That's why America was founded on the principle of unalienable rights endowed by our creator. The highest "good" is not a human construct but the immutable laws of God.
Pound sand; I had a discussion with the author to which you were not invited. Sorry to have missed your wit though. Spread it around; oh no shucky darn that spreading stuff is horse manure.
How do you know what my definition of statism is, if you didn't real my article?
FYI: I define "statism" as the belief that it's legitimate to have a monopolized (or cartelized) provider of justice and security. To put it even more precisely: Statism is the belief that monopoly power can be its own preventative, the belief that it is logically valid to attempt to prevent the violation of the rights of individuals by establishing an institution with the monopoly power to violate the rights of individuals, and the belief that it is ethically valid to assert that any person or group of people has superior moral authority to any other person or group of people.
I'd be interested to hear the reasons you disagree with that definition, if you do?
I also plan to address this issue in one of my posts. A fun example to hammer the point home is the system by which judges and police officials are chosen:
If we have a system which can truly identify who is morally sound and trustworthy, then we don't need a police force anymore. We need only create a society where citizenship is granted to those who pass this ideal test.
On the other hand, if we can't determine who can be trusted, why give them power?
Thank you for your time and talent. I required myself to find an honest person. I could not do it. So now what? Get another to watch the “trusted” one. Well yes but what if the two make a pact to split it? No problem get a third as an overseer. Crap: problem. Too many overseers.
I don't believe anyone can be trusted in absolutely any situation.
Some people struggle even to trust themselves leading to drug and gambling addictions that destroy their lives.
And most people will prioritise their own lives if a powerful force threatens them.
So I suggest that the best we can do is to live a life surrounded by fun and good people who will fight to protect us because they want us to live and protect them in turn.
No matter how well protected a person is, eventually they will die. So even if someone was able to gather perfectly trustworthy allies, they'd be betrayed by their own body instead.
Also I claimed you wouldn't respond because I saw that you had sent a message to someone else about the matter. So it seemed that you had no interest in continuing.
I appreciate the sarcasm because in my opinion such a test doesn't exist.
Trust is subjective, so nobody can be objectively more trustworthy than any one else.
However, each person can design a test of their own to select their companions. Ultimately, this process creates a hierarchy with the favourites receiving preferential treatment at the expense of those outside the inner circle.
Any sufficiently large society with an unequal distribution of talent will evolve into a feudal-like system as no one person can intimately know and trust thousands. The most talented groups will grow stronger while dividing and weakening their opponent groups, eventually condensing into a kingdom over the passage of many generations.
In conclusion, the emergence of aristocracy is the inevitable result of human nature.
“, the belief that it is logically valid to attempt to prevent the violation of the rights of individuals by establishing an institution with the monopoly power to violate the rights of individuals, “
Explain that. If you find that logical hats off to you.
Of coarse our government wants to violate the constitution, it’s the only thing that it, and people of good will, are used to restrain tyranny
That's why America was founded on the principle of unalienable rights endowed by our creator. The highest "good" is not a human construct but the immutable laws of God.
Pound sand; I had a discussion with the author to which you were not invited. Sorry to have missed your wit though. Spread it around; oh no shucky darn that spreading stuff is horse manure.
The only argument you're winning here is against Ayn Rand.
Not surprising to see the anarchists fighting among each other. Again.
Statism is a term to include all types of states:
Marxism, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc.
so as to not get bogged down by which ever.
Control is control.
I didn’t read your article because I disagree with your definition
How do you know what my definition of statism is, if you didn't real my article?
FYI: I define "statism" as the belief that it's legitimate to have a monopolized (or cartelized) provider of justice and security. To put it even more precisely: Statism is the belief that monopoly power can be its own preventative, the belief that it is logically valid to attempt to prevent the violation of the rights of individuals by establishing an institution with the monopoly power to violate the rights of individuals, and the belief that it is ethically valid to assert that any person or group of people has superior moral authority to any other person or group of people.
I'd be interested to hear the reasons you disagree with that definition, if you do?
He isn't going to respond.
I also plan to address this issue in one of my posts. A fun example to hammer the point home is the system by which judges and police officials are chosen:
If we have a system which can truly identify who is morally sound and trustworthy, then we don't need a police force anymore. We need only create a society where citizenship is granted to those who pass this ideal test.
On the other hand, if we can't determine who can be trusted, why give them power?
“they'd be betrayed by their own body instead”
Great line
Thank you for your time and talent. I required myself to find an honest person. I could not do it. So now what? Get another to watch the “trusted” one. Well yes but what if the two make a pact to split it? No problem get a third as an overseer. Crap: problem. Too many overseers.
I don't believe anyone can be trusted in absolutely any situation.
Some people struggle even to trust themselves leading to drug and gambling addictions that destroy their lives.
And most people will prioritise their own lives if a powerful force threatens them.
So I suggest that the best we can do is to live a life surrounded by fun and good people who will fight to protect us because they want us to live and protect them in turn.
No matter how well protected a person is, eventually they will die. So even if someone was able to gather perfectly trustworthy allies, they'd be betrayed by their own body instead.
Well why not provide the rest of us with the knowledge of what entails this test; what are its details. C’mon oh learned one; grant us your wisdom.
Also I claimed you wouldn't respond because I saw that you had sent a message to someone else about the matter. So it seemed that you had no interest in continuing.
I appreciate the sarcasm because in my opinion such a test doesn't exist.
Trust is subjective, so nobody can be objectively more trustworthy than any one else.
However, each person can design a test of their own to select their companions. Ultimately, this process creates a hierarchy with the favourites receiving preferential treatment at the expense of those outside the inner circle.
Any sufficiently large society with an unequal distribution of talent will evolve into a feudal-like system as no one person can intimately know and trust thousands. The most talented groups will grow stronger while dividing and weakening their opponent groups, eventually condensing into a kingdom over the passage of many generations.
In conclusion, the emergence of aristocracy is the inevitable result of human nature.
LOL you didn’t even read the article yet you had to come and comment about how you disagree. 🥳
“, the belief that it is logically valid to attempt to prevent the violation of the rights of individuals by establishing an institution with the monopoly power to violate the rights of individuals, “
Explain that. If you find that logical hats off to you.
Of coarse our government wants to violate the constitution, it’s the only thing that it, and people of good will, are used to restrain tyranny