"Is there a rational, post-modern and hermeneutic reason that the proposal vis-a-vis the aforementioned and notwithstranding conditions being appied that all included parties might support the declaration that the inquiery might be posed to ascertain the identitity of citzenship/Common Law existence of the individual known as John Galt?"... LOL! I could have filled the whole comments box with this stuff!
"When the baser kind of politician resorts to that gimmick he is counting on the ugliest emotion of lesser people, envy, and if they confuse bigness with greatness it his purpose." Hmm.... tax the rich....
atlas shurgs and we have a lord of the flies world. more adults are needed. We exist for a brief time, make the world a better place where all children become adults then we shall be a race of atlass. I as an adult know atlas would never shurg. if he did he is not Atlas, he is a selfish greedy child
The sad truth is that the left idolises people like Stalin, and have no problem with all the people he killed in the name of equality.
On the flip side, despite what the news shows you, only a tiny % of people in the US agree with the left's hardline position on this, and can be educated.
The fact that these people are more vocal than others makes it look like they have the number, but they don't.
Well, I agree with most of the content in the video, but I'd argue that our tertiary education has actually produced considerable amount of people who are capable of critical and analytical thinking. I for one is in the 2nd year in university majoring in mathematics and economics, and I am highly in favor of the system advocated by people like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
@JohnyKimbled What it ultimately comes down to in their differences in justification of capitalism. Rand justified it on moral grounds, while Friedman justified it on utilitarian grounds.
@shamgar001 Trying to justify something on utilitarian grounds is also a form of trying to justify something on moral grounds. I think your statement would be better if you substituted "moral" with "deontological".
@BloodskullMannoroth That's what I would have normally said, but I don't know how many people know what "deontological" means on a place like Youtube.
@shamgar001 "What it ultimately comes down to in their differences in justification of capitalism. Rand justified it on moral grounds, while Friedman justified it on utilitarian grounds."
You're right. And the buffoons that try to contrast their views do so to stereotype one view in order to make straw-man arguments against it using the other perspective as a means of promoting some idea that neither believe in. Communists use this type of propaganda to sew class warfare & offer "solutions".
@JohnyKimbled I remember stumbling upon a Rand quote along the lines of "Friedman was not a true capitalist, but I understand why people would think he is". I could be wrong but I remember seeing something like that. I think both have good points but the two aren't identical.
"I saw five minutes of [Milton Friedman's TV program FREE TO CHOOSE]; that was enough for me, because I know Friedman's ideas. He is not for capitalism; he's a miserable eclectic. He's an enemy of Objectivism [Rand's philosophy], and his objection is that I bring morality into economics, which he thinks should be amoral. I don't always like what public television puts on, but they have better programs than FREE TO CHOOSE--the circus, for instance" --Ayn Rand
@qtutoringhelps Rand tended to not like anyone who disagreed with her. This was reflected in her personal life as well. It seems that great thinkers are often very lonely people for their absolutism. Friedman himself acknowledged that two of the greatest spreaders of the ideas of freedom were also, paradoxically, extremely intolerant people in their own way; Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand. Friedman, for his part, was a lot more engaging with people of opposite views.
@qtutoringhelps The passage that Friedman is relaying in this video is not actually his own original work, he's paraphrasing a passage written by Leonard E Read, founder of The Foundation for Economic Education, called "I, Pencil''. While Ayn Rand was heavily critical of Friedman, for good reason, she was - according to Yaron Brook - a correspondent with Read.
The scene of 'Free to Choose' that is shown here is, to many free market advocates, immediately evocative of the "I, Pencil" passage...
... that supports what Rand says at that point in the reading. Therefore, I think that the choice of that video for the background was very good, even though - as you know - I share your view of Friedman himself.
As for what Rand would have thought, I like Alex Epstein's comment that he's reluctant to speak for people who are dead. It seems plausible to me that she might have been ok with it on account of the reasons mentioned above.
Read was the first publisher of ANTHEM in the US, through a company called Pamphleteers, Inc. I'm not sure if she had a break with him later, as she did with so many others.
Interesting... So Rand saw the institutions of higher learning as the head of the totalitarian snake? I'd argue against that, as it seems to go further.
@TacticalCitySlicker That is not exactly as I see it. Rand identified the university as the root of irrational left-wing ideology or, as you say, the totalitarian snake. The root system feeds the being. The head should be recognized as the beneficiary of the root system. Who benefits from irrational left-wing ideology? That is real head of the totalitarian snake.
@TacticalCitySlicker " Rand saw the institutions of higher learning as the head ...?...I'd argue against "
Good point, those that initiate violence are ultimately the tip of spear, not professors_ Rand's contribution to freedom is the non-aggression principle_ But is is important to note her emotional biases, like that against higher ed_ When you have public schools built with money stolen at gunpoint they will fail_ But, the Mises Institute is a good example of real higher economic thought_
1) The Mises Institute is a disgrace -it ought to be called the Rothbard Institute.
2) Rand's contributionS (why did you use a singular noun, not plural?) were manifold, but the greatest of them is the identification of a rational code of ethics. The non-aggression principle is a consequence, but Rational Egoism is the real achievement (a point that libertarians routinely overlook).
3) She didn't have an 'emotional bias'... you can't just assert that.
Disgrace>?.... No_ Rothbard had the intellectual honesty to take the philosophy of liberty to it's logical conclusion, no state_ While Rand, for all her logic/reason, rejected a stateless solution without giving a logical reasoning to back up this contradiction_
"She didn't have an 'emotional bias'... you can't just assert that."
Yes, she did have biases, like that against the palestinians, who clearly had their property rights violated_
@evandonghue2 typical libertarian. btw, rothbard expressed great joy at the victory of the communists in Vietnam. Presumably you think that is because he was an 'intellectually honest' defender of liberty.
Think on that when wondering why I won't grant you the terms of debate.
@StudentOfObjectivism Im not debating, Im stating clear fact, that the source of disfunction in our world does not stem from professors as Rand suggests, but rather from those that choose to use violence in all it's forms to get their way, instead of crafting peaceful, voluntary, solutions to their problems_
Mises, Rand, and Rothbard all agreed that it's ideas that move the world.
Ultimately the power of the state rests on its legitimacy as implied by the ideology of by the people in the society it feeds off of. So yes, bad philosophers are the root of the state.
But Aristotelianism/Objectivism, applied to "the state" reveals it as a Platonist floating abstraction and implies Rothbardian Anarchocapitalism, even if Rand herself didn't accept that fact.
But you were interested enough to throw your statement of cowardly evasion over your shoulder as you ran away. It would have been more poetic if you simply said "Who is John Galt?"
@JesseForgione Oh, I'm cowardly am I? And you for just asserting without argument that 'Aristotelianism/Objectivism, applied to "the state" reveals it as a Platonist floating abstraction' are some kind of hero? Sometimes the more courageous thing to do is to recognise that a particular debate is a waste of time and walk off without caring whether or not your opponent is convinced. Besides, for a coward I have an uncharacteristic propensity for making videos articulating my viewpoint.
I have no way of knowing whether you’re usually a coward. But it’s poor form to claim you don’t care to debate something, while still trying to throw in the last word. You basically said “you’re wrong, but don’t answer this.”
If you really think you can make a case against anything I've said, let’s hear it.
If you don’t want to debate it, than don’t tell me I’m wrong.
@JesseForgione 'If you really think you can make a case against anything I've said, let’s hear it.'
All you've done is make a completely arbitrary assertion - that Rand's conception of the state was a 'Platonist floating abstraction'.
If you'd given some reasoning for that position, I might have decided to explain to your why you're wrong, but as it stands it's just an arbitrary assertion. Make an actual argument or stop demanding that I waste my time explaining things to you.
I said "the state" was a floating abstraction, not just Rand's conception of it. The idea of the state is just a method by which certain criminals rob the rest of us. It doesn't refer to anything in reality.
But let me ask you some questions so you can explain things to me.
Is initiating force always wrong? Or are there exceptions?
Does the law apply to everyone? Or are some people above the law?
Do I entirely own my life? Or does someone else have a claim on it?
@JesseForgione If that's what you meant then you have a crumby command of English. Here are the answers to your questions, but I am literally certain that you don't understand the questions:
Yes; no
yes; no
yes; no
But since you haven't attempted to define the terms the answers don't really mean very much - and no, I am not inclined to write out an explanation just for you.
I thought I was using very simple terms. Which word or words were unclear in their meaning?
My guess is that you're not clear on the word "state." Do you use that word to mean "an entity with a monopoly on the legal use of force in a given area"?
If so, how should such a monopoly be maintained without initiating force against innocents?
How should it be funded?
If, on the other hand, it's not a monopoly, and it's voluntarily funded, how is it not a private enterprise?
@JesseForgione "an entity with a monopoly on the legal use of force in a given area"
No, it has a monopoly on the legal use of retaliatory force. It has no right to the initiation of force, just as no individual has that right. It's a necessary entity because otherwise otherwise retaliatory force would have to be applied by each individual - without due process. The idea of private law enforcement entities that compete for custom is so divorced from reality that it's not even worth critiquing.
Is the state retaliating when it prevents people from defending themselves, or from hiring someone else to defend them? Is it retaliating when it collects taxes?
Private law is not divorced from reality. The western tradition of law came out of international merchant law, which developed independent of the state (which consisted of rulers demanding tributes). It was only later that the state got into the law-enforcement business, replacing restitution with punishments.
@JesseForgione 'Is the state retaliating when it prevents people from defending themselves'
No, but in fact the law right now allows you to kill someone if it is in self-defense - it's just that you have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that it was self-defense, not revenge or after the fact retaliation.
'or from hiring someone else to defend them?'
No, that would not be retaliation, but you are allowed to hire people to defend you - they're called security firms and bodyguards...
It's just that you're not allowed to hire goons and thugs to go beat the hell out of someone/ lock them in jail/ kill them because you think they have done something bad to you.
'Is it retaliating when it collects taxes?'
No, but I don't think that compulsory taxation is the only way to fund the state.
'The western tradition of law came out of international merchant law, which developed independent of the state'
Did it indeed? You do like to make bold assertions, don't you?
@JesseForgione Lol. you have the right to hire private security: to defend your life and/or assets. ie such that if someone is physically attacking you at any given moment then you can act in self-defense. However, you don't have the right to use arbitrary 'retaliatory' violence without any standard of proof or objective process. Yes, you would be free not to contribute to the state - but not to hire some 'private police agency' (thugs) to enact vigilante 'justice' on your behalf.
Right now you're describing two classes of person: those who do not have a right to retaliate against their aggressors, and those who do.
It does no good to say we delegate that right to the state, because that still admits that the right is primarily that of the individual, to delegate or not, and to whom he chooses.
And I hope I'm not about to have an Objectivist tell me that "society as a whole" has chosen the state for me.
@JesseForgione Errrr.... excuse me, when did I say that individual policemen have the right to use retaliatory force? When did I say that there are some that have the right to retaliate against their aggressors and some that don't?
I don't know why I am even bothering with this argument. You're more interested in putting words in my mouth (creating straw men) than in thinking about your own retarded, arbitrary ideas. Like I said at the start, I don't consider your position worthy of response.
I said nothing about "individual policemen." You made the distinction between "private individuals" who do not have the right to retaliate, and "the state" which does. So as not to put words in your mouth I'll quote you exactly:
"it has a monopoly on the legal use of retaliatory force."
Do you think the state is made of something other than people?
And what is it about being free from competition that makes the state more objective instead of less?
@JesseForgione 'what is it about being free from competition that makes the state more objective instead of less?'
The use of violence is not a commodity like teacups or food: competition in violence is violence. If you want to compete in that then I damn sure want a state to throw your arse in jail.
@JesseForgione Excuse me, we were talking about the right to use retaliatory violence. You are shifting the goalposts.
Anyway, like I said at the start of this long and pointless exchange, I'm not interested in debating the matter. You provoked me by accusing me of being a coward... I should have known better than to rise to it. Your questions are retarded and I simply cannot be bothered to explain things to you any longer. Now piss off.
@JesseForgione "Ultimately the power of the state rests on its legitimacy as implied by the ideology..."
Agreed... then you contradict when u say this, "So yes, bad philosophers are the root of the state."
Bad philosophy and bad philosophers cannot both be the "root", they are two separate things_ Individuals, in this case academics, acting rationally, in their self interest, under a corrupt system are not the problem, the corrupt system/ideology is the problem_
There's no such thing as philosophy just floating around without philosophers. Philosophy is what philosophers do. When they propagate bad ideas, there are bad results. There's no such thing as a "corrupt system" outside of corrupt people. People are corrupted by bad ideas from bad philosophers.
Ayn Rand was a great writer as well as a great philosopher, her concise and eloquent words cut through the mumble jumble we get in today's media like a sharp sword.
(cont`d) The specific meaning and definition remains unspoken and you have to be a mind reader to know his exact meaning. What he reads off a teleprompter is for public consumption. The hidden double meaning is only meant for those who speak the language of the left.
One and the same yes. Ever really listen to their messiah? Always in double-speak and generalizations. When anyone tries to pin him down and ask him what he meant he will tell you that is not what he said. He KNOWS what he said. If you misinterpreted that is your fault but he will never get to the root meaning and will never tell you...
Ayn Rand changed my life. Where is OUR John Galt?
joedk325 2 months ago
@joedk325 Relying on someone else already? I recommend you reread when Dagny was in the Valley.
AnubisEye009 2 months ago
The tragedy is that those who understand this video already agree with it, and those who don't won't agree because they don't understand
ElJefer 3 months ago 2
"Is there a rational, post-modern and hermeneutic reason that the proposal vis-a-vis the aforementioned and notwithstranding conditions being appied that all included parties might support the declaration that the inquiery might be posed to ascertain the identitity of citzenship/Common Law existence of the individual known as John Galt?"... LOL! I could have filled the whole comments box with this stuff!
benthejrporter 3 months ago
"When the baser kind of politician resorts to that gimmick he is counting on the ugliest emotion of lesser people, envy, and if they confuse bigness with greatness it his purpose." Hmm.... tax the rich....
exiquio 3 months ago
Comment removed
exiquio 3 months ago
Like I always say - EDUCATION!
grraadd 3 months ago
atlas shurgs and we have a lord of the flies world. more adults are needed. We exist for a brief time, make the world a better place where all children become adults then we shall be a race of atlass. I as an adult know atlas would never shurg. if he did he is not Atlas, he is a selfish greedy child
neobudda1 3 months ago
I don't agree with a large portion of Rand's Objectivism, but she really owned here.
BloodskullMannoroth 3 months ago
I think this is one of your best videos. I had to watch it twice. Thank you. Keep up the good work.
eiffuy 3 months ago 2
The sad truth is that the left idolises people like Stalin, and have no problem with all the people he killed in the name of equality.
On the flip side, despite what the news shows you, only a tiny % of people in the US agree with the left's hardline position on this, and can be educated.
The fact that these people are more vocal than others makes it look like they have the number, but they don't.
Keep spreading the message of economic liberty!
LibertyDownUnder 3 months ago
Well, I agree with most of the content in the video, but I'd argue that our tertiary education has actually produced considerable amount of people who are capable of critical and analytical thinking. I for one is in the 2nd year in university majoring in mathematics and economics, and I am highly in favor of the system advocated by people like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
yamahaU3 3 months ago
mind = blown
Freedom21stCenturi 3 months ago 3
You made good choices for the background images in this video.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@JohnyKimbled What it ultimately comes down to in their differences in justification of capitalism. Rand justified it on moral grounds, while Friedman justified it on utilitarian grounds.
shamgar001 3 months ago
@shamgar001 Trying to justify something on utilitarian grounds is also a form of trying to justify something on moral grounds. I think your statement would be better if you substituted "moral" with "deontological".
BloodskullMannoroth 3 months ago
@BloodskullMannoroth That's what I would have normally said, but I don't know how many people know what "deontological" means on a place like Youtube.
shamgar001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shamgar001 "What it ultimately comes down to in their differences in justification of capitalism. Rand justified it on moral grounds, while Friedman justified it on utilitarian grounds."
You're right. And the buffoons that try to contrast their views do so to stereotype one view in order to make straw-man arguments against it using the other perspective as a means of promoting some idea that neither believe in. Communists use this type of propaganda to sew class warfare & offer "solutions".
DOHC2L 3 months ago
@JohnyKimbled I remember stumbling upon a Rand quote along the lines of "Friedman was not a true capitalist, but I understand why people would think he is". I could be wrong but I remember seeing something like that. I think both have good points but the two aren't identical.
MaterialGod 3 months ago
@JohnyKimbled
"I saw five minutes of [Milton Friedman's TV program FREE TO CHOOSE]; that was enough for me, because I know Friedman's ideas. He is not for capitalism; he's a miserable eclectic. He's an enemy of Objectivism [Rand's philosophy], and his objection is that I bring morality into economics, which he thinks should be amoral. I don't always like what public television puts on, but they have better programs than FREE TO CHOOSE--the circus, for instance" --Ayn Rand
qtutoringhelps 3 months ago
@qtutoringhelps Rand tended to not like anyone who disagreed with her. This was reflected in her personal life as well. It seems that great thinkers are often very lonely people for their absolutism. Friedman himself acknowledged that two of the greatest spreaders of the ideas of freedom were also, paradoxically, extremely intolerant people in their own way; Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand. Friedman, for his part, was a lot more engaging with people of opposite views.
kev3d 3 months ago
@kev3d
"Rand tended to not like anyone who disagreed with her."
Because any substantiative disagreement with her suggested evasion on the part of person disagreeing.
qtutoringhelps 3 months ago
Good video, but I'm sure Rand would vehemently object to you overlaying her words with a video of Friedman ( 3:55 ), whom she despised.
qtutoringhelps 3 months ago
@qtutoringhelps The passage that Friedman is relaying in this video is not actually his own original work, he's paraphrasing a passage written by Leonard E Read, founder of The Foundation for Economic Education, called "I, Pencil''. While Ayn Rand was heavily critical of Friedman, for good reason, she was - according to Yaron Brook - a correspondent with Read.
The scene of 'Free to Choose' that is shown here is, to many free market advocates, immediately evocative of the "I, Pencil" passage...
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
... that supports what Rand says at that point in the reading. Therefore, I think that the choice of that video for the background was very good, even though - as you know - I share your view of Friedman himself.
As for what Rand would have thought, I like Alex Epstein's comment that he's reluctant to speak for people who are dead. It seems plausible to me that she might have been ok with it on account of the reasons mentioned above.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Does Friedman indicate that he's paraphrasing Read in that clip? I don't remember that he does, but I could be wrong.
qtutoringhelps 3 months ago
@qtutoringhelps No.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Read was the first publisher of ANTHEM in the US, through a company called Pamphleteers, Inc. I'm not sure if she had a break with him later, as she did with so many others.
qtutoringhelps 3 months ago
Interesting... So Rand saw the institutions of higher learning as the head of the totalitarian snake? I'd argue against that, as it seems to go further.
TacticalCitySlicker 3 months ago
@TacticalCitySlicker That is not exactly as I see it. Rand identified the university as the root of irrational left-wing ideology or, as you say, the totalitarian snake. The root system feeds the being. The head should be recognized as the beneficiary of the root system. Who benefits from irrational left-wing ideology? That is real head of the totalitarian snake.
fzqlcs 3 months ago 2
@TacticalCitySlicker " Rand saw the institutions of higher learning as the head ...?...I'd argue against "
Good point, those that initiate violence are ultimately the tip of spear, not professors_ Rand's contribution to freedom is the non-aggression principle_ But is is important to note her emotional biases, like that against higher ed_ When you have public schools built with money stolen at gunpoint they will fail_ But, the Mises Institute is a good example of real higher economic thought_
evandonghue2 3 months ago
@evandonghue2 You're so wrong.
1) The Mises Institute is a disgrace -it ought to be called the Rothbard Institute.
2) Rand's contributionS (why did you use a singular noun, not plural?) were manifold, but the greatest of them is the identification of a rational code of ethics. The non-aggression principle is a consequence, but Rational Egoism is the real achievement (a point that libertarians routinely overlook).
3) She didn't have an 'emotional bias'... you can't just assert that.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism "The Mises Institute a disgrace"
Disgrace>?.... No_ Rothbard had the intellectual honesty to take the philosophy of liberty to it's logical conclusion, no state_ While Rand, for all her logic/reason, rejected a stateless solution without giving a logical reasoning to back up this contradiction_
"She didn't have an 'emotional bias'... you can't just assert that."
Yes, she did have biases, like that against the palestinians, who clearly had their property rights violated_
evandonghue2 3 months ago
@evandonghue2 not even gonna bother arguing with that. Your position is too obtuse for words.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Typical objectivist_
evandonghue2 3 months ago
@evandonghue2 typical libertarian. btw, rothbard expressed great joy at the victory of the communists in Vietnam. Presumably you think that is because he was an 'intellectually honest' defender of liberty.
Think on that when wondering why I won't grant you the terms of debate.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Im not debating, Im stating clear fact, that the source of disfunction in our world does not stem from professors as Rand suggests, but rather from those that choose to use violence in all it's forms to get their way, instead of crafting peaceful, voluntary, solutions to their problems_
evandonghue2 3 months ago
@evandonghue2 and @StudentsOfObjectivism,
Mises, Rand, and Rothbard all agreed that it's ideas that move the world.
Ultimately the power of the state rests on its legitimacy as implied by the ideology of by the people in the society it feeds off of. So yes, bad philosophers are the root of the state.
But Aristotelianism/Objectivism, applied to "the state" reveals it as a Platonist floating abstraction and implies Rothbardian Anarchocapitalism, even if Rand herself didn't accept that fact.
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione You're simply wrong and I'm not interested in debating the issue.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
But you were interested enough to throw your statement of cowardly evasion over your shoulder as you ran away. It would have been more poetic if you simply said "Who is John Galt?"
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione Oh, I'm cowardly am I? And you for just asserting without argument that 'Aristotelianism/Objectivism, applied to "the state" reveals it as a Platonist floating abstraction' are some kind of hero? Sometimes the more courageous thing to do is to recognise that a particular debate is a waste of time and walk off without caring whether or not your opponent is convinced. Besides, for a coward I have an uncharacteristic propensity for making videos articulating my viewpoint.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
I have no way of knowing whether you’re usually a coward. But it’s poor form to claim you don’t care to debate something, while still trying to throw in the last word. You basically said “you’re wrong, but don’t answer this.”
If you really think you can make a case against anything I've said, let’s hear it.
If you don’t want to debate it, than don’t tell me I’m wrong.
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione 'If you really think you can make a case against anything I've said, let’s hear it.'
All you've done is make a completely arbitrary assertion - that Rand's conception of the state was a 'Platonist floating abstraction'.
If you'd given some reasoning for that position, I might have decided to explain to your why you're wrong, but as it stands it's just an arbitrary assertion. Make an actual argument or stop demanding that I waste my time explaining things to you.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
I said "the state" was a floating abstraction, not just Rand's conception of it. The idea of the state is just a method by which certain criminals rob the rest of us. It doesn't refer to anything in reality.
But let me ask you some questions so you can explain things to me.
Is initiating force always wrong? Or are there exceptions?
Does the law apply to everyone? Or are some people above the law?
Do I entirely own my life? Or does someone else have a claim on it?
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione If that's what you meant then you have a crumby command of English. Here are the answers to your questions, but I am literally certain that you don't understand the questions:
Yes; no
yes; no
yes; no
But since you haven't attempted to define the terms the answers don't really mean very much - and no, I am not inclined to write out an explanation just for you.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago 2
@StudentOfObjectivism
I thought I was using very simple terms. Which word or words were unclear in their meaning?
My guess is that you're not clear on the word "state." Do you use that word to mean "an entity with a monopoly on the legal use of force in a given area"?
If so, how should such a monopoly be maintained without initiating force against innocents?
How should it be funded?
If, on the other hand, it's not a monopoly, and it's voluntarily funded, how is it not a private enterprise?
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione "an entity with a monopoly on the legal use of force in a given area"
No, it has a monopoly on the legal use of retaliatory force. It has no right to the initiation of force, just as no individual has that right. It's a necessary entity because otherwise otherwise retaliatory force would have to be applied by each individual - without due process. The idea of private law enforcement entities that compete for custom is so divorced from reality that it's not even worth critiquing.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Is the state retaliating when it prevents people from defending themselves, or from hiring someone else to defend them? Is it retaliating when it collects taxes?
Private law is not divorced from reality. The western tradition of law came out of international merchant law, which developed independent of the state (which consisted of rulers demanding tributes). It was only later that the state got into the law-enforcement business, replacing restitution with punishments.
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione 'Is the state retaliating when it prevents people from defending themselves'
No, but in fact the law right now allows you to kill someone if it is in self-defense - it's just that you have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that it was self-defense, not revenge or after the fact retaliation.
'or from hiring someone else to defend them?'
No, that would not be retaliation, but you are allowed to hire people to defend you - they're called security firms and bodyguards...
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
It's just that you're not allowed to hire goons and thugs to go beat the hell out of someone/ lock them in jail/ kill them because you think they have done something bad to you.
'Is it retaliating when it collects taxes?'
No, but I don't think that compulsory taxation is the only way to fund the state.
'The western tradition of law came out of international merchant law, which developed independent of the state'
Did it indeed? You do like to make bold assertions, don't you?
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
So you would agree that the state should be voluntarily funded. And you would agree that you have a right to hire private security.
So just to be clear, you are totally cool with me not hiring your state, and instead paying someone else for security. Is this correct?
Because if it is, than welcome to market-anarchism.
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione Lol. you have the right to hire private security: to defend your life and/or assets. ie such that if someone is physically attacking you at any given moment then you can act in self-defense. However, you don't have the right to use arbitrary 'retaliatory' violence without any standard of proof or objective process. Yes, you would be free not to contribute to the state - but not to hire some 'private police agency' (thugs) to enact vigilante 'justice' on your behalf.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Does the law apply to everyone?
Right now you're describing two classes of person: those who do not have a right to retaliate against their aggressors, and those who do.
It does no good to say we delegate that right to the state, because that still admits that the right is primarily that of the individual, to delegate or not, and to whom he chooses.
And I hope I'm not about to have an Objectivist tell me that "society as a whole" has chosen the state for me.
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione Errrr.... excuse me, when did I say that individual policemen have the right to use retaliatory force? When did I say that there are some that have the right to retaliate against their aggressors and some that don't?
I don't know why I am even bothering with this argument. You're more interested in putting words in my mouth (creating straw men) than in thinking about your own retarded, arbitrary ideas. Like I said at the start, I don't consider your position worthy of response.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
I said nothing about "individual policemen." You made the distinction between "private individuals" who do not have the right to retaliate, and "the state" which does. So as not to put words in your mouth I'll quote you exactly:
"it has a monopoly on the legal use of retaliatory force."
Do you think the state is made of something other than people?
And what is it about being free from competition that makes the state more objective instead of less?
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione 'what is it about being free from competition that makes the state more objective instead of less?'
The use of violence is not a commodity like teacups or food: competition in violence is violence. If you want to compete in that then I damn sure want a state to throw your arse in jail.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
Competition to provide security and arbitration is not the same as "competition to commit violence."
Are you saying "if you do what the state does, the state should throw you in jail"?
What makes a particular use of force a crime?
Does it depend on whether the user of force is aggressing or retaliating?
Or does it depend on whether the user of force has permission from "the state"?
Do you define crime as violating someone's rights? Or as disobeying "the state"?
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@JesseForgione Excuse me, we were talking about the right to use retaliatory violence. You are shifting the goalposts.
Anyway, like I said at the start of this long and pointless exchange, I'm not interested in debating the matter. You provoked me by accusing me of being a coward... I should have known better than to rise to it. Your questions are retarded and I simply cannot be bothered to explain things to you any longer. Now piss off.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
I will concede that all my questions are retarded if you can manage to answer any one of them.
JesseForgione 3 months ago
Comment removed
evandonghue2 3 months ago
@JesseForgione "Ultimately the power of the state rests on its legitimacy as implied by the ideology..."
Agreed... then you contradict when u say this, "So yes, bad philosophers are the root of the state."
Bad philosophy and bad philosophers cannot both be the "root", they are two separate things_ Individuals, in this case academics, acting rationally, in their self interest, under a corrupt system are not the problem, the corrupt system/ideology is the problem_
evandonghue2 3 months ago
@evandonghue2
There's no such thing as philosophy just floating around without philosophers. Philosophy is what philosophers do. When they propagate bad ideas, there are bad results. There's no such thing as a "corrupt system" outside of corrupt people. People are corrupted by bad ideas from bad philosophers.
JesseForgione 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism
(I meant to respond to both you and evandonghue2. Please see below.)
JesseForgione 3 months ago
Ayn Rand was a great writer as well as a great philosopher, her concise and eloquent words cut through the mumble jumble we get in today's media like a sharp sword.
yamahaU3 3 months ago
Primary example and master of this elusive-Alinsky style speak?
.
Barack Hussein Obama
.
classic7890 3 months ago 34
@classic7890 Not so much Obama, but his speech writers anyway.
MoneyIsSilver 3 months ago
@MoneyIsSilver
.
.
(cont`d) The specific meaning and definition remains unspoken and you have to be a mind reader to know his exact meaning. What he reads off a teleprompter is for public consumption. The hidden double meaning is only meant for those who speak the language of the left.
classic7890 3 months ago
Respond to this video...
.
..
One and the same yes. Ever really listen to their messiah? Always in double-speak and generalizations. When anyone tries to pin him down and ask him what he meant he will tell you that is not what he said. He KNOWS what he said. If you misinterpreted that is your fault but he will never get to the root meaning and will never tell you...
classic7890 3 months ago
great video!
dukef4 3 months ago 19