"in the age of newspapers, railways, and the electric telegraph"

[jts]

Here is chapter 4 of John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/chapter4.html

You can do a ctrl F (in Firefox at least) and find this line:

"in the age of newspapers, railways, and the electric telegraph"

John Stuart Mill lived 1806 - 1873. He was apparently impressed by newspapers and railways and the electric telegraph.

Imagine a time machine or whatever and imagine somehow John Stuart Mill saw 2014. What would he think of the age of the internet and the Star Trek communicator cell phone and cars and airplanes and missions to Mars?

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is chapter 4 of John Stuart Mill's essay On Liberty.

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/chapter4.html

You can do a ctrl F (in Firefox at least) and find this line:

"in the age of newspapers, railways, and the electric telegraph"

John Stuart Mill lived 1806 - 1873. He was apparently impressed by newspapers and railways and the electric telegraph.

Imagine a time machine or whatever and imagine somehow John Stuart Mill saw 2014. What would he think of the age of the internet and the Star Trek communicator cell phone and cars and airplanes and missions to Mars?

The laying of the Atlantic Cable in 1866 was the very beginning of The Wired World we now live in. It all started off with a narrow band 10 baud transmission channel and has become the World Wide Web supported by microwave links and radio antennas down on the ground and hundreds of communication satellites whizzing about over our heads.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

On Liberty is often cited as one of the foundational documents of individualism and laissez-faire. But one can observe within that work the fatal compromises that would later direct Mill to embrace the welfare state, including redistribution of income ("Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by any one, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society."). This is from the third paragraph of the chapter JTS linked to:

Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation.

"Each person’s bearing his share" in "defending the society"? Is not this the principle behind conscription, the income tax, and "war socialism"?

[Selene]

"Each person’s bearing his share" in "defending the society"? Is not this the principle behind conscription, the income tax, and "war socialism"?

That would make a nice formal debate topic here on OL.

One of the major reasons that I fell in love with Aristotle's Rhetoric was precisely because of the rational assumption that he wrote it from.

His aasumption was that society would achieve the good, if, both sides of an issue, or, good and evil, were in possession of all the available means of persuasion, the good would prevail.

One of the major problems with persuading many "low information" folks today, is precisely because they are not in possession of the rational tools to critically analyze an issue and argue effectively from that analysis.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

On Liberty is often cited as one of the foundational documents of individualism and laissez-faire. But one can observe within that work the fatal compromises that would later direct Mill to embrace the welfare state, including redistribution of income ("Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by any one, he cannot keep, unless by the permission of society."). This is from the third paragraph of the chapter JTS linked to:

Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the labors and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members from injury and molestation.

"Each person’s bearing his share" in "defending the society"? Is not this the principle behind conscription, the income tax, and "war socialism"?

Equitable share. "in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle)" Based on the assumption that if you receive a benefit due to someone else's labor you should compensate that someone for his efforts.

If the community's army is defending your private property from foreign invasion, it follows you should pay a portion of the cost of maintaing that army. How can the society doe what a society is expected to do (collective defense and division of labor) unless its means of doing it are paid for in some fashion. Society does not come for free. If you want to live without obligation to anyone else, go out into Nature's wilderness and live by yourself. Then you won't own anyone anything. Nothing produced by another person's labor which you enjoy, should come for free unless he specifically stipulates that it is a gift.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

Flat tax. Extra costs incurred for defending your freedom could be funded by citizens purchasing war bonds. This would also serve to limit bullshit like being in Afghanistan for ten years. If people do not believe in that cause they could stop paying for it.

[BaalChatzaf]

Flat tax. Extra costs incurred for defending your freedom could be funded by citizens purchasing war bonds. This would also serve to limit bullshit like being in Afghanistan for ten years. If people do not believe in that cause they could stop paying for it.

Sounds like a reasonable way of paying for defense.

I have a version of this: Defense by subscription. Citizens are invited to subscribe for defense voluntarily. If the subscriptions do not meat the minimal costs of maintaining an armed force, the armed force is dismantled or mothballed. No one is forced to pay anything.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Flat tax. Extra costs incurred for defending your freedom could be funded by citizens purchasing war bonds. This would also serve to limit bullshit like being in Afghanistan for ten years. If people do not believe in that cause they could stop paying for it.

Sounds like a reasonable way of paying for defense.

I have a version of this: Defense by subscription. Citizens are invited to subscribe for defense voluntarily. If the subscriptions do not meat the minimal costs of maintaining an armed force, the armed force is dismantled or mothballed. No one is forced to pay anything.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Definitely workable with a sunset provision.

Secondly all subscribers should be publicly posted on the net.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Equitable share. "in each person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle)" Based on the assumption that if you receive a benefit due to someone else's labor you should compensate that someone for his efforts.

If the community's army is defending your private property from foreign invasion, it follows you should pay a portion of the cost of maintaing that army. How can the society doe what a society is expected to do (collective defense and division of labor) unless its means of doing it are paid for in some fashion. Society does not come for free. If you want to live without obligation to anyone else, go out into Nature's wilderness and live by yourself. Then you won't own anyone anything. Nothing produced by another person's labor which you enjoy, should come for free unless he specifically stipulates that it is a gift.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Can you name one society which assessed each person exactly what it cost to defend him? Probably not, for historically defense has been monopolized by the government which undertakes a great many other projects, such as "education" (indoctrination) "healthcare" (socialized medicine) and "economic development" (corporate welfare).

And why should the person who objects to being assessed for a "service" he did not ask for be the one to decamp for the wilderness? It is the gang of monopolists and robbers threatening, beating and caging people who resist their legalized piracy who should be exiled, not the individual who is minding his own damn business.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Flat tax. Extra costs incurred for defending your freedom could be funded by citizens purchasing war bonds. This would also serve to limit bullshit like being in Afghanistan for ten years. If people do not believe in that cause they could stop paying for it.

It is not a tax, flat or otherwise, if people can choose not to pay for it.

[Jules Troy]

One can hope!

I should have clarified, a flat tax plus the war bonds.

A very small flat tax. Also people in office should not be payed. Period.

[GALTGULCH8]

I think I might be in favor of a fund which would enable children in Afghanistan to have the option of leaving the country for good as the US forces leave.

Just because I feel sorry for anyone stuck in a place which will be taken over by the likes of the Taliban. I don't know how the ordinary people there feel about bringing children into their world. If enough girls opted out that might spell extinction for the Taliban in time.

I can't believe I am the only one here who has any feelings for the children there who would not be allowed to get an education or in other ways would be exploited or harmed by the Taliban.

gg

[BaalChatzaf]

I think I might be in favor of a fund which would enable children in Afghanistan to have the option of leaving the country for good as the US forces leave.

People don't just -leave- a country. They go somewhere. Where would the children go? Who would have them?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

I can't believe I am the only one here who has any feelings for the children there who would not be allowed to get an education or in other ways would be exploited or harmed by the Taliban.

gg

Gulch:

That is disrespectful and you owe everyone here an apology.

You want to preach, start a church.

A...

[Jules Troy]

Gulch you could adopt them all!

[GALTGULCH8]

Ayn Rand wrote about something that happened at the end of World War 11 in Eastern Europe. It must have been in a book review or the like in the Objectivist Newsletter. She called it Operation Keelhaul.

There were many people who had lived under the Soviet System before the War but found themselves in countries in Eastern Europe as the War was ending. They had been exposed to the West and FDR authorized their return to Russia. These people anticipated that they would not be allowed to live by Stalin because they knew the truth about the West contrary to what they had been led to believe by Stalin. Some threw their child to their deaths in front of tanks rather than let them be sent back to Russia.

I believe that Churchill had urged FDR to enter the War in Europe by coming up through Turkey and occupying the countries of Eastern Europe. But FDR instead had US troops come up through Italy, so at the end of the War all the eastern European countries were occupied by the Soviet forces under Stalin.

I do wish that Afghani people were given the option of coming to America rather than remain to suffer under the Taliban once we leave. To fail to do so would repeat the horror during WW11 when the ship carrying Jewish people was not allowed to land and was forced to return to Europe where most of them fell victim to the Holocaust.

To leave them all behind would be shameful.

I do not apologize for my feelings on the subject. It is a matter of humanity and sympathy for fellow human beings subject to oppression.

It is not altruism either.

It is also a shame that Ayn Rand's ideas have not spread as widely in America as they might have. IF they had and most people understood they would never have elected the likes of the present occupier of the White House and the country would not be bankrupt. Instead impediments to trade and commerce would have been removed and unemployment would not be as bad as it is. The dollar would not have been inflated, jobs would have been plentiful, the cost of living would be going down, the Fed would have been first audited and then abolished once and for all.

gg

[BaalChatzaf]

Ayn Rand wrote about something that happened at the end of World War 11 in Eastern Europe. It must have been in a book review or the like in the Objectivist Newsletter. She called it Operation Keelhaul.

There were many people who had lived under the Soviet System before the War but found themselves in countries in Eastern Europe as the War was ending. They had been exposed to the West and FDR authorized their return to Russia. These people anticipated that they would not be allowed to live by Stalin because they knew the truth about the West contrary to what they had been led to believe by Stalin. Some threw their child to their deaths in front of tanks rather than let them be sent back to Russia.

I believe that Churchill had urged FDR to enter the War in Europe by coming up through Turkey and occupying the countries of Eastern Europe. But FDR instead had US troops come up through Italy, so at the end of the War all the eastern European countries were occupied by the Soviet forces under Stalin.

I do wish that Afghani people were given the option of coming to America rather than remain to suffer under the Taliban once we leave. To fail to do so would repeat the horror during WW11 when the ship carrying Jewish people was not allowed to land and was forced to return to Europe where most of them fell victim to the Holocaust.

To leave them all behind would be shameful.

I do not apologize for my feelings on the subject. It is a matter of humanity and sympathy for fellow human beings subject to oppression.

It is not altruism either.

It is also a shame that Ayn Rand's ideas have not spread as widely in America as they might have. IF they had and most people understood they would never have elected the likes of the present occupier of the White House and the country would not be bankrupt. Instead impediments to trade and commerce would have been removed and unemployment would not be as bad as it is. The dollar would not have been inflated, jobs would have been plentiful, the cost of living would be going down, the Fed would have been first audited and then abolished once and for all.

gg

Try to arrange to rescue a few --- at your own expense of course.

Ba'al Chatzaf