Bob Barr is Winnar! and Prole reiterates that the PS3 is indeed NOT NASA

[FlameOfCallandor]

Yes, Im soulless because I think I should have the freedom to choose where my money goes instead od being forced to spend it on something.

How can I be such a monster!!!

God liberals are so fucking stupid. Your argument basically consists of "Think of all the people and all the good it will do." I'm not fucking arguing that no good will come of NASA I'm arguing based on the principle that what I earn is mine. Yes, I understand that their will always be taxes for things, but only for the most necessary of things. Last time I checked NASA WASNT FUCKING NECESSARY.

If you can argue that NASA is necessary for the united states of america than I will change my mind.

[Van Cruncheon]

But what you earn isn't yours. It's society's. As the primary actor in your relationship with society, you get the larger portion of it, but as long as you participate in society and partake of its benefits, you are obligated to pay in a number of ways, including financially -- and financially is the least of the forms of payment, since currency is wholly an invention of society and perhaps the most obvious of the ways its contracts manifest.

If you feel you are entitled to everything you make, leave society. In a cabin in Manitoba, you can keep EVERYTHING and no-one will care.

[FlameOfCallandor]

i see his point, but disagree, taking the tack that arts and sciences must be funded because they elevate us as a society.

Yes, Arts and sciences must be funded, I agree 100% I'm not arguing against that. I'm only saying that we should get a choice on where to fund it. As it is now, we get no choice at all. NASA could fuck up royally and the politicians would just throw more money at it. What about the columbia disaster. Bush gave a speech and said he wants to fund NASA even more.

[Eric P]

Henry Rollins is anti-NASA
he feels the money could be spent on people on Earth much more effectively.
i see his point, but disagree, taking the tack that arts and sciences must be funded because they elevate us as a society.

If the costs of NASA were directly transplanted to other humanitarian efforts, arts, and sciences...I would be hard-pressed to argue which would be more beneficial in the short and long-term.  But since the savings on eliminating NASA would likely be used for "defense" or other shenanigans, I would have to disagree with him.

in context he was exploring ideal concepts of the redistribution of that wealth rather than realistic events.

[FlameOfCallandor]

who said you were soulless?  I think you're projecting...

he is soulless.

I guess you were talking about your teacher.

[Van Cruncheon]

NASA has inspired many kids to join private enterprises as aerospace engineers -- without the vision of space flight and travel, they might all be useless film majors*.

(*--I kid, film majors may not produce anything practical and with an immediate return, like NASA, but they inspire folks to entertain us!)

[Flannel Boy]

In your opinion what does it need to do?

Explore the cosmos and the more practical benefits will follow.

Why don't you leave the country?  Is there not enough private incentive for you to justify spending your dollars on going through the proper motions to move elsewhere? 

If someone doesn't like the package of benefits and burdens that is offered by the state, they can't simply get up and leave. They have many ties to their communities that they simply can't break. They have family, friends, and jobs that can't simply leave. And then there is the problem of finding another country to live in. There are legal, linguistic, and cultural barriers that are hard to circumvent. Besides, there is no place to go for the anarchist or minarchist; there are no anarchist or minarchist societies.

[Eric P]

i see his point, but disagree, taking the tack that arts and sciences must be funded because they elevate us as a society.

Yes, Arts and sciences must be funded, I agree 100% I'm not arguing against that. I'm only saying that we should get a choice on where to fund it. As it is now, we get no choice at all. NASA could fuck up royally and the politicians would just throw more money at it. What about the columbia disaster. Bush gave a speech and said he wants to fund NASA even more.

i thought we got a choice via proxy.  we vote for the people who make the ultimate decisions.

you don't really get much more free market than democracy and the will of the people

[Flannel Boy]

In a cabin in Manitoba, you can keep EVERYTHING and no-one will care.

I'm moving there soon. I WILL CARE. 

[Van Cruncheon]

the will of the people was not ron paul, though

[FlameOfCallandor]

i thought we got a choice via proxy.  we vote for the people who make the ultimate decisions.

you don't really get much more free market than democracy and the will of the people

It's much easier and efficient to vote with your money. How many giant corporations have fallen in the past two decades and ow many have risen?

Also, I'm not sure why you think the will of the people is the same as free market. Many governments had the will of the people behind them, Nazi Germany, soviet russia etc... And I would never argue that they were very free.

[Eric P]

i thought we got a choice via proxy.  we vote for the people who make the ultimate decisions.

you don't really get much more free market than democracy and the will of the people

It's much easier and efficient to vote with your money. How many giant corporations have fallen in the past two decades and ow many have risen?

Also, I'm not sure why you think the will of the people is the same as free market. Many governments had the will of the people behind them, Nazi Germany, soviet russia etc... And I would never argue that they were very free.

they had good marketing.

i also think that any entity given that amount of power and time will insulate itself so that the ultimate benefactor is the entity in question.  It may not even be a conscious shift, but rather smaller immediate decisions made by myopic individual agents within those entities.  Even if the entity is ultimately supposed to be helping people (or was at least designed with that in mind).

look at what has become of the oldest, largest "centralized" organization the world currently has, the Catholic Church.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Aww thanks.

And someone who's a staunch libertarian doesn't care about things like "community"

Where do you get this from? This is akin to people calling Ron Paul an isolationist when he wants to trade with every country (The exact opposite of an isolationist).

[Flannel Boy]

Aww thanks.

And someone who's a staunch libertarian doesn't care about things like "community"

Where do you get this from? This is akin to people calling Ron Paul an isolationist when he wants to trade with every country (The exact opposite of an isolationist).

People get this impression because libertarians emphasize the interests of individuals over communities and societies. Anything that can serve as a political value has to be capable of being instantiated by the fictitious isolated individual. Thus social goods and values tend to be ignored. If someone argues that NASA benefits society as a whole, this will leave you cold; the lone individual's economic liberty is paramount.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Aww thanks.

And someone who's a staunch libertarian doesn't care about things like "community"

Where do you get this from? This is akin to people calling Ron Paul an isolationist when he wants to trade with every country (The exact opposite of an isolationist).

People get this impression because libertarians emphasize the interests of individuals over communities and societies. Anything that can serve as a political value has to be capable of being instantiated by the fictitious isolated individual. Thus social goods and values tend to be ignored. If someone argues that NASA benefits society as a whole, this will leave you cold; the lone individual's economic liberty is paramount.

Libertarianism describes philosophies which uphold the principles of individual liberty and minimize the role of the state. Libertarians dont ignore the community, they only believe that the best and most free community is one in which humans have the freedom to choose their extent of participation. Look at all the non-profit organizations that thrive. These arent done because the government gives them money, they are thriving because we want to do good for the community. It's very easy to fall into a dangerous trap when you argue for the good of the collective (eugenics, genocide, Iraq war etc...) are all things that happened because we were led to believe that it was for the benefit of the large community. "You need to give up some basic privacy rights because we will find terrorists and save lots of lives" is one thing I hear alot these days. Do you agree with that? 

The funny thing is that minorities will benefit the least from any sort of collective action and you guys call me a racist. One could argue that the war on drugs is for the benefit of the large community, after all the end justifies the means right? I want to end the "war on drugs" which unjustly imprisons many low income black men and I'm the racist?

[Eric P]

The funny thing is that minorities will benefit the least from any sort of collective action and you guys call me a racist.

minorities is a fairly specific term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group

by it's true definition, your statement is correct, but i don't think that it's what you're intending.

[FlameOfCallandor]

The funny thing is that minorities will benefit the least from any sort of collective action and you guys call me a racist.

minorities is a fairly specific term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group

by it's true definition, your statement is correct, but i don't think that it's what you're intending.

What we consider minorities in everyday english in america. Woman, blacks, hispanics, gays etc... Are all the least likely people to benefit from collective action.

[Flannel Boy]

Aww thanks.

And someone who's a staunch libertarian doesn't care about things like "community"

Where do you get this from? This is akin to people calling Ron Paul an isolationist when he wants to trade with every country (The exact opposite of an isolationist).

People get this impression because libertarians emphasize the interests of individuals over communities and societies. Anything that can serve as a political value has to be capable of being instantiated by the fictitious isolated individual. Thus social goods and values tend to be ignored. If someone argues that NASA benefits society as a whole, this will leave you cold; the lone individual's economic liberty is paramount.

Libertarianism describes philosophies which uphold the principles of individual liberty and minimize the role of the state. Libertarians dont ignore the community, they only believe that the best and most free community is one in which humans have the freedom to choose their extent of participation. Look at all the non-profit organizations that thrive. These arent done because the government gives them money, they are thriving because we want to do good for the community. It's very easy to fall into a dangerous trap when you argue for the good of the collective (eugenics, genocide, Iraq war etc...) are all things that happened because we were led to believe that it was for the benefit of the large community. "You need to give up some basic privacy rights because we will find terrorists and save lots of lives" is one thing I hear alot these days. Do you agree with that? 

The funny thing is that minorities will benefit the least from any sort of collective action and you guys call me a racist. One could argue that the war on drugs is for the benefit of the large community, after all the end justifies the means right? I want to end the "war on drugs" which unjustly imprisons many low income black men and I'm the racist?

If someone believes that political values should be judged with the community and society in mind, that doesn't mean he has to assent to every governmental policy that is then justified by the public good. Things like forced eugenics, genocide, the Iraq war, and the War on Drugs do not simply follow from emphasizing community interests. And worrying about the public good doesn't entail ignoring individual rights and liberties--especially since it can be argued that they are public goods too. You are trying to create a false dilemma between libertopia and an evil, totalitarian state full of eugenicist bogeymen. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

If someone believes that political values should be judged with the community and society in mind, that doesn't mean he has to assent to every governmental policy that is then justified by the public good. Things like forced eugenics, genocide, the Iraq war, and the War on Drugs do not simply follow from emphasizing community interests.

So in nazi germany the jews had a choice on wether to participate in the genocide or not? Is that what you are saying?
And yes those things came about BECAUSE we were told it was for the greater good. "If we dont attack Iraq Saddam will get america. Are you un-american?" (aka are you not part of the collective group think?)

And worrying about the public good doesn't entail ignoring individual rights and liberties--especially since it can be argued that they are a public good too. 

Yes it does, the definition of freedom is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restrain." If you tell me that I have to sacrifice my privacy because terrorists are going to get you then yes, you are in fact saying the greater good of the public is more important than individual rights.

We could have police search everyones house once a week and we would probably be really safe because of it. But are you willing to give up that right to privacy for security? If not then why not? After all it's for the greater good.

It all comes down to this, "Does the end justify the means."

[Flannel Boy]

If someone believes that political values should be judged with the community and society in mind, that doesn't mean he has to assent to every governmental policy that is then justified by the public good. Things like forced eugenics, genocide, the Iraq war, and the War on Drugs do not simply follow from emphasizing community interests.

So in nazi germany the jews had a choice on wether to participate in the genocide or not? Is that what you are saying?
And yes those things came about BECAUSE we were told it was for the greater good. "If we dont attack Iraq Saddam will get america. Are you un-american?" (aka are you not part of the collective group think?)

I was saying that a communitarian, or anyone who even remotely believes that social values are important, doesn't have to assent to every single policy simply because governments claim they will benefit social values. Maybe the following dialogue will help.

Foc: Do you think social values are important?

Me: Sure.

FoC: Then you must like killing Jews

Me: Google Godwin's law!

FoC: Well killing Jews will benefit society.

Me: Just because you claim that something will benefit society doesn't mean that it actually will. And even if it would, that doesn't mean that I have to sacrifice the most fundamental liberties. I don't suffer from aspergers, it's not a question of either or!

[FlameOfCallandor]

I was saying that a communitarian, or anyone who even remotely believes that social values are important, doesn't have to assent to every single policy simply because governments claim they will benefit social values. Maybe the following dialogue will help.

You're right you dont have to support every outcome of the system, but when you support the system you cant be surprised when these things do happen.

Just because you claim that something will benefit society doesn't mean that it actually will.

Your argument is "We need to benefit society unless what society wants, doesn't benefit them." Who gets to be the decider of when  collective policy is good? Are you saying that some collective actions dont benefit society? If so how do you go about fixing that? I would rather be in a situation where these things couldn't happen in the first place then to try and fix them later on. Again I'll bring up the Iraq war. I would much rather the president not have the ability to declare war without consent of the legislative branch. Then to just shallowly protest it after the fact.

And even if it would, that doesn't mean that I have to sacrifice the most fundamental liberties.

 You dont get to decide. Thats my point. Do you think anyone that is receiving the short end of the stick in a collective society wants to be shit upon?

[Flannel Boy]

I was saying that a communitarian, or anyone who even remotely believes that social values are important, doesn't have to assent to every single policy simply because governments claim they will benefit social values. Maybe the following dialogue will help.

You're right you dont have to support every outcome of the system, but when you support the system you cant be surprised when these things do happen.

What system am I supporting again? I have been talking about the individual and how he evaluates political values--whether he evaluates political values which can only be realized by the solitary individual or values which can only be realized by society at large. OR, like most people, both!

I was saying that a communitarian, or anyone who even remotely believes that social values are important, doesn't have to assent to every single policy simply because governments claim they will benefit social values. Maybe the following dialogue will help.

You're right you dont have to support every outcome of the system, but when you support the system you cant be surprised when these things do happen.

Just because you claim that something will benefit society doesn't mean that it actually will.

Your argument is "We need to benefit society unless what society wants, doesn't benefit them."

No it wasn't. Look if medicine is claimed to be beneficial for my health, that doesn't mean the medicine is actually beneficial to my health. It might not be, it has to be proved to be beneficial. And even if it is beneficial, if my taking the medicine harms others, then it might still not be worth taking. Thus a policy which is claimed to be socially good, might not actually be socially good. And if it harms individuals, then it may be irrelevant whether the policy has social benefits.

You dont get to decide. Thats my point. Do you think anyone that is receiving the short end of the stick in a collective society wants to be shit upon?

I don't recall advocating collectivism. Taking social and community interests into consideration != collectivism.

[FlameOfCallandor]

What system am I supporting again? I have been talking about the individual and how he evaluates political values--whether he evaluates political values which can only be realized by the solitary individual or values which can only be realized by society at large. OR, like most people, both!

I'm arguing that the individual is more important than the collective. Are you not arguing against that? You are arguing that some liberties can be sacrificed as long as their is benefit for the greater good.

No it wasn't. Look if medicine is claimed to be beneficial for my health, that doesn't mean the medicine is actually beneficial to my health. It might not be, it has to be proved to be beneficial. And even if it is beneficial, if my taking the medicine harms others, then it might still not be worth taking.

Two things, first you have a choice whether to take the medicine or not. So that alone throws your analogy out the window.

Thus a policy which is claimed to be socially good, might not actually be socially good. And if it harms individuals, then it may be irrelevant.

Second, What do you do when the collective wants the policy that is not socially good (Iraq war etc...).

Also, why is harming individuals irrelevant. You are again saying that the end justifies the means.

[Flannel Boy]

What system am I supporting again? I have been talking about the individual and how he evaluates political values--whether he evaluates political values which can only be realized by the solitary individual or values which can only be realized by society at large. OR, like most people, both!

 I'm arguing that the individual is more important than the collective. Are you not arguing against that? You are arguing that some liberties can be sacrificed as long as their is benefit for the greater good.

I argued that the libertarian ignores social values and only focus on those values that can be realized by the socially isolated individual. This does not mean social values should have precedent over individualistic values, or that liberties should be curtailed. This is your imagination running wild.

Two things, first you have a choice whether to take the medicine or not. So that alone throws your analogy out the window.

No it isn't since I still have the freedom to assent to or to oppose a particular policy, though I cannot ultimately stop its enactment. Agreeing to take the medicine is analogous to agreing to support a particular policy. (I can be forced to take medication too, in some instanced. The important point is whether I assent or not.)

Second, What do you do when the collective wants the policy that is not socially good (Iraq war etc...).

Also, why is harming individuals irrelevant. You are again saying that the end justifies the means.

.

This is a problem in any democracy, that's why we have constitutions, to prevent mob rule.

I didn't mean that harming individuals was irrelevant, I meant that if you had to harm individuals, the possible benefits of a policy were irrelevant.

[FlameOfCallandor]

This is a problem in any democracy, that's why we have constitutions, to prevent mob rule.

Except NASA isnt in the constitution, to go back to the earlier. Many agencies that we have these days are not in the constitution because people interpret it so loosely that it might as well not even be there.

No it isn't since I still have the freedom to assent to or to oppose a particular policy, though I cannot ultimately stop its enactment. Agreeing to take the medicine is analogous to agreing to support a particular policy. (I can be forced to take medication too, in some instanced. The important point is whether I assent or not.)

What happens when you dont take medicine?
What happens when you dont pay your taxes as a form of civil protest against what the government is using the money for?

[Flannel Boy]

This is a problem in any democracy, that's why we have constitutions, to prevent mob rule.

Except NASA isnt in the constitution, to go back to the earlier. Many agencies that we have these days are not in the constitution because people interpret it so loosely that it might as well not even be there.

Funding NASA isn't an example of mob rule.

What happens when you dont take medicine?
What happens when you dont pay your taxes as a form of civil protest against what the government is using the money for?

I'm not getting your point.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Funding NASA isn't an example of mob rule.

Do I get a choice?

What happens when you dont take medicine?
What happens when you dont pay your taxes as a form of civil protest against what the government is using the money for?

I'm not getting your point.

What happens when you dont take medicine? Nothing
What happens when you dont pay your taxes? Use of force by the state.

Do you see the difference?

[Flannel Boy]

Funding NASA isn't an example of mob rule.

Do I get a choice?

At the ballot box. Democracy isn't simply mob rule.

What happens when you dont take medicine? Nothing
What happens when you dont pay your taxes? Use of force by the state.

Do you see the difference?

I maintain that it doesn't affect my analogy. You still have the ability to agree with or disagree with the policy of taxation, though legally you still have to pay actual taxes.

ME:

No it isn't since I still have the freedom to assent to or to oppose a particular policy, though I cannot ultimately stop its enactment. Agreeing to take the medicine is analogous to agreeing to support a particular policy. (I can be forced to take medication too, in some instanced. The important point is whether I assent or not.)

[FlameOfCallandor]

At the ballot box. Democracy isn't simply mob rule.

That doesn't make it right. I can name many events thoughout human history that were voted on. One recent example is that George Bush got re-elected.... Does that mean what he did was right?

I maintain that it doesn't affect my analogy. You still have the ability to agree with or disagree with the policy of taxation, though legally you still have to pay actual taxes.

Yes technically you are right, we have the right to disagree. Im sure all the jews disagreed with Hitlers policy. 
My point here is that merely disagreeing with groupthink doesnt mean jack shit.


I want to point out that I am not calling you or anyone here Hitler, I'm only trying to show the fallacies of collectivism.

[FlameOfCallandor]

  I hate to quote spider-man but here I go.

"With great power comes great responsibility"

I'm sure you wont argue against the fact that we as a collective society of the United States have great power. But who gets the responsibility?  When someone gets mad about the Iraq war do you say "Oh, I'm sorry I was part of that collective that made the bad decision. I must take responsibility for it" Somehow I really doubt you do, you probably and justifiably point to the president. My question is in a collective society where power is wield by the masses, how do we deal with responsibility.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Come now, taxes and Hitler?  Godwin was right or bailout.gif

Except Goodwin was talking about usenet arguments about linux nerds. We are actually talking about politics, history and human philosophy.

[FlameOfCallandor]

He was talking about usenet, which as everyone knows is the original wound in the now septic topic of internet libertarianism.

You dont think its appropriate to bring up hitler when talking about governments and political philosophy? If you are reading the thread you will see its not the only analogy im bringing up either.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Then I won't talk about hitler anymore. But my point about the Iraq war is still valid.

[Mandark]

Profit is the incentive for everything whether you Libtards get that or not.  Somewhere in the chain someone is getting something out of it.

Hm, maybe you're right.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Profit is the incentive for everything whether you Libtards get that or not.  Somewhere in the chain someone is getting something out of it.

Hm, maybe you're right.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has built a national following largely by preaching an isolationist foreign policy. Stick with your own kind, says the maverick presidential candidate.

 

That guy doesn't know anything about Ron Paul.

There are no laws prohibiting candidates from hiring relatives, though the Federal Election Commission does require family members to be qualified for the job and be paid the going rate for their work.

The title to the article is completely false. Nowhere does it say the FEC claims he is running a business and nowhere does it say he is breaking the law. Very biased article against Paul

[Mandark]

According to your own worldview, profit is the ultimate and only incentive.  So obviously Ron Paul's been working as a member of Congress to line his own pockets.

[FlameOfCallandor]

According to your own worldview, profit is the ultimate and only incentive.  So obviously Ron Paul's been working as a member of Congress to line his own pockets.

Profit is not always money. He probably has a personal interesting in freedom, I'll give you that. 

[Mandark]

According to your own worldview, profit is the ultimate and only incentive.  So obviously Ron Paul's been working as a member of Congress to line his own pockets.

Profit is not always money. He probably has a personal interesting in freedom, I'll give you that. 

A non-monetary profit, eh?  So he's getting paid in hickory nuts?