Tyralak wrote:Ayn Rand wrote: "When the common good of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals."
Ayn Rand was full of shit. Civilisation is, by necessity, a cooperative and collective enterprise, and that has nothing to do with being relegated to the same state as sacrificial animals. That was Rand pulling a classic black/white fallacy as well as making a wholly unfounded assertion on her part: she simply assumes Individualism is All and predicates every argument on that piece of broken logic. The problem is that a society cannot operate as a collection of atomised individuals responsible to no one but themselves. On those terms, it's impossible to organise anything.
Tyralak wrote:And as for the condescending attitude, I'm an ASVSer, of COURSE I have a condescending attitude!
And if that's meant to impress us, you are very seriously mistaken. Enjoy your stay here as our new chew-toy.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
Oh man that's too good. How can anyone quote Rand like that and not see that in a lolbertopia people would ALSO be held above others and thus it's a huge pile of chaos and suffering for NOTHING.
I guess in a lolbertopia the people on the bottom would deserve it.
Seriously, it's easy to demonize the entire concept of society and "common good" when you present no real alternative. Is human society a case of everyone winning and no one losing? No. Is the idea of individuals sacrificing for the common good a case where everyone wins and no one loses? No. Is there any conceivable system where everyone wins and no one loses? NO!
Bitching about society because it doesn't let people have their cake and eat it too is just stupid. Yes, people do have to make sacrifices for the common good sometimes. Even in the primitive hunter-gatherer tribe, the hunter was expected to share the spoils of the hunt while the rest of the tribe took care of other functions such as raising children, protecting and maintaining the camp, gathering other kinds of food, etc. He couldn't say "I reject your claim upon my individual property rights and I reject the idea of a greater good", because they would kill him, and with good reason. There is no one person in civilized society who does not benefit enormously from that society. Those who think they owe society nothing in return are drunk on a potent mixture of arrogance and stupidity.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Now I was raised in a socialist country where I have always had a degree of economic security, but the idea that my taxes paying unemployment benefits for people means that they're 'placed above' me is utterly laughable. They're not my masters, they're not oppressing me; they're unfortunates and society helps them.
Randroids conceptualize taxes as theft and victimization of the masses because of their own personal mindset. If given a choice, they would opt to contribute nothing toward the common good, even though they have received much from the commons throughout their lives. So when they are forced to give something anyway, they act as if they've been violated and reduced to the status of "animals" or slaves.
I once ran into a guy who started ranting about how the South was treated unfairly. He started ranting about how slavery never ended despite the emancipation, and I actually thought he was referring to the illicit slave trade that still exists. Nope, he was saying that everyone who pays taxes is a slave. That's how delusional this type of person is.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:Even in the primitive hunter-gatherer tribe, the hunter was expected to share the spoils of the hunt while the rest of the tribe took care of other functions such as raising children, protecting and maintaining the camp, gathering other kinds of food, etc. He couldn't say "I reject your claim upon my individual property rights and I reject the idea of a greater good", because they would kill him, and with good reason.
Actually, they would probably "just" run out of the tribe. That actually illustrates the importance of society rather well, because being ostracised in such a situation was as good as death sentence. A greedy hunter would find himself utterly alone, which would lead to suffering an early and unpleasant death in the untamed wild.
Darth Wong wrote:I once ran into a guy who started ranting about how the South was treated unfairly. He started ranting about how slavery never ended despite the emancipation, and I actually thought he was referring to the illicit slave trade that still exists. Nope, he was saying that everyone who pays taxes is a slave. That's how delusional this type of person is.
What is strange (and keeping this on-topic, FOX and Beck further this view) is that the same people who are against taxes are often the same people who are pro-war/pro-increased military. What do they think pays for the tanks and guns and bombs? Magic pixie dust? Maybe military members and munitions workers should just be paid nothing?
As a very good Government teacher of mine used to say, "People love the idea of small government right up until the flood hits."
I can never love you because I'm just thirty squirrels in a mansuit."
"Ah, good ol' Popeye. Punching ghosts until they explode."[/b]-Internet Webguy
"It was cut because an Army Ordnance panel determined that a weapon that kills an enemy soldier 10 times before he hits the ground was a waste of resources, so they scaled it back to only kill him 3 times."-Anon, on the cancellation of the Army's multi-kill vehicle.
That would be easily explained with the goverment being responsible for the common defense. I don't see the disconnect, even Lolbiternians aren't against the military for the most part.
They more against social spending and goverment regulations, not military spending.
You are wrong, try again.
VRWC : Justice League : SDN Weight Watchers : BOTM : Former AYVB
Resident Magic the Gathering Guru : Recovering MMORPG Addict
KrauserKrauser wrote:That would be easily explained with the goverment being responsible for the common defense. I don't see the disconnect, even Lolbiternians aren't against the military for the most part.
They more against social spending and goverment regulations, not military spending.
You are wrong, try again.
Actually, there is no logical reason for them to make an exception for common defense. They simply state it as an exception even though their general logic should include it. It's like Ayn Rand fans saying that self-interest is the prime moral value and then making exceptions so they won't look like complete assholes.
For example, if common defense is an exception, why shouldn't public health be another exception?
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
KrauserKrauser wrote:That would be easily explained with the goverment being responsible for the common defense. I don't see the disconnect, even Lolbiternians aren't against the military for the most part.
They more against social spending and goverment regulations, not military spending.
You are wrong, try again.
Actually, there is no logical reason for them to make an exception for common defense. They simply state it as an exception even though their general logic should include it. It's like Ayn Rand fans saying that self-interest is the prime moral value and then making exceptions so they won't look like complete assholes.
The constitutional fundamentalists do sometimes avoid making that exception; you know the types, they want "state militias" instead of a national military. I tried to watch a Ron Paul video on youtube yesterday and while he didn't address that, he was definitely a "states rights" proponent who wanted to devolve many national things (like abortion) down to the state level. To me it seems to be a big hoodwink to get the fundies on board whilst looking like you're being pro-democratic. He has little interest in preserving "little people" freedom, since this buys him votes and allows him to avoid taking responsibility for all the shit that would go down afterwards.
For example, if common defense is an exception, why shouldn't public health be another exception?
That's what I was going to say. If you're going to defend against foreign enemies, why not microscopic enemies too? Surely epidemics and the like are just as if not more important to defend a country's inhabitants against than Mexicans, Canadians and Russians. Maybe if Americans were engaged in a "war on infections" attitudes would shift.
EBC|Fucking Metal|Artist|Androgynous Sexfiend|Gozer Kvltist|
Listen to my music! http://www.soundclick.com/nihilanth "America is, now, the most powerful and economically prosperous nation in the country." - Master of Ossus
If you get rid of big government you just get a power vacuum that gets filled up by another authority in a different guise (like corporations) and extreme Lolbertarianism would just lead to the collapse of the United States with no sustainable, powerful state running the power stations and transportation infrastructure, leaving mostly isolated communities ruled over by petty warlords who used to be members of the local PD or National Guard division. Some American conservatives even want to leave the sinking economy by itself in the misplaced hope that it could magically rectify itself without any activity from a unified government response!
I've read Glenn Beck's moronic list of what makes a good American conservative (a word that is a contradiction in itself if they don't even want to properly conserve the underlining economy!).
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...' - Dr. Evil
'Secondly, I don't see why "income inequality" is a bad thing. Poverty is not an injustice. There is no such thing as causes for poverty, only causes for wealth. Poverty is not a wrong, but taking money from those who have it to equalize incomes is basically theft, which is wrong.' - Typical Randroid
'I think it's gone a little bit wrong.' - The Doctor
One of the most intellectually disgusting things about Randroids and Lolbertarians is that they take a kernel of truth and blow it up into a popcorn of bullshit. Taxing is technically a violation of your natural freedoms and a theft from you. But more importantly, a far bigger violation of your natural freedom is that we have taken away the ability for me to pick up a rock, beat you to death with it and then use it knock your wife (Mate is more appropriate as wife denotes a social structure existing) unconscious and raping her. My fundamental freedom to beat other men to death and rape their woman has been violated for thousands of years! Where is their outrage for that? Why has my freedom been so curtailed?
Oh yah, this little thing called the social contract. Amazing little thing, it allows for us to give up our natural freedoms in order to secure peace and prosperity. I know such a thing is a terrible idea, right Rand? But look it took us from being animalistic cavemen who hit each other with rocks to civilized people who hit each other with missiles. We suffer the "indignity" of having our natural rights and freedoms impinged upon every time we resist the urge to do something primal for fear of what society would do. Every time you see a beautiful woman you want to have sex with and don't just go and take her you just experienced a massive denial of your rights. But no sane person would disagree that denying these rights is a bad thing.
The meme that freedom is something good and wonderful is comical and destructive. Total freedom is the horror of seeing just what humans can actually do to each other when there is no society to hold them back. It is children with AK-47s getting cut and having cocaine rubbed into their wounds to make them fearless for battle. Lolbertarians and randroids are spoiled little brats who hide behind the curtain of Society and make faces at a crowd that can't see them. But if they ever got allowed on stage how long do you think it would take for the bottles to come flying?
A teenage girl is just a teenage boy who can get laid.
-GTO
We're not just doing this for money; we're doing this for a shitload of money!
Darth Wong wrote:Actually, there is no logical reason for them to make an exception for common defense. They simply state it as an exception even though their general logic should include it. It's like Ayn Rand fans saying that self-interest is the prime moral value and then making exceptions so they won't look like complete assholes.
For example, if common defense is an exception, why shouldn't public health be another exception?
Exactly, it's just a historical 'exception', and nobody questions that they JUST SAID the government a) can't be trusted and b) is incompetent to organise anything... except a nuclear deterrent. Uh, what? When you counter with the obvious, that they're clearly simply opposed to poor management in the public service and have simple-mindedly expanded this to 'omg no govt plz, except for the army lol' which is inconsistent, they aren't very pleased.
And of course, the reason health isn't an exception is simple marketing; most tough-guy lolbertarians either like the army or what AMERICA STRONG. Most of them either have no opinion or dislike healthcare. It's a no-brainer customised for the market, not consistent or sensible.
Darth Wong wrote:
For example, if common defense is an exception, why shouldn't public health be another exception?
I'd take it one step further: considering the potential damage in a poorly-controlled disease outbreak (for which there's fertile ground without public vaccination efforts etc), public health is a form of common defense.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Darth Wong wrote:
For example, if common defense is an exception, why shouldn't public health be another exception?
I'd take it one step further: considering the potential damage in a poorly-controlled disease outbreak (for which there's fertile ground without public vaccination efforts etc), public health is a form of common defense.
As is education, so that you can actually have competant soldiers, R&D to keep the war machine up to gear, infrastructure to move the equipment, tariffs to insure that in the event of a war local industry can supply needed munitions, armor, etc, social security so your men don't have to worry about the lower pay in the service and can safely retire, etc.
Oh wait- almost everything can be justified that way!
Darth Wong wrote:
For example, if common defense is an exception, why shouldn't public health be another exception?
I'd take it one step further: considering the potential damage in a poorly-controlled disease outbreak (for which there's fertile ground without public vaccination efforts etc), public health is a form of common defense.
As is education, so that you can actually have competant soldiers, R&D to keep the war machine up to gear, infrastructure to move the equipment, tariffs to insure that in the event of a war local industry can supply needed munitions, armor, etc, social security so your men don't have to worry about the lower pay in the service and can safely retire, etc.
Oh wait- almost everything can be justified that way!
Why, it's almost like a properly run society were designed around defending and serving the members inside of it!
Here's a plan: let's get a justification for everything along those lines, and then call ourselves Libertarians. There are more of us than them, right? Just flood the party with non-retards, and reshape the party into a useful tool for the common good (while not ever saying that).
Phantasee wrote:Here's a plan: let's get a justification for everything along those lines, and then call ourselves Libertarians. There are more of us than them, right? Just flood the party with non-retards, and reshape the party into a useful tool for the common good (while not ever saying that).
Actually we could use that label without even lying- we are social libertarians!
