Philosophy of Self Ownership

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/19/2003, 12:37 pm

Anyways, I would just like to add that some of you guys have no clue how much research and technology is produced due to government spending. Things that would never be developed had a government not existed. Some good and some bad perhaps, but many many revolutionary products that exist due to government no less. I realized this notion yesterday at a meeting I went to and some of the projects blew my mind.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/19/2003, 4:49 pm

we're getting away from the point here:

the point is that whether or not good things have come from gov't is irrelevant. the ends do not justify the means, the system is still ethically flawed and irrational.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 7/21/2003, 2:23 pm

you'll always have guys who use voilence to get their ways. it's utopian to think the world will never have a hitler, kadafi, mussalini, hussien and what not. guys like this don't understand "rational" confrences or treaties that try and reach a comprimise. the only way to get it through their thick head is by force.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/21/2003, 3:10 pm

mosaik wrote:we're getting away from the point here:

the point is that whether or not good things have come from gov't is irrelevant. the ends do not justify the means, the system is still ethically flawed and irrational.

Something that is for the greater good is not flawed.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/21/2003, 4:22 pm

yes it is. there's no such thing as the greater good. something that brings harm to any minority, even if it benefits a larger majority, can not be "good".

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 7/21/2003, 6:16 pm

you'll always have guys who use voilence to get their ways. it's utopian to think the world will never have a hitler, kadafi, mussalini, hussien and what not. guys like this don't understand "rational" confrences or treaties that try and reach a comprimise. the only way to get it through their thick head is by force.

Yup, all it takes is one power hungry asshole with a convincing speech to destroy an entire anarchist state, whereas it takes a majority of the voting public in any given republic to make a difference.

Either it only takes one asshole to fuck up everything, or a few million.

Guess where I'm placing my bets.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/21/2003, 6:18 pm

yes it is. there's no such thing as the greater good. something that brings harm to any minority, even if it benefits a larger majority, can not be "good".

Oh yeah?

Example.

You own a one of a kind ceramic pig. It was given to you by your great-grandmother. You sell it for enough money to start up your own restaurant (a dream of yours). Selling the ceramic pig was the only way you could afford this. Your restaurant is insanely successful. You lost your great-grandmother's ceramic pig, but you gained a your dream business. Sacrificed for the greater good?

Solidarity 9-6347 · Post by **Solidarity 9-6347** » 7/21/2003, 10:23 pm

sort of off-topic but not really, i just started atlas shrugged and i certainly hope its worth 1064 pages :uh:

by the way, the mini-movie rocks in my opinion :thumbs:

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 7/21/2003, 10:25 pm

Daiye Spa wrote:
you'll always have guys who use voilence to get their ways. it's utopian to think the world will never have a hitler, kadafi, mussalini, hussien and what not. guys like this don't understand "rational" confrences or treaties that try and reach a comprimise. the only way to get it through their thick head is by force.

Yup, all it takes is one power hungry asshole with a convincing speech to destroy an entire anarchist state, whereas it takes a majority of the voting public in any given republic to make a difference.

Either it only takes one asshole to fuck up everything, or a few million.

Guess where I'm placing my bets.

Anarchist state? i've yet to see any activity from any anarchist activists. aside from handing out stickers and talking about theories, you have to do something in order to make progress. no one's gonna hand you anything when your trying to remove them. revolution is what we need, and people are only talking.

Sufjan Stevens · Post by **Sufjan Stevens** » 7/21/2003, 10:54 pm

Idealist wrote:sort of off-topic but not really, i just started atlas shrugged and i certainly hope its worth 1064 pages

by the way, the mini-movie rocks in my opinion

It's a fun, but painfully long book. I say it's worth reading.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/22/2003, 9:14 am

Daiye Spa wrote:
you'll always have guys who use voilence to get their ways. it's utopian to think the world will never have a hitler, kadafi, mussalini, hussien and what not. guys like this don't understand "rational" confrences or treaties that try and reach a comprimise. the only way to get it through their thick head is by force.

Yup, all it takes is one power hungry asshole with a convincing speech to destroy an entire anarchist state, whereas it takes a majority of the voting public in any given republic to make a difference.

Either it only takes one asshole to fuck up everything, or a few million.

Guess where I'm placing my bets.

I disagree. For starters, Hitler, Bush and all the other mass murderers over the years ran a GOVERNMENT, not an anarchist state. A government. They would not have been able to do much if so many people were not willing to follow them. Can i think of a social structure where people don't follow orders and think for themselves? Why yes i can!

One asshole with a convincing speech would be best served using it on liberals, as liberals are the most easily moved by words. anarchists, on the other hand, don't give a fuck what your president has to say. we march to our own beats. we won't fight in your wars.

so, no, it would not take "one asshole" to bring down an entire anarchist society - where did you get that idea in the first place?

Corey, the situation you described is a personal choice with respect to property. it was not for the "greater good" - it was a cost/benefit analysis. the cost was the pig, the benefit was the restaraunt. obviously in your example the pig was considered to be an acceptable cost in order to achieve the beneficial position that the restaraunt afforded.

i am speaking about the concept that individual rights can be overturned in order to benefit a larger group.

Atlas Shrugged changed my life. I hope it has the same effect on everyone who reads it.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 7/22/2003, 11:26 am

actually i was pointing out how force was necessary to rid the world of people like hitler and mousalini.(SP) how would you have removed hitlet from power? i liked the way you put bush in there, however he's acting on a UN resolution, as in everyone that agreed to this piece of paper is here by guilty of being considered one of the "bad guys" here.

Anarchist don't march, they're not active in any movement to rid government. they talk theories, they write books, they hand out stickers, but don't threaten the norm like all revolutionist should. there has not been an anarchist state anywhere on this planet during our modern history. don't you get it, no one is doing anything. get off your asses and prove me and the rest of us government loving folks wrong. the truth is, you can't. Martin Luther King, Ramsey Muniz, Ceasar Chavez, Malcom X, Che Guevara, The founding fathers of the US, and all the others, they had BALLS. Do you know that castro came to the states, he got federal money, took it home to Cuba and funded his way up to the top, only to turn comunist. is he a hipocrit for taking a democracy's money and investing it into a communist state? he's successful, doesn't matter how he funded himself, he got it done. which is alot more then i can say for the Anarchist movement.

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 7/22/2003, 11:28 am

But see, Doug, people are inherently unhappy, and they like to find things to blame it on. If we were to get rid of government, there would be things about anarchy that would piss people off. So somebody would get the idea to exploit this unhappiness, offer them something better. The people are convinced, they form a new government, they take over the anarchists by force, and bam, we're back where we started but probably worse off.

The fact that you're such a proponent of anarchy only goes to prove that people are inherently displeased. If we actually were an anarchistic society, you'd find something else to bitch about. It's just human nature.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 7/22/2003, 11:29 am

here here!

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/22/2003, 12:30 pm

Dangeresque wrote:actually i was pointing out how force was necessary to rid the world of people like hitler and mousalini.(SP) how would you have removed hitlet from power? i liked the way you put bush in there, however he's acting on a UN resolution, as in everyone that agreed to this piece of paper is here by guilty of being considered one of the "bad guys" here.

UN resolutions are not worth the paper they're written on.

I am not a pacifist. i just don't believe in the iniation of force or fraud to take life, liberty or property. all governments and all government supporters believe in this. how would i stop hitler? with force. but understand that i would be acting in self defense, not unmitigated aggression.

your government, by the way, is/was acting on unmitigated aggression and not self-defense in Iraq.

Anarchist don't march, they're not active in any movement to rid government. they talk theories, they write books, they hand out stickers, but don't threaten the norm like all revolutionist should. there has not been an anarchist state anywhere on this planet during our modern history. don't you get it, no one is doing anything. get off your asses and prove me and the rest of us government loving folks wrong. the truth is, you can't. Martin Luther King, Ramsey Muniz, Ceasar Chavez, Malcom X, Che Guevara, The founding fathers of the US, and all the others, they had BALLS. Do you know that castro came to the states, he got federal money, took it home to Cuba and funded his way up to the top, only to turn comunist. is he a hipocrit for taking a democracy's money and investing it into a communist state? he's successful, doesn't matter how he funded himself, he got it done. which is alot more then i can say for the Anarchist movement.

I don't want a revolution. I don't want to lead you or other government lovers like sheep. i want people to WAKE UP and think for themselves - not have me doing their thinking for them.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/22/2003, 12:34 pm

Daiye Spa wrote:But see, Doug, people are inherently unhappy, and they like to find things to blame it on. If we were to get rid of government, there would be things about anarchy that would piss people off. So somebody would get the idea to exploit this unhappiness, offer them something better. The people are convinced, they form a new government, they take over the anarchists by force, and bam, we're back where we started but probably worse off.

The fact that you're such a proponent of anarchy only goes to prove that people are inherently displeased. If we actually were an anarchistic society, you'd find something else to bitch about. It's just human nature.

IF people were rational, they'd be accountable as well. that would take care of the so-called "bitching".

But i don't want to do this anymore. this is not going to turn into one of those threads where i am asked over and over, "but who would make law?"

I want to talk about the ideas, the THEORIES, in the little flash movie. if you dont' have an ideology then you cant' debate with me here. I expect that all of you will be moving along, but if anybody would like to dare contest the THEORETICAL basis of self-ownership, the PRINCIPLE, if you will, i'll hear you now.

does anybody have a PHILOSOPHY that contradicts mine? does anybody even want to stand up and say "i believe in demockracy" the way i stand up and say i believe in freedom?

anybody? anybody at all want to take a side, besides "doug is wrong!"?

One-Eye · Post by **One-Eye** » 7/22/2003, 1:13 pm

*bows out of argument*

It's as good a theory as any other one out there. If you take the given that people are rational beings (which I don't), then there's nothing inherently wrong with the theory itself. Only in potential real-world applications.

Corey · Post by **Corey** » 7/22/2003, 3:08 pm

I have a theory. If there were no gravity, I could lift the statue of liberty with my pinky. La-dee-da. You are too focussed on theory. Theory means nothing if it isn't practical.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 7/22/2003, 3:12 pm

i prefer to think that having a principle behind my action adds value to the action. THAT's why i focus on theory.

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 7/22/2003, 3:43 pm

A few comments:
Corey, in regards to the pig:
This is a false analogy. Here's the real way it works. I want you to start a resturant. You really don't want to. You like your pig. But I think you should start your resturant, and I have five very large friends with guns, so I force you to start your resturant. You may have a successful resturant, but all you really want is your pig.

That's what the government does. They decide on what your greater good is for you, and make you pay for it.

Aerin, while you've bowed out, I'd like to mention something. You said "It's human nature to bitch a lot." Because it isn't done nearly enough, a quote from Jewel: "What we call human nature is actually human habit."
Why should we be happy? We have a government to take care of that for us. If anything is wrong, go to the government. Who has to deal with all these other unhappy people, and try and hammer out some kind of ill-fitting compromise that takes into account every person in the country. Chances that the compromise will work?
We bitch because it's what we're used to. With a government stepping in and trying to fix every problem for us whenever we bitch at all, why not? If we don't actually just say, "Hey, you know what? Fuck it. I'm going to take a bit of control here, and just be happy," then we're not going to be.
"You can't build a better world for other people. Only people can do that. Otherwise it's just a cage."
And the only way for a person to build that world is if they are able to. And having a government somewhere telling you what is an acceptable standard for your happiness makes it far too hard.

I do agree that there are people out there who are not rational. They simply don't have it in them. For whatever reason, they just don't think in those terms. This is why I believe there is a need for a government. However, that government should only exist to protect it's citizens' lives, liberties, and properties. That's it. Protect us from the irrational, let the rational be.

ClumsyMonkey.net

ClumsyMonkey.net

Philosophy of Self Ownership