Charge!

[David Floyd]

The two large camps will be Libertarian and Communist and we will duke it out for a while.

Libertarianism would easily win in the US, no question - and I don't care about the rest of the world!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Libertarianism would easily win in the US, no question - and I don't care about the rest of the world!

Ah, see this is the problem I forsee. Lets say the world does indeed become communist and the US becomes Libertarian. First of all it would be very difficult for us to survive in this system because our ability to trade with foreign nations would be choked. And at the core of Marxist thought is a world revolution, so if the US is the sole resister one could imagine the world wanting to invade and stop our "immoral, corrupt capitolist oppression"

This is the situation that Reagan faced whether imaginary or real. Arguably if the entire world is our enemy even the powerful US military couldn't stand up to them. So someone like Reagan would argue that it would be in our future interest to try and stymy the spread of Communism around the world.

Obviously doing this is directly contrary to the peaceful, non-interventionist ideology of Libertarianism. So it is a troubling conundrum.

I think however the only solution is to truly give a damn about countries around the world, and encouraging Libertarian progress elsewhere. In truth, some places may have more success than we do, look at Costa Rica, their Movmiento Libertario is incredibly successful.

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Actually you're misunderstanding the role of government - I do not advocate a massive police force that will stop crimes before they happen. Rather, individuals are primarily responsible for initial protection through being armed in whatever manner they choose.
The role of government is to punish violations of individual rights through the use of "retaliatory force", not prevent violations from occurring through the "initiation of force".

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I'm just having a different opinion. Again, you free market-fanboys should learn that it's not because you advocate something that this thing is true.

Yes you do. Get a dictionary and look up the difference between "rights" and "entitlements".

Get a dictionnary and look up the word "open-minded". If you can understand the definition, that is.

Nor for me. Right to life simply guarantees that it is wrong for someone to kill me, not that it won't necessarily happen.

Good, it's wrong to kill you. I hope that it will be much of a comfort when you'll be killed. You'll know that your murderer was wrong.

OK, what if someone is being violently assaulted, and on the verge of being beaten or stabbed to death - does his right to life trump your right to life, by forcing you to place your life in danger?

Mine takes precedence. Still, I HAVE to do anything to help this guy without endangering my life - like calling the cops and the hospital.

Further, you're also missing the other two critical rights - liberty and property. The right to life is pretty meaningless if you don't have the right to act freely in your interest and own property. Forcing one to act in another's interest violates their right to liberty, and one natural right cannot be said to trump another natural right.

Doh, it's precisely because I advocate the right of free will that have my ideas. Regulations ensure that everyone can act without interfering too much with the rights of others. Absence of regulation lead to a situation where some got most of the power and can restrain the free will of others.
You disagree on this point. Well, fine, but it does not make me wrong.

[David Floyd]

Ozzy,

This is the situation that Reagan faced whether imaginary or real. Arguably if the entire world is our enemy even the powerful US military couldn't stand up to them.

3 words - Mutual Assured Destruction. Our nuclear shield, along with a possible ABM system, and the rest of the world couldn't do much.

[Akka]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I'm amazed at how many threads develop into libertarian vs. communist arguments. The two camps are everywhere. After many years of Marxist ideas existing in the world the Libertarians are starting to build and it seems there will be a major shift in political philosophy in the next century. The two large camps will be Libertarian and Communist and we will duke it out for a while.

It is very interesting thinking of the future of history. I'm glad to know I'm on the right side though

Libertarian Hordes! Charge!

Ozzy... You proved in another thread that you were a complete ignorant about things outside the US...
Still, you DO KNOW that there is something in-between communism and free capitalism ?
You know that world is not black and white and that there is some grey areas ?

Do you ?

[David Floyd]

Akka,

I'm not misunderstanding anything, I'm just having a different opinion. Again, you free market-fanboys should learn that it's not because you advocate something that this thing is true.

You are misunderstanding in that your criticisms are based upon incorrect assumptions and definitions.

Get a dictionnary and look up the word "open-minded". If you can understand the definition, that is.

Fair enough, but my point remains.

Good, it's wrong to kill you. I hope that it will be much of a comfort when you'll be killed. You'll know that your murderer was wrong.

So you claim that moral high-ground is irrelevant?

Still, I HAVE to do anything to help this guy without endangering my life - like calling the cops and the hospital.

You certainly should do that, as a decent human being, but laws that force one to do so violate liberty.

Absence of regulation lead to a situation where some got most of the power and can restrain the free will of others.

This is one of your incorrect assumptions. No one is advocating a system where the rich can oppress or restrain the poor. Again, government's only just function is to protect individual rights through the use of "retaliatory force" against those who violate them.

You disagree on this point. Well, fine, but it does not make me wrong.

No, my word on the subject doesn't necessarily make you wrong. Doesn't mean you're right, though

[Plan Austral]

I have a question to the libertarians.
Do you think that a sociaty as you portray it, with an absolute and totally free market with no state intervention is possible or is it just an utopia like communism?

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Akka,

You are misunderstanding in that your criticisms are based upon incorrect assumptions and definitions.

Fair enough, but my point remains.

I don't have an english dictionnary right now, so I can't have a look at the exact english definition. Still, I don't think that it's the problem, as it seems rather to be the consequence of these rights rather than their definition.

So you claim that moral high-ground is irrelevant?

I claim that saying "this is wrong" won't do anything. The moral ground is extremely important. In fact, it's the absolute basis. Still, a right that anyone can infringe is useless. The reason of existence of laws, police, government and the like is to protect these rights.

You certainly should do that, as a decent human being, but laws that force one to do so violate liberty.

That's where we differ.

This is one of your incorrect assumptions. No one is advocating a system where the rich can oppress or restrain the poor. Again, government's only just function is to protect individual rights through the use of "retaliatory force" against those who violate them.

It's not incorrect. You have no problem accepting that communism end in dictatorship. Still, you refuse to see that free capitalism ends in a monstruous society filled with inequalities and where free will only exist in theory.

[David Floyd]

Still, I don't think that it's the problem, as it seems rather to be the consequence of these rights rather than their definition.

No, the problem is your continued use of "rights" to encompass both rights and entitlements.

Still, a right that anyone can infringe is useless. The reason of existence of laws, police, government and the like is to protect these rights.

In today's society, anyone can walk up and kill you, and more than likely no one will be in a position to defend you except yourself, so I'm not sure I see your point.

That's where we differ.

Agreed.

Still, you refuse to see that free capitalism ends in a monstruous society filled with inequalities and where free will only exist in theory.

You have yet to establish how economic inequality is incompatible with freedom.

[Wraith]

--"you have yet to understand the point of view about anything but capitalism."

No, I understand their points perfectly well, which is one of the reasons I disagree with them so. Nevertheless, my personal feelings aside, the only economies that work are the capitalistic ones. The more capitalistic they are, the better they function. The entirety of history is my example.

--"I see the government as much more than parasits."

It is a parasite in the most technical sense. It does not exist in and of itself, it cannot exist without a host (its citizens), it does no productive work (government agencies do not make a profit, that's not their point). A just government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, but even a just government is still a parasite.

--"That's a completely flawed argument"

Your argument is the completely nonsensical one. Just because someone can violate your right does not mean that you do not have it. It also does not mean that you need someone else to hand it to you, or that someone else will (or should) protect it for you.

--"Right of life, for me, doesn't just guarantee that nobody will kill you."

Once again you demand that someone else work for your benefit. Again, this is slavery. Under your system anyone in the world can be your slave under some circumstances. Well, I want no slave, and I have even less desire to be one.

--"Is it your point ?"

Yes.

--"Do you think that a sociaty as you portray it, with an absolute and totally free market with no state intervention is possible or is it just an utopia like communism?"

It's certainly not utopian. We don't claim it would be perfect, just that this is the system that offers the most freedom possible to everyone. Any other system is to some degree slavery, and we see no reason to have or be slaves.

--"Still, a right that anyone can infringe is useless."

This is the topper.
Okay, I will carry this argument with you no further until you have familiarized yourself with Rands works a bit. Until you understand the concept of rights this can go nowhere.

--"Still, you refuse to see that free capitalism ends in a monstruous society filled with inequalities"

On the contrary. I know there will be inequalities. I just do not find them objectionable, any more than I do the idea that some people are stronger than I am, or have longer hair, or can run faster, etc.

Freedom has nothing to do with equality of outcome. This is one of the biggest mistakes a communists and socialists tend to make. All equality of outcome can do is drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Freedom lies in equality of opportunity and equality before the law.

Wraith
"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
-- Ayn Rand

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Ozzy... You proved in another thread that you were a complete ignorant about things outside the US...
Still, you DO KNOW that there is something in-between communism and free capitalism ?
You know that world is not black and white and that there is some grey areas ?

Do you ?

Must you paronize me? I wasn't even making an argument in this thread, why must you seek enemies immediately? Where did I say that the only two systems that would exist would be absolute comunism and absolute libertarianism? My point was just that the two political philosophies that are building up the greatest interest in the world are these two, and in the next century the political philosophical spectrum will be based upon this conflict of base assumptions.

Surely there will be lots of grey area, i never implied otherwise. But the two driving philosophys that will pull at the center of politics will be libertarianism and communism.

[TCO]

We need a smiley that looks like a spam grenade. That's what I want to do to this tired old topic.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"you have yet to understand the point of view about anything but capitalism."

No, I understand their points perfectly well, which is one of the reasons I disagree with them so. Nevertheless, my personal feelings aside, the only economies that work are the capitalistic ones. The more capitalistic they are, the better they function. The entirety of history is my example.

I do agree with this. But it's not because economics function better that people do live better. Autocratic governments works a lot better in many cases than democratic ones, I won't say that an autocratic dictatorship is better though.

--"I see the government as much more than parasits."

It is a parasite in the most technical sense. It does not exist in and of itself, it cannot exist without a host (its citizens), it does no productive work (government agencies do not make a profit, that's not their point). A just government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, but even a just government is still a parasite.

You're twice wrong.
First, a government does produce something. It's called service, just like the guy who is paid to patrol the factory in the night and is paid for this. The difference is just that the government work with the objective of not making any benefit.
Second, a parasit live upon his host in a hampering way and bring him nothing. A government live upon his host (the society), but do provide services. Hence it's not parasital, it's symbiotic.

--"That's a completely flawed argument"

Your argument is the completely nonsensical one. Just because someone can violate your right does not mean that you do not have it. It also does not mean that you need someone else to hand it to you, or that someone else will (or should) protect it for you.

This is nonsense. On one hand you say that the only work of the government is to enforce the natural rights of people (which require police, hence require someone work to enforce rights of others), and on the other hand you say that nobody is required to enforce your rights.
Get some consistency.

--"Right of life, for me, doesn't just guarantee that nobody will kill you."

Once again you demand that someone else work for your benefit. Again, this is slavery. Under your system anyone in the world can be your slave under some circumstances. Well, I want no slave, and I have even less desire to be one.

Same as above. If you don't have a government, you have anarchy, and rights can be infringed freely. If you have one, then there is de facto some people that would work to protect you, hence that would be, according to your definition, "slaves".

--"Is it your point ?"

Yes.

--"Do you think that a sociaty as you portray it, with an absolute and totally free market with no state intervention is possible or is it just an utopia like communism?"

It's certainly not utopian. We don't claim it would be perfect, just that this is the system that offers the most freedom possible to everyone. Any other system is to some degree slavery, and we see no reason to have or be slaves.

What amazes me is the fact that you see a pure free capitalist as a society that give most freedom, while it's the society that removes it the most. Without education, nobody can have free will. Knowledge is the basis of being able to make responsible decisions. If you remove people the right to get an education, you remove them the right to have a free will, in effect if not in theory.

--"Still, a right that anyone can infringe is useless."

This is the topper.
Okay, I will carry this argument with you no further until you have familiarized yourself with Rands works a bit. Until you understand the concept of rights this can go nowhere.

Listen, I don't need to read Rand. Either you're able to explain and defend your opinions either you can't.
A right that is not enforced exists, but if nothing enforce it, then basically we have anarchy. By its very essence, a right should be enforced. Or else you ask for a rightless society.

--"Still, you refuse to see that free capitalism ends in a monstruous society filled with inequalities"

On the contrary. I know there will be inequalities. I just do not find them objectionable, any more than I do the idea that some people are stronger than I am, or have longer hair, or can run faster, etc.

Freedom has nothing to do with equality of outcome. This is one of the biggest mistakes a communists and socialists tend to make. All equality of outcome can do is drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Freedom lies in equality of opportunity and equality before the law.

It's not equality of outcome, it's equality at the start. The goal of socio-democrat politics is a place where everyone STARTS at the same place in the society, and then live his life as he wants.
Read carefully : starts at the same place IN THE SOCIETY. It's not like asking them to be equal in all ways. But it's like a run, where everyone is put on the same start line. We don't want to see people starting with a 10 metres advance on others.

[Akka]

No, the problem is your continued use of "rights" to encompass both rights and entitlements.

Well, let's see :

right (noun) : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper

Based on this definition, what is good, just, proper is a right. Letting someone dying without doing anything is something that is not good nor just. Still, you call it a right. Either your dictionnary gives another definition of right than mine and one of them is wrong, either you are shooting yourself in the foot.

In today's society, anyone can walk up and kill you, and more than likely no one will be in a position to defend you except yourself, so I'm not sure I see your point.

In today's society, I know that if someone try to walk up and kill me, I am supposed to have anyone in sight trying to help me. True, the reality can be different because of the usual cowardice of people, or if the danger is big. But still, I know that I've the right to not be attacked.

You have yet to establish how economic inequality is incompatible with freedom.

Economics inequality in itself is not incompatible with freedom.
Free capitalism is, because of the insane amount of influence over society it puts in the hands of a few.
What you guys fail to see is that economic power shape the society. It takes just some few powerful individual to shape the society according their will. Doing this, they infringe the free will of others, who now have to deal with a society which shape is different that the one they wanted. Why this few guys at the top should have the power to impose their vision of society despite the opinion of others ?

[OzzyKP]

What amazes me is the fact that you see a pure free capitalist as a society that give most freedom, while it's the society that removes it the most. Without education, nobody can have free will. Knowledge is the basis of being able to make responsible decisions. If you remove people the right to get an education, you remove them the right to have a free will, in effect if not in theory.

Ok, i've got a few comments on this. First of all, why do you think that one can only have a free will if they are educated? So do we assume that people with out formal schooling do not have free will, and thus their rights or freedoms shouldn't be respected any more than other objects without free will (rocks, animals some would argue). The statement that education = free will sounds very elitist.

I may have missed the comment, but who said anything about taking away a right to education? I'm sure the Libertarians in this tread belief very strongly in the importance of an education.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you would say that people have a right to a compulsory public education system. If this is indeed your point I think your statements are rather dangerous. It is circular to say that one must be forced to go to school to have free-will. It sounds like a statement from 1984. Soon you will have us professing our love for Big Brother.

You can't take away someone's free will (compulsory schooling) to grant them free will, it just doesn't make sense.

Also, why are state schools the only way to get educated? Certainly they aren't. I strongly encourage you to look into homeschooling, and more importantly unschooling read the work of John Holt.

Humans inately thirst for knowledge and are curious about their world, especially children. They no more need a government to force them to learn then they need the government to force them to eat or sleep. If you look into the work of John Taylor Gatto you will see proof that forced government schooling does more to stop education and stifling learning than any postive effects.

I for one am very concerned with education, this is why I have dropped out of school.

[OzzyKP]

Based on this definition, what is good, just, proper is a right. Letting someone dying without doing anything is something that is not good nor just. Still, you call it a right. Either your dictionnary gives another definition of right than mine and one of them is wrong, either you are shooting yourself in the foot.

You are absolutely correct. Letting someone die without doing anything is not good nor just. I agree. Everything in our power must be done to help our our fellow man. We all must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick. I absolutely agree.

Now, can you also agree that it is not right to force any individual to do something against their will? Do you agree that we are all owners of ourselves and that all initiation of force is immoral?

I absolutely agree with you that humans have a moral obligation to help out our fellow man. However when you force a person to help against their will, then you violate them as a person and that is immoral.

[Wraith]

--"But it's not because economics function better that people do live better."

You must have missed one of my earlier taglines. Let me repeat it here.

"Electric lighting is no great boon to anyone who has money enough to buy a sufficient number of candles and to pay servants to attend them.... The capitalist achievement does not typically consist of providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort."
-- (Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy, P. 67)

Capitalism certainly is a major reason people live better.

--"First, a government does produce something. It's called service,"

It's only a service if it's optional. You can not choose not to pay for their service. This makes it extortion, and on a functional level this is much closer to parasitism than symbiosis.

--"Get some consistency."

I am perfectly consistent, you are just missing a major part of my argument. You seem to believe that government is some natural creation that sprang into full existence the moment humans did. This is not the case. People created government (especially in the US, where it was quite explicitly laid out) in order to protect their rights. That is the one just function of government, to act as our self-defense by proxy when we are unable to do it ourselves.
What's really giving you problems is that you're context dropping my statements. The "people" I was talking about were not government officials. By your example, we were talking about any random passerby that happened to notice you.
I will also add that, in a just government, no one is forced to work for the government. That means the people protecting other peoples' rights are doing so voluntarily, they are not being forced to. This is a very important point.

--"If you have one, then there is de facto some people that would work to protect you, hence that would be, according to your definition, "slaves"."

You're missing the whole voluntary point. Being paid wages for a job you willingly take is not slavery. Being forced to work for someone else's benefit against your will is.

--"Without education, nobody can have free will."

Free will has nothing to do with education. You can make your own decisions regardless of how educated you are. Granted, they're more likely to be bad decisions (at least in some areas, since I've known some very stupid but highly educated folks), but that's irrelevant to the existence of free will.

--"If you remove people the right to get an education"

Once again, this can not be a right. I don't know what dictionary you pulled the definition from, but it is flat out wrong. The fact that a majority of politicans and journalists have spent decades willingly destroying the language does not change the fact that they are incorrect in their usages.

If you insist on arguing with me, you will have to acknowledge that I argue from a position of negative rights. The only burden a right can impose on others it he burden of not doing something.

--"By its very essence, a right should be enforced"

Which is fundamentally the duty of the individual who's rights are in question. No one else will always be there to do it.

--"It's not equality of outcome, it's equality at the start."

That is not what you were complaining about. You were simply complaining about economic inequality, a blanket statement, nothing else. Why did you suddenly shift your position?

--"Read carefully : starts at the same place IN THE SOCIETY"

You've already seen my opinion of "society". Why should a kid be denied the best education money can buy just because his parents are rich? Take your own viewpoint and look at it from the other end.
Will the better educated kid have a better chance? Sure, but so what? It doesn't do anything to diminish the chances of the less educated kids, and trust me, education is not everything. Nor is what goes on in the public schools "education". Someone willing to spend time in a library will be better educated that most of those high school graduates.
See, in the end, no matter what the conditions, it's ultimately up to the individual in question to make their own life.

--"Economics inequality in itself is not incompatible with freedom."

How? Your "shape the society" notion is pretty nonsensical. I'd have to say that most of the richest people have done little to nothing to influence the shape of society (which is seperate from government). The real money is in recognizing the shape of society and playing to it.

--"who now have to deal with a society which shape is different that the one they wanted."

So what? The world is not here to be molded to your personal tastes. If someone else likes something you don't, that doesn't infringe on your rights, no matter how many others it is. If there's a new fad to rub blue mud in your bellybutton, but you don't like it, then don't do it. It doesn't do anything to infringe your rights or impede your free will or opress you in any way.

--"I may have missed the comment, but who said anything about taking away a right to education?"

It can't be "taken away" because it doesn't exist. It is an entitlement, not a right.

Wraith
"Society is a cancer of the mind"
-- Serial Experiments: Lain

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"But it's not because economics function better that people do live better."

You must have missed one of my earlier taglines. Let me repeat it here.

"Electric lighting is no great boon to anyone who has money enough to buy a sufficient number of candles and to pay servants to attend them.... The capitalist achievement does not typically consist of providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort."
-- (Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy, P. 67)

Capitalism certainly is a major reason people live better.

I don't deny it. It's why I support capitalism. But I support a REGULATED version of capitalism.

--"First, a government does produce something. It's called service,"

It's only a service if it's optional. You can not choose not to pay for their service. This makes it extortion, and on a functional level this is much closer to parasitism than symbiosis.

I was just pointing to the fact that a government does produce something.
I understand your point of view about the optionnality, though, but you're missing the fact that taxes are de facto something someone agrees to pay. I'll explain this argument in the next paragraph.

--"Get some consistency."

I am perfectly consistent, you are just missing a major part of my argument. You seem to believe that government is some natural creation that sprang into full existence the moment humans did. This is not the case. People created government (especially in the US, where it was quite explicitly laid out) in order to protect their rights. That is the one just function of government, to act as our self-defense by proxy when we are unable to do it ourselves.

A government is an artificial creation made to rule a society someone lives into it.
The society guarantee to the individual that it will provides him basic services (aka, it will protect its rights).
Taxes are basically a way to "buy" the services, by providing the society the means to apply them. If someone does not want to pay for these services, then fine, he can.
But then he can't ask for this society to enforce his rights, as he don't want to do his part of the deal.

What's really giving you problems is that you're context dropping my statements. The "people" I was talking about were not government officials. By your example, we were talking about any random passerby that happened to notice you.
I will also add that, in a just government, no one is forced to work for the government. That means the people protecting other peoples' rights are doing so voluntarily, they are not being forced to. This is a very important point.

--"If you have one, then there is de facto some people that would work to protect you, hence that would be, according to your definition, "slaves"."

You're missing the whole voluntary point. Being paid wages for a job you willingly take is not slavery. Being forced to work for someone else's benefit against your will is.

I suppose that the main difference here is that you don't support positive rights while I do.

--"Without education, nobody can have free will."

Free will has nothing to do with education. You can make your own decisions regardless of how educated you are. Granted, they're more likely to be bad decisions (at least in some areas, since I've known some very stupid but highly educated folks), but that's irrelevant to the existence of free will.

Education does not means intelligence nor stupidity. Education is basically a way to give you knowledge. You can be extremely stupid or extremely intelligent regardless of education. Still, without knowledge, it's plainly impossible to take any true decision. By true decision, I mean a decision that you will make if you fully understand its consequences.
I'm perhaps not very clear, so I'll take a practical example :
You see a small lake, you're thirsty. There is the corpse of an animal in the other side. If you don't know that this corpse polluted the water, you will drink it. But as you have the knowledge that the water is polluted, you won't.
Free will can only exist if you have a full understanding of the consequence of your decision. Removing the possibility to get education is removing the possibility to get a free will.
Now, I'm not against alternative methods to get an education. Homeschooling, self-education, all that is good, as the main point is just to be able to get enough knowledge of the world to be able to have free will. Still, a state-funded educationnal system is a way make the education available to anyone regardless of his wealth, and is a good way to ensure a minimal level of education to anyone.

--"If you remove people the right to get an education"

Once again, this can not be a right. I don't know what dictionary you pulled the definition from, but it is flat out wrong. The fact that a majority of politicans and journalists have spent decades willingly destroying the language does not change the fact that they are incorrect in their usages.

If you insist on arguing with me, you will have to acknowledge that I argue from a position of negative rights. The only burden a right can impose on others it he burden of not doing something.

It depends of the point of view. For me, education IS a right. It's just that you don't consider it to be one. It does still not invalidate that it can be right.
I know that you're supporting negative rights. I do support both negative and positive, as I consider limiting the natural rights to the negative ones only a short-sighted vision.
I admit that there is a threat of twisting a positive right to make it oppression, and that the line between the good use of a positive right and its abuse is thin and blur. Still, I do deeply believe that positive rights bring a deeper sense of responsabilities and ultimately are better than only negative rights.

--"By its very essence, a right should be enforced"

Which is fundamentally the duty of the individual who's rights are in question. No one else will always be there to do it.

I consider that it's a duty for anyone to help to enforce the natural rights of anyone as long as it does not interfere with his own rights. Again, what is difficult to define is the point where helping to enforce the rights of others start to infringe yours.

--"It's not equality of outcome, it's equality at the start."

That is not what you were complaining about. You were simply complaining about economic inequality, a blanket statement, nothing else. Why did you suddenly shift your position?

I did not shifted my position, I talked about another consequence of free capitalism that I consider unjust.

--"Read carefully : starts at the same place IN THE SOCIETY"

You've already seen my opinion of "society". Why should a kid be denied the best education money can buy just because his parents are rich? Take your own viewpoint and look at it from the other end.
Will the better educated kid have a better chance? Sure, but so what? It doesn't do anything to diminish the chances of the less educated kids, and trust me, education is not everything. Nor is what goes on in the public schools "education". Someone willing to spend time in a library will be better educated that most of those high school graduates.
See, in the end, no matter what the conditions, it's ultimately up to the individual in question to make their own life.

I don't consider that someone should have a better chance because his parents are rich. He is not responsible of the actions of his parents, so I don't see why he should have an edge over others because of them.
On the education point, you seem to underestimate a lot its effect and its impact on people.

--"Economics inequality in itself is not incompatible with freedom."

How? Your "shape the society" notion is pretty nonsensical. I'd have to say that most of the richest people have done little to nothing to influence the shape of society (which is seperate from government). The real money is in recognizing the shape of society and playing to it.

Lobbies that can force a government to alter its decision is a very good example of how richest people can shape the society against the will of a bigger number of people. I don't consider that having more money give more rights to decide of the future to people.

--"who now have to deal with a society which shape is different that the one they wanted."

So what? The world is not here to be molded to your personal tastes. If someone else likes something you don't, that doesn't infringe on your rights, no matter how many others it is. If there's a new fad to rub blue mud in your bellybutton, but you don't like it, then don't do it. It doesn't do anything to infringe your rights or impede your free will or opress you in any way.

The point I tried to made is that people were able to change the society just because they had enough money to do so. I don't see why having more money thant someone give you more right to decide about the future.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I don't deny it. It's why I support capitalism. But I support a REGULATED version of capitalism.

Akka, You and I are on the same page here. Ned

[Wraith]

--"I don't deny it. It's why I support capitalism."

But you did deny it, right there in that quote.

--"The society guarantee to the individual that it will provides him basic services (aka, it will protect its rights)."

Here is another area you are mistaken, at least as far as the current US government goes. Supreme Court decisions say that the police have no obligation to protect the citizens of the US. They've just got to catch them afterwards. They've also ruled that there is no "right" to Social Security, that no one will definitely get it. Our current government is not guaranteeing us anything but that we will need to be paying our taxes again next year.

--"If someone does not want to pay for these services, then fine, he can."

He can what? Get arrested and sent to jail, is what.

--"By true decision, I mean a decision that you will make if you fully understand its consequences."

Why do you persist in extending concepts so far beyond the necessary? This is one thing reading some of Rand's work would help.

Rand's Razor: "Concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity"
— the corollary of which is:
"nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity."

Making a decision on incomplete knowledge is still making a decision. Lack of knowledge does not prevent free will, which is a good thing since no one on Earth knows everything (which, by your logic, would mean no one on Earth has free will).

--"and is a good way to ensure a minimal level of education to anyone."

No, it certainly isn't. A lot of what goes on in US public schools is worse than no schooling whatsoever. The standard teaching methods used here are much more suitable for making sure a student will never be able to learn than they are for actually teaching anything.

--"It does still not invalidate that it can be right."

Sure it does, since there are no such things as positive rights.
Rights cannot conflict. That is in their very nature. Positive "rights", as even you admit, can and do conflict. Therefore they cannot be rights.

--"He is not responsible of the actions of his parents,"

So you just want to punish his parents because they're rich, then? I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.

Look, the only way to achieve what you've stated as your goal here is to turn to government run creches. Let the government take the kids away from their parents at birth, stick them in identical cubicles in identical nurseries, raised by identical teachers in identical schools...
See the problem here?

--"On the education point, you seem to underestimate a lot its effect and its impact on people."

Not at all. I just happen to have direct experience with the US public "education" system, which I do not think you do. Things can be much, much worse than you assume.

--"Lobbies that can force a government to alter its decision"

This is an example of corruption in government, not the evils of capitalism.

--"The point I tried to made is that people were able to change the society just because they had enough money to do so"

What people? Lobbyists? I covered that one. Rich people in general? Well, I'd suggest that people like Mel Gibson influence society through their career, not through their money.

Wraith
"I love you cold, unfeeling robot arm."
-- Zim ("Invader Zim")