• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why I am a libertarian[W:50]

I can't figure out what she said even I quoted it? :lamo You're full of nonsense, you know.

You gave a weak explanation that has more to do with giving people birthday presents than anything rand had to say. Then you give rands words which effectively is her own opinion without any sources to back up her interpretation of the word. In other words an echo box dialogue. She feeds on her own thoughts in that rather uninspired quote you gave.

If that really is your best shot then it is quite clear that you read rand like many christians read a bible. Without concern for any understanding just the ability to parrot the words back.
 
More quotes on the subject by her:

"There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.

Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes." - Ayn Rand”

"Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?

The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.

Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others—it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others—it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch—it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself—it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice—it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others.

Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the damned, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value.

Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind.

If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence.

If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right.

A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness—non-existence—as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defect: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw—the zero.

"Now there is one word—a single word—which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand—the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it—and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given." - Ayn Rand”
 
Last edited:
Even more quotes..

"It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it—or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists—and few of their victims—realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible." - Ayn Rand

"Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value." - Ayn Rand

"Since nature does not provide man with an automatic form of survival, since he has to support his life by his own effort, the doctrine that concern with one’s own interests is evil means that man’s desire to live is evil—that man’s life, as such, is evil. No doctrine could be more evil than that.

Yet that is the meaning of altruism." -Ayn Rand

Now, prove that I can't figure out what she said. Come on, do it.
 
You gave a weak explanation that has more to do with giving people birthday presents than anything rand had to say. Then you give rands words which effectively is her own opinion without any sources to back up her interpretation of the word. In other words an echo box dialogue. She feeds on her own thoughts in that rather uninspired quote you gave.

If that really is your best shot then it is quite clear that you read rand like many christians read a bible. Without concern for any understanding just the ability to parrot the words back.

Nope. I asked two questions to cut through the **** and then provided a quote to prove myself correct. The first question you answered in exactly the same way Ayn Rand would and the second you avoided. The quote you basically did the same thing you did with the second question. Anything else?

Also, I don't care if she is correct or not since I'm not here to defend her.
 
Nope. I asked two questions to cut through the **** and then provided a quote to prove myself correct. The first question you answered in exactly the same way Ayn Rand would and the second you avoided. The quote you basically did the same thing you did with the second question. Anything else?

Also, I don't care if she is correct or not since I'm not here to defend her.

A quote in which she creates a meaning for altruism backed by nothing but her opinion. Or is it a case of religious worship with you. Just because she sai d it it must be true rather than do something intelligent like actually question why she defined altruism as she did.

The first question i answered was nothing more than an example of if we should give people birthday presents. Why would i not agree? The second remains irrelevant without first answering the first.


No of course you are not here to defend her. You are here to make claims about her perfection that you cannot even back or explain in your own words. Parroting her words only demonstrated you could not even find a link that made any real sense. Just some one making stuff up about altruism without any means of showing how she came about that meaning.

Basically she calls altruism a bunch of bad names and that apparently is classed as thinking by you.

No need for you to go on. I understand that you do not understand altruism let alone rand. And the lack of any libertarians ready to defend her is good to see. She is dead, let us leave her to rot in her grave in peace.
 
A quote in which she creates a meaning for altruism backed by nothing but her opinion. Or is it a case of religious worship with you. Just because she sai d it it must be true rather than do something intelligent like actually question why she defined altruism as she did.

I don't give a crap if it's true or not. What part of "I'm not a supporter of Ayn Rand" do you not understand? Maybe you should be having this discussion with a follower of her ideology instead of me.

The first question i answered was nothing more than an example of if we should give people birthday presents. Why would i not agree? The second remains irrelevant without first answering the first.

Which of course you agreed with her on the first question and the second question you avoided entirely. I imagine you avoided it because you knew at that point you would be caught agreeing with her on the subject. lol

No of course you are not here to defend her. You are here to make claims about her perfection that you cannot even back or explain in your own words. Parroting her words only demonstrated you could not even find a link that made any real sense. Just some one making stuff up about altruism without any means of showing how she came about that meaning.

I said that what I agreed with her on she said perfectly. That doesn't mean I agree with her on everything or that you can just pick something at random to get me. Maybe you should have started by asking me what I agree with her on instead of just picking something at random.

Basically she calls altruism a bunch of bad names and that apparently is classed as thinking by you.

I didn't say I agree or disagree with anything she said on the subject. :shrug:

No need for you to go on. I understand that you do not understand altruism let alone rand. And the lack of any libertarians ready to defend her is good to see. She is dead, let us leave her to rot in her grave in peace.

We have no need to defend her nor does it matter even slightly if you think she was accurate on the matter.
 
I don't give a crap if it's true or not. What part of "I'm not a supporter of Ayn Rand" do you not understand? Maybe you should be having this discussion with a follower of her ideology instead of me.
.
Perhaps you should think before opening your mouth and claiming her perfection which you do not seem to be able to give an example of or support in your own words.
Which of course you agreed with her on the first question and the second question you avoided entirely. I imagine you avoided it because you knew at that point you would be caught agreeing with her on the subject. lol
I agreed only to giving birthday presents which is what you described.


I said that what I agreed with her on she said perfectly. That doesn't mean I agree with her on everything or that you can just pick something at random to get me. Maybe you should have started by asking me what I agree with her on instead of just picking something at random.
Why? As i said rands altruism is basic 101 rand. If you cannot even handle that i would hate to what kind of mess you might make of the rest.


I didn't say I agree or disagree with anything she said on the subject. :shrug:
No, you just claimed she said it perfectly, yet the snippet you gave has more in common with someone making stuff up to suite themselves.

We have no need to defend her nor does it matter even slightly if you think she was accurate on the matter
Defend her?? I ask no one to attempt the impossible. I asked someone to explain why she is no longer the patron saint of libertarianism.
 
Perhaps you should think before opening your mouth and claiming her perfection which you do not seem to be able to give an example of or support in your own words.

Lol what? I didn't provide an example because I didn't feel like doing it. There was in fact no real reason to do it since the discussion should have ended before it began.

I agreed only to giving birthday presents which is what you described.

The question was over the idea that your life isn't dependent on giving to others, not birthday presents. In fact, I didn't even use the words "birthday presents" anywhere in the question or before this post.

Why? As i said rands altruism is basic 101 rand. If you cannot even handle that i would hate to what kind of mess you might make of the rest.

Lol, I didn't handle it? :lamo Dude, I explained it throughly with a long series of quotes and a few questions. All you did was bull**** your way through this entire discussion with rudeness.

No, you just claimed she said it perfectly, yet the snippet you gave has more in common with someone making stuff up to suite themselves.

You provided no proof she made anything up, you know. In any event, I never said anything she said on the topic applied to me. You should however perhaps figure out that I was speaking towards my opinion on things, not whatever dumb crap you're talking about.

Defend her?? I ask no one to attempt the impossible. I asked someone to explain why she is no longer the patron saint of libertarianism.

She never was this "patron saint of libertarianism" in the first place.
 
Ace300 said:
The social contract does not meet the elements of a contract, as such it is not a contract.

The social contract has never been argued in court and therefore never been sustained in court either.

If you are going to make legal arguments, it would help if you had some evidence.

Where in your link does it state that the argument was made in court that there is a social contract and it was upheld?
 
Ace300 said:
So pick a tax, and tell me who the injured party is.
Ace300 said:
Please reference the court case.
Geoist said:
For what?

Your link does not reference a court case where the argument was made and upheld that there was an injured party for not paying a tax.

Please, pick a tax, and provide a case where the argument was made that by not paying the tax, there was an injured party.
 
Not directly, no. The argument on the pro-regulation side is that regulation limits/prevents injured parties.

It doesn't matter what the pro-regulation side thinks. If there is no injured party for disobeying a regulation, than there is no case, and U.S. courts therefore have no jurisdiction if someone accuses someone else of disobeying a regulation. In other words, regulations are not enforceable by U.S. courts (i.e. by law).
 
ace300 said:
So you don't know of any court cases then where the claim was made that not paying taxes is an injury to the public and it was upheld by the courts?
It is by default.

You didn't answer the question.
 
Well, if you can figure out how to do it without the IRS breathing down your neck, no one.

Great, so you agree then that there is no injured party by not paying taxes right?
 
Re: Why I am a libertarian

Ace300 said:
I am not sure why you think I am laughably wrong. I never claimed the government thugs would listen to reason. Politicians are people that are good at one thing, and that is winning a popularity contest. Lawyers and judges are just people that went to school and passed an exam. It doesn't mean they understand law or reason.
It means they know more about it than you.

Than you should be able to easily find a case where it was argued and upheld that there is an injured party when not paying taxes. I mean, it is all public record.
 
Re: Why I am a libertarian

Well, since U.S. courts can only hear cases, and since there is no injured party for not paying taxes, we could get rid of the welfare system if a large portion of the population would stop paying taxes and fight it based on the grounds of no jurisdiction. The United States government did fine with no income taxes up until 1861.

likely can thank the GOP & Lincoln for that
 
The state becomes the injured party in criminal offenses. As California claims "The People of California" or however they phrase it. The state (government) claims to be "the people", the injured party. I agree it is a bit of sentimental sophistry, but that's what they do.

Using a drug offense as an example, the government claims to be the injured party, if nothing else by implication, if a person charged possesses a forbidden drug. I do agree it's nonsense, but they do it.

Using murder as an example, the state claims to be representing the dead person or his family. In a real crime such as murder or assault or thievery, that is a reasonable and fair representation. Unfortunately, our criminal codes these days have more specious crimes than real ones.

Thus in a murder case the state has standing for it represents the injured party.

And yet it has never been argued and upheld that I know of that the state has been injured.
 
I did you just do not understand legal or political science concepts.

It was a yes or no question. You did not answer either yes or no, therefore you did not answer the question, you avoided answering it.
 
And yet it has never been argued and upheld that I know of that the state has been injured.

The government represents the people in a case, you are being persecuted by society.
 
And yet it has never been argued and upheld that I know of that the state has been injured.

By implication, every time the prosecutor and court says, for example, "The People of California versus_______", the state is representing the people who have supposedly been wronged or injured.

If the people, represented by the state government, have been injured because a person has used an illegal drug, how does this implied injury manifest?
 
Your link does not reference a court case where the argument was made and upheld that there was an injured party for not paying a tax.

Please, pick a tax, and provide a case where the argument was made that by not paying the tax, there was an injured party.

Taxes are generally not created based upon court cases.

Unlike most other taxes, LVT is justified as it is compensation for the denied right of the People to access a portion of the land.
 
It doesn't matter what the pro-regulation side thinks.

Obviously it does because the vast majority of Americans are pro-regulation. Take a poll and see how many citizens are willing to get rid of meat inspections and get back to me.

regulations are not enforceable by U.S. courts (i.e. by law).

Courts don't enforce anything.
 
Back
Top Bottom