Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
Well you see we needed this living space and we can really put it to good use so f*** established morals lets go kill the Jews and move in. The ends justify the means on this one. For sure.
HELL NO.
No one here is in the middle of any spectrum besides maybe me.
Libertarians are Right and Libertarian
Not centre anything
The Nazis killed the Jews on ideological grounds, not utilitarian grounds.
Consequentally, they got owned.
Not all libertarians are to the right(I am a right libertarian) some are left and yes there are some in the middle
We're in an average middle, sure. But averages mean nothing.
But without establishing moral norms, principally based on individual sovereignty, a governing apparatus, or independent actor, can justify nearly any course of action so long as the end result can be deemed beneficial.
I meant in this region
How in the literal nonsense can you be a "middle libertarian"
None of y'all are "middle"
Hi lack.
Though I guess I am Middle Right Libertarian
I'll be real, I just classify you as philosophically confused
...I.......m.....
Shut up.
Libertarianism is right-wing; right wing is for freedom, left is against. Which freedom, exactly, depends on the model; most believe it to be the economic model.
"If I am of the opinion that it is inexpedient to assign to the government the task of operating railroads, hotels, or mines, I am not an enemy of the state any more than I can be called an enemy of sulfuric acid because I am of the opinion that, useful though it may be for many purposes, it is not suitable either for drinking, or for washing ones hands."
-Mises
You're not the state, you can't tell me what to do
Left to Right
I base on Cooperation vs. Competition
You don't know that.
Anyways. I am about to pass out so I'm going to bed.
See y'all tomorrow.
If that's your basis of comparison, then the middle is better than either extreme. Consider that neither side is moral, after all.
Thank ya!
Anyways. Night for real
"If I am of the opinion that it is in expedient to assign the government the task of literally anything, I am an enemy of the state. In the same way I can find no use for nuclear bombs and could be considered an enemy if thermonuclear weapons "
-Lack
Yeah, I get that
So now we're taking lessons in ethics from the nihilistic economist? Great.
Alright then, deontologists, I pose a question to you: if the NAP is truly the ultimate moral code, how come not all libertarians are anarchists, and how come not all people are (deontological) libertarians? How come fascists, bolsheviks, conservatives, and social democrats exist?
The answer is because morality is a human construct. It cannot be found in nature, and any philosophical musing over "rights" is prone to self fulfilling biases. No animal but humanity bases their positions on morals, and even humans are not consistent with their morals if it conflicts with the ends (whether it be their survival or whatever). If you are an individual with four other people on the boat, and the only way to survive is to push someone off, who here would seriously refrain from "aggression" against the individual and doom everyone?
I appreciate you, Lack. You're one of the best rational egotists here.
I think you missed the point of the whole of Objectivist literature. Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? The NAP is correct in a societal context. The objective standard of value is one's life.
Ayn Rand wasn't going by the NAP, but rational egoism.
Util presupposes an objective standard of value, but fails to take it's premise to a rational conclusion. Life, obviously. Morality is based on rational self interest: objective. Rights and ethics are a necessary precondition for society, namely property rights. It's not a construct, it's a logical conclusion on correct action. Doth thou mistaketh me as an instrincisist?
I realize this. I'm not a hardcore advocate of NAP?
Objective value can only be found in the "greatest number for the greatest good." Non-objective morality is a guideline, but not a rulebook; it can be broken if the ends are sufficient enough. Original morality then, was created by societies (the ruling caste) for utilitarian purposes: to keep order and maintain cohesion, but if it failed to uphold order, then morality could be "redesigned" or revised, destroying any credibility, particularly for "natural" morality. Consequently, morality itself was created with a rational self (or in this case, collective) interest in mind. Same with the NAP.
MY POINT. YOU MAKE IT.
Collectives don't exist. Only individuals. Yes, there have been trade offs between slave and master systems, but even the recent util based system is based on a false standard of value: the collective. There's only one objective standard of value, the individual, and therefore only one logical morality. Altruism is irrational, consequentialism is arbitrary if not consistent with egoism, and util is nothing more than a false conspiracy by the State to justify Machiavellian action in it's own immoral interests at the expense of everyone else. Morality has existed since the emergence of man; ethics has changed because of a lack of logic and knowledge. A rational and objective set of ethics can be discovered if we just think.
I DIDNT MAKE IT I DISCOVERED IT
There's all the difference in the world, Minerva. I logically arrived at it, based on the fact of reality. I don't just arbitrarily (subjectively) come up with this sh*t.
I'm more than happy to discuss ethics in various situations, testing each other's knowledge and logic. But the purpose of this is to arrive at the RIGHT conclusion, the objective solution. If I have a flaw in my logic, we shall argue that. However, let's not make the mistake of believing it is somehow "subjective". No! Ethics are an objective necessity of Man.
So, how bout them statists?
Statists gonna state
Collectives don't exist, but this doesn't negate the fact that pragmatically, a "collective" can exert much more power than the individual. Why do you think morality exists? If there were no collectives, I'd assume there would be no need for morality as a means of interaction. There would be no logical demand for it, except for one of the biggest criticisms of the very thing that rational egoism sees as irrational - the emotional character of man. Therefore the only logical reason for "rational egoism" and "self interest" would be for subjective wish fulfillment, which drives a man to create his own morality for himself, which may or may not be the NAP - it could be a religious principle, or whatever. (In this case "self interest" leads to the opposite of what it is suggesting). Therefore, morality is entirely subjective in itself, and is only created by subjective values (below).
Another flaw in the NAP is that the basis of it can be subjective in itself. Not all people value liberty, sorry to say. Conservatives value tradition and the status quo (if they have a coherent value system that is, and are just not reactionary), and liberals value the vague concept of equality. People either don't value liberty, or they see liberty as a natural outcome of their philosophy (e.g. libertarian socialists). Hell, people may not even value rational self interest and instead value collective harmony, and are willing to sacrifice themselves altruistically and expect others to do the same according to their values.
I oppose communism on consequentalist grounds: that in every instance, the supposed utopia that communism desires has shown to fail and backfire horribly. Both free markets and civil liberties, on the other hand, have only shown to not only work, but be quite complementary to each other. Legalizing drugs, for example, suffocates drug cartels and self regulates the product: no pertaining moral outlook is needed! Therefore, the only objective standard value needed is the end, which in this case, equals libertarianism.
I am going to bed as I do not want to be tired in the morning. Good night.
Again, for common knowledge, if you post something longer than two paragraphs, I will not attempt to read it.
I'm afraid some of our definitions are not coinciding. I will respond to this some time later(?). At root, morality is not equivalent to ethics. The former exists in reality as a characteristic of man, and the former is an objective conclusion reached based on morality. The wills to power of certain groups and their imposition of savage and non-objective ethical systems on society are indeed subjective, for they are arbitrary and irrational. But they are wrong! Optional does not equal subjective; there's only one right option in a certain context, and it's our job to find it, based on the only objective standard of value, a man's own life.
I get your second point, really. But it's not applicable to the objectivist position. People are wrong, is that so hard to comprehend?
So do I. I love economics because it confirms my philosophy. However it's only a secondary reservation I have with communism.
They exist because they do not understand economics and hold contemptuous views on individual freedom. They have formed entire ideologies based on ignorance. As I say, if your political philosophy disagrees with economic reality, change your political philosophy. There will always be wrong and misguided people, in the field of politics as much as in religion or science. The way to discover the 'right' answer is through reason. This is how we learnt of evolution, and physics, and business cycles.
Rights, too, are discoverable by reason. Whether or not you want to call them rights, they exist. Why? Because as individuals, we own ourselves. We own our minds and our bodies and by extension our actions. So we are entitled to do whatever we want with our bodies in the pursuit of our own happiness, as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others. My rights exist because I exist.
Interesting argument going on here. It's always been my belief that morality can be taught.
By the by, I don't understand how you can differentiate "ethics" and "morals" other than ethics being the test of your morality. They are two eggs in the same shell.
What do you all think about intellectual property?
The laws about it or the property itself?
Both.
What has made Russia such an economic giant in the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse? Capitalism. The government of Vladimir Putin has pursued, in most respects, very neoliberal economic policies that have helped millions. From Wikipedia:
Under the Putin administration the economy made real gains of an average 7% per year (2000: 10%, 2001: 5.1%, 2002: 4.7%, 2003: 7.3%, 2004: 7.2%, 2005: 6.4%, 2006: 8.2%, 2007: 8.5%),[12] making it the 7th largest economy in the world in purchasing power. Russia's nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased 6 fold, climbing from 22nd to 10th largest in the world. In 2007, Russia's GDP exceeded that of Russian SFSR in 1990, meaning it has overcome the devastating consequences of the 1998 financial crisis and preceding recession in the 1990s.[13]
During Putin's eight years in office, industry grew by 76%, investments increased by 125%,[13] and agricultural production and construction increased as well. Real incomes more than doubled and the average monthly salary increased sevenfold from $80 to $640.[14][15] From 2000 to 2006 the volume of consumer credit increased 45 times[16][17] and the middle class grew from 8 million to 55 million. The number of people living below the poverty line decreased from 30% in 2000 to 14% in 2008.[13][18]
In 2001, Putin, who has advocated liberal economic policies, introduced a flat tax rate of 13%;[19][20] the corporate rate of tax was also reduced from 35 percent to 24 percent;[19] Small businesses also get better treatment. The old system with high tax rates has been replaced by a new system where companies can choose either a 6-percent tax on gross revenue or a 15-percent tax on profits.[19] The overall tax burden is lower in Russia than in most European countries.[21]
However, there is much work to be done before it's economy will be truly free. Property rights protections are poor, drug and association laws are draconian, and corporatism is a big problem. Several hundred state-owned companies need to be privatised, and many legal monopolies should also be unchained. Another problem is the deep connections between organised crime and government.
They are an ineffective and dangerous piece of state intrusion into the market place. How Someone can claim absolute ownership of an idea is beyond me.
You can't claim Ownership of an idea. It's not possible.
Now to claim ownership of a product yeah. I can see that. But an Idea..Or even a song.
Like I remember the Happy Birthday song having some copywrite Sh*t go down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/nyregion/lawsuit-aims-to-strip-happy-birthday-to-you-of-its-copyright.html?_r=0
It's just idiotic.
An anarchist not defending property rights? More on this story as it develops, tonight at 11. This is channel 5, good morning.
Where is Muh ipian?
"Intellectual property" is hardly property in a literal sense. Rather it is a state supported claim to a monopoly over an idea or the ability to produce a product.
But if someone invents something why can't they Copywrite it?
Because if one person can independently create a product there is no reason why another individual can create the same product
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMhUDHw-FGc
Russia's finest.
I don't know what's worse the president's address regarding Iraq or the media pundits' coverage of it
Muh, I drew the distinction between the two only to make their definitions a little more specific. Morality would be right vs wrong action for an individual in every context. Ethics would be right vs wrong action for an individual in the context of interaction with other individuals (society). So you could say the latter is a subset of the former.
Ah gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.
So I heard David Cameron wants to put a cap on immigrants coming into the uk. That's just wrong, immigrants should have the freedom to wear or not wear any kind of headgear they want.
Ummm...
I think they mean Quota. Either way it's wrong but yeah....
Sejam bem-vindos à Copa do Mundo da FIFA 2014 / Welcome to FIFA World Cup 2014
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyXcE6HTZDc
I lol'd
^ Yup.
Looks like the Nazis finally went to Hell.
Ha.
There are people who think it is in their interests to infringe upon the God-given rights of their fellow man, and sadistically torture others under the delusion that it will benefit them and what they stand for. That, my dear Minerva, is where such men belong.
Agreed again.
THIS IS THE BEST DAY EVER! I'm done with school and the Nazis are in Hell. YAHOOOOOO!
That's the best thing I've seen all week.
Same here!
Y'all are awfully punny today
Really? I didn't think their puns were that awful.
Interesting thing about Hell is that it was historically and extremely hard region to raid. The fact that the Nazis were not only able to raid hell, but also put in a password within a day, is something in itself.
So I found a Political Party Names Generator
The first three names it gave me were:
-Put Equal Rights Somewhere in the Middle of Our Priorities Party
-Tax America's Job Creators Party
-Put the Economy Off Until Tomorrow Party
Something tells me that this is just an Anti-Leftist Name Generator
- Jaded Nudist Party (Is it bad that this party made the most sense)
And to all the Anti-communists here.
I was just insulted the best way possible. I am apparently a "Delusional FOX News-humping McCarthyite"
Ill take that.. :P
That insult really bothered me considering I am neither of those things.
Oh. OK then..... Its still kindsa funny.
How did this insult come about?
I was arguing against a Communist and told him Communism wasn't achievable due to human nature and told him to recognize he was supporting a flawed and impossible to obtain ideology.
Yep....I bet that pissed him off.
Ya ^ But TTA was right...My issue with it too. :)
Yep TTA was just telling him the truth.
Yeah. Then I figured out he watched MSNBC while he was going off about FOX News conservative lies. Which led to a short discussion about that which was what led to the insult.
I wish I was wrong. A true communist Society would be rather nice. But it isn't possible it will always lead to an Authoritarian Government which is unwanted.
Also
That moment when you realize although all of North Korea's parties are in one united front. It is still technically a Democratic Dictatorship.
They have elections for the legislature which are between three parties. All three are in The Farther Lands front though so not sure if counts.
Confession time, I got that from the interwebs. I don't follow uk politics
Too late. Already shared it on Facebook. That one was gold.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/10.htm
OH!
I Love this website!
Interesting.
It is an Interesting Website. What's more so interesting is the person who posted it.
3 minutes ago: Factoremland altered its national flag.
6 minutes ago: Factoremland lodged a message on the Libertatem Regional Message Board.
7 minutes ago: Factoremland was banned from UCR by The Communist States of Communal Earth.
9 minutes ago: Factoremland relocated from The United Front to Libertatem.
9 minutes ago: Factoremland relocated from UCR to The United Front.
9 minutes ago: Factoremland relocated from The East Pacific to UCR.
13 minutes ago: Factoremland was founded in The East Pacific.
Ah good then communism has got a foot hold in here. I hope that one day I will inspire a revolution that will make this region communist as it should be.
Maybe, but we prefer freedom.
Hey, changing to a totally different topic if I may, what do you all think of tattoos? I watched my father(ultra conservative) and my sister(ultra liberal) get into it about her tattoos and it made me wonder, what would others think.
...
I just said I liked it. Why is it everyone always assumes I am a Communist?
No. I am a Centre to Centre-Right kind of Guy.
This isn't freedom! This is slavery forced on the poor and sick masses by the Borgoniuse rich fat cats!
Naturally being Mormon I believe the body to be a temple. So the logic goes do you put Graffiti on a temple? Then why put it on your body?
I don't care if other's get it but it's not something I would do.
...
This guy is going to be very entertaining.
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.