Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ned Hamford on June 01, 2014, 08:17:14 PM
-
This was a very enjoyable read.
http://the-toast.net/2014/05/27/ayn-rands-harry-potter-sorcerers-stone/
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthe-toast.net%2Fokay%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fhprand.png&hash=626b2cb69ec0f4cfcd63e90f652aa3f07ccc69f7)
In the exchange of value amongst a society of worthy individuals, I present it here; not from any obligation to any group, but in display of its own merit and for its own sake.
;)
-
High-larious =D
I just hope the Hogwarts Express doesn't crash into another train in the middle of a tunnel :O
-
Professor Snape stood at the front of the room, sort of Jewishly.
Ms. Rand was of Jewish heritage but was not observant.
-
Ayn Rand had some amazing insights, and was unfortunately also batshit crazy. All in all it's probably a net negative that she's on our side.
-
Ayn Rand had some amazing insights, and was unfortunately also batshit crazy. All in all it's probably a net negative that she's on our side.
Yeah. Same with some other Libertarian greats like Rothbard. A lot of real gold mixed with some terrible radiological feces.
-
Yeah. Same with some other Libertarian greats like Rothbard. A lot of real gold mixed with some terrible radiological feces.
It's especially vexing as she was most definitely not an Libertarian. Objectivism is an entirely separate religion/political movement.
-
It's especially vexing as she was most definitely not an Libertarian. Objectivism is an entirely separate religion/political movement.
The two movements are foundationally identical. There are minor distinctions, to be sure, but they are as or more similar than any two branches of Protestant Christianity. I don't know that you could call them entirely different movements, the existence of doctrinal purists notwithstanding.
-
Upon reflection, it should have been Hermione spouting the objectivist philosophy. That would have been more fitting to the characters.
The smallest minority is the individual house elf. =D
-
Balog & cordex:
I think the common vein you are mining is the utopian or the forcibly consistent nature of some of the libertarian philosophies. Humans and their workable cultures and institutions are organic, live in an historical and cultural context, and are not wholly rational & divorced from history and tradition, the way much l-tarian philosophy is.
-
Balog & cordex:
I think the common vein you are mining is the utopian or the forcibly consistent nature of some of the libertarian philosophies. Humans and their workable cultures and institutions are organic, live in an historical and cultural context, and are not wholly rational & divorced from history and tradition, the way much l-tarian philosophy is.
Yeah, the real problem is that ninety percent of people either want to be told what to do or tell others what to do. ;/
-
Yeah, the real problem is that ninety percent of people either want to be told what to do or tell others what to do. ;/
So, what you're saying is that libertarianism cannot ever work in practice because it ignores the man's nature?
-
So, what you're saying is that libertarianism cannot ever work in practice because it ignores the man's nature?
Well yeah, but that never stopped us from trying socialism.
-
So, what you're saying is that libertarianism cannot ever work in practice because it ignores the man's nature?
It is utopian. I suspect childhood trauma.
Attempting to reconcile a libertarian/ancap critique of the state, with Romans 13 (http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+13/), gets you to an amazingly grim place.
-
It is utopian. I suspect childhood trauma.
Attempting to reconcile a libertarian/ancap critique of the state, with Romans 13 (http://www.esvbible.org/Romans+13/), gets you to an amazingly grim place.
Meh, I view that the same way I view the passages about children obeying their parents. I'm under no obligation to obey a state that wishes to force me into immoral actions, any more than a girl who's pedophile dad is pimping her out is obligated to be a prostitute.
-
Not an easy problem to disentangle, if you're not just trying to weasel out of Romans 13.
-
I think the common vein you are mining is the utopian or the forcibly consistent nature of some of the libertarian philosophies. Humans and their workable cultures and institutions are organic, live in an historical and cultural context, and are not wholly rational & divorced from history and tradition, the way much l-tarian philosophy is.
I don't think I completely agree when it comes to classifying Libertarianism as utopian. Libertarian philosophy is no more utopian than any other political philosophy. It is true that Libertarians believe that some things that are being done today are wrong and that individuals and society as a whole would be more effectively and more morally served through the application of the Libertarian philosophy. However, that is not to say that Libertarians necessarily believe that if they snapped their fingers and the world were Libertarian that there would be no problems any more than Republicans believe that if every office were held by a Conservative Republican that there would be no problems. Members of every political philosophy believe that to the extent that their doctrine is implemented things will be better, more efficient or more moral. If that were not so, why fight for their side? Aside from rent seeking, I mean.
That said, you are spot on when it comes to tending to ignore historical and cultural context. For instance, when Rothbard was working out his use of a woman's property rights and opposition involuntary servitude to defend abortion, he realized that the rational extension of his logic would have to allow infanticide - at least through exposure and neglect. After all, if a fetus has no right to infringe on a woman's self-ownership by occupying her body, how could he justify requiring a mother to feed, clothe, clean, and otherwise care for an infant after it had been born? If a neglected infant dies, Rothbard asserts, it does so because it cannot justly lay claim to the mother's time, money and effort to care for it.
I reject that position for two reasons. Firstly (and rationally), because both the mother and father were involved in (hopefully) voluntary decisions and choices that directly led to the conception of the child, they must therefore accept responsibility through the implicit agreement thereby entered into for caring for that offspring to some minimum standard, at least until they can find willing parents to take the child. Secondly (and emotionally), my cultural conditioning causes me to reject with horror the idea that an live infant should be subject to fatal neglect without consequence to the responsible party. On the other hand, if I were from another culture that is more tolerant of infanticide I would likely not have that same reaction.
To be fair to Rothbard, he also believed that infanticide wouldn't be a huge problem because in a free society, infants would be a marketable commodity and the parents of unwanted infants would have an incentive to provide for them until it could be sold to parents who do want the baby.
-
Yeah, the real problem is that ninety percent of people either want to be told what to do or tell others what to do. ;/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sFu5qXMuaJU
Replace "democracy" with "libertarian society" and the rant is even more true.
That was the hardest thing for me to learn and why I retired from military/government service as well as er, other work. Minus blowing off steam here and there, I'm retired, staying retired and tending to my metaphorical backyard.
-
Yep, bring back the Orphan Trains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train). I think that's a much better solution then the current .gov created mess.
Also I just want to be left alone, and not have the .gov intruding in every aspect of my life.
-
Not an easy problem to disentangle, if you're not just trying to weasel out of Romans 13.
True, I agree. But I don't think most of those sorts of questions could ever be easy just because of their nature.
The two movements are foundationally identical. There are minor distinctions, to be sure, but they are as or more similar than any two branches of Protestant Christianity. I don't know that you could call them entirely different movements, the existence of doctrinal purists notwithstanding.
One is a primarily political philosophy, one is a religion. They have many of the same end results politically, and they share many of the same rationales. But they really are two separate things.
-
Not an easy problem to disentangle, if you're not just trying to weasel out of Romans 13.
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side :P
So, what you're saying is that libertarianism cannot ever work in practice because it ignores the man's nature?
So what you're saying is that because some or most people prefer to be slaves that I am obligated to be a slave ???
-
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side :P
So what you're saying is that because some or most people prefer to be slaves that I am obligated to be a slave ???
Are you equating any type of .gov with slavery?
-
Are you equating any type of .gov with slavery?
Are you equating libertarian thought with absolutely no government ???
-
Are you equating any type of .gov with slavery?
Of course not, only the ones that demand taxes. :police:
-
Are you equating libertarian thought with absolutely no government ???
No, although your comment reads more anarchist than libertarian.
-
Are you equating libertarian thought with absolutely no government ???
Unfortunately, he's right. Most people would rather be kept as pets, than take any for of responsibility for themselves. Those bunch of aholes will keep voting that the rest of us pay to feed and take care of them as long as this farce continues.
Joke is on them, eventually*
*At least I hope it is. Given the choice, I don't want to live in a world that involves everyone brought down to the lowest common denominator. The useless can starve, for all I care. Up to and including the nastiness involved in cities not being able to feed their parasite populations. Ouch.
-
No, although your comment reads more anarchist than libertarian.
Is not working to support the other 50+ percent of the population, being told what you can and can't put in your body, being told what kind of toliet you must have in your house, being told that you must buy health insurance, and being subject to search anywhere you go, etc etc etc, slavery ???
-
Is not working to support the other 50+ percent of the population, being told what you can and can't put in your body, being told what kind of toliet you must have in your house, being told that you must buy health insurance, and being subject to search anywhere you go, etc etc etc, slavery ???
Depends on what style slavery you're referring to, but no. That or just about everyone who's ever lived has been a slave.
-
That or just about everyone who's ever lived has been a slave.
It really doesn't take much study of history to come to that conclusion.
-
The Founders used the term "slavery" about as loosely as Tallpine does, so I can't fault him. (I think it's more amusing when they use the term "despotic sway." I just find it funny, for some reason.)
TBS, anyone who has been a slave would probably laugh out loud at such cavalier usage. There is slavery, and then there is honest-to-goodness, send you to the workhouse to be tortured if you don't like the wife they picked for you slavery.
-
TBS, anyone who has been a slave would probably laugh out loud at such cavalier usage. There is slavery, and then there is honest-to-goodness, send you to the workhouse to be tortured if you don't like the wife they picked for you slavery.
Slavery is when a person is owned by another person or group of people.
In the bible there are instructions on how one should properly treat one's slaves, as well as how a slave who has been well treated can choose to remain in servitude after their period of service has been fulfilled. Slaves can be lovingly cared for or senselessly tortured. A slave can be paid some of the value they bring their master and own property - even raise money to buy their own freedom, or be barely kept alive and given no possessions of their own. The defining aspect is not whether or not they have had the skin whipped off their backs, but whether they are owned by someone else.
A slave with no whip-weilding taskmaster, a long leash and who keeps some of their pay is a slave nonetheless.
-
Slavery is when a person is owned by another person or group of people.
In the bible there are instructions on how one should properly treat one's slaves, as well as how a slave who has been well treated can choose to remain in servitude after their period of service has been fulfilled. Slaves can be lovingly cared for or senselessly tortured. A slave can be paid some of the value they bring their master and own property - even raise money to buy their own freedom, or be barely kept alive and given no possessions of their own. The defining aspect is not whether or not they have had the skin whipped off their backs, but whether they are owned by someone else.
A slave with no whip-weilding taskmaster, a long leash and who keeps some of their pay is a slave nonetheless.
Okay, so...
-
Okay, so...
Just saying that slavery is not defined by how poorly the slave is treated. It seemed you were dismissive of the idea that someone was a real slave unless their master tortured them for petty reasons.
-
I don't think I completely agree when it comes to classifying Libertarianism as utopian. Libertarian philosophy is no more utopian than any other political philosophy. It is true that Libertarians believe that some things that are being done today are wrong and that individuals and society as a whole would be more effectively and more morally served through the application of the Libertarian philosophy. However, that is not to say that Libertarians necessarily believe that if they snapped their fingers and the world were Libertarian that there would be no problems any more than Republicans believe that if every office were held by a Conservative Republican that there would be no problems. Members of every political philosophy believe that to the extent that their doctrine is implemented things will be better, more efficient or more moral. If that were not so, why fight for their side? Aside from rent seeking, I mean.
That said, you are spot on when it comes to tending to ignore historical and cultural context. For instance, when Rothbard was working out his use of a woman's property rights and opposition involuntary servitude to defend abortion, he realized that the rational extension of his logic would have to allow infanticide - at least through exposure and neglect. After all, if a fetus has no right to infringe on a woman's self-ownership by occupying her body, how could he justify requiring a mother to feed, clothe, clean, and otherwise care for an infant after it had been born? If a neglected infant dies, Rothbard asserts, it does so because it cannot justly lay claim to the mother's time, money and effort to care for it.
I reject that position for two reasons. Firstly (and rationally), because both the mother and father were involved in (hopefully) voluntary decisions and choices that directly led to the conception of the child, they must therefore accept responsibility through the implicit agreement thereby entered into for caring for that offspring to some minimum standard, at least until they can find willing parents to take the child. Secondly (and emotionally), my cultural conditioning causes me to reject with horror the idea that an live infant should be subject to fatal neglect without consequence to the responsible party. On the other hand, if I were from another culture that is more tolerant of infanticide I would likely not have that same reaction.
To be fair to Rothbard, he also believed that infanticide wouldn't be a huge problem because in a free society, infants would be a marketable commodity and the parents of unwanted infants would have an incentive to provide for them until it could be sold to parents who do want the baby.
Compare the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism vs those of the founders to see what i mean.
-
The point remains that 90% of people are content with some substantial degree of dependency and submission, of which I am not, nor do I see why I should be just because they are.
There are also the ones that always want to be in charge of everyone else.
-
The point remains that 90% of people are content with some substantial degree of dependency and submission, of which I am not, nor do I see why I should be just because they are.
There are also the ones that always want to be in charge of everyone else.
Straight answer? Because the 90% has men with guns that will make you submit.
-
Given how loaded the words are, I think there much akin in terms like slave and rape. I think we can all agree there is a very wide spectrum that encompass such terms; but that doesn't go as far as to approach a good or even neutral interpretation.
Being well aware of the spectrum and how the far negative ends still exist in our world (IE: Honor killings and transnational sexual slavery), I don't think it a black mark against a person to grade the concepts by necessity of rationing one's outrage and efforts; as to do otherwise is absurd. The personal pulled over on pretense and left waiting for an hour before being let go gets some sympathy; but the wrongfully imprisoned for a decade or more get the outrage. The technical rape (both drunk and willing, one week early in the wrong state ect) and the wage slave; are certainly not things condoned or endorsed, but if you sit victims of the other end of the scale next to them; I know where my attention and efforts go first.
-
Just saying that slavery is not defined by how poorly the slave is treated. It seemed you were dismissive of the idea that someone was a real slave unless their master tortured them for petty reasons.
Slavery has a real definition. "There are limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes" does not make that definition, and pretending it does in order to use loaded emotional language just cheapens the term. Much like saying that someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl is a "pedophile child molester."
-
Slavery has a real definition. "There are limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes" does not make that definition, and pretending it does in order to use loaded emotional language just cheapens the term. Much like saying that someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl is a "pedophile child molester."
Maybe you should actually read what I wrote in context: :facepalm:
So what you're saying is that because some or most people prefer to be slaves that I am obligated to be a slave ???
-
Just saying that slavery is not defined by how poorly the slave is treated. It seemed you were dismissive of the idea that someone was a real slave unless their master tortured them for petty reasons.
It seems you did not read what I wrote, or were too busy reading things into it to note the meaning thereof.
-
Maybe you should actually read what I wrote in context: :facepalm:
Maybe you should read the post I quoted and was replying to?
That being said, your original post is still wrong. %90 of people do not want to be slaves, in the actual definition of the word.
-
Maybe you should read the post I quoted and was replying to?
That being said, your original post is still wrong. %90 of people do not want to be slaves, in the actual definition of the word.
Yet they are quite comfortable giving up liberty for a false promise of security. =(
-
Yet they are quite comfortable giving up liberty for a false promise of security. =(
Not the same as being a slave.
And a lot of the mala prohibum laws are about maintaining standards of civil behaviour.
-
Slavery has a real definition. "There are limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes" does not make that definition, and pretending it does in order to use loaded emotional language just cheapens the term.
Then what is your preferred definition of a slave?
Much like saying that someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl is a "pedophile child molester."
As MillCreek recently taught us in another thread, the proper term there would be "hebephile child molester." Someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl does in fact meet the legal definition of a child molester in states where the age of consent is 18, do they not?
It seems you did not read what I wrote, or were too busy reading things into it to note the meaning thereof.
My apologies.
-
Then what is your preferred definition of a slave?
This one is fine.
Slavery is when a person is owned by another person or group of people.
As MillCreek recently taught us in another thread, the proper term there would be "hebephile child molester." Someone who sleeps with a 17 year 360 day old girl does in fact meet the legal definition of a child molester in states where the age of consent is 18, do they not?
That's spelled incorrectly, by the way.
I suppose that depends on the individual state's laws and legal definitions, but it's still silly. Laws are frequently silly and nonsensical.
-
By using "slavery" to refer to life under an oppressive regime, Grumpy Old Tallpine is squarely within the best tradition of Western political rhetoric. The Founders, many of whom knew from experience that they were NOT literally slaves, nonetheless spoke of slavery in the less literal sense. They were not wrong to do so, even if they were sometimes ironic.
GOT is complaining of a lack of self-ownership among supposed free men. "Limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes," can mean a lot of things, and GOT was talking about excessive limits and absurd taxation. "Working to support the other 50+ percent of the population, being told what you can and can't put in your body, being told what kind of toliet you must have in your house, being told that you must buy health insurance, and being subject to search anywhere you go, etc etc etc..." Is that literal slavery? No, but not everything is meant in the most literal sense.
-
This one is fine.
So the only disagreement is whether or not governments "own" the governed. I propose that if any other group were to exert the amount of ownership over a people that a government does it would be called slavery.
That's spelled incorrectly, by the way.
I think it's spelled correctly, but is the wrong term. Ephebophile would be more correct, I think.
I suppose that depends on the individual state's laws and legal definitions, but it's still silly. Laws are frequently silly and nonsensical.
Yes, many laws are silly.
-
So the only disagreement is whether or not governments "own" the governed. I propose that if any other group were to exert the amount of ownership over a people that a government does it would be called slavery.
I think it's spelled correctly, but is the wrong term. Ephebophile would be more correct, I think.
Yes, many laws are silly.
If basically everyone who has ever lived is a slave by mere virtue of living as part of civilization then the terms ceases to have meaning.
-
If basically everyone who has ever lived is a slave by mere virtue of living as part of civilization then the terms ceases to have meaning.
First of all, I do understand what you are saying, but the point of contention is that you see slavery as black and white rather than a continuum of oppression.
Historically, the vast majority of people were indeed slaves in an explicit fashion that I think even you would agree qualifies for the term. Ignoring some interesting tribal arrangements like the Irish and some African groups, government has meant slavery to that government. Serfdom, peasantry, debt-bondage, indentured servitude, conscription, and outright chattel slavery were the norm for the vast majority in "civilization" throughout recorded history.
A slave may well be well treated, content with their situation and what freedoms or possessions they retain, but a happy slave is not the same thing as self ownership.
-
Can we all agree that house elves are slaves ???
=D
And Hermione is much more the philosophical sort than Harry =)
-
First of all, I do understand what you are saying, but the point of contention is that you see slavery as black and white rather than a continuum of oppression.
Historically, the vast majority of people were indeed slaves in an explicit fashion that I think even you would agree qualifies for the term. Ignoring some interesting tribal arrangements like the Irish and some African groups, government has meant slavery to that government. Serfdom, peasantry, debt-bondage, indentured servitude, conscription, and outright chattel slavery were the norm for the vast majority in "civilization" throughout recorded history.
A slave may well be well treated, content with their situation and what freedoms or possessions they retain, but a happy slave is not the same thing as self ownership.
I'd love to see your data on that claim.
And my point is that the .gov-citizen relationship is not the same as slavery, any more than the parent child relationship is slavery or a marriage is slavery because a husband and wife "own" each others bodies and have say over each others actions.
By using "slavery" to refer to life under an oppressive regime, Grumpy Old Tallpine is squarely within the best tradition of Western political rhetoric. The Founders, many of whom knew from experience that they were NOT literally slaves, nonetheless spoke of slavery in the less literal sense. They were not wrong to do so, even if they were sometimes ironic.
GOT is complaining of a lack of self-ownership among supposed free men. "Limits on my conduct and I have to pay taxes," can mean a lot of things, and GOT was talking about excessive limits and absurd taxation. "Working to support the other 50+ percent of the population, being told what you can and can't put in your body, being told what kind of toliet you must have in your house, being told that you must buy health insurance, and being subject to search anywhere you go, etc etc etc..." Is that literal slavery? No, but not everything is meant in the most literal sense.
What's excessive and absurd? Please give me a definition.
-
I'd love to see your data on that claim.
I seem to recall a bunch of people leaving Europe and moving to America in pursuit of liberty over the past few centuries =|
-
I'd love to see your data on that claim.
Are you questioning the ratio of serfs to lords or what?
And my point is that the .gov-citizen relationship is not the same as slavery, any more than the parent child relationship is slavery or a marriage is slavery because a husband and wife "own" each others bodies and have say over each others actions.
I suppose if you view the proper role of government as the mommy and daddy of the populace, you would indeed approve of its level of control. Can't say I agree with that view, though.
As to the husband and wife analogy, if such a relationship is as one-sided as the government/citizen relationship then whether or not it is slavery it is at best an unhealthy, abusive and controlling relationship.
-
Are you questioning the ratio of serfs to lords or what?
I suppose if you view the proper role of government as the mommy and daddy of the populace, you would indeed approve of its level of control. Can't say I agree with that view, though.
As to the husband and wife analogy, if such a relationship is as one-sided as the government/citizen relationship then whether or not it is slavery it is at best an unhealthy, abusive and controlling relationship.
;/
Please provide a citation that the vast majority of people throughout recorded human history have been literal slaves.
-
Please provide a citation that the vast majority of people throughout recorded human history have been literal slaves.
Balog, I'm really not sure what you see as controversial about that claim. Between serfdom, peasantry, debt-bondage, indentured servitude, conscription, and chattel slavery, most people were enslaved either by a central government directly or by a ruling elite.
Do you need me to show you that most people fell under those categories throughout history as opposed to being Lords, Kings, etc.? Or that being (for instance) a serf is being a slave? I'd be happy to address either one, I'm just not sure what exactly you need spelled out for you.
-
Back on OP; looks like it was so popular they are doing each book.
http://the-toast.net/2014/06/18/ayn-rands-harry-potter-prisoners-collectivism/