public unions versus the public

[Francisco Ferrer]

Ok. I'll use America as my example.

The evidence here is obvious. Far more females belong to the left than to the right. And most notably, single females for whom big liberal benefits dispensing government has become their default husband, and father to their delinquent wards of the state.

China is a larger country than the U.S. With 80 million members (mostly men), the Communist Party of China, enjoys far more support than any party on the right.

Ergo, men are leftists by nature.

If your purpose is to distinguish between good and evil females (i.e. women), have at it.

To be more specific, I distinguish women as moral, and females as either immoral or amoral because they failed to become women.

This distinction is purely arbitrary. With just as much proof a person could claim that a moral woman must act in accordance with her nature, and it is a woman's nature to support collectivism.

What you've not done is offer any proof that the distinctive characteristics of the female (i.e. the feminine) are aligned with leftism.

Here is my proof:

Government welfare for single females, government funded food stamps, government funded section 8 housing, government funded child day care, government funded abortions, government funded school food programs... all of these female issues belong to the left, because they all cast liberal government in the role of husband and father to husbandless females and their fatherless spawn.

And should we suppose that these programs exist because Congress, which approved them, is majority female?

Now, you may argue that on average more women vote Democratic than Republican, and more men vote Republican than Democratic. But the margin is typically less than ten percent.

You can't very well develop a conclusion about the "nature" of women that requires excluding 40 percent or more of the population group. It would be equivalent to saying that men are the breadwinners in society, while ignoring the fact that in 40 percent of households women are the primary provider.

Your theory runs into too many exceptions to make it valid.

[Brant Gaede]

You are saying men and women are naturally immoral. Defend that statement, if you can

There's no need to defend that statement. Just open your eyes and look at the world. Better yet look at yourself. What would you be if you indiscriminately acted upon every thought and emotion? You would be a monster, and would either be in prison... or dead.

Un momento, Jose! You are describing babies, not monsters. To be an effective monster you have to discriminate. Time is limited. One choice displaces the other choices--possibilities--not made. Morality is not something written down on a list or from a learned philosopher's tract unrelated to a morass of philosophical, psychological, intellectual churn inside this person or that one expressed as mere emotion pushing a "Go-do-that" button. That many do do that does not explain the origin of that emotion. Inside us all is an implicit philosophy (morality) based on pleasure-pain. This is probably true too of non-human animals. They act on emotion quite naturally without the thinking we associate with "choice." Awake humans, sans drugs anyway, are always thinking, mostly not too well. The churn inside, whatever that is wherever it comes from, plus that thinking = morality. To buff up morality we throw Ayn Rand--or whomever (some prefer gumbo, I sure don't)--into the pot.

You are still operating on the amoral = immoral fallacy. It's still formally moral or immoral evaluated by studying the human being ("man") and the dynamic of human growth and change, today with superior philosophical tools and progress out of The Enlightenment.

--Brant

[moralist]

Ok. I'll use America as my example.

The evidence here is obvious. Far more females belong to the left than to the right. And most notably, single females for whom big liberal benefits dispensing government has become their default husband, and father to their delinquent wards of the state.

China is a larger country than the U.S. With 80 million members (mostly men), the Communist Party of China, enjoys far more support than any party on the right.

Ergo, men are leftists by nature.

Poor example. There is only one party in China. This is why I use America as an example.

If your purpose is to distinguish between good and evil females (i.e. women), have at it.

To be more specific, I distinguish women as moral, and females as either immoral or amoral because they failed to become women.

This distinction is purely arbitrary. With just as much proof a person could claim that a moral woman must act in accordance with her nature, and it is a woman's nature to support collectivism.

Another poor example. I never said "must act". Morality is always a free choice. Collectivism within the family is beautiful... in government, it's ugly.

What you've not done is offer any proof that the distinctive characteristics of the female (i.e. the feminine) are aligned with leftism.

Here is my proof:

Government welfare for single females, government funded food stamps, government funded section 8 housing, government funded child day care, government funded abortions, government funded school food programs... all of these female issues belong to the left, because they all cast liberal government in the role of husband and father to husbandless females and their fatherless spawn.

And should we suppose that these programs exist because Congress, which approved them, is majority female?

Not at all.

They exist because of a Congressional majority of liberal males. Those programs are the natural consequence of a female nature residing within males who failed to become men.

[Selene]

Folks:

He has set up a definitional tautological argument.

If he will not change his arbitrary definitions, his reasoning follows to his conclusion.

The problem is that his arbitrary definitions are the problem.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

Not at all.

They exist because of a Congressional majority of liberal males. Those programs are the natural consequence of a female nature residing within males who failed to become men.

AAawwwwww! We need a lot more John Wayne. Kick ass, Pilgrim.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Francisco Ferrer]

China is a larger country than the U.S. With 80 million members (mostly men), the Communist Party of China, enjoys far more support than any party on the right.

Ergo, men are leftists by nature.

Poor example. There is only one party in China. This is why I use America as an example.

The number of parties is irrelevant. As Rothbard has put it, states depend if not on the direct support of the masses, at least on their acquiescence.

The one-party state of Communist Poland, for example, lasted only as long as the majority of people were willing to put up with it. Then, when their own government was widely perceived by Poles as the greatest enemy, it toppled.

The Communist Party of China reigns only by virtue of the fact that the majority of the Chinese people do not hate it enough to completely withdraw their consent from it.

And there are far more Chinese men complicit in the party's rule than women.

As for the supposed two-party "choice" of America, that is a ruse to conceal the utter lack of real options on the ballot. The Democrats and the Republicans work with the mass media at both the national and state level to make it extremely difficult for alternative views to be considered.

As the dominant force in politics, men, far more than women, are responsible for this outrage.

If your purpose is to distinguish between good and evil females (i.e. women), have at it.

To be more specific, I distinguish women as moral, and females as either immoral or amoral because they failed to become women.

This distinction is purely arbitrary. With just as much proof a person could claim that a moral woman must act in accordance with her nature, and it is a woman's nature to support collectivism.

Another poor example. I never said "must act". Morality is always a free choice. Collectivism within the family is beautiful... in government, it's ugly.

Never said you said "must act." The point is that definitions, if they have any usefulness, take the conventions of usage into considerations. Anyone--Marxists, Catholics, vegetarians, or nudists--can on a whim can jot down a preferred set of criteria by which a female human becomes a "woman."

I don't eat meat, but I am not so stupid as to declare that a meat-eating female human is a non-woman.

And should we suppose that these programs exist because Congress, which approved them, is majority female?

Not at all.

They exist because of a Congressional majority of liberal males. Those programs are the natural consequence of a female nature residing within males who failed to become men.

With similar arbitrariness I can declare that any institution which uses physical aggression to stay in power is suffering from an excess of maleness.

On the other hand, libertartian males who, eschew such typical government vices as theft, kidnapping, murder and threatening people with guns and clubs and noxious gas, are getting in touch with their feminine side.

Of course, the above sentence is complete rubbish but no more so than your claim about "feminine" statists.

[moralist]

You are saying men and women are naturally immoral. Defend that statement, if you can

There's no need to defend that statement. Just open your eyes and look at the world. Better yet look at yourself. What would you be if you indiscriminately acted upon every thought and emotion? You would be a monster, and would either be in prison... or dead.

Un momento, Jose! You are describing babies, not monsters. To be an effective monster you have to discriminate.

Actually it's just the opposite. When interviewed, murderers frequently relate that they were doing what the "voices in their heads" told them to do. They believed in the voices. This abysmal lack of thought discrimination is a prerequisite for committing truly evil acts.

In contrast, decent people temper their actions with the wisdom of being highly selective in which thoughts to act upon, and which to simply let pass by unresponded

[moralist]

China is a larger country than the U.S. With 80 million members (mostly men), the Communist Party of China, enjoys far more support than any party on the right.

Ergo, men are leftists by nature.

Poor example. There is only one party in China. This is why I use America as an example.

The number of parties is irrelevant. As Rothbard has put it, states depend if not on the direct support of the masses, at least on their acquiescence.

The one-party state of Communist Poland, for example, lasted only as long as the majority of people were willing to put up with it. Then, when their own government was widely perceived by Poles as the greatest enemy, it toppled.

The Communist Party of China reigns only by virtue of the fact that the majority of the Chinese people do not hate it enough to completely withdraw their consent from it.

And there are far more Chinese men complicit in the party's rule than women.

As for the supposed two-party "choice" of America, that is a ruse to conceal the utter lack of real options on the ballot. The Democrats and the Republicans work with the mass media at both the national and state level to make it extremely difficult for alternative views to be considered.

As the dominant force in politics, men, far more than women, are responsible for this outrage.

If your purpose is to distinguish between good and evil females (i.e. women), have at it.

To be more specific, I distinguish women as moral, and females as either immoral or amoral because they failed to become women.

This distinction is purely arbitrary. With just as much proof a person could claim that a moral woman must act in accordance with her nature, and it is a woman's nature to support collectivism.

Another poor example. I never said "must act". Morality is always a free choice. Collectivism within the family is beautiful... in government, it's ugly.

Never said you said "must act." The point is that definitions, if they have any usefulness, take the conventions of usage into considerations. Anyone--Marxists, Catholics, vegetarians, or nudists--can on a whim can jot down a preferred set of criteria by which a female human becomes a "woman."

My definition is a moral one.

A straight line clearly drawn.

A woman is what a female should grow to become. Women marry men. Females marry the government.

I don't eat meat, but I am not so stupid as to declare that a meat-eating female human is a non-woman.

A false example. That's not a moral issue. I don't eat meat either, but not for any moral or religious issue. Just for my own good health. So naturally I don't have any problem with what others choose to eat.

And should we suppose that these programs exist because Congress, which approved them, is majority female?

Not at all.

They exist because of a Congressional majority of liberal males. Those programs are the natural consequence of a female nature residing within males who failed to become men.

With similar arbitrariness I can declare that any institution which uses physical aggression to stay in power is suffering from an excess of maleness.

You're perfectly free to do so. And I even might not disagree with you. It only further highlights the feminized nature of liberalism which abhors all fighting including good people fighting against evil people.

On the other hand, libertartian males who, eschew such typical government vices as theft, kidnapping, murder and threatening people with guns and clubs and noxious gas, are getting in touch with their feminine side.

Of course, the above sentence is complete rubbish but no more so than your claim about "feminine" statists.

I see the that the two apparent "ends" of political spectrum actually meet on the backside to form a circle. If a person goes far enough to the extreme libertarian right, they will meet the radical anarchical left where the two join as allies. The Ron Paul phenomenon is an excellent example of this principle, for he drew support from both "ends" of the political spectrum. So what ideology could make these two seemingly opposite ends common allies?

Not Libertarian...

Libertine.

The radical left and the extreme right share the same standard of personal behavior.

[moralist]

Just wanted to add that I immensely enjoy your challenges.

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[moralist]

As the dominant force in politics, men, far more than women, are responsible for this outrage.

Not men... males.

[Francisco Ferrer]

My definition is a moral one.

A straight line clearly drawn.

A woman is what a female should grow to become. Women marry men. Females marry the government.

1 = 2

3 = 4

Therefore, 1 + 3 = 6

I don't eat meat, but I am not so stupid as to declare that a meat-eating female human is a non-woman.

A false example. That's not a moral issue. I don't eat meat either, but not for any moral or religious issue. Just for my own good health. So naturally I don't have any problem with what others choose to eat.

Every speaker on this forum has the right to declare what his words mean. A woman is what a female should grow to become. Women marry vegetarians. Females marry hamburger eaters.

With similar arbitrariness I can declare that any institution which uses physical aggression to stay in power is suffering from an excess of maleness.

You're perfectly free to do so. And I even might not disagree with you. It only further highlights the feminized nature of liberalism which abhors all fighting including good people fighting against evil people.

Is our "feminized" liberal government no longer sending mean old cops with big bad guns and clubs to arrest those who refuse to pay their taxes?

If the answer is "yes," then hooray for the feminized liberal government's opposition to fighting.

If the answer is "no," then the claim of a non-fighting feminized liberal government is worthless.

[Brant Gaede]

Women who rape men . . .

--Brant

if this thread is turning into nonsense . . .

[moralist]

Is our "feminized" liberal government no longer sending mean old cops with big bad guns and clubs to arrest those who refuse to pay their taxes?

Taking the false drama out of your situation... he didn't refuse to pay his taxes, he tried to evade paying the taxes he owed.

"According to the indictment, in 2004, in the District of Columbia, Thomas formed multiple entities whose names contained the acronym ECG, which stood for ESOP Capital Group. ECG purported to provide financial, business and other management services to companies that were interested in creating ESOPs, which are employee stock ownership plans. In or about 2005 and 2006, Thomas, through ECG, contracted to provide such services to two companies in Maine.

The indictment further alleges that, despite earning income, Thomas did not file his 2005 through 2007 individual income tax returns. In addition, he allegedly evaded assessment of his individual income tax liabilities for those years by diverting cash from the two companies he contracted with in Maine, using nominee bank accounts, titling assets in his spouse’s name and withdrawing substantial amounts of cash."

It obviously didn't work, because most criminals stupidly believe the fantasy that they are much more deceitfully clever than they actually are.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Is our "feminized" liberal government no longer sending mean old cops with big bad guns and clubs to arrest those who refuse to pay their taxes?

Taking the false drama out of your situation... he didn't refuse to pay his taxes, he tried to evade paying the taxes he owed.

"According to the indictment, in 2004, in the District of Columbia, Thomas formed multiple entities whose names contained the acronym ECG, which stood for ESOP Capital Group. ECG purported to provide financial, business and other management services to companies that were interested in creating ESOPs, which are employee stock ownership plans. In or about 2005 and 2006, Thomas, through ECG, contracted to provide such services to two companies in Maine.

The indictment further alleges that, despite earning income, Thomas did not file his 2005 through 2007 individual income tax returns. In addition, he allegedly evaded assessment of his individual income tax liabilities for those years by diverting cash from the two companies he contracted with in Maine, using nominee bank accounts, titling assets in his spouse’s name and withdrawing substantial amounts of cash."

It obviously didn't work, because most criminals stupidly believe the fantasy that they are much more deceitfully clever than they actually are.

No man "owes" taxes any more than the parents of a child "owe" his kidnapper ransom.

Taxes are theft, pure and simple. The only reason the public has been bamboozled into paying them is because of state propaganda which preaches "civic duty," "social contract," "fair share" and all the other statist claptrap. "Consent of the victim," a famous woman once wrote.

"Refuse" or "evade"? The example I gave was in fact one of evasion. But you can be certain our "feminized" liberal government, which "abhors all fighting," will come down just as hard on the refusers, will use all the aggressive force at its disposal (bullets, clubs, tazers, tear gas, prisons and torture) to make sure we all "contribute" what we "owe."

If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practice upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: 1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, 2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed. The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust. --Lysander Spooner

[moralist]

No man "owes" taxes any more than the parents of a child "owe" his kidnapper ransom.

Sorry. People owe taxes to pay for the public infrastructure of which they enjoy the use. They don't owe taxes for redistribution of wealth. Can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Taxes are theft, pure and simple. The only reason the public has been bamboozled into paying them is because of state propaganda which preaches "civic duty," "social contract," "fair share" and all the other statist claptrap. "Consent of the victim," a famous woman once wrote.

While I agree with you... none of those quoted descriptors you listed is public infrastructure, which is a legitimate use of taxes.

While I could wax poetic along with you in your complaints about government (none of which I actually disagree), instead I'd rather describe my own mundane and undramatic personal solution to your highly emotionally charged description.

It is simply to be a Capitalist producer.

As a business owner, I pay no taxes because they are included as a business expense in the cost of the products I produce and the services I provide. It is the end user who pays taxes. So I as an end user also pay taxes just like everyone else. But because I'm also a producer as well as a consumer, by the magic of PARITY I gain the ability to operate on BOTH sides of the ledger. And this is where American economic freedom is truly enjoyed...

...in the BALANCE of producing and consuming.

Government doesn't just spontaneously spring into existence of its own volition. It is not the enemy. We are the only ones who can be our own enemy. For we create the government we deserve in our own image.

Now, everyone's personal experience of creating the government they deserve in their own image is NOT the same. My own personal experience of creating the government I deserve in my own image is wholly dependent upon how I live. So it is my own personal responsibility to live in such a manner so as to deserve a decent government.

Because government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that I do. It is not the source of my life, liberty, and property. That is totally up to me to live a life that is deserving of those rights. And, as an individual, when I live a life that is deserving of those rights, the government cannot take them from me because it did not give them to me in the first place. I can only throw those rights away by failing to live up to that higher moral law to which everyone is personally responsible.

[Brant Gaede]

No man "owes" taxes any more than the parents of a child "owe" his kidnapper ransom.

Sorry. People owe taxes to pay for the public infrastructure of which they enjoy the use. They don't owe taxes for redistribution of wealth. Can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Taxes are theft, pure and simple. The only reason the public has been bamboozled into paying them is because of state propaganda which preaches "civic duty," "social contract," "fair share" and all the other statist claptrap. "Consent of the victim," a famous woman once wrote.

While I agree with you... none of those quoted descriptors you listed is public infrastructure, which is a legitimate use of taxes.

While I could wax poetic along with you in your complaints about government (none of which I actually disagree), instead I'd rather describe my own mundane and undramatic personal solution to your highly emotionally charged description.

It is simply to be a Capitalist producer.

As a business owner, I pay no taxes because they are included as a business expense in the cost of the products I produce and the services I provide. It is the end user who pays taxes. So I as an end user also pay taxes just like everyone else. But because I'm also a producer as well as a consumer, by the magic of PARITY I gain the ability to operate on BOTH sides of the ledger. And this is where American economic freedom is truly enjoyed...

...in the BALANCE of producing and consuming.

Government doesn't just spontaneously spring into existence of its own volition. It is not the enemy. We are the only ones who can be our own enemy. For we create the government we deserve in our own image.

Now, everyone's personal experience of creating the government they deserve in their own image is NOT the same. My own personal experience of creating the government I deserve in my own image is wholly dependent upon how I live. So it is my own personal responsibility to live in such a manner so as to deserve a decent government.

Because government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that I do. It is not the source of my life, liberty, and property. That is totally up to me to live a life that is deserving of those rights. And, as an individual, when I live a life that is deserving of those rights, the government cannot take them from me because it did not give them to me in the first place. I can only throw those rights away by failing to live up to that higher moral law to which everyone is personally responsible.

This is awfully close to the subjective standard of value (of government). Note also how you go back and forth between "we" and you or me. Is that a collectivist segue? As for public infrastructure, what are you talking about except public roads? I pay the utilities for water and electricity. I'm not hooked up to gas or sewer but if I were I'd be paying for those too and not with taxes. Also, your views about legitimate and illegitimate taxes are outside libertarian-Objectivist political philosophy. You don't really seem to have any political philosophy beyond pragmatic adaptation. Rand herself had some of that in her day-to-day living, but she referred to it as "ransom." She seems to have taken Social Security without giving it much thought. (If the government steals from you today and spends that money today is it right to take money from that government tomorrow when all you're getting is money stolen from tomorrow's workers?) She also seems to have somewhat sucked up to those who could give her approval to install a phone in her California home in WWII. She didn't get it.

--Brant

[Samson Corwell]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

There is a moral distinction between females and women...

...just as there is for males and men.

"women" and "men" are species specific while I have female and male birds in my yard

That's my point.

The terms "men" and "women" apply specifically to morally responsible humans.

Whereas male and female apply to all animals including amoral human animals.

The common term for a mass murderer is "animal". It is a perfectly appropriate usage.

Alright. This sounds like a stupid use of words. This "feminism is natural for the female" is nonsense.

[Francisco Ferrer]

No man "owes" taxes any more than the parents of a child "owe" his kidnapper ransom.

Sorry. People owe taxes to pay for the public infrastructure of which they enjoy the use. They don't owe taxes for redistribution of wealth. Can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

No. when the state creates coercive monopolies (on roads, utilities, schools, etc.) the public has no choice but to use them. To take just one example, neither I nor my parents "owe" the state anything for the miserable indoctrination center I was forced to attend as a child. If anything, the statists owe me compensation for theft and kidnapping.

Taxes are theft, pure and simple. The only reason the public has been bamboozled into paying them is because of state propaganda which preaches "civic duty," "social contract," "fair share" and all the other statist claptrap. "Consent of the victim," a famous woman once wrote.

While I agree with you... none of those quoted descriptors you listed is public infrastructure, which is a legitimate use of taxes.

Even if we were to imagine that there is no waste, no corruption, no cost overruns in our socialist "infrastructure" (which presumably includes everything from my local tennis court to the new, bigger-than-the-Vatican embassy in Baghdad), taxes to pay for the infrastructure would still be illegitimate because there was no consent and thus no contractual obligation on the part of the taxpayer.

If A has the right to force B to pay for something A bought, then I can charge you for my new pool table.

But how, you may ask, are you responsible for something I own? Simple. I bought the table for the "public," and they may come over at any time (during posted hours) to use it. It's not my fault if they don't use it. I acted to promote the "general welfare," and people "owe" me whether they like pool or not.

The public also "owes" me for the flowers I planted in my front yard. The public enjoys them as they drive by on their way to drop the kiddies off at the indoctrination center.

While I could wax poetic along with you in your complaints about government (none of which I actually disagree), instead I'd rather describe my own mundane and undramatic personal solution to your highly emotionally charged description.

It is simply to be a Capitalist producer.

As a business owner, I pay no taxes because they are included as a business expense in the cost of the products I produce and the services I provide. It is the end user who pays taxes. So I as an end user also pay taxes just like everyone else. But because I'm also a producer as well as a consumer, by the magic of PARITY I gain the ability to operate on BOTH sides of the ledger. And this is where American economic freedom is truly enjoyed...

...in the BALANCE of producing and consuming.

Government doesn't just spontaneously spring into existence of its own volition. It is not the enemy. We are the only ones who can be our own enemy. For we create the government we deserve in our own image.

Now, everyone's personal experience of creating the government they deserve in their own image is NOT the same. My own personal experience of creating the government I deserve in my own image is wholly dependent upon how I live. So it is my own personal responsibility to live in such a manner so as to deserve a decent government.

Because government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that I do. It is not the source of my life, liberty, and property. That is totally up to me to live a life that is deserving of those rights. And, as an individual, when I live a life that is deserving of those rights, the government cannot take them from me because it did not give them to me in the first place. I can only throw those rights away by failing to live up to that higher moral law to which everyone is personally responsible.

So did the German Jews who died at Dachau create the Nazis in their own image?

Did you create the American "feminized" liberal government that "abhors all fighting" in your own image?

Why did you do that?

[Brant Gaede]

"Why did you do that?"

I gotta be me?

Take out free will and you've got a tautology bubbling to the surface.

--Brant

[moralist]

No man "owes" taxes any more than the parents of a child "owe" his kidnapper ransom.

Sorry. People owe taxes to pay for the public infrastructure of which they enjoy the use. They don't owe taxes for redistribution of wealth. Can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Taxes are theft, pure and simple. The only reason the public has been bamboozled into paying them is because of state propaganda which preaches "civic duty," "social contract," "fair share" and all the other statist claptrap. "Consent of the victim," a famous woman once wrote.

While I agree with you... none of those quoted descriptors you listed is public infrastructure, which is a legitimate use of taxes.

While I could wax poetic along with you in your complaints about government (none of which I actually disagree), instead I'd rather describe my own mundane and undramatic personal solution to your highly emotionally charged description.

It is simply to be a Capitalist producer.

As a business owner, I pay no taxes because they are included as a business expense in the cost of the products I produce and the services I provide. It is the end user who pays taxes. So I as an end user also pay taxes just like everyone else. But because I'm also a producer as well as a consumer, by the magic of PARITY I gain the ability to operate on BOTH sides of the ledger. And this is where American economic freedom is truly enjoyed...

...in the BALANCE of producing and consuming.

Government doesn't just spontaneously spring into existence of its own volition. It is not the enemy. We are the only ones who can be our own enemy. For we create the government we deserve in our own image.

Now, everyone's personal experience of creating the government they deserve in their own image is NOT the same. My own personal experience of creating the government I deserve in my own image is wholly dependent upon how I live. So it is my own personal responsibility to live in such a manner so as to deserve a decent government.

Because government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that I do. It is not the source of my life, liberty, and property. That is totally up to me to live a life that is deserving of those rights. And, as an individual, when I live a life that is deserving of those rights, the government cannot take them from me because it did not give them to me in the first place. I can only throw those rights away by failing to live up to that higher moral law to which everyone is personally responsible.

This is awfully close to the subjective standard of value (of government). Note also how you go back and forth between "we" and you or me. Is that a collectivist segue?

What I described is only collective in that everyone without exception is personally accountable for their actions to exactly the same reality of consequences which are governed by objective moral law.

As for public infrastructure, what are you talking about except public roads?

Public roads also includes the extensive system of freeways and bridges. I live in a rural canyon, where there is considerable attrition of the roads which need constant maintenance and refurbishing. On occasion whole hillsides need shoring up by huge public works projects at great expense. Also police and fire protection. I live in one of the highest fire danger areas in the nation so the guys in our local firehouse are genuine heroes. There is the legal infrastructure which protects the integrity of contracts with consequences. This is a necessary ingredient to the operation of Capitalism, because people are not naturally good. There is also the penal infrastructure which helps to protect the decent from the indecent.

For these legitimate useful government functions and others I'm totally grateful and am happy to pay taxes for them. They provide a practical public foundation upon which I make money in private business.

This is the government I deserve.

It's a genuine blessing to my life.

I pay the utilities for water and electricity. I'm not hooked up to gas or sewer but if I were I'd be paying for those too and not with taxes.

Same here. Where I live, we get propane delivered by truck and maintain our own septic system. It's good to literally become responsible for your own shit. ; )

Also, your views about legitimate and illegitimate taxes are outside libertarian-Objectivist political philosophy. You don't really seem to have any political philosophy beyond pragmatic adaptation. Rand herself had some of that in her day-to-day living, but she referred to it as "ransom."

That's a great term... ransom!

I willingly pay ransom because it is simply the cost of living in the reality of this world as it is, and not the utopian fantasy of how I think it should be. That's the exquisite productive beauty of Capitalism. When you produce more than enough wealth to pay the ransom, you have purchased your own economic freedom and can do whatever you want with the surplus. The American system, for all of its flaws, still rewards the usefully productive by offering the opportunity to earn their economic freedom with honest labor.

She seems to have taken Social Security without giving it much thought. (If the government steals from you today and spends that money today is it right to take money from that government tomorrow when all you're getting is money stolen from tomorrow's workers?)

I paid into that system for almost 50 years, and I'll be happy to get back a dime on the dollar. That's another form of ransom paid for living in the world as it is. Understand that I cannot change ~the~ world. I can only change ~my~ world. Since I'm the one who gets to write my own story, I write:

"...and they lived happily ever after"

She also seems to have somewhat sucked up to those who could give her approval to install a phone in her California home in WWII. She didn't get it.

--Brant

Ayn Rand would have been so proud to witness the bountiful harvest of Capitalism in regards to communication today! : )

[Brant Gaede]

If your public infrastructure didn't exist you probably wouldn't be living in your rural canyon, but it sounds like a great place to visit. The question is should it exist? Not your cited examples. Your point seems to be it does so take advantage of it.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

I just caught up to this thread.

FF - That was very well done. I got a chuckle out of it (followed by a bad feeling from looking at those monsters).

But I don't find "grotesque smear against womanhood" to be accurate. Who in their right mind thinks the point Moralist was making was to humiliate "womanhood"? That he's a bigot against women and that was what he was trying to preach? I mean, come on. Seriously? That's the issue to you?

Moralist is floating, not attacking.

I do agree with you that ideologies do not have gender. And I'll go even further. There is only one way to defend the left is feminine argument--by circular reasoning. You start by proclaiming this is so--that whatever is attracted to leftism is feminine. And if it is not attracted to leftism, it is not feminine. So why are men attracted? Because of the feminine elements within them, of course. And what are those elements? The ones that are attracted to leftism. Round and round and round she goes.

When I try to look deeper on the "feminine" is different than "woman" distinction, I don't see anything of substance there except maybe an attempt to smuggle in a stolen concept for whatever reason. But I don't even think it's that. I speculate, I know, but I imagine it's something that felt right to Moralist in a kind of unfocused manner, he latched onto it and put it out there because it sounded good, he got challenged in a hostile manner and simply dug in. Now he's in a scramble to make the unfittable somehow fit.

Feminine is an adjective meaning having woman-like or girl-like qualities. Anyone can look it up in any dictionary. How someone can detach that from "woman" on a conceptual level is beyond me.

At best, this is some made-up arbitrary meanings attached to words and, in my opinion, should be considered as such. (Also, arbitrary is a far more accurate description than an attack on womanhood.) In other words, something not to be taken seriously. It's carelessly slapping labels on things without actual concepts behind them.

This is a good example of how bad ideas are spread.

(Sorry Moralist, I like you a lot, but this one is pretty far out there. I suggest a rethink, and that's OK. God knows I've done enough of this stuff myself. )

Michael

[Samson Corwell]

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

I just caught up to this thread.

FF - That was very well done. I got a chuckle out of it (followed by a bad feeling from looking at those monsters).

But I don't find "grotesque smear against womanhood" to be accurate. Who in their right mind thinks the point Moralist was making was to humiliate "womanhood"? That he's a bigot against women and that was what he was trying to preach? I mean, come on. Seriously? That's the issue to you?

Moralist is floating, not attacking.

I do agree with you that ideologies do not have gender. And I'll go even further. There is only one way to defend the left is feminine argument--by circular reasoning. You start by proclaiming this is so--that whatever is attracted to leftism is feminine. And if it is not attracted to leftism, it is not feminine. So why are men attracted? Because of the feminine elements within them, of course. And what are those elements? The ones that are attracted to leftism. Round and round and round she goes.

When I try to look deeper on the "feminine" is different than "woman" distinction, I don't see anything of substance there except maybe an attempt to smuggle in a stolen concept for whatever reason. But I don't even think it's that. I speculate, I know, but I imagine it's something that felt right to Moralist in a kind of unfocused manner, he latched onto it and put it out there because it sounded good, he got challenged in a hostile manner and simply dug in. Now he's in a scramble to make the unfittable somehow fit.

Feminine is an adjective meaning having woman-like or girl-like qualities. Anyone can look it up in any dictionary. How someone can detach that from "woman" on a conceptual level is beyond me.

At best, this is some made-up arbitrary meanings attached to words and, in my opinion, should be considered as such. (Also, arbitrary is a far more accurate description than an attack on womanhood.) In other words, something not to be taken seriously. It's carelessly slapping labels on things without actual concepts behind them.

This is a good example of how bad ideas are spread.

(Sorry Moralist, I like you a lot, but this one is pretty far out there. I suggest a rethink, and that's OK. God knows I've done enough of this stuff myself. )

Michael

Think you can tell me who the guy in the top-left corner is because I still can't figure it out?

P.S. Whoever he is, he's got the ugliest mug of them all.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Think you can tell me who the guy in the top-left corner is because I still can't figure it out?

P.S. Whoever he is, he's got the ugliest mug of them all.

Samson:

Lavrenty Beria, Soviet secret police chief under Stalin.

See here for the exact image (cover of Time Magazine).

Michael