It's worthwhile quoting petey from the Members Only General Discussion sub-forum in a thread started by bordsilver looking at what constitutes a "Good person": http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-743210.html#p743210
The fault is called "narcissistic humans", and will not dissipate in the absence of state and democracy.
No it's not. You can be "narcissistic" all you want, as long as you don't force me to pay for your "rights".
The fault is compounded by the intrusion of state and democracy. Now you are a member you can view this thread: http://forums.silverstackers.com/to...cracy-by-frank-karsten-and-karel-beckman.html
Agreed, but the only freedom anyone can get IMO is as a hermit in the wilderness. I hope to make it there before I'm 60. Cheers for the link, I've got so much reading to catch up on
Do you own the wilderness? If not then the Government probably does, and if you do then you are going to have to pay land tax on it most likely. I am not sure you can be free, just unnoticed. And in order to stay unnoticed you have to give up many things.
The wilderness owns me, and the west is large enough to avoid bumping into the tax-man. What will I be giving up except tacit endorsement via involvement within the system that oppresses us all?
You can start by a legit act and end up with illegitimate or even illegal acts. One thing is disagreeing; another thing is not complying with the law. Of course if you want to stay in the society and benefit from all (or part) of its resources and you refuse to pay taxes, you're basically stealing. And stealing leads to imprisonment. But what bordsilver said was "if you disagree, we will kill or imprison you", as if a democratic state did not allow free speech. That's simply wrong (and ludicrous).
And yet again you refuse to quote me and show exactly where I missed the point. By your first posts in this topic, I thought you were actually open to discussion, but I was wrong. You don't want to debate. You just want to spread your religion. This is the important sentence you keep ignoring: I specifically asked what part of the sentence you didn't understand or disagree with. But it was too inconvenient for you to reply. I'll tell you what's wrong with your example: A robbery is a random event. You don't know if you're going to face it. Let's suppose you were 100% sure you'd be robbed. And you had the choice not to be in that place (which was not your property btw). But still you decided to be. It's your choice. If you don't want it, just leave. I don't expect you to reply to my argument or to my counter to yours. You've shown several times you're not willing to have a fair debate, quoting others so that we go to the point and don't run in circles. I've understood you just have a religion to preach. Good luck with that. Don't count on me though.
If this isn't a hobby for you, I don't know what you're doing here. Does anybody pay you for this? If so, tell me, because I want that kind of job too.
I like to discuss politics with other people and my ultimate goal is not to prove I'm right and others are wrong. My ultimate goal is to learn with others' perspectives and to improve mine. Unfourtunately, I understood that was not the case of those here who repeatedly ran away from the subject (when convenient), did not quote others posts (so that they could disperse as much as they wanted and not focusing on the incovenient subjects), accused others of "missing the point" (without even explaining why) or simply gave up when run out of arguments (which for some was right in the beginning). I've learned here that Liberalism is far from being a solid proposition to a society. It has too many flaws and it is not even able to maximize its beloved "freedom".
Then you're going off-topic and running from the real debate. And that's not good. Now you find it again convenient to talk about freedom but you are simply unable to build some logic around it. Can you believe it?! Now you see what I'm going through. You really are special (to say the least).
Ok, here's the problem. I have repeatedly replied to that. Almost my entire last two posts dealt explicitly with your sentence and why I disagree with it. I have no right to indebt other people including my own children. I do not own them, I am their guardian. My parents have no right to indebt me. I have no right to indebt you and yet you believe that you do have the right to indebt me to a fictional entity called "Society Pty Ltd". It is irrelevant where I was raised and whether or not my parents used the "resources of society". Me taking a burger and giving it to a hungry person does not indebt the hungry person to the burger shop. If I took the burger I have to pay. So wife beating and paedophilia are fine so long as they continue to live in your house? As I have already said acquiescence does not equal consent and it certainly doesn't make the robbery morally acceptable. By all accounts the Mafia tends to repeatedly return for small protection payments and yet most people would say that what they were doing was wrong as well. Or are such Mafia actions legitimate under your definition because the store keepers continue to stay?
Glad you stated that, because I don't believe in your version of Liberalism either because it's vagaries on placing focus on both individual rights and freedom has internal conflict. Such vagary is why many liberals are indistinguishable from socialists. In contrast to Liberalism, our basic premise is the natural right of self-ownership of all individuals. Its goal is the recognition of this which leads to a focus on the equality of individual rights and this is what leads to individual's freedom and liberty. Or, rewording, the recognition and respect of self-owning individuals to peacefully go about their lives is the goal. Freedom is a result. But, as I have said elsewhere, this is "merely" the political theory and rarely is a political theory enough for a well functioning, civil society. As with most other political theories, it deliberately does not proscribe other institutions, morals and virtues. This is because the proponents are not out to dictate how others should choose to live their lives (beyond mutual respect for self-ownership) or what social norms should exist. Social norms and institutions will evolve naturally and the flexibility of these is a feature not a flaw.
And yet you probably think you are the rightful owner of your parents' wealth when they die. If it's a negative number, it has nothing to do with you. But if it's a positive number, you have everything to do with that. Am I wrong?
The key is that I do not believe I am entitled to my parents' wealth when they die. That would be hypocritical. Nor do I think my kids are entitled to my wife and I's wealth (or what's left of it). However, because of our relationship with our kids we have explicitly stated in our wills a preference for any wealth in our names to be transferred to them. My parents no doubt have their own wills and I may or may not be a part of them (I don't particularly care either way). Separately, for many reasons, all societies have some sort of "social norm" for determining what happens to people's property in the event of their death when they have not stated their preferences or left a will. This is a peaceful method that aids civil society. Personally, I think a sensible arrangement has the following order of precedence (once all debts have been arranged to be paid): 1. Spouse 2. Dependent children 3. Independent children 4. Parents (in equal shares unless evidence exists of dependence) 5. Siblings (in equal shares unless evidence exists of dependence) 6. Other family members 7. General charity Determining the placement of an ex-spouse depends on a few circumstances that are hard to summarise, but they would generally sit somewhere between 1-6 but possibly not be included at all. Any cost of administering the dissolving of the estate to come out of the estate itself. So under our social norm, I do feel I need to be included in the process of dissolving their estate when they die (if they don't have a will) and will possibly raise a dispute if I am left out of the process.
I haven't talked about entitlement. I made a simple question: "If it's a negative number, it has nothing to do with you. But if it's a positive number, you have everything to do with that. Am I wrong?" And your answer was: "Personally, I think a sensible arrangement has the following order of precedence (once all debts have been arranged to be paid)" From that, I suppose those relatives will only be involved in the process if all debts can be paid with the wealth of the person that died. If so, they earn something. If not, they have nothing to do with those debts. Is this what you mean?
I know you didn't but I thought it was important to explicitly recognise the distinction. Yes. The debtees/creditors have contracts with my parents, not with me (or other relatives). It is up to them to go through a standard dispute resolution process just like any bankruptcy or default (that my parents have died simply restricts the options that the debtees/creditors have to restructure the repayments over a longer time frame). If it's a positive number and no will or explicit preferences exists then I agree with the social norm of distributing the estate based on the order of precedence among direct and indirect family members.
There is nothing off-topic in a thread about freedom in discussing the presence of the State in our lives and the desire of some to form voluntary societies . The State, democracy and freedom are inextricably linked. What makes the first sentence you quoted of mine off-topic, yet the second sentence on-topic? Simply put, governments can respect freedom or they can restrict our freedoms. Whilst an individual is under the control of the State, the level of freedom granted to him is limited by whatever policies the government wishes to enact. The individual never has full freedom whilst bound to the State because he is not the ultimate decision maker (there's your choices), the State is the final arbiter (there's coercion). Compounding the restrictions on freedom is the fact that at no time is the individual under a contractual agreement with the State. The individual has not been asked for his consent to be governed (and voting is not consent so don't even travel down that path) he has merely been informed of the conditions of his acceptance into society. So not only does our man live under the authority of a governing body that sets limits on his life (there's regulations) and makes decisions on his behalf (choices again), our man has never actually been given the opportunity to agree or disagree with the presence of the State intruding into his life. Finally, as the arms of the State reach further down our man's throat, and as its desire to retain power becomes more desperate, it maneuvers itself into the position of being the provider of essential services and the enhancer of rights. It does this twofold, firstly by convincing an unaware electorate that it acts in the best interest of society, and secondly by forcibly removing the property of some and distributing it to others in the name of equality of opportunity (coercion). This of course is met with great delight by the receivers of the goods and mild consternation in the least by those that have had to abide by the forcible acquisition of their property. However, on the whole it is viewed as a necessity because it is argued that humans have a right to health care, have a right to education, have a right to a nationality, have a right to social security, have a right to an adequate standard of living, have a right to rest and leisure, blah blah blah blah blah. These necessities or positive rights are subjective though, conditions based upon the experiences and emotions of an individual in as much that there is no minimum standard for what constitutes basic health care, or an adequate standard of living, or how much rest and recreation one should have. But unfortunately under a Democracy they don't remain subjective, they become enshrined and enforced in law and paid for by our man that has been forced to bankroll a system that he has no choice in supporting. Now these subjective rights become distorted from a condition of one's individual experience and judgment, into essential programs and experiences to which every one must have exposure, as determined not by our man, but by another. It is at this point that the State (and its disciples such as you and lgf) has taken on the responsibility for making the basic decisions in our man's life, it has removed or at best severely curtailed any choice that our man may arrive at in his own best interest and replaced it with a choice made by others which generally results in achieving a desired end that is in the best interest of the other. The freedom of the individual has been curtailed, and by logical conclusion as society is not some higher entity but rather a collection of individuals, there is an overall loss of freedom. Looking back that doesn't seem "simply put" :lol:
