Legalization of Drugs

[HUSKER 37]

That is a very long post

 

Ya think?

 

CAN WE GET AN INTERPRETER IN HERE?

 

I scored pretty high on a couple of MENSA tests, but my reading skeels have never been that good..(or is it well)?

 

I tried three or four times, got through the first third...but it was a struggle trying to decode all them purty words..but a few things seemed to 'splain what I was thinking of saying.

 

#1...You (SOCAL) and others (Including Ron Paul and who-ever you quoted) seem more than willing to link everyone in to the same model..you say, "If everyone teaches their children to think logically, this will work" but then you immediately go on stating a disclaimer about perhaps not everyone was taught proper logic to begin with..

 

Also, I notice you describe Government as a single entity..perhaps for simplification..but there's probably never been a society of humans that could live peacefully together without human nature effing everything up eventually..thus the need for sometimes seemingly punitive rules.

 

Several forms of government would work (on paper) if everyone was the same..even "No government".

But we originated as a colony of misfits and criminals..I think the founding fathers did an amazing job of trying to foresee what we could be capable of.

[HSKRNOKC]

They do if everyone follows and consents to the law. However, with a government, not everyone is required to follow the laws. For example: Do soldiers not murder? Does the IRS not steal? Does the Federal Reserve not counterfeit? Is the government not coercive? Do policeman not speed? These are just a few examples and I'm sure if I really thought about it I could come up with plenty more.

 

 

These excetions to the law are actuallly defined in the law, hence not contradictory as you seem to suggest. Shouldn't I tell my teenager not to have unprotected sex or should I refraim because I didn't. Right and wrong may be somewhat subjective but ultimately water is, in fact, wet, fire is hot and the law is the law. Without the presumption of some foundational mores a society is doomed to chaos. Unlike you, I don't see this a beneficial to humankind.

 

That still doesn't answer the question of consent. How many people alive today actually consented to the laws? I know I didn't, so how does that make the law valid? Regardless of the answer, does it make it “moral” for the actions of one individual to be punished while those same actions, when performed for the "better good", are praised?" How is that beneficial?

 

And as for your teenage son, what you're saying is, I'm your dad, do as I say not as I do? How hypocritical is that? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to tell him the consequences of having unprotected sex and leave the decision to him? If you have raised him to think logically, as every parent should strive to do, he will make the right decision. That, or he learns a valuable lesson and is held responsible for his actions. That is the type of education that is beneficial. Yes, I have a daughter and that is exactly how she is being raised.

 

Ultimately, your child will grow up to be responsible for his self and if you constantly make decisions for him, by forcing him to obey and punishing him if he doesn't, how does that make him responsible? How does that make him accountable for his actions? All that does is teach him that he needs to be sneakier and not get caught; neither is in tune with responsibility.

 

Some parents haven't bothered to ensure their child thinks logically, maybe they were never taught themselves, therefore they feel the need to "rule" their kid and force them to do things the "correct" ways. And when you actually think about it, most of the time the logic behind the rules make zero sense, is not even intended for the kids benefit, but is actually to save the parents from the embarrassment of not raising their child right. "Obey my rules because I failed." How contradictory is that? Sounds kind of like the very society we live in, the one perpetrated by government.

 

Take a look around and you see these very same actions fostered by government all the time. Just look at the welfare fiasco, any of the laws I mentioned above, or even the current economic debacle. Why are the same idiots who got us into the mess, the same ones we are being forced to listen to, in order to fix it? Madness!! There's zero accountability and there never will be until each individual is allowed to make his own decisions and either reap the benefits of his actions or suffer the consequences. Without education and with government that is entirely impossible.

 

Read the below text, “Man & Society” for a better understanding of the foundational morals you seem to think an Anarcho-Capitalist society would lack. Creating what you call “chaos.”

 

Man & Society

In all of recorded history, men have never managed to establish a social order which didn't institutionalize violations of freedom, peace, and justice—that is, a social order in which man could realize his full potential. This failure has been due to the fact that thinkers have never clearly and explicitly understood three things— namely, 1—the nature of man, 2—what kind of society this nature requires for men to realize their full potential, and 3—how to achieve and maintain such a society.

 

Most self-styled planners and builders of societies haven't even considered that man might have a specific nature. They have regarded him as something infinitely plastic, as the product of his cultural or economic milieu, as some sort of identity-less blob which they could mold to suit their plans. This lack of realization that man has a specific nature which requires that he function in a specific way has given rise to floods of tears and blood . . . as social planners tried to wrench man apart and put him back together in a form they found more to their liking.

 

But because man is, he is something—a being with a specific nature, requiring a specific type of society for his proper functioning as a human being. Since Darwin, scientific research has been steadily uncovering evidences of evolution which show the development of the nature of the human animal. In order to survive, men had to acquire certain behavioral knowledge and capacities—for instance, the knowledge that voluntary cooperation is good and the capacity to stop clubbing each other. Most men conduct their lives according to this knowledge and, when left alone, get along quite well. Social planners have always been among the most ignorant about man's nature. Evidence that man has a specific biological nature which cannot be remolded to suit society-builders continues to mount, but political rulers continue to ignore it. If men are to be happy and successful, they must live in harmony with the requirements of their nature. What, then, are the essentials of man's nature?

 

Life is given to man, but the means to sustain his life are not. If a man is to continue living, he must in some way acquire the things he needs to sustain his life, which means that either he or someone else must produce these things. There is no environment on earth where man could exist without some sort of productive effort, and there is no way he could be productive without using his mind to decide what to produce and how to produce it. In order to survive, man must think—that is, he must make use of the information provided by his senses. The more fully and clearly he uses his mind, the better he will be able to live (on both the physical, including the material, and the psychological levels).

 

But thinking is not an automatic process. Man may expend a little or a lot of mental effort to solve his problems, or he may just ignore them and hope they'll go away. He may make it a policy to keep his mind fully aware and always to use it as effectively as he can (whether he is a genius or a dimwit), or he may drift through life in an unfocused mental haze, playing ostrich whenever he sees something that would require mental effort and commitment. The choice to think or not to think is his, and it is a choice which every man must make.

 

Because man must initiate and maintain the process of thinking by an act of choice, no one else can force him to think or do his thinking for him. This means that no man can successfully run another man's life. The best thing one man can do for another is not to prevent him from enjoying the benefits of his thinking and productive work, nor to shield him from the bad effects of refusing to think and produce.

 

Life is given to man, but the knowledge of how to sustain that life is not. Man has no automatic knowledge of what is good or bad for him, and he needs this knowledge in order to know how to live. If he is to have a full and happy life, he needs a blueprint to show him what is pro-life and what is anti-life and to guide his choices and actions. Such a blueprint is a code of morality—a chosen guide to action. If a man wants his morality to further his life instead of crippling it, he must choose a morality which is in harmony with his evolved nature as a sensing, thinking being.

 

Choosing effective guides to action is not a matter for blind faith or reasonless whim; it requires clear, rational thought. Therefore, one's morality shouldn't be a set of dos and don'ts inherited from one's parents or learned in church or school. It should be a clearly thought-out code, guiding one toward pro-life actions and away from anti-life actions. "The purpose of morality is . . . to teach you to enjoy yourself and live." A rational morality doesn't say, "Don't do this because God (or society, or legal authorities, or tradition) says it's evil." It does say, "Only if you act according to your reason can you have a happy, satisfying life."

 

In any code of morality, there must be a standard—a standard by which all goals and actions can be judged. Only life makes values meaningful . . . or even possible—if you're dead you can't experience any values at all (and without values, happiness is impossible). So, for each man who values living, his own life is his moral standard (death, the negation of all values, is the only alternative "standard"). Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong. In a rational morality—one designed to further each individual man's life and happiness, whatever is pro-life is moral and whatever is anti-life is immoral. By "life" is not meant merely man's physical existence but all aspects of his life as a sensing, thinking being. Only by rational thought and action can a man's life be lived to its fullest potential, producing the greatest possible happiness and satisfaction for him.

 

Man has only one tool for getting knowledge—his mind, and only one means to know what is beneficial and harmful—his faculty of reason. Only by thinking can he know what will further his life and what will harm it. For this reason, choosing to think is man's most powerful tool and greatest virtue, and refusing to think is his greatest danger, the surest way to bring him to destruction.

 

Since man's life is what makes all his values possible, morality means acting in his own self-interest, which is acting in a pro-life manner. There is nothing mystical or hard to understand about right and wrong—a rational morality makes sense. Traditional morality, teaching that each man must devote a part of his life, not primarily for his own good, but for God or the State or "the common good," regards man as a sacrificial animal. Today, many are recognizing this doctrine for what it is—the cause of incalculable human carnage, and a morality or life is gradually replacing it. A rational morality is a morality of self-interest—a pro-life morality. The only way for a man to know what will further his life is by a process of reason; morality, therefore, means acting in his rational self-interest (in fact, no other kind of self-interest exists, since only that which is rational is in one's self-interest). Sacrifice (the act of giving up a greater value for a lesser value, a nonvalue, or a dis-value) is always wrong, because it is destructive of the life and well being of the sacrificing individual. If a mother goes without a new dress to buy a coat for her child whom she loves, that is not a sacrifice but a gain-her child's comfort was of more value to her than the dress. But if she deprives herself and the child by giving the money to the local charity drive so that people won't think she's "selfish," that is a sacrifice. In spite of traditional "moralities" which glorify "a life of sacrificial service to others," sacrifice can never benefit anyone. It demoralizes both the giver, who has diminished his total store of value, and the recipient, who feels guilty about accepting the sacrifice and resentful because he feels he is morally bound to return the "favor" by sacrificing some value of his own. Sacrifice, carried to its ultimate end, results in death; it is the exact opposite of moral, pro-life behavior, traditional "moralists" to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

A man who is acting in his own self-interest (that is, who is acting morally) neither makes sacrifices nor demands that others sacrifice for him. There is no conflict of interest between men who are each acting in his own self-interest, because it is not in the interest of either to sacrifice for the other or to demand a sacrifice from the other. Conflicts are produced when men ignore their self-interest and accept the notion that sacrifice is beneficial; sacrifice is always anti-life.

 

In summary: man, by his nature, must choose to think and produce in order to live, and the better he thinks, the better he will live. Since each man's own life makes his values possible, chosen behavior which furthers his life as a thinking being is the moral, and chosen behavior which harms it is the immoral. (Without free choice, morality is impossible.) Therefore, rational thought and action and their rewards, emotional, physical, and material, are the whole of a man's self-interest. The opposite of self-interest is sacrifice, which is always wrong because it's destructive of human life.

 

Any society in which men can realize their full potential and live as rational and productive human beings must be established in accordance with these basic facts of man's nature. It must be a society in which each man is left unmolested, in which he is free to think and to act on his ideas . . . without anyone else trying to force him to live his life according to their standards. Not only must each man be free to act, he must also be free to fully enjoy the rewards of all his pro-life actions. Whatever he earns in emotional joy, material goods, and intellectual values (such as admiration and respect) must be completely his—he must not be forced against his will to give up any of it for the supposed benefit of others. He must not be forced to sacrifice, not even for "the good of society."

 

To the extent that a man isn't free to live his life peacefully according to his own standards and to fully own whatever he earns, he is a slave. Enslaving men "for the good of society" is one of the most subtle and widespread forms of slavery. It is continually advocated by priests, politicians, and quack philosophers who hope, by the labor of the enslaved, to gain what they haven't earned.

 

A society in which men can realize their full potential must be one in which each man is free to act in his self-interest according to the judgment of his own mind. The only way a man can be compelled against his will to act contrary to his judgment is by the use or threat of physical force by other men. Many pressures may be brought to bear on a man, but unless he is compelled by physical force (or the threat of force, or a substitute for force) to act against his will, he still has the freedom to make his own choices. Therefore, the one basic rule of a civilized society is that no man or group of men is morally entitled to initiate (to start) the use of physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force (such as taking something from another person by stealth) against any other man or group of men.

 

This doesn't mean that a man may not defend himself if someone else initiates force against him. It does mean that he may not start the use of force. Ta initiate force against anyone is always wrong, because it compels the victim to act contrary to his own judgment. But to defend oneself against force by retaliating with counter-force is not only permissible, it is a moral imperative whenever it is feasible, or reasonably safe, to do so.5 If a man really values his values, he has a moral obligation to himself to defend them—not to do so would be sacrificial and, therefore, self-destructive. The difference between initiated force and retaliatory force is the difference between murder and self-defense. (Pacifists who have consistently refused to defend themselves when attacked have frequently been killed—the belief in pacifism is anti-life.)

 

As long as a man doesn't initiate force, the actual goals and interests, which he chooses to pursue don't control the free choice or threaten the goals of anyone else. It doesn't matter whether a man goes to church every day or advocates atheism, whether he wears his hair long or short, whether he gets drunk every night or uses drugs or stays cold sober, whether he believes in capitalism or voluntary communalism—so long as he doesn't reach for a gun . . . or a politician . . . to compel others to live as he thinks they should. As long as men mind their own business and don't initiate force against their fellow men, no one's life-style is a threat to anyone else.

 

When a man initiates force against another man, he violates his victim's rights. A right is a principle which morally prohibits men from using force or any substitute for force against anyone whose behavior is non-coercive. A right is a moral prohibition; it doesn't specify anything with regard to what actions the possessor of the right may take (so long as his actions are non-coercive)—it morally prohibits others from forcibly interfering with any of his non-coercive actions. For example, a beachcomber has the right to life; this right says nothing of what the beachcomber may do with his life—it says only that no one else may forcibly interfere with his life so long as he doesn't initiate force or fraud against him or her. Suppose, however, that the beachcomber does initiate force against a cab driver and does $100 worth of damage to the taxicab. In order to rectify the injustice, the beachcomber must pay the cabbie $100. The beachcomber does not, then, have the right to whatever part of his life and/or property that is required to make reparations to the cabbie (the cabbie has a just claim to it). Suppose, further, that the beachcomber will not willingly pay the $100; the cabbie is no longer morally prohibited from using force against the beachcomber to collect what is now rightfully his. The beachcomber, by his initiation of force against and to the detriment of another man, has alienated himself from the right to that part of his life, which is required to pay his debt. Rights are not inalienable, but only the possessor of a right can alienate himself from that right—no one else can take a man's rights from him.

 

Each person has a right to his own life, which means that each person is a self-owner (assuming that his behavior has been and is non-coercive). Because a man has a right to own his life, he has the same right to any part of that life. Property is one part of a man's life. Material goods are necessary to sustain life, and so are the ideas, which a man generates. So, man invests his time in generating ideas and in producing and maintaining material goods. A man's life is made up of time, so when he invests his time in material or intellectual property (ideas) he is investing parts of his life, thereby making that property an extension of his life. The right to property is part of the right to life. There is no conflict between property rights and human rights—property rights are human rights.

 

Another aspect of man's life is his freedom of action. If a man is not free to use his mind, his body, and his time in any action he wishes (so long as he doesn't initiate force or fraud), he is in some degree a slave. The right to liberty, like the right to property, is an aspect of the right to life.

 

All rights are aspects of the right to life, which means that each man has the right to every part of his own life. By the same token, he is not morally entitled to any part of another man's life (assuming the other man has not initiated force or fraud against him). Any "right" which violates someone else's rights is no right at all. There can be no such thing as a right to violate a right, or rights would be meaningless. A man has the right to earn a decent living, but he does not have the right to a decent living if it must be provided by force out of someone else's earnings. That is, he has no right to enslave others and force them to provide his living—not even if he does so by getting the government to pass a law taxing others to make payments to him. Each individual is the owner of his own life . . . and no one else's.

 

Rights are not a gift of God or of society; they are the product of the nature of man and of reality. If man is to live a productive and happy life and realize his full potential as a human being, he must be free from coercion by other men. The nature of man demands that he must have values and goals in order to live—without them, human life is impossible. When a man is not free to choose his own goals, he can't act on the feedback from his behavior and so he can't correct his errors and live successfully. To the extent that a man is forcibly prevented by others from choosing his own values and goals, he is a slave. Slavery is the exact opposite of liberty; they cannot coexist.

 

Rights pertain only to individual men. There is no such thing as minority rights, States' rights, "civil" rights, or any other form of collective rights. The initiation of force against the collective is really the initiation of force against the individuals of which the collective is composed, because the collective has no existence apart from the individuals who compose it. Therefore, there are no collective rights—there are only the rights, which every individual has to be free from the coercive actions of others.

 

Morally, each man owns himself, and he has the right to do anything which does not violate another man's right of self-ownership. The only way a right can be violated is by coercion. This is why society in harmony with the requirements of man's nature must be based on the rule of non-initiation of force—it must be a laissez-faire society. Laissez faire means "let people do as they please," meaning, let everyone leave others alone to do as they choose. A laissez-faire society is a society of non-interference—a mind-your-own-business, live-and-let-live society. It means freedom for each individual to manage his own affairs in any way he pleases . . . not just in the realm of economics but in every area of his life. (If he restricts his behavior to his own affairs, it is obvious that he cannot initiate the use of force against anyone else.) In a laissez-faire society, no man or group of men would dictate anyone's life-style, or force them to pay taxes to a State bureaucracy, or prohibit them from making any voluntary trades they wanted.

 

There will likely never be a society completely free from the initiation of physical force by some men against others, because men can act irrationally if they choose to. A laissez-faire society is not a Utopia in which the initiation of violence is impossible. Rather, it is a society, which does not institutionalize the initiation of force and in which there are means for dealing with aggression justly when it does occur.

 

Can men ever achieve a laissez-faire society? Many people have an unshakable conviction that anything so "ideal" could never become a practical reality. They can't explain why they're so sure of this; they just feel an unreasoned "certainty" that it must be so. What is behind this reasonless "certainty" that the good (liberty) is unachievable? The answer lies in the inverted "morality" of tradition— altruism.

 

Altruism is the philosophical doctrine which holds that anything which is done out of concern for the welfare of others is good but that it is evil if motivated by concern for self. Some variation of this doctrine has been a basic part of nearly all of the world's religions and philosophies for man's entire history. One of the most common of religious tenets is that selfishness is evil and that only a selfless concern for the needs of others will win favor with God and man. Sacrifice is held to be among the greatest of virtues, simply because the beneficiaries of the sacrifice are others and the loser is self. It isn't hard to see one of the reasons for the long-standing prominence of altruistic doctrines—religious and political leaders can collect much more substantial offerings and taxes from people whom these leaders succeed in convincing that it is their moral duty to give as much as possible in sacrificial service to others than they can from people who live for their own rational self-interest. This "something for nothing" doctrine—altruism—is the moral ideal of human parasites.

 

Altruism is an inverted morality, a "morality" of death. It teaches man that his interests are opposed to the interests of everyone else and that the only "moral" thing he can do is to sacrifice his interests. This means that whatever is practical and beneficial for a man is "immoral," and conversely, that whatever is "moral" for him is impractical and destructive of his values. To the extent that a man is committed to some version of altruism, he can be either practical and immoral or moral and impractical—he cannot be both moral and practical at the same time . . . and his self-respect and honesty hang in the balance.

 

This artificial dichotomy between the moral and the practical splits man in two and sets him against himself. To the extent he makes himself worthy to live (by sacrificing his values), he makes himself unable to live; to the extent he makes himself able to live (by keeping and using his values), he makes himself unworthy to live. No man can fully practice such a code—if he did, it would kill him. For those who accept a "morality" based on altruism, their only protection from this belief is hypocrisy; they give it lip-service but practice it only so far as it is religiously and socially required to keep up a good front. This is the cause of most of the hypocrisy in our culture. Altruism makes hypocrisy necessary in order to live.

 

A society full of hypocrisy is headed for the crematorium. The moral/practical dichotomy not only necessitates hypocrisy, it also gives all the advantages to evil, since the good is, by virtue of its goodness, incurably impractical for life on earth. If the evil and the practical are one and the same, then evil must always win. According to the altruist philosophy, evil holds all the cards and man can hope for very little improvement in his life or in his society.

 

Of course, people who hold the moral/practical dichotomy seldom consciously realize what they believe. They just know that whatever is right and good seems somehow unworkable, at least on any major scale. The idea pf a laissez-faire society—that is, a society of non-interference—leaves them unmoved because it seems so impractical.

 

But the "morality" of altruism is exactly opposite to the facts of man's nature. In reality, the only thoughts and actions, which are in man's self-interest, are rational ones, and there is never any conflict of interest between men who are behaving rationally. Sacrifice harms not only the man who makes the sacrifice but also the man who accepts it; it is, therefore, inevitably detrimental. Acting in one's rational self-interest is always right, so the moral and the practical are simply two sides of the same coin. Since moral actions are inherently practical and pro-life, immoral actions are always impractical and anti-life. Evil—i.e., anti-life behavior—is, by its nature, weak and can only survive by the support good men can be misled into giving it. It follows, therefore, that a laissez-faire society is both practical and attainable.

 

If a laissez-faire society is attainable, why haven't men established one before now? The answer is that essentially good people have prevented it by their unwitting support of slavery. The majority of people throughout history have accepted the idea that it was both proper and necessary for some men to coercively rule over others. Most of these people weren't basically bad, and probably only a few of them have had a lust for power. But they have held a terribly wrong idea which has caused them to support a social system that institutionalizes slavery and violence. It is this idea— that it is proper and/or necessary for some men to coercively govern others, which is the idea of government—that has prevented the establishment of a laissez-faire society and which has been responsible for incalculable human suffering and waste in the form of political and religious persecutions, taxes, regulations, conscription, slavery, wars, despotisms, etc., etc. To achieve a laissez-faire society, it is only necessary to enable enough people to change this idea in their minds. All that is required for the defeat of evil is that good men stop their unwitting support of it.

 

There is a great and growing conflict in our world between those who want to be free and those who want to rule (together with those who want to be ruled). This great conflict has been taking shape for centuries, but the vast majority of people have never understood what it was all about because they haven't seen that the issue was freedom versus slavery. Because they have believed that men must be governed, most people have been, however, unwittingly and apathetically on the side of slavery. Until recently, no more than a tiny handful of individualists have realized what freedom means and how necessary it is for man's happiness and well-being.

 

The great conflict between freedom and slavery, though it has taken many forms, finds its main expression in a conflict between two powerful and opposing human institutions—the free market and government. The establishment of a laissez-faire society depends on the outcome of the war between these two institutions—a war whose most crucial battles are fought on the field of ideas.

Holy sh#t....... Hold up.... Tell us how you REALLY feel..

[huskertim]

Holy crap SOCAL

 

8 freaking pages printed in 8 pt font. Give me a little time to digest the encyclopedia of BS and I'll get back to you. In the mean time, keep in mind that the great orators in history are not they who quote but they who are quoted.

 

IE maybe you could read, digest and express your logical interpetations from your own heart and mind instead of posting this hugh pile of crap out there. We can link if necessary

 

If this is your own type up, I apoligize and I will not be opening any envelopes in the near future.

[SOCALHUSKER]

Holy crap SOCAL

 

8 freaking pages printed in 8 pt font. Give me a little time to digest the encyclopedia of BS and I'll get back to you. In the mean time, keep in mind that the great orators in history are not they who quote but they who are quoted.

 

IE maybe you could read, digest and express your logical interpetations from your own heart and mind instead of posting this hugh pile of crap out there. We can link if necessary

 

If this is your own type up, I apoligize and I will not be opening any envelopes in the near future.

 

Take your time. I'm still working on digesting some of the works other's have posted.

 

As for linking, I've linked to this same essay about 20 times because a few on this board have said that I haven't explained my points or arguments enough. I thought maybe if I post it, maybe they'll actually read it. Anyways, just goes to show that people really aren't willing to take into consideration alternative viewpoints. And as for calling it crap, maybe you need to read it first.

[SOCALHUSKER]

That is a very long post

 

Ya think?

 

CAN WE GET AN INTERPRETER IN HERE?

 

I scored pretty high on a couple of MENSA tests, but my reading skeels have never been that good..(or is it well)?

 

I tried three or four times, got through the first third...but it was a struggle trying to decode all them purty words..but a few things seemed to 'splain what I was thinking of saying.

 

#1...You (SOCAL) and others (Including Ron Paul and who-ever you quoted) seem more than willing to link everyone in to the same model..you say, "If everyone teaches their children to think logically, this will work" but then you immediately go on stating a disclaimer about perhaps not everyone was taught proper logic to begin with..

 

Also, I notice you describe Government as a single entity..perhaps for simplification..but there's probably never been a society of humans that could live peacefully together without human nature effing everything up eventually..thus the need for sometimes seemingly punitive rules.

 

Several forms of government would work (on paper) if everyone was the same..even "No government".

But we originated as a colony of misfits and criminals..I think the founding fathers did an amazing job of trying to foresee what we could be capable of.

 

#1. This highlights the importance of education, and shows that we can never achieve freedom until this is done (at least by the majority).

 

#2. Isn't creating an entity designed to supposedly "protect" us from mistakes, contrary to the idea of accountability? If you can't learn from you mistakes how can one ever learn?

 

#3. What form of government would work on paper? I've been asking and no one seems to want to answer that.

[huskertim]

Holy crap SOCAL

 

8 freaking pages printed in 8 pt font. Give me a little time to digest the encyclopedia of BS and I'll get back to you. In the mean time, keep in mind that the great orators in history are not they who quote but they who are quoted.

 

IE maybe you could read, digest and express your logical interpetations from your own heart and mind instead of posting this hugh pile of crap out there. We can link if necessary

 

If this is your own type up, I apoligize and I will not be opening any envelopes in the near future.

 

Take your time. I'm still working on digesting some of the works other's have posted.

 

As for linking, I've linked to this same essay about 20 times because a few on this board have said that I haven't explained my points or arguments enough. I thought maybe if I post it, maybe they'll actually read it. Anyways, just goes to show that people really aren't willing to take into consideration alternative viewpoints. And as for calling it crap, maybe you need to read it first.

 

 

Okay, I've had time to read, digest, annotate, get good and hammered, recover (mostly) and reexamine.

 

Still a feastering pile of do do.

 

Firstly, let's not assume that I haven't tried to teach my kids to think logically (or independently for that matter). How is it that my kids would arrive at a logical conclusion that something was harmful if not given the benefit of experiences I or others have had? Are you suggesting that he should contract an STD and learn for himself rather than me explain it to him? You're welcome to sacrifice (if that word is allowed in the AC mindset) your daughter in the name of philisophical piety if you choose, I'd rather be called a hypocrit, I believe that's a condition I can live with. As to accountability, violation of rules comes with accountability by definition, this is how we teach our young that thier are such things as consequences without having them be eaten by a lion of falling off a cliff (great lessons both, but hard to progress from).

 

As to the rest, let's disect this a bit shall we?

[huskertim]

Man & Society

In all of recorded history, men have never managed to establish a social order which didn't institutionalize violations of freedom, peace, and justice—that is, a social order in which man could realize his full potential. This failure has been due to the fact that thinkers have never clearly and explicitly understood three things— namely, 1—the nature of man, 2—what kind of society this nature requires for men to realize their full potential, and 3—how to achieve and maintain such a society.

 

Capitalism has been successful chiefly because it recognizes and expliots the nature of man as does our democratic system, although flawed, both do take human nature into account so this assertion is pure BS. Because it assumes that the author has an incorruptable insight into human nature and the perfect means by which to maximize man's "full potential". Outside of a Viagra add, I'm pretty unclear as to what the hell that means.

 

Most self-styled planners and builders of societies haven't even considered that man might have a specific nature. They have regarded him as something infinitely plastic, as the product of his cultural or economic milieu, as some sort of identity-less blob which they could mold to suit their plans. This lack of realization that man has a specific nature which requires that he function in a specific way has given rise to floods of tears and blood . . . as social planners tried to wrench man apart and put him back together in a form they found more to their liking.

 

Would this not be precisely what the author is engaged in through out this article. After all, how can we all have a "specific nature" that is absolute only in it's uniformity?

 

But because man is, he is something—a being with a specific nature, requiring a specific type of society for his proper functioning as a human being. Since Darwin, scientific research has been steadily uncovering evidences of evolution which show the development of the nature of the human animal. In order to survive, men had to acquire certain behavioral knowledge and capacities—for instance, the knowledge that voluntary cooperation is good and the capacity to stop clubbing each other. Most men conduct their lives according to this knowledge and, when left alone, get along quite well. Social planners have always been among the most ignorant about man's nature. Evidence that man has a specific biological nature which cannot be remolded to suit society-builders continues to mount, but political rulers continue to ignore it. If men are to be happy and successful, they must live in harmony with the requirements of their nature. What, then, are the essentials of man's nature?

 

Are "social planners" not men, evolved with the rest of us? If we are to assume the evolution of man, then how can we also say, man cannot change? Isn't that what evolution is? Furthermore, if behavior evolved in such a way as to create human societies, and later institutions of those societies, how can this natural process of evolution be violate of man nature? Is not all that we do, as a natual creature, infact natural?

 

Life is given to man, but the means to sustain his life are not. If a man is to continue living, he must in some way acquire the things he needs to sustain his life, which means that either he or someone else must produce these things. There is no environment on earth where man could exist without some sort of productive effort, and there is no way he could be productive without using his mind to decide what to produce and how to produce it. In order to survive, man must think—that is, he must make use of the information provided by his senses. The more fully and clearly he uses his mind, the better he will be able to live (on both the physical, including the material, and the psychological levels).

 

But thinking is not an automatic process. Man may expend a little or a lot of mental effort to solve his problems, or he may just ignore them and hope they'll go away. He may make it a policy to keep his mind fully aware and always to use it as effectively as he can (whether he is a genius or a dimwit), or he may drift through life in an unfocused mental haze, playing ostrich whenever he sees something that would require mental effort and commitment. The choice to think or not to think is his, and it is a choice which every man must make.

 

Well, actually, thinking is autonomic to a least a degree, though how hard one chooses to think is a choice. This choice BTW is evidence that "human nature" is not uniform.

 

Because man must initiate and maintain the process of thinking by an act of choice, no one else can force him to think or do his thinking for him. This means that no man can successfully run another man's life. The best thing one man can do for another is not to prevent him from enjoying the benefits of his thinking and productive work, nor to shield him from the bad effects of refusing to think and produce.

 

Life is given to man, but the knowledge of how to sustain that life is not. Man has no automatic knowledge of what is good or bad for him, and he needs this knowledge in order to know how to live. If he is to have a full and happy life, he needs a blueprint to show him what is pro-life and what is anti-life and to guide his choices and actions. Such a blueprint is a code of morality—a chosen guide to action. If a man wants his morality to further his life instead of crippling it, he must choose a morality which is in harmony with his evolved nature as a sensing, thinking being.

 

Like it or not, this "blueprint" is nothing more than the very mores the author has condemed excepting that he would suggest that one can obtain them individually. So, I can obtain a lifetime of knowledge and experience and than go live my life. Sounds great, except that by the time I've acquire these prizes, my life is over (or at least very nearly so).

 

Choosing effective guides to action is not a matter for blind faith or reasonless whim; it requires clear, rational thought. Therefore, one's morality shouldn't be a set of dos and don'ts inherited from one's parents or learned in church or school. It should be a clearly thought-out code, guiding one toward pro-life actions and away from anti-life actions. "The purpose of morality is . . . to teach you to enjoy yourself and live." A rational morality doesn't say, "Don't do this because God (or society, or legal authorities, or tradition) says it's evil." It does say, "Only if you act according to your reason can you have a happy, satisfying life."

 

FIrstly, this assumes those "do and don'ts" form one's parents etc. are wrong. How exactly is this presumption "reasonable". One would be ill served to follow blindly just because someone else said to do a thing (unless that someone were this author) but to discount the conbined wisdom and experience of tens of billions of people throughout tens of thousands of years of societal evolution doesn't stike me as particularly wise. Lastly, to presume one will live a happy, satisfying life by acting acording to reason alone, completely ignores negative consequence initiated externally (IE disease, injury, famine,drought, fire,etc...but then again, I'm sure those can all be blamed on the church or the government).

 

In any code of morality, there must be a standard—a standard by which all goals and actions can be judged. Only life makes values meaningful . . . or even possible—if you're dead you can't experience any values at all (and without values, happiness is impossible). So, for each man who values living, his own life is his moral standard (death, the negation of all values, is the only alternative "standard"). Since each man's own life is his objective standard, it follows that whatever serves or enhances his life and well-being is good, and whatever damages or destroys it is wrong. In a rational morality—one designed to further each individual man's life and happiness, whatever is pro-life is moral and whatever is anti-life is immoral. By "life" is not meant merely man's physical existence but all aspects of his life as a sensing, thinking being. Only by rational thought and action can a man's life be lived to its fullest potential, producing the greatest possible happiness and satisfaction for him.

 

So, since my altrusim enhances my self worth, and thus my well-being I guess I'm okay to be a self sacrificing and giveing soul. Cool. Gosh, I hope that dosen't come back to bite me in the a** later on.

 

Man has only one tool for getting knowledge—his mind, and only one means to know what is beneficial and harmful—his faculty of reason. Only by thinking can he know what will further his life and what will harm it. For this reason, choosing to think is man's most powerful tool and greatest virtue, and refusing to think is his greatest danger, the surest way to bring him to destruction.

 

So experience and consul are now unavailable. How many brilliant men have failed at an task because they lacked these things.

 

Since man's life is what makes all his values possible, morality means acting in his own self-interest, which is acting in a pro-life manner. There is nothing mystical or hard to understand about right and wrong—a rational morality makes sense. Traditional morality, teaching that each man must devote a part of his life, not primarily for his own good, but for God or the State or "the common good," regards man as a sacrificial animal. Today, many are recognizing this doctrine for what it is—the cause of incalculable human carnage, and a morality or life is gradually replacing it. A rational morality is a morality of self-interest—a pro-life morality. The only way for a man to know what will further his life is by a process of reason; morality, therefore, means acting in his rational self-interest (in fact, no other kind of self-interest exists, since only that which is rational is in one's self-interest). Sacrifice (the act of giving up a greater value for a lesser value, a nonvalue, or a dis-value) is always wrong, because it is destructive of the life and well being of the sacrificing individual. If a mother goes without a new dress to buy a coat for her child whom she loves, that is not a sacrifice but a gain-her child's comfort was of more value to her than the dress. But if she deprives herself and the child by giving the money to the local charity drive so that people won't think she's "selfish," that is a sacrifice. In spite of traditional "moralities" which glorify "a life of sacrificial service to others," sacrifice can never benefit anyone. It demoralizes both the giver, who has diminished his total store of value, and the recipient, who feels guilty about accepting the sacrifice and resentful because he feels he is morally bound to return the "favor" by sacrificing some value of his own. Sacrifice, carried to its ultimate end, results in death; it is the exact opposite of moral, pro-life behavior, traditional "moralists" to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

HEY KIDS it's time for FUN WITH WORDS

Definition :"Sacrifice 3:the surrender or destruction of something prized or desireable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."-Dictionary.com

But then again what could those a-holes possibly know about word meanings. clearly, the author has inverted the definition and gone on to provide inverse examples. Clearly giving for recognitions sake is neither sacrifice not a sufficent to altruism (which is still okay at this point). As to the Demoralization, I could give very personal accounts of this being utter BS if this wasn't already the single largest post in history.

 

A man who is acting in his own self-interest (that is, who is acting morally) neither makes sacrifices nor demands that others sacrifice for him. There is no conflict of interest between men who are each acting in his own self-interest, because it is not in the interest of either to sacrifice for the other or to demand a sacrifice from the other. Conflicts are produced when men ignore their self-interest and accept the notion that sacrifice is beneficial; sacrifice is always anti-life.

 

So, if I demand a sacrifice of you IE mug you in an ally, whose interest am I serving? Probably not yours.

 

In summary: man, by his nature, must choose to think and produce in order to live, and the better he thinks, the better he will live. Since each man's own life makes his values possible, chosen behavior which furthers his life as a thinking being is the moral, and chosen behavior which harms it is the immoral. (Without free choice, morality is impossible.) Therefore, rational thought and action and their rewards, emotional, physical, and material, are the whole of a man's self-interest. The opposite of self-interest is sacrifice, which is always wrong because it's destructive of human life.

 

I certainly agree with the underlined, after that, we're back into a piss poor definition of sacrifice and a sadly narcistic point of view.

 

Any society in which men can realize their full potential and live as rational and productive human beings must be established in accordance with these basic facts of man's nature. It must be a society in which each man is left unmolested, in which he is free to think and to act on his ideas . . . without anyone else trying to force him to live his life according to their standards. Not only must each man be free to act, he must also be free to fully enjoy the rewards of all his pro-life actions. Whatever he earns in emotional joy, material goods, and intellectual values (such as admiration and respect) must be completely his—he must not be forced against his will to give up any of it for the supposed benefit of others. He must not be forced to sacrifice, not even for "the good of society."

 

Again, what is my "full potential"? No snickering please. Also, not to belabor the point, but how is forced sacrifice not an oxymoron?

 

To the extent that a man isn't free to live his life peacefully according to his own standards and to fully own whatever he earns, he is a slave. Enslaving men "for the good of society" is one of the most subtle and widespread forms of slavery. It is continually advocated by priests, politicians, and quack philosophers who hope, by the labor of the enslaved, to gain what they haven't earned.

 

I'm just guessing that this wasn't written by a former slave. I've heard of hyperbole before but really.

 

A society in which men can realize their full potential must be one in which each man is free to act in his self-interest according to the judgment of his own mind.[/i](and the author's of course) The only way a man can be compelled against his will to act contrary to his judgment is by the use or threat of physical force by other men(or possibly compassion, or even lust). Many pressures may be brought to bear on a man, but unless he is compelled by physical force (or the threat of force, or a substitute for force) to act against his will, he still has the freedom to make his own choices. Therefore, the one basic rule of a civilized society is that no man or group of men is morally entitled to initiate (to start) the use of physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force (such as taking something from another person by stealth) against any other man or group of men.

 

How would the author propose to enforce these civalized standards. Welcome to Utopia, population 0.

 

This doesn't mean that a man may not defend himself if someone else initiates force against him. It does mean that he may not start the use of force. Ta initiate force against anyone is always wrong(even if it serves my interst, but that would be sacrifice, and we all know that's "always" wrong), because it compels the victim to act contrary to his own judgment. But to defend oneself against force by retaliating with counter-force is not only permissible, it is a moral imperative whenever it is feasible, or reasonably safe, to do so.5 If a man really values his values, he has a moral obligation to himself to defend them—not to do so would be sacrificial and, therefore, self-destructive. The difference between initiated force and retaliatory force is the difference between murder and self-defense. (Pacifists who have consistently refused to defend themselves when attacked have frequently been killed—the belief in pacifism is anti-life.)Yeah, take that Ghandi, MLK, Christ and the rest of you holigan's.

 

As long as a man doesn't initiate force, the actual goals and interests, which he chooses to pursue don't control the free choice or threaten the goals of anyone else. It doesn't matter whether a man goes to church every day or advocates atheism, whether he wears his hair long or short, whether he gets drunk every night or uses drugs or stays cold sober, whether he believes in capitalism or voluntary communalism—so long as he doesn't reach for a gun . . . or a politician . . . to compel others to live as he thinks they should. As long as men mind their own business and don't initiate force against their fellow men, no one's life-style is a threat to anyone else.

 

Discounting of course the possibilities of disease, famine collabrative failure and some a-hole not playing fair. I stand corrected welcome to Utopia: population 1 crazy author and his unicorn.

 

When a man initiates force against another man, he violates his victim's rights. A right is a principle which morally prohibits men from using force or any substitute for force against anyone whose behavior is non-coercive. A right is a moral prohibition(no, it's isn't, try again); it doesn't specify anything with regard to what actions the possessor of the right may take (so long as his actions are non-coercive)—it morally prohibits others from forcibly interfering with any of his non-coercive actions. For example, a beachcomber has the right to life; this right says nothing of what the beachcomber may do with his life—it says only that no one else may forcibly interfere with his life so long as he doesn't initiate force or fraud against him or her. Suppose, however, that the beachcomber does initiate force against a cab driver and does $100 worth of damage to the taxicab. In order to rectify the injustice, the beachcomber must pay the cabbie $100. The beachcomber does not, then, have the right to whatever part of his life and/or property that is required to make reparations to the cabbie (the cabbie has a just claim to it). Suppose, further, that the beachcomber will not willingly pay the $100; the cabbie is no longer morally prohibited from using force against the beachcomber to collect what is now rightfully his. The beachcomber, by his initiation of force against and to the detriment of another man, has alienated himself from the right to that part of his life, which is required to pay his debt. Rights are not inalienable, but only the possessor of a right can alienate himself from that right—no one else can take a man's rights from him.

 

So, evidently the beachcomber has the "prohibition against" to life, poor bastard. BTW, who exactly enforces the cabbies right (sic; prohibition against) to his $100.

 

Each person has a right to his own life( Gee!, thank you Mr author), which means that each person is a self-owner (assuming that his behavior has been and is non-coercive). Because a man has a right to own his life, he has the same right to any part of that life. Property is one part of a man's life. Material goods are necessary to sustain life, and so are the ideas, which a man generates. So, man invests his time in generating ideas and in producing and maintaining material goods. A man's life is made up of time, so when he invests his time in material or intellectual property (ideas) he is investing parts of his life, thereby making that property an extension of his life. The right to property is part of the right to life. There is no conflict between property rights and human rights—property rights are human rights.

 

If a man engages in coercive behavior, who then owns him?

 

 

Another aspect of man's life is his freedom of action. If a man is not free to use his mind, his body, and his time in any action he wishes (so long as he doesn't initiate force or fraud), he is in some degree a slaveNo hyperbole here folks). The right to liberty, like the right to property, is an aspect of the right to life.

 

All rights are aspects of the right to life, which means that each man has the right to every part of his own life. By the same token, he is not morally entitled to any part of another man's life (assuming the other man has not initiated force or fraud against him). Any "right" which violates someone else's rights is no right at all. There can be no such thing as a right to violate a right, or rights would be meaningless. A man has the right to earn a decent living, but he does not have the right to a decent living if it must be provided by force out of someone else's earnings. That is, he has no right to enslave others and force them to provide his living—not even if he does so by getting the government to pass a law taxing others to make payments to him. Each individual is the owner of his own life . . . and no one else's.

 

 

Rights are not a gift of God or of society; they are the product of the nature of man(as defined by the author) and of reality. If man is to live a productive and happy life and realize his full potential as a human being, he must be free from coercion by other men. The nature of man demands that he must have values and goals in order to live—without them, human life is impossible. When a man is not free to choose his own goals, he can't act on the feedback from his behavior and so he can't correct his errors and live successfully. To the extent that a man is forcibly prevented by others from choosing his own values and goals, he is a slave. Slavery is the exact opposite of liberty; they cannot coexist.

 

This just in, scientist confirm that human life has been found to exist even under less that ideal circumstances, I'm getting reports of people actually being happy inspite of stuggles, film at 11

 

 

Rights pertain only to individual men. There is no such thing as minority rights, States' rights, "civil" rights, or any other form of collective rights. The initiation of force against the collective is really the initiation of force against the individuals of which the collective is composed, because the collective has no existence apart from the individuals who compose it. Therefore, there are no collective rights—there are only the rights, which every individual has to be free from the coercive actions of others.

 

WOW! I found one I can actually agree with.

 

 

 

Morally, each man owns himself, and he has the right to do anything which does not violate another man's right of self-ownership. The only way a right can be violated is by coercion. This is why society in harmony with the requirements of man's nature must be based on the rule of non-initiation of force—it must be a laissez-faire society. Laissez faire means "let people do as they please," meaning, let everyone leave others alone to do as they choose. A laissez-faire society is a society of non-interference—a mind-your-own-business, live-and-let-live society. It means freedom for each individual to manage his own affairs in any way he pleases . . . not just in the realm of economics but in every area of his life. (If he restricts his behavior to his own affairs, it is obvious that he cannot initiate the use of force against anyone else.) In a laissez-faire society, no man or group of men would dictate anyone's life-style, or force them to pay taxes to a State bureaucracy, or prohibit them from making any voluntary trades they wanted.

 

Wait a minute, isn't this Ultopia again, what happened to the unicorn?

 

There will likely never be a society completely free from the initiation of physical force by some men against others, because men can act irrationally if they choose to. A laissez-faire society is not a Utopia in which the initiation of violence is impossible. Rather, it is a society, which does not institutionalize the initiation of force and in which there are means for dealing with aggression justly when it does occur.

 

Like, unintitutionalized means, like the big spinning wheel in MAD MAX beyond thunder dome.

 

 

 

Can men ever achieve a laissez-faire society? Many people have an unshakable conviction that anything so "ideal" could never become a practical reality. They can't explain why they're so sure of this; they just feel an unreasoned "certainty" that it must be so. What is behind this reasonless "certainty" that the good (liberty) is unachievable? The answer lies in the inverted "morality" of tradition— altruism.

 

So, I'm "reasonless" to look at the entirety of human history for indications of what does and doesn't work, do tell. Ah Crap, now he's havin a go at me altruism. Man, I can'ts has notin.

 

Altruism is the philosophical doctrine which holds that anything which is done out of concern for the welfare of others is good but that it is evil if motivated by concern for self. Some variation of this doctrine has been a basic part of nearly all of the world's religions and philosophies for man's entire history. One of the most common of religious tenets is that selfishness is evil and that only a selfless concern for the needs of others will win favor with God and man. Sacrifice is held to be among the greatest of virtues, simply because the beneficiaries of the sacrifice are others and the loser is self. It isn't hard to see one of the reasons for the long-standing prominence of altruistic doctrines—religious and political leaders can collect much more substantial offerings and taxes from people whom these leaders succeed in convincing that it is their moral duty to give as much as possible in sacrificial service to others than they can from people who live for their own rational self-interest. This "something for nothing" doctrine—altruism—is the moral ideal of human parasites.

 

HEY KIDS it's that time again:

Definition: altruism; 1. the principle of pratice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of other (opposed to EGOTISM).-dictionary.com

 

Man, this dicks at dictionary.com suck.

Reponding to the underlined, that isn't a discription of Islam, Judism and especially not Christianity. To be fair, I'm not real familiar with Buddism, Hinduism, of Shinto.

 

Altruism is an inverted morality, a "morality" of death. It teaches man that his interests are opposed to the interests of everyone else (I guess I didn't get that memo) and that the only "moral" thing he can do is to sacrifice his interests. This means that whatever is practical and beneficial for a man is "immoral," and conversely, that whatever is "moral" for him is impractical and destructive of his values. To the extent that a man is committed to some version of altruism, he can be either practical and immoral or moral and impractical—he cannot be both moral and practical at the same time . . . and his self-respect and honesty hang in the balance.

 

Okay, SOCAL, this guy's really going down the rabbit hole here. Was this written by an abused alter boy or what?

 

This artificial dichotomy between the moral and the practical splits man in two and sets him against himself. To the extent he makes himself worthy to live (by sacrificing his values), he makes himself unable to live; to the extent he makes himself able to live (by keeping and using his values), he makes himself unworthy to live. No man can fully practice such a code—if he did, it would kill him. For those who accept a "morality" based on altruism, their only protection from this belief is hypocrisy; they give it lip-service but practice it only so far as it is religiously and socially required to keep up a good front. This is the cause of most of the hypocrisy in our culture. Altruism makes hypocrisy necessary in order to live.

 

I'm altruist, not always, not everywhere, but as far as it's resonable to be so. Am I a liar, a hypocrit, oh look, I have a pulse. How is that possible? If this tight ass doesn't want to put a dollar in the red bucket at Christman time fine, but do you really have to get on my case because I do or do you really think I do it for the fabulous recognition I receive form the homeless AIDS victim I gave a couple bucks to at the Mickey D's.

 

A society full of hypocrisy is headed for the crematorium. The moral/practical dichotomy not only necessitates hypocrisy, it also gives all the advantages to evil, since the good is, by virtue of its goodness, incurably impractical for life on earth. If the evil and the practical are one and the same, then evil must always win. According to the altruist philosophy, evil holds all the cards and man can hope for very little improvement in his life or in his society.

 

See, this is what happens when you make up your own definitions. As to hypocrisy, the clown has been drawing a blueprint for moral living for the last 300 pages and he has the audacity to call me a hypocrit for living by the moral code I choose, nice.

 

Of course, people who hold the moral/practical dichotomy seldom consciously realize what they believe. They just know that whatever is right and good seems somehow unworkable, at least on any major scale. The idea pf a laissez-faire society—that is, a society of non-interference—leaves them unmoved because it seems so impractical.

 

Projecting much?

 

But the "morality" of altruism is exactly opposite to the facts of man's nature(as dfined by the author). In reality, the only thoughts and actions, which are in man's self-interest, are rational ones, and there is never any conflict of interest between men who are behaving rationally(exect in those rare ocassions where two men want the same thing, but that seldom occurs). Sacrifice harms not only the man who makes the sacrifice but also the man who accepts it (and yet cannot benefit both?); it is, therefore, inevitably detrimental. Acting in one's rational self-interest is always right, so the moral and the practical are simply two sides of the same coin. Since moral actions are inherently practical and pro-life, immoral actions are always impractical and anti-life. Evil—i.e., anti-life behavior—is, by its nature, weak and can only survive by the support good men can be misled into giving it. It follows, therefore, that a laissez-faire society is both practical and attainable.

 

Note: conclusion not supoported by preceeding "evidence".

 

If a laissez-faire society is attainable, why haven't men established one before now? The answer is that essentially good people have prevented it by their unwitting support of slavery. The majority of people throughout history have accepted the idea that it was both proper and necessary for some men to coercively rule over others. Most of these people weren't basically bad, and probably only a few of them have had a lust for power. But they have held a terribly wrong idea which has caused them to support a social system that institutionalizes slavery and violence. It is this idea— that it is proper and/or necessary for some men to coercively govern others, which is the idea of government—that has prevented the establishment of a laissez-faire society and which has been responsible for incalculable human suffering and waste in the form of political and religious persecutions, taxes, regulations, conscription, slavery, wars, despotisms, etc., etc. To achieve a laissez-faire society, it is only necessary to enable enough people to change this idea in their minds. All that is required for the defeat of evil is that good men stop their unwitting support of it.

 

Well, thank Author for appearing before us lowly men to clearify the truth , the llight and the way. What of the unbelivers shall we smite them, oh wait, we have to wait to get smited first right, dam pagens.

 

There is a great and growing conflict in our world between those who want to be free and those who want to rule (together with those who want to be ruled). This great conflict has been taking shape for centuries, but the vast majority of people have never understood what it was all about because they haven't seen that the issue was freedom versus slavery. Because they have believed that men must be governed, most people have been, however, unwittingly and apathetically on the side of slavery. Until recently, no more than a tiny handful of individualists (like the pigrims, pioneers, survivalist, pretty much anyone in Alaska) have realized what freedom means (you know like those immoral bastards that sacrificed themselves to perserve the freedoms of their countrymen all for the sake of recognition of course ) and how necessary it is for man's happiness and well-being.

 

The great conflict between freedom and slavery (hyperbole anyone?), though it has taken many forms, finds its main expression in a conflict between two powerful and opposing human institutions—the free market and government. The establishment of a laissez-faire society depends on the outcome of the war between these two institutions—a war whose most crucial battles are fought on the field of ideas.

 

 

 

Finally, this post clearly belongs in the AC thread, this is a thread about drugs. So roll a fatty and chill cuz.

[huskertim]

I think I may hold the record for longest double post ever.

[huskerjack23]

thank you for that.

[HUSKER 37]

That is a very long post

 

Ya think?

 

CAN WE GET AN INTERPRETER IN HERE?

 

I scored pretty high on a couple of MENSA tests, but my reading skeels have never been that good..(or is it well)?

 

I tried three or four times, got through the first third...but it was a struggle trying to decode all them purty words..but a few things seemed to 'splain what I was thinking of saying.

 

#1...You (SOCAL) and others (Including Ron Paul and who-ever you quoted) seem more than willing to link everyone in to the same model..you say, "If everyone teaches their children to think logically, this will work" but then you immediately go on stating a disclaimer about perhaps not everyone was taught proper logic to begin with..

 

Also, I notice you describe Government as a single entity..perhaps for simplification..but there's probably never been a society of humans that could live peacefully together without human nature effing everything up eventually..thus the need for sometimes seemingly punitive rules.

 

Several forms of government would work (on paper) if everyone was the same..even "No government".

But we originated as a colony of misfits and criminals..I think the founding fathers did an amazing job of trying to foresee what we could be capable of.

 

#1. This highlights the importance of education, and shows that we can never achieve freedom until this is done (at least by the majority).

 

#2. Isn't creating an entity designed to supposedly "protect" us from mistakes, contrary to the idea of accountability? If you can't learn from you mistakes how can one ever learn?

 

#3. What form of government would work on paper? I've been asking and no one seems to want to answer that.

 

 

1) I wonder how many CAN be taught Logic...

After I got my ACT test results before I was Fixin to go to UNL..I would say to anyone who would listen..That I wish I could trade a bunch of my Logic skills for a little more ability to memorize stuff..I scored somewhere in the 96th percentile in the Math/Science portion of the beauty contest.. but barely above 50th % in the reading comprehension part.

 

After some of the Scientists I've worked with over the years, I'm now pretty much convinced that there's just some people you cannot teach it (logic) to. I'm not even sure I remember what Logic IS any more.

 

2) You can learn from other's mistakes if you're not too boneheaded..Accountability is only important to Actuaries and Accountants...And that Vampire on Sesame Street.

 

3) What form of government would NOT work on paper?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the "cute" answers...I just could never get myself interested in History or the study of governments.

People like me are probably one of the biggest problems..I just assume it's over my head, or there's not much I could do to change things anyway...I just try to ignore it and maybe it will go away.

 

The only hope I see (in myself)..is the slight interest I have in watching the History channel from time to time.

Who knew that when you got older ... even History could get interesting?

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

3) What form of government would NOT work on paper?

 

 

Every form of government you can think of. All government is a contradiction in itself.

 

Government is created to make up for the fallibility of man, yet all government consists of man. Since that is the case, how can government fix anything man cannot?

[carlfense]

Holy crap SOCAL

 

8 freaking pages printed in 8 pt font. Give me a little time to digest the encyclopedia of BS and I'll get back to you. In the mean time, keep in mind that the great orators in history are not they who quote but they who are quoted.

 

IE maybe you could read, digest and express your logical interpetations from your own heart and mind instead of posting this hugh pile of crap out there. We can link if necessary

 

If this is your own type up, I apoligize and I will not be opening any envelopes in the near future.

 

Take your time. I'm still working on digesting some of the works other's have posted.

 

As for linking, I've linked to this same essay about 20 times because a few on this board have said that I haven't explained my points or arguments enough. I thought maybe if I post it, maybe they'll actually read it. Anyways, just goes to show that people really aren't willing to take into consideration alternative viewpoints. And as for calling it crap, maybe you need to read it first.

 

If that is your Market for Liberty essay again . . . I did in fact read it. I came away unimpressed and unswayed. It appears huskertim is not impressed either.

 

Also . . . you should probably at least put a link as a citation rather than just posting it as your own.

[carlfense]

 

3) What form of government would NOT work on paper?

 

 

Every form of government you can think of. All government is a contradiction in itself.

 

Government is created to make up for the fallibility of man, yet all government consists of man. Since that is the case, how can government fix anything man cannot?

 

Wait a second . . . if government is just people . . . then how will the removal of government suddenly make those same people live in harmony?

[hosker]

 

3) What form of government would NOT work on paper?

 

 

Every form of government you can think of. All government is a contradiction in itself.

 

Government is created to make up for the fallibility of man, yet all government consists of man. Since that is the case, how can government fix anything man cannot?

 

Wait a second . . . if government is just people . . . then how will the removal of government suddenly make those same people live in harmony?

 

lack of oppression of civil liberties, by the gov?.... but thats beside the point, because governments aren't in the business of creating "harmony", in fact the chinese gov. just killed 150, injured 800, and jailed 700 of its own citizens today. quite the opposite of "harmony". i guess while the US over there, having their little tisk with north korea, we should start a war with china to promote peace & democracy.... at least thats reason enough to go to war with the middle east, right?(*sarcasm*, not trying to turn this into a middle east or china thread.)

 

 

to add onto my first point. the ideology behind anarchy isn't harmony, its freedom. harmony may coincide with freedom at certain times, and it might not.... and i lost my train of though, what a wonderful thread. mmm shweed.

[HUSKER 37]

Heck with legalizin' drugs and stuff.

Somewhere out of this, I've gotta figure out a way to eliminate my PRIVATE government (HOA).

 

They've been sending me letters all year and I'm just too afraid to open them..Last I checked, they were fining me $150 for allowing my mesquite tree to raise a family of seedlings for later transplant to my bare backyard.

 

Meanwhile..six of the houses in my culdesac are now empty.

 

 

Maybe I should run for congress so's I can regain some civil liberties.