EPTOn October 23 2012 13:06 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Property exists independent of government, and don't try to argue otherwise.
Property exists independent of government, and don't try to argue otherwise.
But I do!
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 989
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
But I do! | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:06 sam!zdat wrote: When I become dictator I will ban dictionaries that's double plus good | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: Property exists independent of government, and don't try to argue otherwise. I'm sure you could find some conception of property even in the caveman days, though the actual objects would be in more frequent contention. Greater contention does not mean ownership does not exist. The propertarian cometh. On Anarres you'd be told to stop egoizing. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On October 23 2012 12:54 Budmandude wrote: President Obama tonight after his "airbrush" line: "Governor Romney, you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the US auto companies even if they went through Bankruptcy." He then said that people would look it up. Well, I did and here's what I found. Mitt Romney in his op-ed "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" from the New York Times in 2008 "The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. " Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html Will Obama be fact checked to death and his campaign declared a Big Bad Lying Machine? Going to have to go with no on this one. I think I spend too much time on the internet reading and interacting with supporters of the Democratic Party (label you put here unimportant) because.... Sometimes I feel my opinions are more anti-left than they are pro-right because I find the left so damn silly. Looking at it objectively I should be quite outraged at Republicans and their silliness, but I am not. They just don't piss me off like Democrats do. One of the reasons I dislike them so much, I think, is they are sure they know what needs to be changed and they are so much damn smarter. Just elect the right person to political office and some magic government programs will fix the world. Really, I think the socialism thing just completely killed the left for me for a long time. How can I take them seriously after that? Conclusion: I can't really explain why I don't like the left so much | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:04 sevencck wrote: Are we really arguing tax is just theft? Really? Not really arguing, just everyone attacking me and jd. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:09 Romantic wrote: Will Obama be fact checked to death and his campaign declared a Big Bad Lying Machine? Going to have to go with no on this one. I think I spend too much time on the internet reading and interacting with supporters of the Democratic Party (label you put here unimportant) because.... Sometimes I feel my opinions are more anti-left than they are pro-right because I find the left so damn silly. Looking at it objectively I should be quite outraged at Republicans and their silliness, but I am not. They just don't piss me off like Democrats do. One of the reasons I dislike them so much, I think, is they are sure they know what needs to be changed and they are so much damn smarter. Just elect the right person to political office and some magic government programs will fix the world. Really, I think the socialism thing just completely killed the left for me for a long time. How can I take them seriously after that? Conclusion: I can't really explain why I don't like the left so much Romney believes just as much in magical programs fixing the world, his are just "I'm a businessman." Both "parties" refuse to admit limitations in reality because it drastically tempers rhetoric. On October 23 2012 13:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: Let's start with the most basic premise and extrapolate outwards. I have an arm connected to my body. I consider this arm property of mine. Is this a notion I have naturally, or is it predicated on a government declaring it so? You're creating an arbitrary division between the arm and yourself here. How can you "own" yourself? You exist. There is an arm in the same sense that there is you. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:04 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone is guilty of double-think. Some more than others. When people start pointing to the dictionary to justify state action, it is a little scary. Actually, very scary. Actually, it's Swazi Spring who pointed to the dictionary - I simply corrected him by quoting the full definition. The bottomline is that it is not a fact that taxation is theft. You and Swazi are entitled to your opinion on the matter, but don't try to pass it off as a fact and remember that you are in the extreme minority on the matter. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:01 sam!zdat wrote: This is interesting but maybe not the ideal place. I'm following Habermas here, if that helps anchor the conversation. I'm distinguishing between cognitive-instrumental and moral-practical claims, which I feel is a crucial distinction. I'm just using a notion where facts are the states of affairs described by true propositions (or true sentences, if you prefer). Any discourse whose sentences express propositions will be a potentially fact-expressing discourse. A sentence of a discourse expresses a proposition if it divides up possibilities into those in which the sentence is true and those in which the sentence is false. Because of vagueness, this division obviously does not have to be exhaustive; it just has to be the case that there are some possibilities in which the sentence is true and some in which it is false and no overlap between the two. What does it take for sentences to divide up possibilities in this way? Plausibly not much more than that they are conventionally used in such way that they can reliably transmit information about what possibilities are the actual ones (or at least are composed in a rule-governed manner of parts that individually have that property). Intuitively, 'theft' discourse has the property of dividing up possibilities this way. If it didn't, how would people be so reliable at identifying paradigm cases of theft and transmitting information about the world by describing scenarios in terms of thefts? That's why I take it to be an at least potentially fact-stating discourse. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:06 sam!zdat wrote: When I become dictator I will ban dictionaries I hate dictionaries so much. | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:12 kwizach wrote: Actually, it's Swazi Spring who pointed to the dictionary - I simply corrected him by quoting the full definition. The bottomline is that it is not a fact that taxation is theft. You and Swazi are entitled to your opinion on the matter, but don't try to pass it off as a fact and remember that you are in the extreme minority on the matter. You're right, kwizach, that was only half of the definition. I'm glad you called me out on that. | ||
|
Gatored
United States679 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:09 Romantic wrote: Will Obama be fact checked to death and his campaign declared a Big Bad Lying Machine? Going to have to go with no on this one. I think I spend too much time on the internet reading and interacting with supporters of the Democratic Party (label you put here unimportant) because.... Sometimes I feel my opinions are more anti-left than they are pro-right because I find the left so damn silly. Looking at it objectively I should be quite outraged at Republicans and their silliness, but I am not. They just don't piss me off like Democrats do. One of the reasons I dislike them so much, I think, is they are sure they know what needs to be changed and they are so much damn smarter. Just elect the right person to political office and some magic government programs will fix the world. Really, I think the socialism thing just completely killed the left for me for a long time. How can I take them seriously after that? Conclusion: I can't really explain why I don't like the left so much Hit the nail on the head. Elitism is a fairly accurate description in this case. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: my position is that sentences do much more than state propositions, so if you use them in the same way we are just using different terminology | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: Let's start with the most basic premise and extrapolate outwards. I have an arm connected to my body. I consider this arm property of mine. Is this a notion I have naturally, or is it predicated on a government declaring it so? I think it is strange you consider your body your property. I would say my body is me because I don't have some mind-body dualism thing going on. Yeah, ok, but anyone can have any notion they want. I can have the notion your arm is my arm and I am going to chop it off and reattach it to my head. Obviously ideas do not stem from the government. Problem here is theft is usually clearly defined as being unlawful taking; taxes are lawful. You can say taxes are taking in what you think is an unjustifiable fashion, but you shouldn't use the word theft when theft has an established definition contrary to the way you are using the word. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On October 23 2012 09:05 sevencck wrote: Oh for God's sake. Yes, irreversibly sterilizing people and upsetting human evolution in the name of a Victorian view of sexuality is worse than killing a cluster of undeveloped, largely undifferentiated cells. Victorian view of sexuality? Alright then. I don't see how removing some people from the gene pool would upset human evolution, or how human evolution is even relevant here for that matter. On October 23 2012 09:01 natrus wrote: So you support sex education just not gov funding for it? Depending on how loose your definition of sex ed is, yes. This isn't a job for the government, it's a job for the parents. Too much blame and responsibility is being shifted to others. | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:11 jdseemoreglass wrote: Let's start with the most basic premise and extrapolate outwards. I have an arm connected to my body. I consider this arm property of mine. Is this a notion I have naturally, or is it predicated on a government declaring it so? Actually, I don't find it all that intuitive that things that partially constitute me can be my property. But I doubt such a dispute matters much. Anyway, aren't you the guy who's always talking about how all philosophical problems are solved by recognizing that whatever is under discussion is just a concept, whatever that means? Ok, maybe not "all". Still, the types of arguments you're making right now seem to conflict with what I've come to expect from you. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:17 Romantic wrote: I think it is strange you consider your body your property. I would say my body is me because I don't have some mind-body dualism thing going on. Yeah, ok, but anyone can have any notion they want. I can have the notion your arm is my arm and I am going to chop it off and reattach it to my head. Obviously ideas do not stem from the government. Problem here is theft is usually clearly defined as being unlawful taking; taxes are lawful. You can say taxes are taking in what you think is an unjustifiable fashion, but you shouldn't use the word theft when theft has an established definition contrary to the way you are using the word. It is not at all strange to consider a body to be property. The whole history of human slavery is evidence of this fact. To own a slave is to declare that you own a body, and therefore that the person does not own their own self. The notion of "self-ownership" is therefore very important and crucial, particularly in regards to preventing human right's abuse. I would argue that self-ownership be considered a basic human right, which negates slavery, the taking of organs, the harming of another's body, such as killing, beating, etc. All of these can be justified according to the basic concept of self-ownership. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On October 23 2012 13:20 Souma wrote: I don't understand how "elitist" is supposed to be an insult, if anything it just supports the notion that liberals are smarter. This culture of anti-intellectualism is silly. Modern Americans are pretty anti-intellectual, which is why accusing liberals of being elitist/smarter is a way to turn voters against them. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: british spelling just because | ||
| ||
