Will SOMEONE who knows something about Ayn Rand please watch the following short video and respond? If you find something wrong, please spell out what it is.
This is how rights arrive. A right is a freedom of action that, by consensus, the government is obliged to protect against all forces (including the government its self) that may wish to violate. The perpose of government is to create a society where its citizens Absolute Freedom is imposed apon as little as possible. Such impositions may only done in order to protect another citizens rights.
@UtubeMyAccountName You misunderstand, societies exist to protect freedom, not rights.governments exist to protect rights within the society ,rights granted within the society by mutual concensus.
@Felhaven No, the misunderstanding is yours. What is freedom, other than the right to my own life? You are making a distinction between my 'natural' rights and my freedom which does not exist.
Actually, perhaps I did misunderstand. Perhaps you were talking about 'civil' rights, such as driving a car. In which case you make an obvious point, and your argument was unnecessary, since that's not what Rand was talking about.
@UtubeMyAccountName A right is a specific freedom of action. Natural rights do not exist. All rights are simply actions that we wish to be allowed to make. In order to do so we create a government to stop others from preventing us to from preforming the action. we have no inalieable freedom of speach for instance. We desire the ability to say what ever we wish without imposition so we create a government which garentees us the "right" to do so.
@Felhaven MY freedom of action, just like my freedom of thought, is inherent in my person, not society, and certainly not govt.
No one 'allows' me to say whatever I wish. I say whatever I wish, unless someone forcibly prevents me. Govt is (supposedly) tasked with 'protecting' my right to say whatever I wish.
My existence, and everything that brings with it is innately non-dependent on society or govt. It is society & govt that are dependent on my existence. They exists only because I exist.
"All rights are simply actions that we wish to be allowed to make. In order to do so we create a government to stop others from preventing us to from preforming the action."
Social Contract is an unspoken concept found in all free societies. In essence it reads: “I hereby willingly submit my Absolute Freedom to the laws of the nation in exchange for the protection of the remainder of those rights and liberties, such will be held irrevocable except by violation of those laws.” In our nation this contract is signed by either birth (such as natural citizens), oath (such as immigrants), or agreement (such as legal aliens).
"Social Contract is an unspoken concept .... In essence it reads: “I hereby willingly submit my Absolute Freedom to the laws of the nation in exchange for the protection of the remainder of those rights and liberties"
Such is the fraud that is perpetuated against everyone. For one, rights do not exist. By our adherence to what we'd prefer, we create "rights" by our actions; that is how rights ought be defined, if we want accuracy.
@Felhaven Gov't guarantees nothing. Well, except perhaps failure. Do you impose yourself on others? No? Do others impose themselves on you? Yes? Well, collect together with other's of likemind for defense. There's one solution for ya. Why do you need the oh-so-magical gov't to ineptly solve this problem?
It's an easy assumption to make. Fortunately, governance is not gov't. The difference between the two is crucial. It's the difference between voluntary interactions, and lots of euphemisms about people taking your money from you without your consent and making excuses for it.
@Felhaven not entirely, because government assumes power of that agreement and forces it on people who did not agree with with others agreeth among themselves.
Your neighbour 2 and 3 doors down decide to build a playpark in YOUR backyard, you were not asked anything and if you did it was majority rule so you lose your property.. thats how government works. otherwise it's individual cooperation
with other people. Especialy if thay happen to disagree with your wants. Therefor we form societies. A society is a group of people that operates by mutually agreed apon restrictions of action. I will not take what i did not produce, purchase, or find; or i will not kill unless in reasonable fear for my own life. This agreement to abide by the rules of the society in exchange for its protections is called the Social Contract...
"A society is a group of people that operates by mutually agreed apon restrictions of action."
That sounds accurate.
"This agreement to abide by the rules of the society in exchange for its protections is called the Social Contract..."
Now you're getting off-center. The vital question is: Can you reject the protections, or will value be taken from you regardless? If the former, then you now have a State.
there is no evidence for this. When debating this with a friend of mine I usualy tell him "there is no such thing as the freedom of speach boson".
Born into a world free from government or other powers we would exist in a state of Absolute Freedom. This is the ability to do what ever we want, when ever we want, TO whom ever we want. the only restriction is our own desires and physical capacity. Most would call this state anarchy. And is all well and good untill you come into contact ...
"When debating this with a friend of mine I usualy tell him "there is no such thing as the freedom of speach boson"."
Yes, there is. When you do not prevent someone from speaking, when you do not censor someone, and especially when public forums do not censor or prevent, free speech exists. It is dependent on our actions. Adherence to principles creates the actions, and the actions are what defines whether the ideals exist.
"So you suggest then that Ideals exist even in the absense of a holder of such an ideal."
Ideals exist to the extent that people act on them and make them occur. I'm not a Platonist. There are no circles. You don't censor someone; in effect, they have "free speech", at least when around you/your property.
@SomethingSea1 So you refer to rights as specific actions one can take when not limited by an opposing force? do you still posses that right when limited? and how can you tell which rights you have when yours may interfere with another persons?
"So you refer to rights as specific actions one can take when not limited by an opposing force?"
I guess so.
"do you still posses that right when limited?"
That's an interesting way of putting it. I don't think in terms of rights (I think they're bull), but no, at that point not. And, at this point, conflict ensues. Depending on the method of resolution, you might end up with talking, violence, or something similar.
"and how can you tell which rights you have when yours may interfere with another persons?"
Good question. A few ways that come to mind:
1. Would you like it done to you? (Golden Rule cliche)
2. Can this be consistently applied to all people, without contradiction and complications arising? If not, can the problems be accounted for with some thought? If not, then maybe it's a shitty thing.
"This is the ability to do what ever we want, when ever we want, TO whom ever we want. the only restriction is our own desires and physical capacity. Most would call this state anarchy."
No, that sounds more like Precambrian period, before humans. And even then, apes have primitive versions of hierarchy. However, this is the basis of the State Psychosis, so I'm not surprised it's repeated. It's similar to "Either you believe in God or Chaos."
@SomethingSea1 precambrian? no it is statelessness. our instincts for treating others are part of our wants and desires. a society builds apon those instincts to create codes of conduct that allow individuals to function in that society.
"a society builds apon those instincts to create codes of conduct"
Do you mean "society" or do you mean "gov't"? They are not synonymous.
Yes, people being able to agree on how they'll treat each other helps smooth out conflict. And? Why are you making codes for this? Do you follow codes each time you get in your car?
@SomethingSea1 that is not a code of conduct. do not assult a person. do not take when is not yours. do not harm anothers property. these are codes of conduct. And that is all they are untill you form a organization whos goal is to prevent others from violating those codes. At that point they are rights, protected by collectivly granted permission to use force against those who violate those rights.
I see that you're not flexible to personification for purposes of analogy. Ok then.
The rest of what you say I don't see the relevance of. My basic point: The State bring people towards chaos, not away from it. We rely on The State in a similar way that Christians rely on the Bible. It's cute, but deadly.
I agree with rand on most of her conclusions but her premise is faulty. She supposes that rights are innate. that they are a property of being human. I disagree, while the desire for the freedom and protection granted by rights MIGHT infact be inherent in the human animal a glance at human history seems to suggest otherwise. As for rights being a metaphysical quality inseperable from existance, which is what most objectivists and libertarians believe, ...
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.and the smallest minority on earth is the individual." - Ayn Rand
Are you a U.S. Citizen? Then you don't have the Constitutional protection you think you do. You have only the privileges of a "titled" 14th Amendment citizen. You are a volunteer servant. You register, vote, license, fight and die while accepting taxation without representation. You daily exchange your Republican form of government for a mob ruled corporate democracy where 51percent votes to spit on the other 49 and jails any who don't pay (through tax) for the koolaid swallowed for saliva.
Man if anyone thinks they can listen to this once without having previous experience with this subject does not even have a remote understanding of what this is trying to convey. The words build on words, multiplied, subtracted, added, and then divided by other words to form it's meaning and to keep up with the notion requires on to stop think, analyze and then pick up with the speech again. In summary, great speech.
When not simply bringing them out of the woodwork like the bedbugs that inevitably make their appearance when commie and socialist influences get a hold of the reins of gov.
Although I disagree with Rand on a lot of things on an academic level, I cannot help but admire the way she so cuttingly demolishes collectivist values.
@fzqlcs Ayn Rand expressed admiration for the 'American System' of government on several occasions. She blamed the intellectuals and collectivist for ruining a great society.
As an anti-statist, one doesn't go around singing the praises of government. I think Rand was a thoughtful defender of individual rights, but she was plagued by logical flaws. It's the same as Thomas Jefferson with his 'govt is evil, but it is necessary' statement.
@UtubeMyAccountName : Jefferson wanted limited government. Too much government is evil, but the right amount is necessary. There's nothing flawed about that logic.
@UtubeMyAccountName : Jefferson and other founding fathers wanted America to be a Republic. To live in a Republic means to live under the rule of law. This is why Jefferson saw government as necessary. What he and other founding fathers viewed as 'evil' was government that overreached its authority, like that of Britain. So they came out with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the idea that they would serve as instruments to restrict and confine government.
You have to ask yourself, 'why' govt needs to be limited. If men could be trusted with institutionalized authority over other men, then what purpose for limitations?
...and Jefferson did not think the Constitution was a good idea, but he was aware of the political climate, and accepted it would be adopted. That is why he suggested the Bill of Rights to James Madison. This was to ease the growing unrest in the Union over the proposed new government.
@RileyE104 This will be my last comment about this, as I don't want to take this forum too far off track, if you want to, please reply with a PM.
The FF were not in agreement over the institution of a central government. In fact the Framers were not supposed to be writing a new charter. They were supposed to be addressing limitations in the Articles of Confederation.
It was predicted by several thinkers of the day, including a man named Lysander Spooner, that this Constitution was a...
I think there is necessary evil. This is because humans are not perfect so they need something to keep them moral. If we were perfect and without flaw, we would need no government to protect our rights, but because we are flawed, this is the reason we have a necessary evil. Government needed by a flawed human race and no government needed by a perfect people is to me, showing we need a necessary evil.
I agree, and this is the why I think it is a necessary evil. Since we are flawed, we need an oversight to protect our rights, and since the highest form on this planet is humans which are flawed, we get a gov of men. Which is a flawed gov.
@UtubeMyAccountName The Constitution is suppose to. The Constitution of any nation is only as good as the citizens governed under that Constitution to hold their elected representatives responsible to uphold that contract. The US Constitution, albeit not perfect, is one of the greatest documents to protect natural rights of it's citizens. Failure of our Constitution is sadly due to it's own people not upholding this document with those that take the pledge to obey it.
@UtubeMyAccountName You're welcome matey. I'm always happy to have had the good fortune to have at hand, the wise words of a smarter man than me. (lysander spooner - No Treason). I'm sure you've read it before. I'm enjoying reading some stuff from these guys from 150 yrs hence. Bastiat, Spooner, Voltaire etc. Great fun. I think it'd help people look at things from another angle, & consider that we may be mistaken about some of our propagandised opinions. All the best to ya.
Spooner is responsible for a multiplicity of intelligent and witty quotes. This specimen of circular logic, reaching a conclusion by starting with that conclusion, is not among them. It is not the character or intent of the Document that is the Constitution of the United States of America that can have blame for current conditions cast at it's feet but such blame clearly lays at the hand of those tasked with supporting and depending the Constitution who then refuse to do so.
@maskedphrogg I don't think the logic is circular. Anyway, I think one point he was making was, that since the constitution wasn't a contract, then how could it be defended. Since it demanded that some people would have control over other people, then how else would you expect it to turn out? i.e. Since people work to satisfy their own self interest, then why wouldn't you expect people to whom were given "power", not to abuse you? I think, he's just saying, there are no wise men. - Ta for reply
Perhaps you should read the Constitution for the United States of America. It goes to great lengths to ensure no class of people are able to coerce others of the same or differing class. The Constitution endeavors to grant limited authority to elected representatives to do the bidding of the People so Represented. How you manage to twist that into grant some people power over others belies comprehension. What you claim is true of the nature of some men, not the authority of US Const
@maskedphrogg "..How you manage to twist that into grant some people power over others belies comprehension..." I don't expect anyone to comprehend anything. They either will or they wont. If I can take some of your money, even if you'd rather keep it, then I have power over you. Whether anyone else sees it as legitimate or not doesn't make much difference. "..to ensure no class of people are able to coerce others.." It doesn't seem to have worked very well there then.
@residentzombie The Constitution says nothing of natural rights, that is the Declaration of Independence (a far, far superior document).
The Constitution is only a charter of govt. It was never intended to hold men to accounts. That has always been the job of man himself. It was simply intended to let men know, within what boundaries govt should operate.
I agree the Constitution is the greatest govt charter ever, and yet look at where we are.
I'd hope you could make the necessary connection on your own. Humans *are* flawed. Thusly institutions established among men will inevitably reveal flaws. From this logical conclusion we are forced to consider that govs will inevitably reveal the flaws in their creation. It is to Man's benefit to limit such institutions, govs, from obtaining overbearing and unwieldy power over the activities of Man. After all, such govs are inevitably flawed.
@maskedphrogg You misunderstood my comment. My point was that govt, by its nature is antagonistic towards liberty. Which is the reason any govt must be limited (if you care about liberty). I simply argue that no matter what limits you place on govt, it will eventually break loose from its bonds. It is as you say, inevitable.
Secondly, in what way are humans flawed? There is no flaw in man, we are what we are. The same as there is no flaw in a rattlesnake, it is what it is.
You confuse history and the actions of most govs, not all by any stretch of the imagination, for the nature of men and what many will try to do when left unrestrained.
I'll give you that Man is not by definition flawed. How could he be? It is my opinion that the discussion here centers on the interactions among men and how best to resolve conflict and resolve disputes. In that domain each will find fault in another. In that context each is flawed to the others.
...In a society free of govt force, most disputes among productive men will cease to exist. Not by magic, but by the simple recognition/realization that voluntary exchange is the cheapest, most efficient, and therefore most productive method of human interaction.
Many, like Ron Paul hold to the Libertarian principle that govt can be limited & controlled, and can be made a benefit to society, but govt is purely force/violence. It is simply not compatible with voluntary exchange.
Fire is "purely force and violent." Would you suggest that fire cannot be put to good use by reasonable men? Of course you wouldn't. So it goes for government also.
btw quakey987 actively suggests that Ayn would support euthanasia but must redefine the term euthanasia to back up his claim, much as you do above. I, like Ayn, find it unconscionable to lend support to those who refuse to support themselves. Sending good money after bad is how one goes broke not gains success
@maskedphrogg Fire is purely force & violence? Says who? I have heard this argument before, and now like then, I reject the premise. A better example would have been a gun; but this would also fail in comparison. The thing that makes govt different from all other tools of force/violence is the LAW; the legitimation of that force/violence.
I wasn't addressing @quakey987's euthanasia comment (as it is ridiculous), only his comment about 'producers'. Which you yourself, have just agreed with.
On the case of the Productive vs the non-Productive you are correct. I find it unconscionable to support those who refuse to support themselves though they are quite capable.
I find it difficult to accept that you have not witnessed fire first hand. Fire is nothing like a gun. Fire can and does exist entirely independent of Man or any beast. The gun however is entirely dependent upon Man and in all but the most rare instance it's action is directed by Man. Hardly the same.
@maskedphrogg I've seen fire raging, it's humbling/inspiring/hot/..., but I was talking about your assertion that fire is purely destructive, though looking at the comment again, that's not exactly what you said. Still, fire is not just force & violence. It's light, warmth, fuel, and many other things, like comfort.
That's why I said govt was more like a gun, "...entirely dependent upon Man...". Unlike a gun however, govt legitimates its F&V through laws, that it enacts. This is the problem.
@maskedphrogg Not my conversation, but @quakey987 is right that Rand truly cared only about productive people. That's one of the things I like about her best. It is a thing to embrace, not shy away from. Economics aside, the 'value' unproductive people have to the species, is always a net loss.
The actions of govt are a part of history, not separate from it. I am an anti-statist, that means I see govt the same way Rand saw unproductive people; as a net loss, and a thing to be eliminated...
Ayn Rand was tunnel visioned her Objectivism would have people "Euthanized" as a logical conclusion . She has very little to offer any enlightened human ,and NO I am not a communist or a socialist , I am just aware enough to know a hack when i read one
Show the logical connections necessary to support your seemingly irrational statement that Ayn Rand would support euthanasia. Perhaps you simply do not understand the term and that leads to your misuse of it here.
Euthanasia is the active participation in causing another's death. Merely standing by and letting Nature take it's course is categorically not euthanasia. Neither is stopping the thief taking one's own life a form of euthanasia.
@maskedphrogg She dehumanizes a large portion of society ! That is what all her books are about ! You say letting nature take its course ? ,That is precisely the fraud I'm speaking of . You are on board with it it appears . People have value whether they are economically in the black or not . "Euthanize" is an appropriate term , that is what her system would do to these people "for the benefit of the producers". Plus her books are not realistic and applying them to real life is a sad fantasy.
Apparently you have not read Ayn but only cursorily reviewed some of her detractors. I have read Ayn and found her work to give great credit to humanity. Her work starts with the greatness that is being human. So much so that the greatest achievement in the biosphere, according to Ayn, is considered to be Man. How on Earth you find such thinking to be dehumanizing baffles the mind.
I'm sure you keep trolling and purposely misrepresenting Ayn with out of context phrases. Your loss.
@maskedphrogg You can have the last word ,please don't call me a troll! I've read The Fountainhead and that is enough for me I'm familiar with Atlas Shrugged also, so you obviously are better versed in Ayn Rand my ears perk up when i hear people speaking about Rand , she is immensely flawed in her analysis of mankind and I don't agree with you at all. Yes suppose man is the greatest the biosphere has produced, why is she so cynical about so many of them? you win you Rand troll you!
Very well then, you do not consciously troll and it was wrong of me to cast such an aspersion.
Still, you have yet to support your claims regarding the flaws in Ayn's analysis of mankind or the state that the members of humanity find themselves in. You repeatedly make the claim but detract from giving it any credence with the utter lack of any supportive argument. Repeating a claim is not making an argument but is simply being argumentative.
btw one need not be well or broadly read in Rand's published works. She is quite consistent in ideology among them. One being better than another at expressing this ideology is more a matter of taste than opinion. Neither does it matter if you have read the fiction or the non-fiction works. It's all Ayn through and through. She always celebrates the Hero that is the creative Man and curses those who would curse the man that creates things of value.
@quakey987 I think Rand is off as well. She tries to bridge the is/ought gap, and fails. If you haven't read all of Atlas Shrugged, I highly recommend it. I read it first, and have read some of Fountainhead, and I think Shrugged is superior in literary quality.
@quakey987 "You say letting nature take its course ? ,That is precisely the fraud I'm speaking of ."
Yes, I prefer to resist what is natural and pretend that fantasy is real as well. Hi. I'm a fellow statist, and I take people's money without their consent. And hey, if you don't want to live with that, you can fuck off to Somalia.
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will SOMEONE who knows something about Ayn Rand please watch the following short video and respond? If you find something wrong, please spell out what it is.
youtube.com/watch?v=tjQeeRn6kW0
kropotkinbeard1 3 months ago
Brilliant!
jmurphy914 11 months ago 4
Oh God, Rand is such a closet theologian statheist...
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
PT 5
This is how rights arrive. A right is a freedom of action that, by consensus, the government is obliged to protect against all forces (including the government its self) that may wish to violate. The perpose of government is to create a society where its citizens Absolute Freedom is imposed apon as little as possible. Such impositions may only done in order to protect another citizens rights.
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven Are you truly unaware of the glaring contradiction present in your argument?
According to you, human beings have no innate rights, and so form societies; to first enact and then protect their rights.
In essence, you argue that humans form societies to protect rights, that don't actually exist until humans form societies. That Doesn't Make Sense.
If your friend couldn't point this out to you, then you need more thoughtful friends.
UtubeMyAccountName 11 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName You misunderstand, societies exist to protect freedom, not rights.governments exist to protect rights within the society ,rights granted within the society by mutual concensus.
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven No, the misunderstanding is yours. What is freedom, other than the right to my own life? You are making a distinction between my 'natural' rights and my freedom which does not exist.
Actually, perhaps I did misunderstand. Perhaps you were talking about 'civil' rights, such as driving a car. In which case you make an obvious point, and your argument was unnecessary, since that's not what Rand was talking about.
UtubeMyAccountName 11 months ago
@UtubeMyAccountName A right is a specific freedom of action. Natural rights do not exist. All rights are simply actions that we wish to be allowed to make. In order to do so we create a government to stop others from preventing us to from preforming the action. we have no inalieable freedom of speach for instance. We desire the ability to say what ever we wish without imposition so we create a government which garentees us the "right" to do so.
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven MY freedom of action, just like my freedom of thought, is inherent in my person, not society, and certainly not govt.
No one 'allows' me to say whatever I wish. I say whatever I wish, unless someone forcibly prevents me. Govt is (supposedly) tasked with 'protecting' my right to say whatever I wish.
My existence, and everything that brings with it is innately non-dependent on society or govt. It is society & govt that are dependent on my existence. They exists only because I exist.
UtubeMyAccountName 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Felhaven ...and you contradicted yourself again:
"All rights are simply actions that we wish to be allowed to make. In order to do so we create a government to stop others from preventing us to from preforming the action."
UtubeMyAccountName 11 months ago
@Felhaven
"This is how rights arrive. A right is a freedom of action that, by consensus, the government is obliged to protect against all forces"
HAHAHAHA! We are sheep pitted against two wolves deciding on what to eat for dinner. YOU!
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
PT 4
Social Contract is an unspoken concept found in all free societies. In essence it reads: “I hereby willingly submit my Absolute Freedom to the laws of the nation in exchange for the protection of the remainder of those rights and liberties, such will be held irrevocable except by violation of those laws.” In our nation this contract is signed by either birth (such as natural citizens), oath (such as immigrants), or agreement (such as legal aliens).
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven
"Social Contract is an unspoken concept .... In essence it reads: “I hereby willingly submit my Absolute Freedom to the laws of the nation in exchange for the protection of the remainder of those rights and liberties"
Such is the fraud that is perpetuated against everyone. For one, rights do not exist. By our adherence to what we'd prefer, we create "rights" by our actions; that is how rights ought be defined, if we want accuracy.
"Those who give up... deserve neither..."
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 A right is a freedom of action that we have created a government to protect. It is not a right untill that garentee.
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven Gov't guarantees nothing. Well, except perhaps failure. Do you impose yourself on others? No? Do others impose themselves on you? Yes? Well, collect together with other's of likemind for defense. There's one solution for ya. Why do you need the oh-so-magical gov't to ineptly solve this problem?
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 the disision making process in such a group would be, by definition a government.
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven
It's an easy assumption to make. Fortunately, governance is not gov't. The difference between the two is crucial. It's the difference between voluntary interactions, and lots of euphemisms about people taking your money from you without your consent and making excuses for it.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@Felhaven not entirely, because government assumes power of that agreement and forces it on people who did not agree with with others agreeth among themselves.
Your neighbour 2 and 3 doors down decide to build a playpark in YOUR backyard, you were not asked anything and if you did it was majority rule so you lose your property.. thats how government works. otherwise it's individual cooperation
razoorsharp 11 months ago
PT 3
with other people. Especialy if thay happen to disagree with your wants. Therefor we form societies. A society is a group of people that operates by mutually agreed apon restrictions of action. I will not take what i did not produce, purchase, or find; or i will not kill unless in reasonable fear for my own life. This agreement to abide by the rules of the society in exchange for its protections is called the Social Contract...
Felhaven 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Felhaven
"A society is a group of people that operates by mutually agreed apon restrictions of action."
That sounds accurate.
"This agreement to abide by the rules of the society in exchange for its protections is called the Social Contract..."
Now you're getting off-center. The vital question is: Can you reject the protections, or will value be taken from you regardless? If the former, then you now have a State.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 Yes you do have a state. Society+government=state
there is no way around this. If you wish to have a protection from violence by enlisting the help of others, then that agreement is a State.
Felhaven 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Felhaven
Gov't = State.
"If you wish to have a protection from violence by enlisting the help of others, then that agreement is a State."
I disagree. If I should choose to fire those others, I can. If I should choose to fire The State, I get put in jail.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
PT 2
there is no evidence for this. When debating this with a friend of mine I usualy tell him "there is no such thing as the freedom of speach boson".
Born into a world free from government or other powers we would exist in a state of Absolute Freedom. This is the ability to do what ever we want, when ever we want, TO whom ever we want. the only restriction is our own desires and physical capacity. Most would call this state anarchy. And is all well and good untill you come into contact ...
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven
"When debating this with a friend of mine I usualy tell him "there is no such thing as the freedom of speach boson"."
Yes, there is. When you do not prevent someone from speaking, when you do not censor someone, and especially when public forums do not censor or prevent, free speech exists. It is dependent on our actions. Adherence to principles creates the actions, and the actions are what defines whether the ideals exist.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 So you suggest then that Ideals exist even in the absense of a holder of such an ideal.
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven
"So you suggest then that Ideals exist even in the absense of a holder of such an ideal."
Ideals exist to the extent that people act on them and make them occur. I'm not a Platonist. There are no circles. You don't censor someone; in effect, they have "free speech", at least when around you/your property.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 So you refer to rights as specific actions one can take when not limited by an opposing force? do you still posses that right when limited? and how can you tell which rights you have when yours may interfere with another persons?
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven
"So you refer to rights as specific actions one can take when not limited by an opposing force?"
I guess so.
"do you still posses that right when limited?"
That's an interesting way of putting it. I don't think in terms of rights (I think they're bull), but no, at that point not. And, at this point, conflict ensues. Depending on the method of resolution, you might end up with talking, violence, or something similar.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Felhaven
"and how can you tell which rights you have when yours may interfere with another persons?"
Good question. A few ways that come to mind:
1. Would you like it done to you? (Golden Rule cliche)
2. Can this be consistently applied to all people, without contradiction and complications arising? If not, can the problems be accounted for with some thought? If not, then maybe it's a shitty thing.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@Felhaven
"This is the ability to do what ever we want, when ever we want, TO whom ever we want. the only restriction is our own desires and physical capacity. Most would call this state anarchy."
No, that sounds more like Precambrian period, before humans. And even then, apes have primitive versions of hierarchy. However, this is the basis of the State Psychosis, so I'm not surprised it's repeated. It's similar to "Either you believe in God or Chaos."
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 precambrian? no it is statelessness. our instincts for treating others are part of our wants and desires. a society builds apon those instincts to create codes of conduct that allow individuals to function in that society.
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven
"a society builds apon those instincts to create codes of conduct"
Do you mean "society" or do you mean "gov't"? They are not synonymous.
Yes, people being able to agree on how they'll treat each other helps smooth out conflict. And? Why are you making codes for this? Do you follow codes each time you get in your car?
Law 1. Put on seatbeat.
Law 2. Turn car on.
Law 3...
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@SomethingSea1 that is not a code of conduct. do not assult a person. do not take when is not yours. do not harm anothers property. these are codes of conduct. And that is all they are untill you form a organization whos goal is to prevent others from violating those codes. At that point they are rights, protected by collectivly granted permission to use force against those who violate those rights.
Felhaven 11 months ago
@Felhaven
"that is not a code of conduct."
I see that you're not flexible to personification for purposes of analogy. Ok then.
The rest of what you say I don't see the relevance of. My basic point: The State bring people towards chaos, not away from it. We rely on The State in a similar way that Christians rely on the Bible. It's cute, but deadly.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
PT 1
I agree with rand on most of her conclusions but her premise is faulty. She supposes that rights are innate. that they are a property of being human. I disagree, while the desire for the freedom and protection granted by rights MIGHT infact be inherent in the human animal a glance at human history seems to suggest otherwise. As for rights being a metaphysical quality inseperable from existance, which is what most objectivists and libertarians believe, ...
Felhaven 11 months ago
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.and the smallest minority on earth is the individual." - Ayn Rand
fubar28 11 months ago
Are you a U.S. Citizen? Then you don't have the Constitutional protection you think you do. You have only the privileges of a "titled" 14th Amendment citizen. You are a volunteer servant. You register, vote, license, fight and die while accepting taxation without representation. You daily exchange your Republican form of government for a mob ruled corporate democracy where 51percent votes to spit on the other 49 and jails any who don't pay (through tax) for the koolaid swallowed for saliva.
CredoVeritas 11 months ago
great stuff
grraadd 1 year ago
Well, this video is very timely posted.
But I doubt that very many liberal/communist will be swayed by reason.
InternetDisciple 1 year ago
Man if anyone thinks they can listen to this once without having previous experience with this subject does not even have a remote understanding of what this is trying to convey. The words build on words, multiplied, subtracted, added, and then divided by other words to form it's meaning and to keep up with the notion requires on to stop think, analyze and then pick up with the speech again. In summary, great speech.
Rcwatson83 1 year ago
I love how Rand always pisses the commies off :D
WintersAscension 1 year ago
@WintersAscension
When not simply bringing them out of the woodwork like the bedbugs that inevitably make their appearance when commie and socialist influences get a hold of the reins of gov.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
Although I disagree with Rand on a lot of things on an academic level, I cannot help but admire the way she so cuttingly demolishes collectivist values.
Adlasyn 1 year ago
*Standing ovation*
vspqbd 1 year ago
No negative votes yet? I suppose a union member hasn't been here yet.
nachodaddy 1 year ago
@nachodaddy i'd say that is a safe supposition. :-)
fzqlcs 1 year ago
I know Rand wasn't an anti-statist, but she is surely talking my language.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName She was as anti-statist as you can get. How could you possibly think otherwise?
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@fzqlcs
Anti-statist as in anarcho capitalist.
vspqbd 1 year ago
@fzqlcs Ayn Rand expressed admiration for the 'American System' of government on several occasions. She blamed the intellectuals and collectivist for ruining a great society.
As an anti-statist, one doesn't go around singing the praises of government. I think Rand was a thoughtful defender of individual rights, but she was plagued by logical flaws. It's the same as Thomas Jefferson with his 'govt is evil, but it is necessary' statement.
How is evil necessary?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
Comment removed
RileyE104 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UtubeMyAccountName : Jefferson wanted limited government. Too much government is evil, but the right amount is necessary. There's nothing flawed about that logic.
RileyE104 1 year ago
@RileyE104 Necessary for what? What is the right amount?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName : Jefferson and other founding fathers wanted America to be a Republic. To live in a Republic means to live under the rule of law. This is why Jefferson saw government as necessary. What he and other founding fathers viewed as 'evil' was government that overreached its authority, like that of Britain. So they came out with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the idea that they would serve as instruments to restrict and confine government.
RileyE104 1 year ago
... recipe for disaster.
You have to ask yourself, 'why' govt needs to be limited. If men could be trusted with institutionalized authority over other men, then what purpose for limitations?
...and Jefferson did not think the Constitution was a good idea, but he was aware of the political climate, and accepted it would be adopted. That is why he suggested the Bill of Rights to James Madison. This was to ease the growing unrest in the Union over the proposed new government.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@RileyE104 This will be my last comment about this, as I don't want to take this forum too far off track, if you want to, please reply with a PM.
The FF were not in agreement over the institution of a central government. In fact the Framers were not supposed to be writing a new charter. They were supposed to be addressing limitations in the Articles of Confederation.
It was predicted by several thinkers of the day, including a man named Lysander Spooner, that this Constitution was a...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
I think there is necessary evil. This is because humans are not perfect so they need something to keep them moral. If we were perfect and without flaw, we would need no government to protect our rights, but because we are flawed, this is the reason we have a necessary evil. Government needed by a flawed human race and no government needed by a perfect people is to me, showing we need a necessary evil.
bgayle924 1 year ago
@bgayle924 If humans are flawed, how is a human govt not also going to be flawed?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
I agree, and this is the why I think it is a necessary evil. Since we are flawed, we need an oversight to protect our rights, and since the highest form on this planet is humans which are flawed, we get a gov of men. Which is a flawed gov.
bgayle924 1 year ago
@bgayle924 You see, this is where you're not being logical. You are saying we need a flawed govt (of men) to 'oversee' the rest of flawed mankind.
Who is going to oversee the flawed govt?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName The Constitution is suppose to. The Constitution of any nation is only as good as the citizens governed under that Constitution to hold their elected representatives responsible to uphold that contract. The US Constitution, albeit not perfect, is one of the greatest documents to protect natural rights of it's citizens. Failure of our Constitution is sadly due to it's own people not upholding this document with those that take the pledge to obey it.
residentzombie 1 year ago
@residentzombie "...But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain, that
it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either
case, it is unfit to exist.
..." LS
zalida100 1 year ago
@zalida100 Thank you. That was much more succinct then my spiel.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName You're welcome matey. I'm always happy to have had the good fortune to have at hand, the wise words of a smarter man than me. (lysander spooner - No Treason). I'm sure you've read it before. I'm enjoying reading some stuff from these guys from 150 yrs hence. Bastiat, Spooner, Voltaire etc. Great fun. I think it'd help people look at things from another angle, & consider that we may be mistaken about some of our propagandised opinions. All the best to ya.
zalida100 1 year ago
@zalida100
Spooner is responsible for a multiplicity of intelligent and witty quotes. This specimen of circular logic, reaching a conclusion by starting with that conclusion, is not among them. It is not the character or intent of the Document that is the Constitution of the United States of America that can have blame for current conditions cast at it's feet but such blame clearly lays at the hand of those tasked with supporting and depending the Constitution who then refuse to do so.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@maskedphrogg
typo correction
supporting and depending should read --> supporting and defending (... the Constitution who then refuse to do so)
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@maskedphrogg I don't think the logic is circular. Anyway, I think one point he was making was, that since the constitution wasn't a contract, then how could it be defended. Since it demanded that some people would have control over other people, then how else would you expect it to turn out? i.e. Since people work to satisfy their own self interest, then why wouldn't you expect people to whom were given "power", not to abuse you? I think, he's just saying, there are no wise men. - Ta for reply
zalida100 1 year ago
@zalida100
Perhaps you should read the Constitution for the United States of America. It goes to great lengths to ensure no class of people are able to coerce others of the same or differing class. The Constitution endeavors to grant limited authority to elected representatives to do the bidding of the People so Represented. How you manage to twist that into grant some people power over others belies comprehension. What you claim is true of the nature of some men, not the authority of US Const
maskedphrogg 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maskedphrogg "..How you manage to twist that into grant some people power over others belies comprehension..." I don't expect anyone to comprehend anything. They either will or they wont. If I can take some of your money, even if you'd rather keep it, then I have power over you. Whether anyone else sees it as legitimate or not doesn't make much difference. "..to ensure no class of people are able to coerce others.." It doesn't seem to have worked very well there then.
zalida100 11 months ago
@residentzombie The Constitution says nothing of natural rights, that is the Declaration of Independence (a far, far superior document).
The Constitution is only a charter of govt. It was never intended to hold men to accounts. That has always been the job of man himself. It was simply intended to let men know, within what boundaries govt should operate.
I agree the Constitution is the greatest govt charter ever, and yet look at where we are.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
I'd hope you could make the necessary connection on your own. Humans *are* flawed. Thusly institutions established among men will inevitably reveal flaws. From this logical conclusion we are forced to consider that govs will inevitably reveal the flaws in their creation. It is to Man's benefit to limit such institutions, govs, from obtaining overbearing and unwieldy power over the activities of Man. After all, such govs are inevitably flawed.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@maskedphrogg You misunderstood my comment. My point was that govt, by its nature is antagonistic towards liberty. Which is the reason any govt must be limited (if you care about liberty). I simply argue that no matter what limits you place on govt, it will eventually break loose from its bonds. It is as you say, inevitable.
Secondly, in what way are humans flawed? There is no flaw in man, we are what we are. The same as there is no flaw in a rattlesnake, it is what it is.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
You confuse history and the actions of most govs, not all by any stretch of the imagination, for the nature of men and what many will try to do when left unrestrained.
I'll give you that Man is not by definition flawed. How could he be? It is my opinion that the discussion here centers on the interactions among men and how best to resolve conflict and resolve disputes. In that domain each will find fault in another. In that context each is flawed to the others.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
...In a society free of govt force, most disputes among productive men will cease to exist. Not by magic, but by the simple recognition/realization that voluntary exchange is the cheapest, most efficient, and therefore most productive method of human interaction.
Many, like Ron Paul hold to the Libertarian principle that govt can be limited & controlled, and can be made a benefit to society, but govt is purely force/violence. It is simply not compatible with voluntary exchange.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
Fire is "purely force and violent." Would you suggest that fire cannot be put to good use by reasonable men? Of course you wouldn't. So it goes for government also.
btw quakey987 actively suggests that Ayn would support euthanasia but must redefine the term euthanasia to back up his claim, much as you do above. I, like Ayn, find it unconscionable to lend support to those who refuse to support themselves. Sending good money after bad is how one goes broke not gains success
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@maskedphrogg Fire is purely force & violence? Says who? I have heard this argument before, and now like then, I reject the premise. A better example would have been a gun; but this would also fail in comparison. The thing that makes govt different from all other tools of force/violence is the LAW; the legitimation of that force/violence.
I wasn't addressing @quakey987's euthanasia comment (as it is ridiculous), only his comment about 'producers'. Which you yourself, have just agreed with.
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
@UtubeMyAccountName
On the case of the Productive vs the non-Productive you are correct. I find it unconscionable to support those who refuse to support themselves though they are quite capable.
I find it difficult to accept that you have not witnessed fire first hand. Fire is nothing like a gun. Fire can and does exist entirely independent of Man or any beast. The gun however is entirely dependent upon Man and in all but the most rare instance it's action is directed by Man. Hardly the same.
maskedphrogg 11 months ago
@maskedphrogg I've seen fire raging, it's humbling/inspiring/hot/..., but I was talking about your assertion that fire is purely destructive, though looking at the comment again, that's not exactly what you said. Still, fire is not just force & violence. It's light, warmth, fuel, and many other things, like comfort.
That's why I said govt was more like a gun, "...entirely dependent upon Man...". Unlike a gun however, govt legitimates its F&V through laws, that it enacts. This is the problem.
UtubeMyAccountName 11 months ago
@maskedphrogg Not my conversation, but @quakey987 is right that Rand truly cared only about productive people. That's one of the things I like about her best. It is a thing to embrace, not shy away from. Economics aside, the 'value' unproductive people have to the species, is always a net loss.
The actions of govt are a part of history, not separate from it. I am an anti-statist, that means I see govt the same way Rand saw unproductive people; as a net loss, and a thing to be eliminated...
UtubeMyAccountName 1 year ago
Ayn Rand was tunnel visioned her Objectivism would have people "Euthanized" as a logical conclusion . She has very little to offer any enlightened human ,and NO I am not a communist or a socialist , I am just aware enough to know a hack when i read one
quakey987 1 year ago
@quakey987 "Euthanized " How come?
hayden50 1 year ago
@quakey987
You've lost most of this audience.
Show the logical connections necessary to support your seemingly irrational statement that Ayn Rand would support euthanasia. Perhaps you simply do not understand the term and that leads to your misuse of it here.
Euthanasia is the active participation in causing another's death. Merely standing by and letting Nature take it's course is categorically not euthanasia. Neither is stopping the thief taking one's own life a form of euthanasia.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago 3
@maskedphrogg She dehumanizes a large portion of society ! That is what all her books are about ! You say letting nature take its course ? ,That is precisely the fraud I'm speaking of . You are on board with it it appears . People have value whether they are economically in the black or not . "Euthanize" is an appropriate term , that is what her system would do to these people "for the benefit of the producers". Plus her books are not realistic and applying them to real life is a sad fantasy.
quakey987 1 year ago
@quakey987
Apparently you have not read Ayn but only cursorily reviewed some of her detractors. I have read Ayn and found her work to give great credit to humanity. Her work starts with the greatness that is being human. So much so that the greatest achievement in the biosphere, according to Ayn, is considered to be Man. How on Earth you find such thinking to be dehumanizing baffles the mind.
I'm sure you keep trolling and purposely misrepresenting Ayn with out of context phrases. Your loss.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@maskedphrogg You can have the last word ,please don't call me a troll! I've read The Fountainhead and that is enough for me I'm familiar with Atlas Shrugged also, so you obviously are better versed in Ayn Rand my ears perk up when i hear people speaking about Rand , she is immensely flawed in her analysis of mankind and I don't agree with you at all. Yes suppose man is the greatest the biosphere has produced, why is she so cynical about so many of them? you win you Rand troll you!
quakey987 1 year ago
@quakey987
Very well then, you do not consciously troll and it was wrong of me to cast such an aspersion.
Still, you have yet to support your claims regarding the flaws in Ayn's analysis of mankind or the state that the members of humanity find themselves in. You repeatedly make the claim but detract from giving it any credence with the utter lack of any supportive argument. Repeating a claim is not making an argument but is simply being argumentative.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
btw one need not be well or broadly read in Rand's published works. She is quite consistent in ideology among them. One being better than another at expressing this ideology is more a matter of taste than opinion. Neither does it matter if you have read the fiction or the non-fiction works. It's all Ayn through and through. She always celebrates the Hero that is the creative Man and curses those who would curse the man that creates things of value.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@quakey987 I think Rand is off as well. She tries to bridge the is/ought gap, and fails. If you haven't read all of Atlas Shrugged, I highly recommend it. I read it first, and have read some of Fountainhead, and I think Shrugged is superior in literary quality.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
@quakey987 "You say letting nature take its course ? ,That is precisely the fraud I'm speaking of ."
Yes, I prefer to resist what is natural and pretend that fantasy is real as well. Hi. I'm a fellow statist, and I take people's money without their consent. And hey, if you don't want to live with that, you can fuck off to Somalia.
SomethingSea1 11 months ago
Email this to every union idiot you know
Daniel44125 1 year ago