An Our Lady Peace Fan Community
http://www.forum.clumsymonkey.net/
mosaik wrote:Clumsyboy wrote: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?
Clumsyboy wrote: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
starving eyes wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
i am not. i am merely advocating a return to personal responsibility.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Government did not break into your house. You are living in theirs.
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.
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.
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.
starving eyes wrote: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.
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.
bullshit again. see above.
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.
it is and they are.
mosaik wrote: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.
logic is based on the idea that 1 + 1 = 2. a logical person, when faced with the problem 1 + 1 = ? will always answer 2.
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.
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.
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.
mosaik wrote: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
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?
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.
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.
And there's incentive to be forthcoming and honest, and historical backing of instances where officals weren't. See: Nixon.
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.
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.
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.
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'."
narbus wrote:The new point: Logic does nothing for those who don't define their stuff.
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.
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).
starving eyes wrote: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?
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.
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.
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?
that wasn't my point. i was challenging your implcit assertion that without government, my house wouldn't exist.
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.
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.
Aerin wrote:
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.
mosaik wrote: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.
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.
I did. didn't i? might be a few pages back.
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.
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.
I didn't steal the land i live on. I cannot be responsible for every sin the state has ever committed.
Prove it.
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.
You have both been very condescending,
Collectivist is what you are, it's not an insult, many people wear the name proudly.
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?
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.
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.
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.
My point is, i don't care what effects my choices have on society. i just care about the effect they have on me.
i've come to realize lately narbus that you'll take any side in an argument as long as i'm not on it.
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, 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"
Narbus wrote: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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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 haven't been all sunshine and roses yourself, chuckles.
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.
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.
A HA!
Without other people around you, your learning is useless. You do rely on other people.
*dances*
And when that effect on society comes back and effects you?
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.
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.
*