Trojan horses for Fascism.

[musashi]

.. many political/activist groups are opportunistically using it [global warming] as an excuse to exercise the government's power to micromanage our lives.

The lastest: A proposed California building code which puts your thermostat not under your control, but under the control of power companies..

Back to the original topic…

This is an extension of a program that has been in place for some California businesses for some time. Many businesses elected to participate in exchange for cheaper electricity rates. The businesses agreed to shutter operations during power emergencies; in essence they agreed to be the first users to be browned out.

Of course that program is voluntary, it sounds like now they are trying to expand the program and make it compulsory. I know additional regulation does not appeal.

However, there is nothing stopping each individual consumer from devising their own distributed power generation capacity (ie going of the net). I find it intriguing that several industries are rising up to help us fill this market niche.

So while the government does appear to be expanding and tramping on more rights, we do still have options not to work with the government. The building code expansion is an interesting question…

Should the government have the right to regulate the architectural and construction of your home?

[Arakasi Takeda]

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
I completely disagree with you that HE never saw a good purpose to science. I think his understanding of what science is, and what its value and purpose are, are very clear. I think the issue he was struggling with is that, if humans are irrational, they would not be able to understand the purpose of science. In a way, he's arguing that he's the only one that understands what is really going on.

He takes public funding because, having arrived at the idea that humans are irrational, he ceases to have an reason not to exploit their ignorance. In effect, he is taking their money to protect science from them. The Science Institute is designed as a safe haven to protect the progress of science from the irrational public.

The citations that I make directly reupudiates this view. He represents the rejection of reason for force, not the opposite.

I just disagree with you up to a point Petter - Stadler, to me, spends most of the book as a representation of evasion - he deliberately shuts off his great intellect to avoid responsibility for his actions (taking people's money), because he is acting on a flawed premise.

He _does_ become a full representation of the rejection of reason for force at the point where he publicly endorses Project Xylophone. He ends up getting blown up side by side with an even more obvious symbol of that rejection - Cuffy Meigs - as the book approaches its end.

If you want to argue that he has one and only one interpretation - the one at the end, then so be it. I'm done arguing it. I see his character as multifaceted - Rand uses him to show _how_ a person can go from reason to force via evasion. She shows the evolution of the process through Stadler. I'm more interested in his progress, you are more interested in his destination.

AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Did you instead mean to imply that what the professor was doing was not actually teaching?

I see what you are saying. I don't think they teach well. If it can be considerred work, it would be very crappy work. A premise that I was working off of is the fact that UofL is crappy crappy crappy and because of this, its easy to teach there.

His context was that business men are just looking to take advantage of good 'innocent' programmers.

Capitalism is a value based economic system. I'm merely saying that science can't be taken out of the value for value trade.

[Arakasi Takeda]

We must all be posting at the same time, because I didn't even see these statements:

Quote:
Some of you might plead the excuse of your ignorance, of a limited mind and a limited range. But the damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality, the men who were willing to sell their intelligence into cynical servitude to force: the contemptible breed of those mystics of science who profess a devotion to some sort of 'pure knowledge'—the purity consisting of their claim that such knowledge has no practical purpose on this earth—who reserve their logic for inanimate matter, but believe that the subject of dealing with men requires and deserves no rationality, who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. And since there is no such thing as 'non-practical knowledge' or any sort of 'disinterested' action, since they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on this earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness. Do you hear me, Dr. Robert Stadler?

As far as I understand this passage, his main fault was in seeking a "pure knowledge" divorced from practical purpose. To do this he had to use force, i.e. "taking public money".

We have a difference in emphasis then. To you, the most important line is the 'pure knowledge' one. To me, the most important points are 'the ones who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality' and 'believe that the subject of man requires and deserves no rationality'.

So you are placing emphasis on the force portion of the speech, and my emphasis was on the evasion portion.

As for the passage AT must be thinking of, is at the end of "The Egoist", during the time that Galt is held captive. But the text does not support AT's conclusion. He begins with saying how the looters don't know reason, only force. And then, he had to force them offcourse. But he is helpless against them (here you have the malevolent universe premise), the looters have all the power. Only by tricking them to doing the goods bidding, can the good live. He had no choice. What Galt was asking was impossible.

Quote:
One can't live by logic! Do you hear me? … Don't look at me! You're asking the impossible! Men can't exist your way! You permit no moments of weakness, you don't allow for human frailties or human feelings! What do you want of us? Rationality twenty-four hours a day, with no loophole, no rest, no escape? …

In fact, Galt is the one to blame, not him. And one can just look at what ended up with Galt, because here he is in captive under the brutes. Clearly his principles does not work (thus also revealing his pragmatism, paradoxically enough). Galt has to be destroyed. That is what Stadler is saying.

And in the above you and I have too very different reads on the context of that scene. At no time am I left with the impression that Stadler is 'gloating' here - that he truly thinks Galt is wrong and he is right. Look at the language construction - he's pleading with Galt not to judge him. This is the penultimate moment where Stadler's belief that man is not rational has destroyed him, because at this point he questions whether even _he himself_ can always be rational. For most of the book, Stadler says nothing about the emotions of man. He's only interested in 'inanimate matter'. Why then does he care now? Because his reason has cracked - he's looking for excuses for his behavior. He _knows_ he's failed, and he knows he's a fraud in Galt's eyes, and he's looking for a way out by transferring the fault to Galt.

This is not the speech of a man with force behind him. This is a speech of pure weakness.

AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

I hate replying to my own post, but I think a crystal-clear example is in order. Take a look at this specific part of Stadler's speech in the Egoist:

You permit no moments of weakness, you don't allow for human frailties or human feelings! What do you want of us?

For emphasis, he asks Galt "What do you want?"

A man with force as his justification does not ask the victim "What do you want?" He makes statements, not ask questions.

This sentence specifically explains my understanding of the context of the scene. Stadler is looking for justifications. He's asking what will placate Galt.

Again, if you truly believe that you rule by force, you don't need to justify anything to the victim.

AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

You have to remember the context of the events though. Sure, they had Galt captive, but Galt had more force than them in that situation. They thought Galt was their last hope.

Remember how Thompson was always asking how they can convence him? How Thompson had already told the public that Galt would.

In fact, Galt only had the power _while_ he was captive. If he tried to leave, then they would of shot him (because they would think that there would be no hope anyways, then).

[Petter Sandstad]

We have a difference in emphasis then. To you, the most important line is the 'pure knowledge' one. To me, the most important points are 'the ones who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality' and 'believe that the subject of man requires and deserves no rationality'.

So you are placing emphasis on the force portion of the speech, and my emphasis was on the evasion portion.

I can agree to that. There is an issue of evasion, but that is very general. The practical-theoretical dichotomy however is the particular error. And as you to place emphasis on the difference between the subject of man not requiring rationality, while inanimate matter does. The first result of this dichotomy is science divorced from practical results.

And in the above you and I have too very different reads on the context of that scene. At no time am I left with the impression that Stadler is 'gloating' here - that he truly thinks Galt is wrong and he is right. Look at the language construction - he's pleading with Galt not to judge him. This is the penultimate moment where Stadler's belief that man is not rational has destroyed him, because at this point he questions whether even _he himself_ can always be rational. For most of the book, Stadler says nothing about the emotions of man. He's only interested in 'inanimate matter'. Why then does he care now? Because his reason has cracked - he's looking for excuses for his behavior. He _knows_ he's failed, and he knows he's a fraud in Galt's eyes, and he's looking for a way out by transferring the fault to Galt.

This is not the speech of a man with force behind him. This is a speech of pure weakness.

AT

To some degree I agree with you. Stadler is trying to get Galt to forgive him. He sees himself as being controlled by the looters, instead of him controlling them. Due to this he is weak. And I think that he would not want Galt to be held captive, but there is nothing he can do about it.

But I do not agree that Stadler here questions himself as rational. What he questions is being rational in human concerns; there emotions should be in control. There is no opposition between this view and the earlier Stadler. Again it is the dichotomy between the theoretical and the practical.

[Arakasi Takeda]

So while the government does appear to be expanding and tramping on more rights, we do still have options not to work with the government.

At the risk of sounding ridiculously repetitive - what is this 'government' you speak off? Did some alien robot drop down out of space and start taking over?

Don't you mean that 'your fellow individual citizens' are expaning and trampling more rights? The government didn't just pop into existence - it is a construction of the individual citizens in that state, all of whom voted for members of that body. If those politicians vanished tomorrow 'government' wouldn't be able to do _anything_. It has no volition (or even existence) of its own.

By having options to 'not work with government', you really mean 'having options to not work with my fellow citizens, in whom I have invested the power of the sole monopoly of force, through the act of voting - which is itself an act of my own volition.'

Your question is then - "Should my fellow individual citizens, in whom I have invested the sole monopoly of force, have a right (freedom to act) to regulate the architecture and construction of my home?"

You might see it as nitpicky - I see it as germaine to answering the question. Talking about government is talking about a hammer - the tool couldn't decide whether or not it had any rights at all, because it has no volition. The question of whether or not 'individual citizens whom you have entrusted with the sole monopoly of force' has any rights in the [p]proper[/u] question to ask.

On one hand, they are one individual attempting to trample on your individual rights - something I assume we would all philosophically oppose.

On the other hand - you have invested those same people with the sole authority to use force. Thus, if they wanted, they could utilize that force to demand compliance. Again, probably not morally justified in this case - but there are consequences to resisting force which you must be prepared to pay.

If you think that you have mistakenly given this monopoly of force to the wrong people, then realize that these laws are the result of your own mistake, and the mistake of all those who voted for them. (If you voted against them - well then - blame your idiot neighbors ). Use that knowledge to vote for the correct people next time.

Shifting responsibility to a non-volitional tool justifies others doing the same thing in the future. Place the responsibility back squarely on the individuals voting for and composing the tool, then you will get some accountability back.

AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

First of all, AT, this is why I asked you what reason is.

Government is a concept. A concept works as a mental space saver, so I will say 'government' instead of saying 10 different premise concepts at once everytime.

But assuming you are saying that one of his premises were wrong...

On the other hand - you have invested those same people with the sole authority to use force.

I do not believe I have done such. I never thought that majority whim should rule. Can you explain how me voting is me accepting majority rule? I don't accept the idea and I don't change my actions or thought just because of it (unless it has to do with my safety). Are you saying it is _my_ fault? Thats blaming the victim. "Well you voted so you accepted democracy".

This country was created to have a constitution that regulated the rulers. The rulers were suppose to uphold the constitution and not go past it. And the people were meant to pick who enforces the constitution. Just because the American government got corrupted down the road sometime, does not put the burden of blame on me.

[Arakasi Takeda]

First of all, AT, this is why I asked you what reason is.

Government is a concept. A concept works as a mental space saver, so I will say 'government' instead of saying 10 different premise concepts at once everytime

My argument is that your 'mental space saver' might not fully contain the necessary conception that it should to be able to properly use it and, if it doesn't, then any use of that flawed concept creates faults in your logic.

Provided you truly understand that government is just a tool and that the real source of its actions are the individual's composing it, you are okay. In my opinion, there is far too much blaming of government as if it were some kind of organism in an off itself, independent of the actions of those who make it up. This is, to me, a mistake in reasoning.

I do not believe I have done such. I never thought that majority whim should rule. Can you explain how me voting is me accepting majority rule? I don't accept the idea and I don't change my actions or thought just because of it (unless it has to do with my safety). Are you saying it is _my_ fault? Thats blaming the victim. "Well you voted so you accepted democracy".

This country was created to have a constitution that regulated the rulers. The rulers were suppose to uphold the constitution and not go past it. And the people were meant to pick who enforces the constitution. Just because the American government got corrupted down the road sometime, does not put the burden of blame on me.

I think you have a fallacious understanding of what our government is then. The Constitution, in addition to outlining our individual liberties, is a compact of understanding between citizens and state. If you wish to live within the boarders of the state, you are legally bound to accept and obey it's laws. That same Constitution defines exactly how government shall be ordered, which includes a majority vote for certain offices (glossing over the whole 'electoral college' thing). Again, if you wish to live within the boundaries of the state, and receive it's guaranteed protections of your liberties and property, then you are legally bound to obey it's laws and it's democratically elected government.

The Consitution is a contract. You want to be part of the deal, you have to abide by the rules of that contract. That is your _responsibility_ as a citizen. You cannot claim that you have the guaranteed rights within that contract, but somehow don't have to abide by the responsibilities it outlines to you. That would be getting something for nothing.

You don't have a right to live in the US and _not_ obey its laws. If you chose not to obey them, the only right you have is to leave and live somewhere else. You are not a 'victim' - if you chose to live here, then you are a participant in this contract, and you have responsibilities to live up to.

AT[/quote]

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Morality > Government.

You are talking about the American Government which is not a proper government. Why would we ask our selves, "according to a murder's rules, is it okay to murder?"

When I said government, I mean a proper government that follows morality, not some corrupted government.

I said above what a proper government is and you keep bringing up the concept of American Government for some reason. Why?

[Arakasi Takeda]

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
We have a difference in emphasis then. To you, the most important line is the 'pure knowledge' one. To me, the most important points are 'the ones who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality' and 'believe that the subject of man requires and deserves no rationality'.

So you are placing emphasis on the force portion of the speech, and my emphasis was on the evasion portion.

I can agree to that. There is an issue of evasion, but that is very general. The practical-theoretical dichotomy however is the particular error. And as you to place emphasis on the difference between the subject of man not requiring rationality, while inanimate matter does. The first result of this dichotomy is science divorced from practical results.

I disagree that the issue of evasion is 'very general'; the speech calls out Stadler specifically:

Do you hear me, Dr. Robert Stadler?

The fact that Galt speaks directly to Stadler is, IMHO, more contextual information. In a way, I wonder whether or not the intent is here is Galt trying to 'shake' Stadler out of his evasion. Galt can't forgive his mentor, but he can try to 'wake him up'.

What other logical reasons are there for mentioning Stadler specifically? Is Galt being emotional - venting his rage specifically at his old mentor? Maybe, but that kind of vindictiveness doesn't seem to me to be in Galt's character. The speech is calculated for effect - its a deliberate reaching out to Stadler.

I suppose the other possibility is Rand's attempt to be dramatic. If so, it's a bit ham-handed - any astute reader knows exactly whom this portion of the speech is directed at. There's no need to mention Stadler by name.

I just can't think of a good reason why he would be specifically called out, unless this portion of the speech is a direct reference to Stadler, and not a 'general' issue. You can use the exact same argument that the 'force' portion is being specified in respect to Galt's mentor, but that doesn't diminish the directness of the evasion portion - it only puts them on par.

And as to the 'pure knowledge' thing - I believe you are absolutely correct that Rand is trying to make a point here. In this case, I completely disagree with her - I don't believe that Science is 'pure' just because it isn't involved directly in some specific profitable enterprise, and I don't think that 'pure knowledge' is purpose-less, as she seems to imply. In fact, I agree with her in spite of herself - I think she reaches a correct conclusion (science is not value free or purpose free), but that _her_ premise is flawed (that 'pure knowledge' has any meaningful definition for her to attack). And since I don't believe in the inerrancy of human beings, either myself OR Rand, I guess I'm stuck without knowing which of us has the wrong opinion, since I cannot challenge her directly in regards to it.

To some degree I agree with you. Stadler is trying to get Galt to forgive him. He sees himself as being controlled by the looters, instead of him controlling them. Due to this he is weak. And I think that he would not want Galt to be held captive, but there is nothing he can do about it.

But I do not agree that Stadler here questions himself as rational. What he questions is being rational in human concerns; there emotions should be in control. There is no opposition between this view and the earlier Stadler. Again it is the dichotomy between the theoretical and the practical.

I think there is a subtle distinction you missed - I am also not suggesting that Stadler is consciously questioning himself as rational. He believes he is making a rational appeal to Galt. But there is a difference to his 'being' rational, and his self-image of being rational. In this case, his _perception_ of reality is no longer matched to reality - the direct result of his evasion. He cannot truly think reasonably any more - he has crossed Rand's boundary and become the savage - he is only trying to justify himself for his survival sake.

I still don't think the idea of 'emotions controlling human concerns' has really entered his mind. One of the simultaneously ironic and thoughtful 'themes' with Stadler earlier in the book is the obvious dichotomy being his view of himself as a purely rational being, and his obviously _emotional_ reaction to people interrupting his work. He's not even consciously aware of his own emotions, in any meaningful way.

When he invokes 'human feelings' in that final speech to Galt, I think Rand is trying to show his true desperation, and how far he's really fallen. He isn't capable of making a truly rational argument to Galt, and, on some level, he must know it (he has to preceive his weakness in order to be able to express it). So he is reduced to falling back on the same argument he has heard constantly from the looters - his words are practically verbatim the same statements we hear from Mrs. Rearden, Paul Rearden, Jim Taggart, and all the rest earlier in the book. I don't think he honestly believes what is coming out of his mouth - he just doesn't have anything else to throw at Galt. It reinforces his loss of the faculties of reason, and fully plants him in the looters camp.

AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

When I said government, I mean a proper government that follows morality, not some corrupted government.

I said above what a proper government is and you keep bringing up the concept of American Government for some reason. Why?

Why use the US government? Because it's the real-world example of which I am most familiary.

Give me one example of a real world 'proper government', and maybe we will have something else to discuss.

But I cannot think of a different example of a government based on a constitution that doesn't consider that constitution to be a contract.

Morality > Government

There are a lot of ways to answer that relationship -

1) If you truly believe in a constitutional republican form of government, then Morality = Observence of Contractual Responsibilities, which is outlined by the same document that forms the government. Your relationship is setting one thing against itself.

2) If you believe that government can only be corrupt, then your relationship is flat wrong, because Goverment = Force. And any conflict between Morality and Force always comes out in Force's favor. Morals are not bullet proof. Galt and Rearden both recognize that fact several times in Atlas Shrugged. They state that they will obey the commands given by those carrying the guns, so long as those commands are plainly stated AS being the demands of force. The reason Galt and Rearden win those encounters is because those with the force are unwilling to use it.


AT

[Tolthar Lockbar]

So something can only be proven to work if one sees it work? Nice Statism.

If you want some historic backing, whenever some freedom was given to people, those people would thrive compared to how they were before. I.E. Greece, Ren., beginning of America. Freedom is not, "free to be ruled by the majority", it is, "free to choose, and to not be forced unless it is in violation of someone's rights".

A constitution should be a an implementation of freedom in the form of law. That means that the government should enforce natural rights--rights that are within nature. The point I can see to this contract thing is if one is in a corrupt government.

So if I say 'fish', and you are most familiar with 'gold fish', you are gonna assume I mean 'gold fish'?

[Arakasi Takeda]

So something can only be proven to work if one sees it work? Nice Statism.

Excuse me? I thought we were having a discussion about a real life example of governmental action. So I made statements in regard to government _as it exists in reality_.

If you wish to refocus the discussion on a purely speculative case - that's fine. List your speculative case before you start insulting me and putting words in my mouth.

If you want some historic backing, whenever some freedom was given to people, those people would thrive compared to how they were before. I.E. Greece, Ren., beginning of America. Freedom is not, "free to be ruled by the majority", it is, "free to choose, and to not be forced unless it is in violation of someone's rights".

If you believe Athenian (Greek) democracy was anything but mob rule, then you had better study some history. Or, hell - start with Rand:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html

"Democratic" in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule … a social system in which one's work, one's property, one's mind, and one's life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.

The above 'original meaning' definition is about Greece.

And I don't even understand your throwing the 'beginning of America' thing in my face while simultaneously berating me about using America as an example. Can you not remain consistent?

I was discussing the Constitution, which, to the best of my all be it limited knowledge, was created around the same time as 'America' came into existence, (end sarcasm) and it was understood to be a contract AT THAT TIME.

I have never stated that Freedom is 'free to be ruled by the majority' - what an idiotic piece of tripe. It is you who have put those words in my mouth. Why not try responding to what I _actually_ said - that the Constitution is a document representing BOTH a description of your legal rights and protections AND a contract between the citizen and the State.

A contract is a sign of a corrupt government?! Is a contract the sign of a corrupt business? Don't be asinine.

So if I say 'fish', and you are most familiar with 'gold fish', you are gonna assume I mean 'gold fish'?

What the hell logical reasoning are you using to derive this?

If you say 'fish', and I happen to be most familiar with 'gold fish', isn't it logical that I should reference goldfish in my examples? Why would you assume that, if I am most familiar with gold fish, that I would start blabbing on about mackrel? I'm not making any kind of assumption about what _you_ mean. I am talking from my strengths - framing general responses off of specific examples I can back up with knowledge.

You are seriously beginning to make me question your ability to reason, or at least comprehend english.

AT[/quote]

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Excuse me? I thought we were having a discussion about a real life example of governmental action. So I made statements in regard to government _as it exists in reality_.

If you wish to refocus the discussion on a purely speculative case - that's fine. List your speculative case before you start insulting me and putting words in my mouth.

1) I was referring to what you said, and I don't think I was putting words in your mouth as much as make valid integrations.
2) When one uses the term, "what _should_ government..." that means what government should be, not what it is. I was not putting words in your mouth there.

If you believe Athenian (Greek) democracy was anything but mob rule, then you had better study some history. Or, hell - start with Rand:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html

"Democratic" in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule … a social system in which one's work, one's property, one's mind, and one's life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.

It did come from Greece, and, like I said, it was more freedom than they had before hand.

And I don't even understand your throwing the 'beginning of America' thing in my face while simultaneously berating me about using America as an example. Can you not remain consistent?

This is true if one forgets to look at the context. I was speaking historically because you said there was no historic proof. Before that, the government statements were of the nature of "should government...".

I was discussing the Constitution, which, to the best of my all be it limited knowledge, was created around the same time as 'America' came into existence, (end sarcasm) and it was understood to be a contract AT THAT TIME.

On further thought, you are right about the contract, in a sense... but contracts are things you agree to and sign, not get born into (morally speaking). So while one is expected to follow the law or adhere to the consequences, that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't meant I consented to it.

I have never stated that Freedom is 'free to be ruled by the majority' - what an idiotic piece of tripe. It is you who have put those words in my mouth. Why not try responding to what I _actually_ said - that the Constitution is a document representing BOTH a description of your legal rights and protections AND a contract between the citizen and the State.

Again, I was distinguishing between morality and present government. It is consistent because I think the context was different than you think. I wasn't putting any words in your mouth. Though I think I did indirectly put Kai's butt in my mouth... but thats another story.

A contract is a sign of a corrupt government?! Is a contract the sign of a corrupt business? Don't be asinine.

A contract that says, if you are born here, you must punch yourself in the face, is something that has to be agreed to. So it seems like you are using the concept of a contract wrong. Being born somewhere is not voluntary.

What the hell logical reasoning are you using to derive this?

If you say 'fish', and I happen to be most familiar with 'gold fish', isn't it logical that I should reference goldfish in my examples? Why would you assume that, if I am most familiar with gold fish, that I would start blabbing on about mackrel? I'm not making any kind of assumption about what _you_ mean. I am talking from my strengths - framing general responses off of specific examples I can back up with knowledge.

It is a bad metaphor actually. A much better one would be: "if I say mackerel, and you know goldfish best, you would assume I was talking about a mackerel"? Plus, it _can_ be dangerous to concertized concepts in that fashion. While it can be helpful to look at an example, sometimes one shouldn't assume it. Some fish are very different from others.

You are seriously beginning to make me question your ability to reason, or at least comprehend english.

I cut myself and cheese came out. Should I see a doctor?

[Oleksandr]

I cut myself and cheese came out. Should I see a doctor?

LOL.

[Arakasi Takeda]

1) I was referring to what you said, and I don't think I was putting words in your mouth as much as make valid integrations.
2) When one uses the term, "what _should_ government..." that means what government should be, not what it is. I was not putting words in your mouth there.

I don't see any connection at all between my statements, and what you are referring to. So when I see you write the following:

So something can only be proven to work if one sees it work? Nice Statism.

You are aiming a derogatory remark at me, based on nothing that I have actually said. You have put those words in my mouth, then insulting me on the basis of those same words.

If I insist that government should be view as individuals, and that a specific government I was using as an example is based on a Constitution that protects individual rights, but also contains a list of individual responsibilities - how do those statements lead to the 'valid integration' that I am a Statist? There's no semblance to reason that I can work out that makes those two propositions identical. If you arrive at the conclusion that I am a Statist, based on those statements, only two possibilities emerge -

1) You have made a tremendous error in reasoning or understanding the statements - which led to my final remark,

OR

2) In order to reach your conclusion, you deliberately substituted on of my premises for one of your own, which allowed you to come to a conclusion completely opposite of my meaning. In other words, you put words into my mouth.

If there is some chain of logic that avoids both of these possibilities, it completely eludes me, and I suggest you outline it in detail.

Quote:
If you believe Athenian (Greek) democracy was anything but mob rule, then you had better study some history. Or, hell - start with Rand:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html
Quote:
"Democratic" in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule … a social system in which one's work, one's property, one's mind, and one's life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.

It did come from Greece, and, like I said, it was more freedom than they had before hand.

Can you please outline how tyranny of the mob is 'more freedom' than the tyranny of one dictator or king? Both are predicated on the use of force, but whereas a dictator is one man whose hand reaches only as far as his army can march, the mob is present over the entire country. And there has never been a historical case where a country's army was larger than its civilian population.

This is true if one forgets to look at the context. I was speaking historically because you said there was no historic proof. Before that, the government statements were of the nature of "should government...".

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say there was 'no historic proof.' Since you did not want me to use the US as an example, I asked you to supply a historical case of a 'proper government'.

The early United States does not fit your bill, because it was never the case that the United States government existed _only_ for the purpose you outlined, _without_ also holding the Constitution to be a contract between citizens and State. Your example is faulty because it does not match what you purport. I mentioned that I could not think of any other examples that matched to your description - it doesn't mean they don't exists. But at this point, I was still trying to discuss the topic in relation to 'real-world'. From my prospective, you suddenly became very defensive and retreated to the 'perfect world (philosophical, not real)' explaination for your statements. And insulted me to boot. And I really don't understand why.

Quote:
I was discussing the Constitution, which, to the best of my all be it limited knowledge, was created around the same time as 'America' came into existence, (end sarcasm) and it was understood to be a contract AT THAT TIME.

On further thought, you are right about the contract, in a sense... but contracts are things you agree to and sign, not get born into (morally speaking). So while one is expected to follow the law or adhere to the consequences, that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't meant I consented to it.

Well, you may have a point - I have never been clear on the status of 'minors' as Rand view them. Until a person reaches the age of majority, are they their parent's responsibility? Their property? Do the parents make legal decisions for their offspring?

Unless Rand assumes that children automatically have their own volition at birth, I don't see how you can get around the contract. By keeping you in the country, you are bound by the contract that your parents have volitionally chosen. Once you reach the age of majority, you automatically can make that choice for yourself; you can no longer argue the 'born here' statement. The position of your birth has no power over your ability to exercise your freedom to leave the country (and, thus, the contract).

While you are a minor then, your argument may hold; its validity is entirely dependent on the status of minors, according to Objectivism.

Quote:
I have never stated that Freedom is 'free to be ruled by the majority' - what an idiotic piece of tripe. It is you who have put those words in my mouth. Why not try responding to what I _actually_ said - that the Constitution is a document representing BOTH a description of your legal rights and protections AND a contract between the citizen and the State.

Again, I was distinguishing between morality and present government. It is consistent because I think the context was different than you think. I wasn't putting any words in your mouth.

The 'context' I took from your statement was that you implying I held the opposite view to yourself - since your stated premise was that Freedom is not 'free to be ruled by the majority', then the opposite position which you are insinuating I hold is that Freedom IS 'free to be ruled by the majority'; the fact that you called me a Statist is the proof of your insinuation. So I took if for the insult it clearly is - based on your mistaken insinuation, not anything I said.

A contract that says, if you are born here, you must punch yourself in the face, is something that has to be agreed to. So it seems like you are using the concept of a contract wrong.

No, you are incorrect, because I never said that a contract could consist of a statement like 'if you are born here, you must punch yourself in the face'. Such a statement is _your_ own biased view of the social contract, based on your personal perception of the 'corrupt' United States government.

I would never accept your statement as a contract. Contracts are made between people exchanging value for value. I view the Constitution not as the evil document you seem to be portraying it as, but as a _true_ exchange of values. 'The State', as one party to the contract, is required to protect personal liberty and property - this is the sole and proper duty of a government. The citizens, as the other party, are required to create a government capable of doing so, supply it with the necessary resources, and obey it's legally enacted laws.

I can view the government without your prejudice because, unlike you, I do not mistake the corruption of a tool with the corruption of individuals. You hate the goverment - the sole entity charged with the monopoly of force, whose duty is the protection of your liberties and possessions. I hate the people who take government and divert it from that proper purpose, making it an instrument not of protection, but of coercion. You have created an irrational shorthand that has made it impossible for you to separate one from the other. As such, you will never find a historical match to your 'proper government'. Buried in your conception is the idea that a 'real' government can never be uncorrupted.

[

If you say 'fish', and I happen to be most familiar with 'gold fish', isn't it logical that I should reference goldfish in my examples? Why would you assume that, if I am most familiar with gold fish, that I would start blabbing on about mackrel? I'm not making any kind of assumption about what _you_ mean. I am talking from my strengths - framing general responses off of specific examples I can back up with knowledge.

It is a bad metaphor actually. A much better one would be: "if I say mackerel, and you know goldfish best, you would assume I was talking about a mackerel"? Plus, it _can_ be dangerous to concertized concepts in that fashion. While it can be helpful to look at an example, sometimes one shouldn't assume it. Some fish are very different from others.

You are wrong. Forget using a metaphor at all - substitute the actual subject.

When you say 'fish', you mean a general grouping. We were discussing 'government'. A goldfish and a mackerel are specific types of fish - compare them to the US government and, say, a monarchy, like Saudi Arabia.

The construction of your 'better' metaphor would then be the following:

If I were to say 'Saudi Arabia's monarchy', and you know 'US Republicianism' best, you would assume I was talking about 'Saudi Arabia's monarchy'?

That would be a literally correct statement - if you were talking about Saudi Arabia's monarchy, I would, in fact, assume you were talking about Saudi Arabia's monarchy. But the middle section is non-sense, because I would assume that not because I knew more about US Republicianism - I would assume it because that is literally what you are referring to.

The earlier metaphor follows the proper construction were were discussing -

"If you say 'government', and I happen to be most familiar with 'US Republicianism', isn't it logical that I would refer to 'US Republicianism' in my examples? Why would you assume that, if I am most familiar with 'US Republicianism' that I would start blabbing on about the 'Saudi Arabian monarchy'..."

THAT is the proper construction of our discussion, and it is logically coherent.

Plus, it _can_ be dangerous to concertized concepts in that fashion. While it can be helpful to look at an example, sometimes one shouldn't assume it. Some fish are very different from others.

The danger can be mitigated by making sure one's 'goldfish' bear some close semblance to the broader concept. Since we were discussing governments that included a protection of individual liberties in their founding documents, I am perfectly safe to discuss the US. It is certainly a better choice than trying to use the example of the Saudi Arabian monarchy. Your argument only makes sense to you because you have added the assumption that the US government is corrupt, so neither example fits your description of a 'proper government'. As I explained, i reject your assumption on the grounds that it illogically faults the wrong source of corruption, and I am perfectly comfortable with using the US as an example of a proper _government_, so long as we do not entangle the concept of government and the people who are running it.

I don't feel your last statement is worthy of a response. Perhaps you thought it was a clever retort to my expression of anger. Olek certainly seems to agree. I find it juvenile.

AT

[Petter Sandstad]

I disagree that the issue of evasion is 'very general'; the speech calls out Stadler specifically:

Are you arguing like this because you aren't paying attention, or are you doing it subconsciously et cetera? Everything in that passage can be inserted where you have inserted "evasion". That passage takes up many things. It mention evasion at the beginning, but there are many forms of evasion. Stadlers specific error (or evasion) is the practical-theoretical dichotomy, which the majority of that passage is spent on.

I still don't think the idea of 'emotions controlling human concerns' has really entered his mind. One of the simultaneously ironic and thoughtful 'themes' with Stadler earlier in the book is the obvious dichotomy being his view of himself as a purely rational being, and his obviously _emotional_ reaction to people interrupting his work. He's not even consciously aware of his own emotions, in any meaningful way.

How conscious a choice it is is inconsequential. He tries to practice reason in his theoretical work, but not in his personal life (for instance in his reactions to other people). But he can't actually practice this dichotomy, thus resulting in that scene. It shows what happens to him psychologically, while the explosion of project X shows what happens metaphysically, to people that hold that dichotomy.

[Petter Sandstad]

Social contract theory? As far as I am concerned you can share that with Rousseau, Kant and Rawls. It is a corruption of the concept of contract. A contract is voluntary -- a social "contract" is not voluntary, you cannot choose not to abide by it. And a breach of a contract is an indirect use of force -- a breach of an immoral law is not. And yes, atleast most social contract theorists are statists.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Social contract theory? As far as I am concerned you can share that with Rousseau, Kant and Rawls. It is a corruption of the concept of contract. A contract is voluntary -- a social "contract" is not voluntary, you cannot choose not to abide by it. And a breach of a contract is an indirect use of force -- a breach of an immoral law is not. And yes, atleast most social contract theorists are statists.

What is not voluntary about what I am describing? If you do not wish to obey the laws of constitutional republic (since consitutional states are the only ones where specific human rights are part of the legal foundation), you are not required to live there. Leave the country is the separation of self from the contract.

There is no land on the whole of this planet that isn't controlled by one state or another. Yet you seem to be arguing that you should be allowed to live in a 'country without a state'. One with absolutely no government, because you all hold the same view that every government is, by necessity, corrupt. Since you are arguing 'should', that's purely theoretical, and it is fine to hold that view, but it's got nothing to do with reality.

Even Rand considered government a necessary evil. Show me where she advocates existing in a state with a government, but _not_ submitting to its laws. So long as the construction of that government is such that it protects individual rights and property, it is legitimate. Arguing that you should _never_ have to submit to the laws of a State is nothing by Anarchism.


AT

[Petter Sandstad]

Arguing that you should _never_ have to submit to the laws of a State is nothing by Anarchism.

I believe I wrote all my posts in english. Please correct me if that is not so. Neither me nor Tolthar has argued that.

But you have. If a state is a contract, one must be able to abstain from the contract. But one is not able to. Hence a state is not a contract. You refuted yourself, not my view with this post.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Give me one example of a real world 'proper government', and maybe we will have something else to discuss.

So something can only be proven to work if one sees it work? Nice Statism.

Were you pairing my statement with that statement? I could of said it better, but I was saying that that quote was statist.

your 1) would be true if I am wrong.
your 2) If I did, it would be a mistake, but I don't think I did.

I can explain the option that has deluded you:
The options you gave me are: you are wrong in this way, or you are wrong in this way; it tends to leave out one option.

Can you please outline how tyranny of the mob is 'more freedom' than the tyranny of one dictator or king?

Sure, a majority is leading instead of one person. Though the main reason they were more free was how their Gods became like a soap opera and reason started to rise instead of faith.

-----------------------

So while the government does appear to be expanding and tramping on more rights, we do still have options not to work with the government.

This is true if one forgets to look at the context. I was speaking historically because you said there was no historic proof. Before that, the government statements were of the nature of "should government...".

I thought you first responded to a different statement, so you are right about this one. But this leaves the social contract. It seems like you are claiming they are _not_ infringing on our rights because we agreed to a contract. No, like Petter said, it is wrong. How could American originally break from England if this is the case?

--------------------------------

Minors are not owned by their parents but they have a responsibility to them. If you have a kid, that kid is your responsibility to raise, but that doesn't give you the right to break the kids rights.

---------------------------------

A contract that says, if you are born here, you must punch yourself in the face, is something that has to be agreed to. So it seems like you are using the concept of a contract wrong.

You seriously think that I think the American Constitution says something like this?

It was a theoretical statement.

-----------------------------------

If a tool that is made up of individuals like you is corrupt, then the individuals are corrupt; therefore, the government is corrupt.

I can view the government without your prejudice because, unlike you, I do not mistake the corruption of a tool with the corruption of individuals. You hate the goverment - the sole entity charged with the monopoly of force, whose duty is the protection of your liberties and possessions. I hate the people who take government and divert it from that proper purpose, making it an instrument not of protection, but of coercion. You have created an irrational shorthand that has made it impossible for you to separate one from the other. As such, you will never find a historical match to your 'proper government'. Buried in your conception is the idea that a 'real' government can never be uncorrupted.

I hate the leaders, and all the government organizations right now except for the police and national defense. I do think the courts are corrupt too since they don't have to follow the constitution really.

You are wrong. Forget using a metaphor at all - substitute the actual subject.

This was from me thinking you quoted another part of musashi's quote.

I don't feel your last statement is worthy of a response. Perhaps you thought it was a clever retort to my expression of anger. Olek certainly seems to agree. I find it juvenile.

The retort was to simply say: It has to bearing on me. I didn't even really see the point of it. What I said was actually a reference to that reality cartoon show.

[Arakasi Takeda]

I can explain the option that has deluded you:
The options you gave me are: you are wrong in this way, or you are wrong in this way; it tends to leave out one option.

You aren't one of those people that holds that every conflict must have two legitimate opposing views, are you? Because that is the 'logic' you are using above. Why it is reasonably necessary for me to supply you a positive case? What logical rule demands that?

If I make the statement 'The Earth is Flat', or 'The moon is made of green cheese', and you give me five compelling reasons why both of these are non-sense, what gives me a legitimate reasonable foundation for saying - 'You are wrong, because none of the options you gave me offers the chance that I am right!"?

I have given you two cases for why you are wrong. It is not encumbent upon me to offer a positive case, especially if there is no compelling logical positive case. Now, it might be possible that there is a positive case, and I have missed it. In which case it is your responsibility, not mine, to introduce your logical reasoning. I am not automatically wrong (or deluded) because I didn't construct a non-sense case where you are right, and presented it as a 'legitimate' counter argument.

Arakasi:
Can you please outline how tyranny of the mob is 'more freedom' than the tyranny of one dictator or king?

Tolthar:
Sure, a majority is leading instead of one person.

Instead of one master, I have many masters - therefore I am more free?

How does that make logical sense? Your reasoning is not self-evident as you appear to think it is.

The second half of your statement is the correct one - the rise of Reason in Greece began the fundamental shift away from superstition and religion. But this is not a direct outgrowth of Athenian democracy - it occurs tangentially. They are correlated, but one is not the cause of the other.

But this leaves the social contract. It seems like you are claiming they are _not_ infringing on our rights because we agreed to a contract. No, like Petter said, it is wrong. How could American originally break from England if this is the case?

A contract is only a contract so long as it represents an agreement by both parties to trade equal values. I am beginning to think we are arguing symmantic differences on the definition of the word 'contract', as well as your continuing disagreement on the use of 'government'.

America breaking with England is a poor case example, because no document guaranteeing individual rights exists in this case - The Magna Carta is a start, but it fails to remove the monarchy, and thus, the dictatorship of force. There is no contract there, so to say that America 'broke a contract' with England is to ascribe a belief to me that I certainly do not hold. That is a complete misinterpretation of my statements.

Minors are not owned by their parents but they have a responsibility to them. If you have a kid, that kid is your responsibility to raise, but that doesn't give you the right to break the kids rights.

Is this a direct statement from Rand, or a definition in Objectivism, or just your opinion on the subject? There's no context clues to allow me to ascertain it. If it is your opinion, that's one thing - but it doesn't bear on the philosophical question. If it is from Rand, then it would certainly seem to support your statement that Objectivism could not hold with the idea that minors can have any responsibility in regards to government, since they are not allowed the choice of disagreement.

And, by the way, what are 'kid's rights?' - are they exactly the same as 'adult rights'. Wouldn't that make them universally human rights? Or are kid's rights something less?

You seriously think that I think the American Constitution says something like this?

It was a theoretical statement.

We were discussing the US government, so I must have apparently missed the transition where you went from speaking about the real case to speaking about the hypothetical case again. I do indeed find it incredulous to suggest that you actually believe the American Constitution says such a thing, but, then again, you gave no transition _AND_ you have quite the apparent contempt for the US government as it exists.

But, actually, I thought you were making a metaphorical statement - that you did not literally mean there was a statement that one should 'punch oneself in the face', but that you were instead referring to something that was equally as ludicrous in your estimate, but _did_ exist within the Constitution. I had no idea what you were referring to exactly.

I hate the leaders, and all the government organizations right now except for the police and national defense. I do think the courts are corrupt too since they don't have to follow the constitution really.

Now you are back to arguing the case of reality, when my statement was dealing with the theoretical. Transitioning back and forth between the two is part of what is causing our disagreement.

Let us discuss the matter starting from the same basis. Let us use first the theoretical case:

1) Do you believe there is such a thing as a 'proper government'?
2) If Yes, how do you define 'proper government'?
3) If a 'proper government' exists, does it have legislative power?
4) If Yes, what responsibilities, if any, do you have, as a citizen, to obey the laws created?
5) Does the existence of a 'proper government', creating laws that citizens have a responsibility to obey (if your answer is they _should_ obey them, in question #4), constitute a 'contract' (i.e. an equal exchange of value for value)?
6) If the answer to #5 is NO, then what relationship does exists between a government and its citizens?
7) Assuming your answers have brought you to this point - Why would citizens constitute a 'proper government', give it legislative power, and then _not_ obey those laws?

Again, these 7 questions are all in reference to the theoretical case. We can address your answers to a real world example after we are clear on our differences in theory.

AT

[Arakasi Takeda]

Social contract theory? As far as I am concerned you can share that with Rousseau, Kant and Rawls. It is a corruption of the concept of contract. A contract is voluntary -- a social "contract" is not voluntary, you cannot choose not to abide by it. And a breach of a contract is an indirect use of force -- a breach of an immoral law is not. And yes, atleast most social contract theorists are statists.

You are carrying your prejudices too far again, assuming that I am a complete advocate of Rousseau's definition of a social contract - I am, in fact, utilitzing the word 'contract' in its Objectivist definition:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/contracts.html

In a free society, the "rights" of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement....

...In a free society, men are not forced to deal with one another. They do so only by voluntary agreement and, when a time element is involved, by contract.

The Constitution is 'time extended' agreement of the individuals making up the 'United States' on the "rights" of that group - derived from their voluntary, individual choice. Individuals who chose not to associate with this group (not be US citizens) are not required to subscribe to the contract.

Tolthar has proposed a convincing argument that certain individuals (minors) born into the geographic territory of the United States cannot, in fact, voluntarily chose not to be part of this group. I therefore asked him to clarify Objectivism's status in regards to minors to ascertain if his argument has support or not. But that argument only holds so long as the individual is a minor. Once achieving the age of majority, they have a choice to discontinue their association with the US and thus reject the contract. Staying a US citizen is, thus, a _voluntary action_. Since the definition of your rights as a 'US citizen' are defined by the contract of the Constitution, you do not have a right to both reject that contract and claim those rights.

Of course, this is only your rights as a US citizen. Individual Human Rights are not subject to the group. They are a separate thing, having their own foundation. I think the US constitution is somewhat unique, in that it is an attempt to match 'US citizen' rights to 'individal human' rights, but in making these arguments we must carefully deliniate which we are referring to.

You also need to remember that the Founding Fathers, in composing the Constitution, specifically site John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rosseau in their reasonig for certain provisions of that same document. If you hold that all of Rosseau's philosophy is necessarily evil, then you are directly stating that the US Constitution is built, at least partially, on immoral grounds. You cannot simultaneously argue that the Consitution is both a morally good and morally evil document.


AT