If this is what you want your future to be like...

[I AM ME]

.

[mosaik]

clumsyboy, please stick around. my favorite opponents in these types of debates are the ones who believe in socialism/communism/welfare states.

tell me, why do you think it's my problem to help out those around me? what's the reason for it?

[I AM ME]

Why do i get the feeling that you had a wealthy upbringing, which explains why you do not believe the government to be of any use to you.

i belive it because i believe i am right. a person who bases his beliefs on circumstance believes in nothing.

Because you've never needed it, but what about people that need government money for School or medical bills? Do they not deserve your help?

simply put, no. they don't deserve my help.

Is it ok to live in your large comfortable home while others starve?

yes.

as for the less fortunate - i don't believe in fortune. i believe in myself, and my abilities. if others don't have the same ability, or more likely fail to exercise the ability they do have, that falls under the heading of "their problem".





this is over then, we have a fundamental difference in Morals, i believe what you just said to be heartless and selfish, and it's against every belief i have. But there is nothing can say to change what you think. But if you truly care so little for those around, and can be that selfish then i truly hope you do find somewhere you can go and never be bothered again by anyone. Because your lack of compassion sickens me. Someday i hope you are in need of others help, i truly do.

[I AM ME]

disregard eariler version

[I AM ME]

the reason, is Humanity, and compassion. We should care for our fellow man, and all help to make eachothers lives easier, how can you watch another man suffer while you live in opulence? How can anybody with a soul not care about other people suffering, in the world or even in your own town? Have we all become this jaded, selfcenetred and numb? One never knows when it is them that will need help, and there will be no help if everyone becomes this cold

[mosaik]

the reason, is Humanity, and compassion. We should care for our fellow man, and all help to make eachothers lives easier, how can you watch another man suffer while you live in opulence? How can anybody with a soul not care about other people suffering, in the world or even in your own town? Have we all become this jaded, selfcenetred and numb? One never knows when it is them that will need help, and there will be no help if everyone becomes this cold

i do care about them. it bothers me that we have homeless people.

my point is that i am the one who made them homeless. i have no obligation therefore to make them unhomeless. that obligation falls to them, i'm afraid.

i am self-centered, but i don't know about jaded and numb.

the thing is, you are ruled by your emotions where i am ruled by my mind. i have to ask you though, do you think it is okay to have a government that forces me to be charitable? and if so, why?

[Narbus]

there are no "rational" reasons for government as per the definition of the word.

if either of you disagree you will have to play by my rules in your response, and not sink into the familiar world of liberalease and doublespeak. if you wish to demostrate to me that you have made rational objections to my views, you will have to do so cleary and concisely, and do so by showing me why it is in my best interest to have a government. you will have to do so without committing any logical errors, such as appeals to emotion or so called "common knowledge". i will require facts.

First: You are committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question." by your use of the statment :you will have to do so without committing any logical errors" you are implying that we have been using these arguments, without providing quotations of when we did.

Second: A "rational" reason for liking the government: I, as a person, have fallen prey to numerous bacteria, viruses, and the like over the years which threaten my life. To combat these malignant diseases, I will, under advice from a doctor, take certain prescription medications. In my own self-interest, and fully aware of the knowledge that I don't have the indepth chemistry and biology background to test these medications, I look for a netural third party to test them for me, and provide the results. This third body is the government, which acts for the people, not the profit the people provide, and are, logically, less likely to be bribed or coerced into returning false results.
I also make use of expensive, and dangerous, equipment daily, such as a car. Acting in my own self-interest, and again aware that I lack the training, facilities, and funds necessary to test all parts, and so on, I again go back to neutral third party for tests.
If you honestly think that drug companies are willing to reveal all negative side effects of their drugs, or auto makers are going to jump right on the "we goofed up, oops" bandwagon, I'll invite you to look up "Meridia" and "firestone" on google, and see what you get.
Some form of third party looking out for the people, not the profits, is necessary. Rational, and logical.

they haven't. name one thing they have done to deserve it. they have never paid a cent for it or worked a second for it. they do not have any claim to it whatsoever.

and the land that they "stole" from the natives was traded for. yes, it was a bad deal, but that's life.

1. The government extends beyond the people who currently inhabit its seats. The laws and actions taken centuries ago are still having an effect on us today, obviously. The government ordered the taking of lands, and the government organized the cities being built, and they laid the roads leading to those cities. If not for the government, then your house would not exist, logically.
2. "Traded?" Are you honestly that stupid? Look up "trail of tears" on google and tell me what you get.

a man breaks into your house. he tells you, at gunpoint, that he is going to live here now and cook you dinner every night. for this, you are going to pay him 30% of your income.

Government did not break into your house. You are living in theirs.
PS: False Analogy. The idea of "taxes" and the idea of being robbed at gunpoint haven't been shown to be similar enough to be used as an analogy in this way.

none of these things are vital to my survival. while all of them are pleasurable, none of them are absolutely neccessary.

these things are all byproducts of mutalistic human interaction, which i endorse. you act as if i am advocating the end of the world.

Try again: This is a misdirection and a bit of a "prejudicial language" fallacy. You are attaching negative consequences to my statment in lieu of actually replying to it.
PS: This quote was actually aimed at doug, not you.

i am not. i am merely advocating a return to personal responsibility.

prejudical language. "merely," "personal responsilbity"
Also: Begging the question: By the statment "Advocating a return to..." you are implying that personal responsibilty is a thing of the past, and since you've tied this into your anti-government stance, the you are also implying that government is responsible for this loss.
PS: The point of my post is that the area where my personal responsibility stops and yours begins is grey area.

you talk of how "each decision i make effects a larger society" because you are afraid. it is preposterous to suggest that whether i sit or stand when i piss effects anybody but me, and you know this.

Ah, good ol' ad hominem attacks. Nice of you to fall back on a classic.

you advocate this "interdependance" horse pucky because you are afraid of what would happen to you if you had nobody else to blame for your mistakes and nobody to piggy back you to success.

Again, with the ad hominem attacks.

Aren't you the guy who said " you will have to do so without committing any logical errors, such as appeals to emotion or so called 'common knowledge'?" Hmm, interesting.

[starvingeyes]

Second: A "rational" reason for liking the government: I, as a person, have fallen prey to numerous bacteria, viruses, and the like over the years which threaten my life. To combat these malignant diseases, I will, under advice from a doctor, take certain prescription medications. In my own self-interest, and fully aware of the knowledge that I don't have the indepth chemistry and biology background to test these medications, I look for a netural third party to test them for me, and provide the results. This third body is the government, which acts for the people, not the profit the people provide, and are, logically, less likely to be bribed or coerced into returning false results.

i, as a rational person, have fallen prey to colon cancer. i know that a certain drug being marketd by ImmClone can reduce the size of my tumour and extend my life span.

the government, however, would not allow this drug to be tested so it remains on the shelf. now, after 2 years, the FDA is going to allow tests and the drug will be "fast tracked" through the approval process.

that means that 2 years ago the FDA was fucking wrong and how many people are dead because of it?

i, as a rational person, invent "licotine" a stop smoking aid which works by implementing small amount of nicotine into a lollipop. i am an entrepeneur and can not afford the expensive tests required by the FDA and my business is shut down. later on, Bayer or some other large corporation will rip off my idea and make billions.

i, as a rational owner of a pharmaceutical company, know better then to deliberately sell a product that has failed safety tests, as it will be bad for my business and could land me in some very hot water.

there is incentive for the government to provide false results: money. it's no different from corporate testing. are you honestly so stupid that you don't believe any political body can be corrupted by money? please.

The government extends beyond the people who currently inhabit its seats. The laws and actions taken centuries ago are still having an effect on us today, obviously. The government ordered the taking of lands, and the government organized the cities being built, and they laid the roads leading to those cities. If not for the government, then your house would not exist, logically.

bullshit.

logically? you cannot prove that "government" is the only organizing body that could possibly found a settlement. the natives were doing just fine without any definable federal or broad sweeping "government". you have no evidence of any sort to support this allegation.

are you honestly that stupid that you believe that only "government" can lay roads and organize cities? do you not realise that governments are composed of men? the only difference between a government and a private entity is that one uses force to accomplish it's goals where as the other does not.

the use of force invalidates their "claim" to MY property.

Government did not break into your house. You are living in theirs.

bullshit again. see above.

False Analogy. The idea of "taxes" and the idea of being robbed at gunpoint haven't been shown to be similar enough to be used as an analogy in this way.

bullshit again. if i refuse to pay my taxes, i will eventually find myself facing armed men who are demanding that i do so. it's the exact same fucking thing.

By the statment "Advocating a return to..." you are implying that personal responsibilty is a thing of the past, and since you've tied this into your anti-government stance, the you are also implying that government is responsible for this loss.

it is and they are.

[One-Eye]

Okay. This continues to spiral downward into immature personal attack territory, which means that nobody is going to get anywhere, no matter how wonderful their arguments. Are any of us really going to respond to a "are you really that stupid/gullible/brainwashed that you actually believe that?" with a "hey, you're right, I'm an idiot! Thanks for showing me the way!"?

Just a rhetorical question.

But there are a few things I want to say regardless. Again with the rationalism. Doug is right in that the dictionary isn't very specific. So I went to my Dictionary of Philosophy for a more in-depth look.

Rationalism: Any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification. Reason can be contrasted with revelation, in religion, or with emotion and feeling as in ethics, but in philosophy it is usually contrasted with the senses (including introspection, but not intuitions). 'Rationalist' is to 'a priori' somewhat as 'empiricist' is to 'empirical', though the empiricist is more likely to apply his view to all knowledge. Rationalism is an outlook which somehow emphasizes the a priori and also the innate. 'Rationalist' has a variety of interpretations corresponding to those of 'empiricist'. A philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist in different though important respects (e.g. Kant); but such philosophers are often thought to be best classified as neither.

Longer, more in-depth, but again, nothing about self-interest as a basis for rationality. I know that such connotations do exist, but it is not the agreed-upon definition of the word, in the common sense OR in the scholarly sense. Therefore, I will continue to use the words "rational" and "logical" interchangeably, to mean "based upon facts and reason".

Every action we commit has effects upon the people around us and also upon on our entire environment. Because of this, pure self-interest is NOT rational. It ignores the fact that people do not live in isolation. To postulate that it is always best to act in your own interest without taking into account the interests of others is irrational because it doesn't work. To use the example of someone coming into your house with the intent to rob you, it is in your rational self interest to stop him, kill him, or otherwise foil his plans. However, this completely ignores the fact that he might be a member of a gang that is bigger and more powerful than you and don't take kindly to one of their members being killed. They come after you, rape your wife, kill you, and then where does that leave your rational self-interest? Basing rationality on selfishness could only work in a social vacuum. Even without a government, we can't escape society and the effects of our actions upon others and upon ourselves.

The definition of the word implies that in order to be rational it is necessary to take reality into account and not rest upon ideals. Reality is that people don't always (or even usually) act rationally. Reality is that our actions have effects upon others, which in turn act and have effects upon us. Rationally, we must take those realities into account when forming our worldview. To ignore them is to create an irrational belief system, such as anarchism.

--

More later, as I've got to go participate in something strange they call "real life"...

[Narbus]

i, as a rational person, have fallen prey to colon cancer. i know that a certain drug being marketd by ImmClone can reduce the size of my tumour and extend my life span.

the government, however, would not allow this drug to be tested so it remains on the shelf. now, after 2 years, the FDA is going to allow tests and the drug will be "fast tracked" through the approval process.

that means that 2 years ago the FDA was fucking wrong and how many people are dead because of it?

And in another place, a drug caled Nocazin was sold without government testing and marketed as a means with which to fight colon cancer. Turns out the drug does fight colon cancer, but it also increases blood pressure to near fatal levels, and how many people are now dead or vegetables from strokes and other illness?

i, as a rational person, invent "licotine" a stop smoking aid which works by implementing small amount of nicotine into a lollipop. i am an entrepeneur and can not afford the expensive tests required by the FDA and my business is shut down. later on, Bayer or some other large corporation will rip off my idea and make billions.

Or, you could patent your formula and sell the idea to bayer, and recieve a share of the profits from the sales. Bayer's existing position in the market allows it to market the licotine more effectively than you ever could, and you make millions.
Or, Bayer gets wind of your idea, steals it, and makes billions before you even have a chance to finish up your production line. You would complain, since you did have the idea first, but who would you complain to? Without government, there's no protection of your idea in the form of copyrights, or patents.

i, as a rational owner of a pharmaceutical company, know better then to deliberately sell a product that has failed safety tests, as it will be bad for my business and could land me in some very hot water.

Hot water from who? The consumer? Please. They still buy nike shoes, and shop at wal-mart despite some very questionable ethics from these companies. Plus, with no government, there's nothing to keep you from buying up media outlets and just squelching the information.

there is incentive for the government to provide false results: money. it's no different from corporate testing. are you honestly so stupid that you don't believe any political body can be corrupted by money? please.

And there's incentive to be forthcoming and honest, and historical backing of instances where officals weren't. See: Nixon.

bullshit.

Personal Attack coupled with prejudicial language. Logical Fallacy.

logically? you cannot prove that "government" is the only organizing body that could possibly found a settlement. the natives were doing just fine without any definable federal or broad sweeping "government". you have no evidence of any sort to support this allegation.

are you honestly that stupid that you believe that only "government" can lay roads and organize cities? do you not realise that governments are composed of men? the only difference between a government and a private entity is that one uses force to accomplish it's goals where as the other does not.

No, I'm not saying that government is the only body that can do this. I'm saying, that in this case, they ARE the body that did this, and just because someone else could have, didn't mean they did.

the use of force invalidates their "claim" to MY property.

Then get the fuck off the property and give it back to the native whom it was stolen from forcably in the first place, or shut up.

bullshit again. see above.

Personal attack again, and see above for the rebuttal.

bullshit again. if i refuse to pay my taxes, i will eventually find myself facing armed men who are demanding that i do so. it's the exact same fucking thing.

Or, you could move. There are other countries in the world, and I'm sure there's some great canadian wilderness or small island somewhere far away from government.
In your analogy, you can't leave, because the guy has a gun.
Not the same thing.

it is and they are.

Prove it. "It is" does not equate to proof. And "you will have to do so without committing any logical errors, such as appeals to emotion or so called 'common knowledge'."

You're the guy who wanted this. Don't get pissy at me because I delievered what you asked for.

[Narbus]

And I wanted to touch on this.

first, you need to think of aristotle, the founder of logic. he famously said "A is A". This principle is paramount to rational thinking, the idea that things are what they are, if A is A it cannot be B. there are no contradictions, a thing that is one thing cannot be another thing. a man cannot be a woman and a man at the same time, A cannot be B, etc etc.

First, no. The actual statement should be:

GIVEN A
A=A.

Why? Simple. Let's look at the classic, apples and oranges, and how they relate.
Given A= Apple:
Given B=Orange:
A != B

Now, let's change the givens a bit.
Given A = fruit
Apple = A
Orange = A
Therefore, by the transitive property of equality:
Apple = Orange.

You must define what A is, before you can say A = A with certainty.

logic is based on the idea that 1 + 1 = 2. a logical person, when faced with the problem 1 + 1 = ? will always answer 2.

Partly continuing the example from before, partly making a new point:

Again, you haven't defined your givens very well.
If I have just been doing a lot of binary work, then I could say:
1 + 1 = 10
And be completely correct.

If I had just been doing a lot of logic work, (where the OR operator is expressed with the + sign) then I could say
1 + 1 = 1
And be completely correct.

The new point: Logic does nothing for those who don't define their stuff.

therefore, if you are hungry, you eat. if you are cold, you find shelter. if you are tired, you sleep. you only know for certain what condition you are in, so you can only take logical actions for your own self. that is called acting in rational self-interest.

Agreed. Although I still don't see how my "house burning" example is disproven.

now we will discuss force. force is used by an individual when they could not convince a logical person to take a certain path. force is devoid of logic. the government has no logical claim to my money, so they force me to pay taxes. they have no logical right to prohibit me from using drugs so they force me to comply. any action that uses force is not a thinking action, force suspends thought as to use force you do not require a logical mind. any animal can force it's will on a weaker animal. it is not a product of rational thinking.

Here's a mixed bag. I do think the services the government provides do deserve some money on my part. I do think that there are services the government provides that should be privatized, I think there are some that should not be.
This stems from my idea that government should serve only to protect it's citizen's rights. Now, the grey area comes from where my rights end, and yours begin. I have the right to free speech. Does that mean I have the right to put graphic bestiality billboards up near grade schools?
Also, force can be used by a logical individual when dealing with a non-logical individual, who will not listen to reason. Such as the police, dealing with a violent drunkard.

again, this is all about what YOU think. unfortunately, those are just YOUR subjective opinions. i don't see how it's rational to force me to follow YOUR opinions just because you THINK it is. the way it was taught to me in philosophy, for a rule to be logical it must apply to all cases and all citizens. your THOUGHTS and OPINIONS certainly don't apply to me. contradiction, illogical.

I disagree. We do not live in a logical world, we are not logical beings. To an extent that you are underestimating, we are bound by our emotions, on a biological level. Talk to any pregnant woman for a length of time, and see if her hormones are not throwing her emotions out of whack. This is biolgically part of who we are. There are chemicals in our bodies doing this to us, it is not some mental process that can be eliminated. Therefore, rationally, we must realize that emotion is a part of who we are, and work with that. Not deny what is right in front of us.




PS: Reply to my earlier really damn long post. I'm very interested in what you have to say to some of that. (The post with the bit about routers and who will teach you).

[happening fish]

there are no contradictions, a thing that is one thing cannot be another thing. a man cannot be a woman and a man at the same time

Hmmm, what about in quantum physics? An electron in superposition can be said to be 1 and 0 simultaneously (technically, a vector of the two). Therefore it is both A and B, at the same time.

Note: this has nothing to do with anything

[One-Eye]

*Hey Alex, if you stick around and argue a bit, I'll give you a cookie! I feel like an island in a sea of testosterone...*

[starvingeyes]

And in another place, a drug caled Nocazin was sold without government testing and marketed as a means with which to fight colon cancer. Turns out the drug does fight colon cancer, but it also increases blood pressure to near fatal levels, and how many people are now dead or vegetables from strokes and other illness?

and what happened as a result? did the stock and profits of the corporation who marketed this drug plunge? wouldn't that be incentive to not repeat this?

Or, you could patent your formula and sell the idea to bayer, and recieve a share of the profits from the sales. Bayer's existing position in the market allows it to market the licotine more effectively than you ever could, and you make millions.
Or, Bayer gets wind of your idea, steals it, and makes billions before you even have a chance to finish up your production line. You would complain, since you did have the idea first, but who would you complain to? Without government, there's no protection of your idea in the form of copyrights, or patents.

you say that like it's a bad thing. what makes you think i support patents or copywrights?

Hot water from who? The consumer? Please. They still buy nike shoes, and shop at wal-mart despite some very questionable ethics from these companies. Plus, with no government, there's nothing to keep you from buying up media outlets and just squelching the information.

o, like the state controlled media is any better? and furthermore, alternative media sources will always exist. some of them will grow and combat mainstream media. it's the information age. you can't hide anything anymore.

And there's incentive to be forthcoming and honest, and historical backing of instances where officals weren't. See: Nixon.

yeah: don't get caught, an incentive, incidently, this same incentive applies to corporations. you seem once again to have fallen prey to the "building gods" syndrome: why do you trust the government to police itself and not corporations?

No, I'm not saying that government is the only body that can do this. I'm saying, that in this case, they ARE the body that did this, and just because someone else could have, didn't mean they did.

that wasn't my point. i was challenging your implcit assertion that without government, my house wouldn't exist.

Then get the fuck off the property and give it back to the native whom it was stolen from forcably in the first place, or shut up.

that, as i'm sure you're aware, is totally impossible. furthermore, it's not my responsibility to atone for the sins of my forefathers. on top of all that, native americans have already been paid enough of my stolen money to likely pay for everything i own and then some.

Or, you could move. There are other countries in the world, and I'm sure there's some great canadian wilderness or small island somewhere far away from government.
In your analogy, you can't leave, because the guy has a gun.
Not the same thing.

he allows you to leave, read it again. and all other countries in the world have governments so i don't really have a choice.

Prove it. "It is" does not equate to proof. And "you will have to do so without committing any logical errors, such as appeals to emotion or so called 'common knowledge'."

this item i will respond to in more detail later on, after digging up examples etc.

[mosaik]

The new point: Logic does nothing for those who don't define their stuff.

yes, apples and oranges are both fruit. no, apples are not oranges.

Here's a mixed bag. I do bthink the services the government provides do deserve some money on my part. I do think that there are services the government provides that should be privatized, I think there are some that should not be.
This stems from my idea that government should serve only to protect it's citizen's rights. Now, the grey area comes from where my rights end, and yours begin. I have the right to free speech. Does that mean I have the right to put graphic bestiality billboards up near grade schools?
Also, force can be used by a logical individual when dealing with a non-logical individual, who will not listen to reason. Such as the police, dealing with a violent drunkard.

the emphasis in the above quote quote is mine. you think the government provides good services and in exchange you ware willing to pay taxes to support them. i would submit that your thoughts are subjective and can't be used to make a logical point, as your thoughts are dramatically different from my thoughts. for a rule to be logical, it must apply to all circumstances, not just ones that fall in with your perspective.

I disagree. We do not live in a logical world, we are not logical beings. To an extent that you are underestimating, we are bound by our emotions, on a biological level. Talk to any pregnant woman for a length of time, and see if her hormones are not throwing her emotions out of whack. This is biolgically part of who we are. There are chemicals in our bodies doing this to us, it is not some mental process that can be eliminated. Therefore, rationally, we must realize that emotion is a part of who we are, and work with that. Not deny what is right in front of us.

even a pregnant woman retains the capacity for logic. a person who has just been heartbroken retains this capacity. logic and emotion are both part of the human condition, absolutely. but they are seperate components. a person can be both logical and emotional.

PS: Reply to my earlier really damn long post. I'm very interested in what you have to say to some of that. (The post with the bit about routers and who will teach you).

I did. didn't i? might be a few pages back.

[Narbus]

and what happened as a result? did the stock and profits of the corporation who marketed this drug plunge? wouldn't that be incentive to not repeat this?

And the CEO and executive board walked out with billions, and with no government to punish them for their actions, they kept the money, and all retired to expensive villas in the south of France. Yeah, poor poor them.

you say that like it's a bad thing. what makes you think i support patents or copywrights?

later on, Bayer or some other large corporation will rip off my idea and make billions.

You said it like it's a bad thing first.

Also: Look at walmart. They enjoy predatory pricing, and can afford to do so due to the size of their company. Given no government control, you won't have a chance to be an entrepreneur. The large corporations will smash any kind of small-town threat instantly, and with their size and resources, they'll be able to do it well.

o, like the state controlled media is any better? and furthermore, alternative media sources will always exist. some of them will grow and combat mainstream media. it's the information age. you can't hide anything anymore.

Then explain how it took so long for the enron thing to break. Why is it so few people know about Microsoft's "hidden history" on internet explorer?

You underestimate the power of squelching news.

yeah: don't get caught, an incentive, incidently, this same incentive applies to corporations. you seem once again to have fallen prey to the "building gods" syndrome: why do you trust the government to police itself and not corporations?

See: Levy, Chandra, and what happened to Senator what's-his-name.
Politicians fuck up, they're gone. Corporations fuck up, the CEO gets a lovely severace package, and goes to work for AOL a few weeks later.

that wasn't my point. i was challenging your implcit assertion that without government, my house wouldn't exist.

It wouldn't exist. Due to the government that is in effect right now, your house is there. Without this government, you might not even be here.

that, as i'm sure you're aware, is totally impossible. furthermore, it's not my responsibility to atone for the sins of my forefathers. on top of all that, native americans have already been paid enough of my stolen money to likely pay for everything i own and then some.

I'm not asking you to atone. I'm asking you to hold onto some semblence of morals. If you don't want people to steal from you, then don't reap the rewards of people stealing from others. It's that simple.

PS: Indian reservations are some of the worst places to live. Alcoholism, poverty, lack of education, etc are all huge issues. You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about here. Stop it.

he allows you to leave, read it again. and all other countries in the world have governments so i don't really have a choice.

I'm sure there's some great canadian wilderness or small island somewhere far away from government.

[mosaik]

But there are a few things I want to say regardless. Again with the rationalism. Doug is right in that the dictionary isn't very specific. So I went to my Dictionary of Philosophy for a more in-depth look.

Rationalism: Any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification. Reason can be contrasted with revelation, in religion, or with emotion and feeling as in ethics, but in philosophy it is usually contrasted with the senses (including introspection, but not intuitions). 'Rationalist' is to 'a priori' somewhat as 'empiricist' is to 'empirical', though the empiricist is more likely to apply his view to all knowledge. Rationalism is an outlook which somehow emphasizes the a priori and also the innate. 'Rationalist' has a variety of interpretations corresponding to those of 'empiricist'. A philosopher can be both rationalist and empiricist in different though important respects (e.g. Kant); but such philosophers are often thought to be best classified as neither.

Longer, more in-depth, but again, nothing about self-interest as a basis for rationality. I know that such connotations do exist, but it is not the agreed-upon definition of the word, in the common sense OR in the scholarly sense. Therefore, I will continue to use the words "rational" and "logical" interchangeably, to mean "based upon facts and reason".

just so we're clear, contrast means to show the differences. i'm not sure why you emphasized emotion, i've said all along that emotion and reason are different. as a philosophical idea, rational does mean "based on facts and reason".

Every action we commit has effects upon the people around us and also upon on our entire environment. Because of this, pure self-interest is NOT rational. It ignores the fact that people do not live in isolation.

Again, you're not using the word properly. If you're hungry, you eat. If you're tired, you sleep. Rational, yes?

That's acting in self-interest. Any action you take that is deliberately self-destructive is irrational. To be rational, or reasonable, you must be trying to stay alive. Sawing off your arm is not rational.

Self-interest is entirely rational. If you disagree, prove it.

To postulate that it is always best to act in your own interest without taking into account the interests of others is irrational because it doesn't work.

Again, for a rule to be logical/rational it must apply in all circumstances. Therefore, taking ANYTHING into account besides the action itself is not rational.

keep in mind that the interests of others and the rights of others are different things.

To use the example of someone coming into your house with the intent to rob you, it is in your rational self interest to stop him, kill him, or otherwise foil his plans. However, this completely ignores the fact that he might be a member of a gang that is bigger and more powerful than you and don't take kindly to one of their members being killed. They come after you, rape your wife, kill you, and then where does that leave your rational self-interest?

Trying to use circumstance to disprove a logical rule doesn't work. What if he's not a member of any gang? Then i win. Now your supposed logic has a fatal contradiction.

Basing rationality on selfishness could only work in a social vacuum. Even without a government, we can't escape society and the effects of our actions upon others and upon ourselves.

Ultimately, the only action we can take to suspend the power of others to act logically is the use of force. If you don't like the results of my choices, don't hang around with me. That's your right. I can only take it from you by force.

The definition of the word implies that in order to be rational it is necessary to take reality into account and not rest upon ideals. Reality is that people don't always (or even usually) act rationally. Reality is that our actions have effects upon others, which in turn act and have effects upon us.

That may be true, but that doesn't make it rational. Again, circumstances. What if in reality everyone did act rationally? again your logic now has a contradiction.

Rationally, we must take those realities into account when forming our worldview. To ignore them is to create an irrational belief system, such as anarchism.

Anarchy is a theory based on rationalism. How can you say that cirucmstances that only apply today and may not apply tommorow somehow invalidate that theory?

you can't! circumstance is not a logical proof. self-government is rational, rule by the majority is not.

[Narbus]

the emphasis in the above quote quote is mine. you think the government provides good services and in exchange you ware willing to pay taxes to support them. i would submit that your thoughts are subjective and can't be used to make a logical point, as your thoughts are dramatically different from my thoughts. for a rule to be logical, it must apply to all circumstances, not just ones that fall in with your perspective.

Subjective how? I can rationally look at lawsuits being filed against companies, and realize that there are a lot of people out there looking for the most profit possible, even at the expense of me. I can then suggest that a third body be present with greater resources than I possess, which would look out for me against these outside threats. Given the condition that greater resources than I possess are needed, this will obviously require the help of many people. The resulting third body is the Government.

When the government steps outside the bounds of protecting me, then we have issues. For example, the recent war. There still aren't any weapons of mass destruction, there isn't really any clear reason for the war, and that's where we have the problem. The war wasn't about protecting me. It was about something else.

even a pregnant woman retains the capacity for logic. a person who has just been heartbroken retains this capacity. logic and emotion are both part of the human condition, absolutely. but they are seperate components. a person can be both logical and emotional.

They may be separate, but they are still housed in the same brain. And having the capacity for logic housed in a brain run by chemicals which affect emotion makes it rather difficult to be a logical person.

I did. didn't i? might be a few pages back.

Oh, hey. Look at that . You did. Gogo literacy.

First of all, reason is always a better decision maker then emotion. I can, and will dismiss emotional decisions. If you think i'm wrong, prove it. rolling your eyes and being snide is not proof.

This is really hard. Emotionally, emotional decisions are clearly better. Logically, logical decisions are clearly better. I don't really know where to go from here.

[edit]Hey, I just realize why this is so hard. It's a logical fallacy. "Begging the question." By asking me to logically prove that emotion decisions are better, you are implying that logic is automatically the better of the two, meaning I can't win.[/edit]

The government is based on force. All government. coercion is irrational. therefore, government is inherently irrational.

for starters. not to mention, the premise of government is that some men (your politicians) are better then the rest of us. this is also irrational.

1. All SOCIETY is based on force. For there to be any consensus between multiple people, there will always be someone who's opinion isn't accepted 100%. It's called compromise, and majority rule. However, the majority can decide to honor the rights of the minority. Hence the government (majority) bill of rights which protects the individual (minority).
2. No, the premise is that it's a pain in the ass to get 291,227,639 people together to make decisions. So we pick a few people who represent us, to go and aruge for us.

I didn't steal the land i live on. I cannot be responsible for every sin the state has ever committed.

I don't expect you to. I do, however, expect you to refuse to benefit from those sins. If you reap the rewards of immorality, then how can you call yourself moral?

Prove it.

I was referring to the "holier than thou" part of your statement. You are, of course, suggesting that you hold the way for all of us to live in a perfect utopia, and everyone else on the planet who disagrees with you is wrong. So.

i am not refusing to pay them at all. i pay for my internet every month. i am resisting the forceful taking of my money. big difference.

No, you are paying some ISP for your internet. You are stealing from the military engineers who put down the research and ground work for the internet in the first place. Big difference.

You have both been very condescending,

You haven't been all sunshine and roses yourself, chuckles.

Collectivist is what you are, it's not an insult, many people wear the name proudly.

The 'pot, kettle' thing was referring to the statement "don't pretend you know me."
This conversation has happened to bring out some of the collectivist views I hold. I'm not a full on collectivist, in the same way that you didn't appreciate it when i suggested you were defining your life by how you spite the government.

The two things are different because selfish thinking is a state of mind and murder is an action.

selfishness is a rational state of mind, murder is an irrational action. why? use of force, remember?

You are suggesting to be "selfish," because it is logical. Therefore, it should lead to logical actions, correct? Being selfish leads to this illogical action. Therefore, I don't see how selfishness can be logical.

meh. i don't believe i ever said it was.

I evade taxes wherever and whenever possible. i don't vote. i run red lights, speed and break as many of their victimless crime laws as i can.

The idea of "breaking the law" generally doesn't involve running a red light at two in the morning with no one around. That's "being really tired and wanting to go home."
You didn't outright say it, but it was implied rather heavily. Three of us thought so enough to call you on it.

but i don't see how any of that relates to my paragraph about the book i read of the concept of seeing with your eyes.

Given that I thought you were running red lights at 2 in the afternoon and cutting off minivans full of nuns and orphans, my suggestion that you were a jerk wasn't far off.
I wasn't seeing some "THE LAW IS ALWAYS RIGHT" hype, I was seeing a jerk.

Well if i'm the only person on the planet it doesn't much matter, does it? after i'm gone our whole race is extinct.

A HA!

Without other people around you, your learning is useless. You do rely on other people.
*dances*

My point is, i don't care what effects my choices have on society. i just care about the effect they have on me.

And when that effect on society comes back and effects you?

i've come to realize lately narbus that you'll take any side in an argument as long as i'm not on it.

Yeah, I actually said this to you outright once. Called you a pinata.

if you find yourself agreeing with me you likely stay out of the debate which is why we only see you in threads where you can, from your lofty pedastal as the man who believes nothing, throw out little criticisms of those of us who do have principles.

Well, if I agree with all that's being said, what's the point, really? A lot of people posting "yessiree, that's right," "Yep, that's how it is," and "preach it brother," isn't really that much fun past the first few posts.
It's not a debate, it's a circle jerk.
Plus, I don't know that I've seen you in that many debates that didn't involve the government in someway. (I'm really not that good at keeping up with who's who given that god-forsaken nick-changing feature.) Since we have rather opposite ideas on this topic, well yes we're going to be on opposite sides of the fence a lot.

well, i'm through going around in circles with you. i've heard your arguments before from a million other people. the difference is, some of those people actually believe something. it's very easy for you to sit here and attempt to rip objectivism to shreads while never ever daring to have an idea of your own to let the rest of us criticize. you don't think you're right, you just think i'm wrong.

but the thing is, i don't have to do this song and dance with you. so i won't. if you want to discuss things with me, from now on you're going to have to be brave enough to submit some opinions other then "everything doug says is bullshit"

I'll be honest here. Part of it is the fun inherent in disagreeing with you.
HOWEVER. Part of it is also my belief that arguing both sides of a point helps the full understanding of that point, and thus can a logical conclusion that takes full advantage of the facts be formed.

I really think the US government is a bunch of condescending pricks who spend far too much of my money on the most retarded shit ever. 30 bucks for a fucking hammer? NASA spent how much money on a satellite just to design it so poorly that a single cable coming loose leaves the whole thing crashing into Mars? Seriously, people.
I think careear politicians should be locked in a small room with some textbooks until they can find an actual job that actually relates to the people they should be protecting. Making I don't even know how much a year in "free gifts" doesn't really inform you of the life of a single mother working two jobs to feed her child.
I think the government has overstepped it's bounds on many occasions, not the least of which was the recent war with Iraq.
I think that smaller government = better, both in terms of members, and in terms of area governing.

There are a lot of other points that we do actually agree on, but out of a desire to understand all angles, and partly out of a desire to be a smartass prick, I've taken the other side.

So it goes.

[mosaik]

Subjective how? I can rationally look at lawsuits being filed against companies, and realize that there are a lot of people out there looking for the most profit possible, even at the expense of me. I can then suggest that a third body be present with greater resources than I possess, which would look out for me against these outside threats. Given the condition that greater resources than I possess are needed, this will obviously require the help of many people. The resulting third body is the Government.

right, and all that works for you. you want the third party, right? but the thing is, i don't. i don't want them. for government to have more resources then you, it has to get them from somebody. in this case, it's me. how come your wants override mine? is there a logical reason for it?

When the government steps outside the bounds of protecting me, then we have issues. For example, the recent war. There still aren't any weapons of mass destruction, there isn't really any clear reason for the war, and that's where we have the problem. The war wasn't about protecting me. It was about something else.

agreed. i could accept a libertarian government.

They may be separate, but they are still housed in the same brain. And having the capacity for logic housed in a brain run by chemicals which affect emotion makes it rather difficult to be a logical person.

difficult but not impossible.

This is really hard. Emotionally, emotional decisions are clearly better. Logically, logical decisions are clearly better. I don't really know where to go from here.

It depends, i suppose, on your values. it's pretty much a fact that you're either going to listen to your heart or your head. there's no real way to prove one is better then the other. the only thing that can be proved is that they are both valid.

1. All SOCIETY is based on force. For there to be any consensus between multiple people, there will always be someone who's opinion isn't accepted 100%. It's called compromise, and majority rule. However, the majority can decide to honor the rights of the minority. Hence the government (majority) bill of rights which protects the individual (minority).

However, that system is flawed, logically, because the individual who makes up the minority is not represented. his views are no less valid then the views of the majority. is there a logical reason that he cannot live according to his own values? no.

society is not based on force. government is. i can only give you one example, and it's from fiction. I submit John Galt's Gulch. Can anybody give me one good reason that John Galt's gulch wouldn't work?

(i am assuming that you have read Atlas Shrugged or are familliar with John Galt. If you're not, i'll explain myself.)

2. No, the premise is that it's a pain in the ass to get 291,227,639 people together to make decisions. So we pick a few people who represent us, to go and aruge for us.

and they argue about things that are important to them, not you. Aerin keeps saying "we live in the real world", and i say that in the real world, the honest truth is that 90% of politicians don't give a shit about you and are trying to advance their own agenda.

I don't expect you to. I do, however, expect you to refuse to benefit from those sins. If you reap the rewards of immorality, then how can you call yourself moral?

well, you see, i didn't steal the land from the natives. why should i be the one who suffers?

I was referring to the "holier than thou" part of your statement. You are, of course, suggesting that you hold the way for all of us to live in a perfect utopia, and everyone else on the planet who disagrees with you is wrong. So.

i'm entitled to my own opinion, am i not? it's meaningless anyway.

No, you are paying some ISP for your internet. You are stealing from the military engineers who put down the research and ground work for the internet in the first place. Big difference.

I'm paying the service provider. if the engineers want a cut of the profits that the ISP makes, they should strike that deal with the ISP.

You haven't been all sunshine and roses yourself, chuckles.

valid statement.

You are suggesting to be "selfish," because it is logical. Therefore, it should lead to logical actions, correct? Being selfish leads to this illogical action. Therefore, I don't see how selfishness can be logical.

it's time to put an end to this. Selfish means "concerned chiefly or only with oneself". There's nothing illogical about that. But the motivation does not justify the action, if you kill me out of selfishness, the murder is still irrational.

The idea of "breaking the law" generally doesn't involve running a red light at two in the morning with no one around. That's "being really tired and wanting to go home."
You didn't outright say it, but it was implied rather heavily. Three of us thought so enough to call you on it.

I believe i'm still breaking the law, time of day not withstanding.

A HA!

Without other people around you, your learning is useless. You do rely on other people.
*dances*

for lots of things appealing to emotion. for things appealing to logic, i do not.

And when that effect on society comes back and effects you?

i face the concequences of my actions. if you mean a disgruntled employee who was laid off for incompetance coming to my house and shooting me, that is not a concequence of my firing him but more a concequence of him being irrational, and a total fucking psycho.

Well, if I agree with all that's being said, what's the point, really? A lot of people posting "yessiree, that's right," "Yep, that's how it is," and "preach it brother," isn't really that much fun past the first few posts.
It's not a debate, it's a circle jerk.

If you agree with me, you'll very likely encounter plenty of opponents.

Plus, I don't know that I've seen you in that many debates that didn't involve the government in someway. (I'm really not that good at keeping up with who's who given that god-forsaken nick-changing feature.) Since we have rather opposite ideas on this topic, well yes we're going to be on opposite sides of the fence a lot.

fair enough.

I'll be honest here. Part of it is the fun inherent in disagreeing with you.
HOWEVER. Part of it is also my belief that arguing both sides of a point helps the full understanding of that point, and thus can a logical conclusion that takes full advantage of the facts be formed.

i see both sides too. but i think one of them is always wrong. i'm never going to argue for the wrong side.

you should try www.self-gov.org and see how much of what they say appeals to you.

the last paragraph of your post sounds libertarian leaning to me.

[happening fish]

*Sorry Aerin, my brain hurts way too much right now to be able to follow this *