This topic was split from "You may be guilty of thoughtcrime if ..." thread because it was distracting proletarians from focusing on thoughtcrimes. Yet it's an interesting discussion in itself, so instead of purging it altogether we moved it to a separate thread.

-- Red Square

The starting point was this post:

By Rich333
9/3/2005, 5:29 pm

...if you've ever read, and agreed with, anything written by John Locke, Richard Cantillon, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, or Ayn Rand.

...if you believe the individual is sovereign.

...if you believe the free market is working better than government ever did in Somalia.

...if you believe people own themselves.

...if you believe in private property.

...if you believe common law is better than civil law and ad hoc (e.g. party dictated) law.

...if you've ever used the terms "natural law" or "individual rights" in a non-mocking manner.

...if you believe government is unnecessary and wasteful.

...if you've ever used the term "free market anarchist" in a positive way, especially self-descriptively.

...if you believe the "individual good" is more important than the "common good".

...if you believe selfishness is a virtue.

...if you believe altruism is a vice.

...if you believe police, courts, and military services can and should be privatized.

...if you believe anything should be privatized.

...if you believe the only wild parts of the old American west were the parts with government, instead of a free market for law enforcement and courts, as much of the old west had prior to it being invaded by the Union Army in the late 1860s.

...if you've ever praised the Icelandic Commonwealth (circa 10th-13th centuries CE) and held it up as a positive example of a social system, while recognizing it as a long-lived, functional, and prosperous free market anarchy.

...if you believe that market value is based entirely on individual choice, which is itself based on subjective criteria, thus making the market unpredictable and thereby impossible to correctly centrally plan, ever.

...if you've ever claimed that the term "economics" historically, and correctly, refers solely to the scientific tradition from which the classically liberal political tradition was borne, thus implying free market advocacy and that Marx and Keynes were not "economists".

...if you believe that, when used by a socialist, the parade of horribles is still a logical fallacy.

...if you believe property predates government.

...if you, like a good little drone of the Collective, say the Citizen's Creed regularly, but do so only to mock those who clearly follow it religiously.

...if you believe governments are created by individuals and that, thus, they have no more legitimate authority than their creators and maintainers.

...if you believe the use of proxies for criminal action doesn't shield you from responsibility/liability for the crimes committed.

...if you believe slapping the label of "government" on a criminal organization, which survives on regular mass muggings called taxation, doesn't magically transmogrify said organization into something to be respected and worshipped.

...if you believe all "market failures" were/are really the result of government, and that free markets don't fail.

...if you believe competing self-interests balance each other out, leading to a civil and cooperative society.

This message was brought to you by the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue) - We Think, So You Don't Have To.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Enter Sister Massively Opiated:

... If you think Michael Brown is a useless pussy for emailing:

- "Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?" in response to Marty Bahamonde, one of the only FEMA employees in New Orleans, wrote to Brown that "the situation is past critical" and listed problems including many people near death and food and water running out at the Superdome.

- nothing... but only forwarding emails from Robert Fenton, a FEMA regional response official reporting severe shortages of ice and water in Mississippi. They were to receive 60 trucks of ice and 26 trucks of water the next day, even though they needed 450 trucks of each and predicting "serious riots" if insufficient supplies arrive... and otherwise completely failing to follow through.

- “I'm being told here water over not a breach." when he received reports from his people on the ground that “New Orleans FD is reporting a 20 foot wide breach on the lake ponchatrian levy. The area is lakeshore Blvd and 17th street.”. “Report that the levee in Arabi has failed next to the industrial canal.”, “A LEVEE BREACH OCCURRED ALONG THE INDUSTRIAL CANAL AT TENNESSE[E] STREET. 3 TO 8 FEET OF WATER IS EXPECTED DUE TO THE BREACH ... LOCATIONS IN THE WARNING INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO ARABI AND 9TH WARD OF NEW ORLEANS” (caps not mine)... and my personal favourite, from Marty Bahamonde in the New Orleans EOC (next to the superdome)
"- Severe flooding on the St. Bernard/Orleans parish line. Police report water level
up to second floor of two story houses. People are trapped in attics.
- Pumps starting to fail. The city has now confirmed four pumps are off line.
- Windows and parts of the east side of the Amaco building blown out.
- New Orleans shopping center (next to superdome) destroyed.
- Windows and parts of the East side of the Hyatt Hotel have been blown out. Furniture is blowing out of the hotel.
- Top floors of the Entergy building have been blown out
- Area around the Superdome is beginning to flood. We should have pictures shortly"
He's got FEMA people on the ground sending him these reports, and he responds, “I'm being told here water over not a breach."...

- Cindy Taylor, FEMA's deputy director of public affairs, the morning of the hurricane "Can I quit now? Can I come home?"

- to an acquaintance, "I'm trapped now, please rescue me.", a few days later

- about problems finding a dog-sitter, while pictures of corpses abandoned in New Orleans were shown over and over and over again on CNN

- to his press secretary, Sharon Worthy, about his attire, asking: "Tie or not for tonight? Button-down blue shirt?" A few days later, Worthy advised Brown: "Please roll up the sleeves of your shirt, all shirts. Even the president rolled his sleeves to just below the elbow. In this [crisis] and on TV you just need to look more hard-working."

- "I got it at Nordstroms. ... Are you proud of me?" when Taylor wrote to him "You look fabulous." ... oh come on!... he's clearly gay... ... An hour later, Brown added: "If you'll look at my lovely FEMA attire, you'll really vomit. I am a fashion god." ... as well as deluded

- nothing... for four days to an email with the subject line "medical help.", and then only forwarded the original e-mail to FEMA Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks Altshuler and Deputy Director of Response Michael Lowder, asking, "Can we use these people?" At the time, thousands of patients were being transported to the New Orleans airport, which had been converted to a makeshift hospital. Because of a lack of ventilators, medical personnel had to ventilate patients by hand for as long as 35 hours. The original email read, "Mike, Mickey and other medical equipment people have a 42-foot trailer full of beds, wheelchairs, oxygen concentrators, etc. They are wanting to take them where they can be used but need direction. Mickey specializes in ventilator patients so can be very helpful with acute care patients. If you could have someone contact him and let him know if he can be of service, he would appreciate it. Know you are busy but they really want to help." ... AND HE WAITED 4 (FOUR) DAYS TO ASK HIS UNDERLINGS, "Can we use these people?" ?!?!?

Yeah... I know I may catch some shit for this one, but as I'm alread guilty of many of the thought crimes listed by other members, it hardly matters... and I challenge anyone to argue that the guy isn't a useless boob who never should have had the job and made a complete fiasco of the entire thing until they shit-canned him (with pay - YOUR tax dollars in action). Before joining the Bush administration, Brown spent a decade as the stewards and judges commissioner of the International Arabian Horse Association... and now that he's back in the private sector, Arabian horses everywhere are trembling in their stalls. Yes... I know the emails were released by Rep. Charlie Melancon, a Democrat, but come on... Michael Brown should be jailed for mass negligent homicide, if such a charge exists.

Waiting to be purged,
S.M.O.

Rich333 wrote:...if you've ever read, and agreed with, anything written by... Ayn Rand.

...who for all her bluster about individualism and ability, had a lot of unacknowledged help from many many people.

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe the individual is sovereign.

... but still rely on the society you live in for some semblance of civility in your existance...

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe people own themselves.

...they don't? so then Roe v. Wade shouldn't be an issue and I should have the right to control my reproductive ability?

Rich333 wrote:....if you've ever used the terms "natural law" or "individual rights" in a non-mocking manner.

... or in a context that doesn't also refer to something you saw on National Geographic...

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe government is unnecessary and wasteful.

... whoa there cowboy... it ain't all bad... sewers and roads are sorta kewl, and 'someone' has to organize and find a way to pay for that...

Rich333 wrote:...if you've ever used the term "free market anarchist" in a positive way, especially self-descriptively.

... and weren't upper management at Enron? or Hooker Chemical?... so, I guess... if you've ever used the term Love Canal in a discussion that didn't have to do with environmental protection

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe the "individual good" is more important than the "common good".

... which begs the question, whose individual good? Osama's? Saddam's? Remember, Comrade, that it works both ways and that you can't suck and blow.

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe selfishness is a virtue.

Yeah! F**k everybody else!

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe altruism is a vice.

... that's it! I'm demanding all my donations to the Red Cross back! No more volunteering for me! And if someone tries to lend me a hand, I'll give them a shiv in the ribs! Suckers!

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe police, courts, and military services can and should be privatized.

... I'm pretty sure that in the case of the military, they're called "Mercenaries"... the problem is, they work for the highest bidder... you sure you have more money than your enemy? And in the case of the courts, I'm pretty sure that lady justice would become even less blind than she already is were the colour green to be introduced into the process - more than it already is... again - what if you're the poorer of the parties before a private court... sure you've thought this through completely to its end?

Rich333 wrote:...if you've ever praised the Icelandic Commonwealth (circa 10th-13th centuries CE) and held it up as a positive example of a social system, while recognizing it as a long-lived, functional, and prosperous free market anarchy.

... Oh... you're talking about Nazis! Sorry... was a little slow on the uptake there (wrote the blue-eyed, blonde, Jewess)...

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe that market value is based entirely on individual choice, which is itself based on subjective criteria, thus making the market unpredictable and thereby impossible to correctly centrally plan, ever....if you've ever claimed that the term "economics" historically, and correctly, refers solely to the scientific tradition from which the classically liberal political tradition was borne, thus implying free market advocacy and that Marx and Keynes were not "economists".

... what have you got against Keynes??

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe the use of proxies for criminal action doesn't shield you from responsibility/liability for the crimes committed.

... sorry... what happened to "selfishness is a virtue."... I think I missed a step there...

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe all "market failures" were/are really the result of government, and that free markets don't fail.

... then you haven't taken 'speculation' into account, or the imperfectness of information, unless it's insider information... but then that would be a "false" ad-hoc regulatory construct, wouldn't it?

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe competing self-interests balance each other out, leading to a civil and cooperative society.

... or occasionally a zero-sum game... because if the individual is paramount, and if selfishness is a virtue and altruism is a vice, then you've negated civility and cooperation... enlightened self-interest must at times include altruism. Civilization is a contruct, based on cooperative social contracting - so which is it? Selfishness or altruism? Things such as "markets" don't exist in a vacuum - they arise out of civilization and societies - groups of people working together out of enlightened self-interest... Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Waiting to be purged...
S.M.O.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you've ever read, and agreed with, anything written by... Ayn Rand.

...who for all her bluster about individualism and ability, had a lot of unacknowledged help from many many people.

All of those individuals chose to help her.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe the individual is sovereign.

... but still rely on the society you live in for some semblance of civility in your existance...

What civility? My neighbors, via a proxy, take what's mine by force, violating my sovereignty as an individual. I have an inherent and unalienable right to my person and other property; by virtue of that right being inherent and unalienable, I have sovereign authority over my person and other property. If you don't like the idea of individual sovereignty, try reading the Doctrine of Fascism by Gentile and Mussolini; you'd probably agree with most, if not all, of it.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe people own themselves.

...they don't? so then Roe v. Wade shouldn't be an issue and I should have the right to control my reproductive ability?

You own your person, however once the child begins to think (cogito ergo sum) around the fourth or fifth week, it owns its person. By right, you can do whatever you want with your person and other property, but your exercise of that right also entails the responsibility not to violate the same right of others.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:....if you've ever used the terms "natural law" or "individual rights" in a non-mocking manner.

... or in a context that doesn't also refer to something you saw on National Geographic...

Yep. Try reading The Law by Frédéric Bastiat, and The Ethics and Economics of Private Property by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, for more information.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe government is unnecessary and wasteful.

... whoa there cowboy... it ain't all bad... sewers and roads are sorta kewl, and 'someone' has to organize and find a way to pay for that...

Demonstrate how sewers and roads cannot be provided without resorting to force. They're both certainly useful, so by what magical force are they rendered unprofitable?

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you've ever used the term "free market anarchist" in a positive way, especially self-descriptively.

... and weren't upper management at Enron? or Hooker Chemical?... so, I guess... if you've ever used the term Love Canal in a discussion that didn't have to do with environmental protection

Myths About Enron

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe the "individual good" is more important than the "common good".

... which begs the question, whose individual good? Osama's? Saddam's? Remember, Comrade, that it works both ways and that you can't suck and blow.

Osama and Saddam have both violated the rights of other individuals. In the "individual good" way of thinking, such violations are always considered wrong. In the "common good" way of thinking, whether or not this violation was good is determined by what is "best" for the group. It was certainly for the "common good" that Socrates was murdered, as most Athenians wanted him dead for failing to properly respect their gods, but it was a violation of his rights and thus not in line with the "invidual good". If you prefer the "common good", I again recommend you read the Doctrine of Fascism, and further recommend you check out stormfront.org; you'll feel right at home.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe selfishness is a virtue.

Yeah! F**k everybody else!

Concern with one's own interests does NOT translate to "fuck everybody else". I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness; it's only seven bucks, and well worth reading.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe altruism is a vice.

... that's it! I'm demanding all my donations to the Red Cross back! No more volunteering for me! And if someone tries to lend me a hand, I'll give them a shiv in the ribs! Suckers!

Altruism holds that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil; by this perverse notion of morality, Hitler was a good guy because everything he did, he did for the benefit of Germany. Sacrificing one's self, or others, should not be a basic requirement of one's moral code; such "morality" has only ever bred injustice. It can be, and often is, in one's own interest to help others; charity and selfishness are not mutually exclusive.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe police, courts, and military services can and should be privatized.

... I'm pretty sure that in the case of the military, they're called "Mercenaries"... the problem is, they work for the highest bidder... you sure you have more money than your enemy? And in the case of the courts, I'm pretty sure that lady justice would become even less blind than she already is were the colour green to be introduced into the process - more than it already is... again - what if you're the poorer of the parties before a private court... sure you've thought this through completely to its end?

Try reading Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market; government doesn't magically provide any security which would not exist otherwise. Also, try learning about the Icelandic Commonwealth.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you've ever praised the Icelandic Commonwealth (circa 10th-13th centuries CE) and held it up as a positive example of a social system, while recognizing it as a long-lived, functional, and prosperous free market anarchy.

... Oh... you're talking about Nazis! Sorry... was a little slow on the uptake there (wrote the blue-eyed, blonde, Jewess)...

Yeah, 10th century Vikings were "Nazis". (Wrote the brown-eyed, brown-haired, gentile mutt.)

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe that market value is based entirely on individual choice, which is itself based on subjective criteria, thus making the market unpredictable and thereby impossible to correctly centrally plan, ever....if you've ever claimed that the term "economics" historically, and correctly, refers solely to the scientific tradition from which the classically liberal political tradition was borne, thus implying free market advocacy and that Marx and Keynes were not "economists".

... what have you got against Keynes??

FDR's Raw Deal comes to mind. How do you think FDR managed to pull off a recession during a depression? Ever look at the deficit? Ever notice how those Federal Reserve Notes are worth less every year? Keynes was an idiot. He should've read some Bastiat, particularly the "Credit" section of That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe the use of proxies for criminal action doesn't shield you from responsibility/liability for the crimes committed.

... sorry... what happened to "selfishness is a virtue."... I think I missed a step there...

No, you just don't understand the meaning of certain words, like selfishness. Again, I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe all "market failures" were/are really the result of government, and that free markets don't fail.

... then you haven't taken 'speculation' into account, or the imperfectness of information, unless it's insider information... but then that would be a "false" ad-hoc regulatory construct, wouldn't it?

Yes, insider information is an ad-hoc regulatory construct, which essentially turns the stock market into a casino. If you're defining "market failure" as the failure of businesses, then there is market failure, however I'd define that as market success; if businesses fail in a free market, it's because there isn't much interest in what they're selling, or those running them have no business being in charge of anything, so in either case a waste of resources is eliminated. The market, when you get right down to it, is just individuals, all acting in the pursuit of their own happiness, using the means they perceive as optimal. Unless you're simply a sociopath who thinks slaughtering or enslaving others will make you happy, the rational way to go about such a pursuit is through voluntary relationships, such as trade. Only savages, such as Stalin and yourself, resort to the violence of government.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe competing self-interests balance each other out, leading to a civil and cooperative society.

... or occasionally a zero-sum game... because if the individual is paramount, and if selfishness is a virtue and altruism is a vice, then you've negated civility and cooperation... enlightened self-interest must at times include altruism. Civilization is a contruct, based on cooperative social contracting - so which is it? Selfishness or altruism? Things such as "markets" don't exist in a vacuum - they arise out of civilization and societies - groups of people working together out of enlightened self-interest... Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You've totally misunderstood the meaning of the terms "seflishness" and "altruism". If the individual is not paramount, then what argument can there be against lynch mobs? If the very existance of the individual being lynched offends the sensibilities of those around him or her, is it not for the "common good" that they be eliminated? If the individual is paramount, selfishness is a virtue, and altruism is a vice, then civility and cooperation are not negated, because the rational pursuit of one's own interests requires both.

Altruism is not simply about being charitable, it's about a total selflessness which makes it a logically inconsistent moral philosophy. If one is truly altruistic, he or she must then starve themself to death, so that the food and water they might otherwise consume may be used by others. Rational self-interest does sometimes require charity, but that is not the same as altruism.
<br>Civilization is made up of individuals, all acting in the pursuit of their own interests (or at least they should be), and when they cooperate they do so because that is the optimal means by which they may achieve that which they wish to achieve. The market exists wherever there is more than one individual; a market existed between the first human mother and child, with each providing something to the other in exchange for something else. Profit isn't just measured in gold bullion, as that is just a convenient abstraction. Profit is an increase in individual happiness, in one's security, or one's entertainment, or one's food supply, or the propagation of one's genome, or whatever else one might need or want. The market, as a whole, is the collective expression of all individual wants and needs, balanced against the wants and needs of others, in a world of scarce resources and boundless ingenuity; it is the only means by which a civil cooperative society may exist because that is what it is by definition. Try reading Human Action by Ludwig von Mises if you want to understand the market.

massively opiated wrote:Waiting to be purged...
S.M.O.

Why would you be purged? You're already an excellent drone.

Rich333 wrote:If you don't like the idea of individual sovereignty, try reading the Doctrine of Fascism by Gentile and Mussolini; you'd probably agree with most, if not all, of it.

You haven't a clue what I'd agree with or not agree with, to any degree. Nor have you any way of knowing what I have or have not read, or experienced. You don't know me and I don't know you, but your tone is a mite angry, and so I'm going to infer that when someone questions your opinions, even jokingly, perhaps you feel it's an attack on you personally. Since I'm someone who isn't defined solely by my opinions (opinions which can change as I grow as a person and learn from experience and knowledge gained), I'll choose not to be angry that a complete stranger decided on the basis of a single post that I'm a facist.

Rich333 wrote:You own your person, however once the child begins to think (cogito ergo sum) around the fourth or fifth week, it owns its person. By right, you can do whatever you want with your person and other property, but your exercise of that right also entails the responsibility not to violate the same right of others.

Granted, the first neurons begin to differentiate at around week five, but that hardly adds up to "I think, therefore I am." There are many different historical and cultural points of view regarding when life begins - even changing within the Catholic church over time. Some philosophers believe that it's only after the 20th week that rational thought is even possible (see: When Does Human Life Begin?). All that said, don't presume that I'd have an abortion - just because I believe other women have the right to choose, does not mean it is the choice I would make for myself.

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:....if you've ever used the terms "natural law" or "individual rights" in a non-mocking manner.

... or in a context that doesn't also refer to something you saw on National Geographic...

Yep. Try reading The Law by Frédéric Bastiat, and The Ethics and Economics of Private Property by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, for more information.

And try not to assume you know what I have or have not read. I, at least, granted you the respect of assuming you were well-read... I made the mistake of assuming you could take a joke. I'll not make the mistake again.

Rich333 wrote:Demonstrate how sewers and roads cannot be provided without resorting to force. They're both certainly useful, so by what magical force are they rendered unprofitable?

As I finished by saying, don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. I'm sorry that I'm such a facist that I don't view taxation for the purposes of maintaining roads and sewers as 'force'... or perhaps it's a lack of intellectual facism... a liberal addlepatedness resulting from my clearly mushy brains... I apologize profusely for my lack of intellectual rigor... my unforgivable deficit of cerebral weightiness... I was under the clearly mistaken impression that public works in relation to sanitation might actually be a good thing... part of the wonders of Western Civilization handed down to us by the ancients..

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you've ever used the term "free market anarchist" in a positive way, especially self-descriptively.

... and weren't upper management at Enron? or Hooker Chemical?... so, I guess... if you've ever used the term Love Canal in a discussion that didn't have to do with environmental protection

Myths About Enron

Again... apparently the joke was missed... my sincere apologies for not typing my post with a heavier mallet...

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe the "individual good" is more important than the "common good".

... which begs the question, whose individual good? Osama's? Saddam's? Remember, Comrade, that it works both ways and that you can't suck and blow.

Osama and Saddam have both violated the rights of other individuals. In the "individual good" way of thinking, such violations are always considered wrong. In the "common good" way of thinking, whether or not this violation was good is determined by what is "best" for the group. It was certainly for the "common good" that Socrates was murdered, as most Athenians wanted him dead for failing to properly respect their gods, but it was a violation of his rights and thus not in line with the "invidual good". If you prefer the "common good", I again recommend you read the Doctrine of Fascism, and further recommend you check out stormfront.org; you'll feel right at home.

I stand by what I wrote. I don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive, and I believe that a balance is required.

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe selfishness is a virtue.

Yeah! F**k everybody else!

Concern with one's own interests does NOT translate to "fuck everybody else". I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness; it's only seven bucks, and well worth reading.

Dictionary... definition... selfishness:
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

I have this 'thing' about language... The English language is the richest in existence, with over 250,000 words. It grants us a gift of specificity that is as close as we can come as humans to 'sharing thoughts' absolutely, removing as much as is possible misunderstanding and allowing a clarity of communication that is too often squandered. The misuse of language, of words... the twisting of meaning, only debases the currency of that language. So, when you write 'selfishness', assume I'll understand it as it's defined in the dictionary, and not as you choose to use it.

Dictionary... definition... Joke:
1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting : KIDDING <can't take a joke> c : PRACTICAL JOKE d : LAUGHINGSTOCK
2 : something not to be taken seriously : a trifling matter

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe altruism is a vice.

... that's it! I'm demanding all my donations to the Red Cross back! No more volunteering for me! And if someone tries to lend me a hand, I'll give them a shiv in the ribs! Suckers!

Altruism holds that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one's own benefit is evil; by this perverse notion of morality, Hitler was a good guy because everything he did, he did for the benefit of Germany. Sacrificing one's self, or others, should not be a basic requirement of one's moral code; such "morality" has only ever bred injustice. It can be, and often is, in one's own interest to help others; charity and selfishness are not mutually exclusive.

Dictionary... definition... altruism:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Nowhere in this definition do I see the word 'evil'. And I don't believe that altruism and 'self-concern' are mutually exclusive... and... JOKE...

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe police, courts, and military services can and should be privatized.

... I'm pretty sure that in the case of the military, they're called "Mercenaries"... the problem is, they work for the highest bidder... you sure you have more money than your enemy? And in the case of the courts, I'm pretty sure that lady justice would become even less blind than she already is were the colour green to be introduced into the process - more than it already is... again - what if you're the poorer of the parties before a private court... sure you've thought this through completely to its end?

Try reading Justice Entrepreneurship In a Free Market; government doesn't magically provide any security which would not exist otherwise. Also, try learning about the Icelandic Commonwealth.

Oh... believe me. I well aware that government does not provide security. If you've read any of my other posts, you'd know that. But then, as I've said, you don't have a clue who I am, and have presumed to think you do from a single post.

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you've ever praised the Icelandic Commonwealth (circa 10th-13th centuries CE) and held it up as a positive example of a social system, while recognizing it as a long-lived, functional, and prosperous free market anarchy.

... Oh... you're talking about Nazis! Sorry... was a little slow on the uptake there (wrote the blue-eyed, blonde, Jewess)...

Yeah, 10th century Vikings were "Nazis". (Wrote the brown-eyed, brown-haired, gentile mutt.)

Of course they weren't. Are you always this profoundly overly earnest? It was a FREAKING JOKE!

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe that market value is based entirely on individual choice....thus implying free market advocacy and that Marx and Keynes were not "economists".

... what have you got against Keynes??

FDR's Raw Deal comes to mind. How do you think FDR managed to pull off a recession during a depression? Ever look at the deficit? Ever notice how those Federal Reserve Notes are worth less every year? Keynes was an idiot. He should've read some Bastiat, particularly the "Credit" section of That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen.

Yes.. yes.. apparently everyone should have read Bastiat... and yes.. I've actually read That Which is Not Seen... It was required reading for a post-grad course in Auditing, of all things. But then, I studied Accounting, Econ and Ethics, so I guess it wasn't such a strange thing. I actually share his mistrust of government, as much as I dislike Keynes' support of interventionist policy, but I am able to recognize that some of Keynes' ideas have lead to (in my opinion) decent predictive tools... and that Bastiat was of his time. The guy died in 1850. And the world has evolved - markets have evolved (or at least I am of the opinion that they have)... and technology has evolved to create the potential for faster transfer of information, and for greater degrees of manipulation. As I've said, you have no idea who I am or what I believe, and couldn't possibly have gleaned enough about me from a single post to have made the judgements you appear to have made.

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:...if you believe the use of proxies for criminal action doesn't shield you from responsibility/liability for the crimes committed.

... sorry... what happened to "selfishness is a virtue."... I think I missed a step there...

No, you just don't understand the meaning of certain words, like selfishness. Again, I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness.

No... I don't understand your definition of the word selfishness. I understand the one in the dictionary perfectly.

Rich333 wrote:Yes, insider information is an ad-hoc regulatory construct, which essentially turns the stock market into a casino. If you're defining "market failure" as the failure of businesses, then there is market failure, however I'd define that as market success; if businesses fail in a free market, it's because there isn't much interest in what they're selling, or those running them have no business being in charge of anything, so in either case a waste of resources is eliminated. The market, when you get right down to it, is just individuals, all acting in the pursuit of their own happiness, using the means they perceive as optimal. Unless you're simply a sociopath who thinks slaughtering or enslaving others will make you happy, the rational way to go about such a pursuit is through voluntary relationships, such as trade. Only savages, such as Stalin and yourself, resort to the violence of government.

Goodness... my parents will be so disappointed to know they raised Stalin... and here I was under the misguided assumption that I was a decent human being... It's never actually ocurred to me to slaughter or enslave others... which begs the question, where are you getting this from?

Rich333 wrote:You've totally misunderstood the meaning of the terms "seflishness" and "altruism". If the individual is not paramount, then what argument can there be against lynch mobs? If the very existance of the individual being lynched offends the sensibilities of those around him or her, is it not for the "common good" that they be eliminated? If the individual is paramount, selfishness is a virtue, and altruism is a vice, then civility and cooperation are not negated, because the rational pursuit of one's own interests requires both.

Altruism is not simply about being charitable, it's about a total selflessness which makes it a logically inconsistent moral philosophy. If one is truly altruistic, he or she must then starve themself to death, so that the food and water they might otherwise consume may be used by others. Rational self-interest does sometimes require charity, but that is not the same as altruism.
<br>Civilization is made up of individuals, all acting in the pursuit of their own interests (or at least they should be), and when they cooperate they do so because that is the optimal means by which they may achieve that which they wish to achieve. The market exists wherever there is more than one individual; a market existed between the first human mother and child, with each providing something to the other in exchange for something else. Profit isn't just measured in gold bullion, as that is just a convenient abstraction. Profit is an increase in individual happiness, in one's security, or one's entertainment, or one's food supply, or the propagation of one's genome, or whatever else one might need or want. The market, as a whole, is the collective expression of all individual wants and needs, balanced against the wants and needs of others, in a world of scarce resources and boundless ingenuity; it is the only means by which a civil cooperative society may exist because that is what it is by definition. Try reading Human Action by Ludwig von Mises if you want to understand the market.

massively opiated wrote:Waiting to be purged...
S.M.O.

Why would you be purged? You're already an excellent drone.

Wow... apparently I have completely misunderstood the meanings of the terms.... I'll have to stop operating under the misapprehension that 'selfishness' and 'altruism' mean what the dictionary says they do (I guess it's my drone-ness showing... ). Or maybe I'm simpy too much of a drone to puzzle it all out. Lynch mobs? I guess I don't go around lynching people because I don't want to be lynched - a metric I apply to my behaviour as a matter of course, because unlike your unfounded and reactionary assessment of me, I'm not a facist or a sociopath or a drone. How you could actually infer enough from my post to make those judgements of me is beyond me, though I can, with certainty, say that there was enough information in your reply for me to infer that you're an insecure ass who holds his opinions a little too closely to his ego, to the point where they define who he is... I generally don't like to psychoanalyze others - as I don't like having it done to me and find it disrespectful (there's that metric again) - but you opened that door when you likened me to Stalin, so pardon me for having at it. It's been my experience that when a person's opinions come to define them to the point that any dissent is seen as a personal attack on them, and they react by lashing out beyond what it called for, that that individual is often in possession of a massive ego developed as a protective response to equally massive insecurities... I know it won't help, but I'll have a try at it anyway... Rich333. It's okay for people to disagree with you... even to joke. It doesn't mean they think less of you as a person. But when you attack people and call them names, people often won't like you very much.

All the best!
Your Droning Stalinist Psychopathic Lynching obviously cretinous Comrade,
S.M.O.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:If you don't like the idea of individual sovereignty, try reading the Doctrine of Fascism by Gentile and Mussolini; you'd probably agree with most, if not all, of it.

You haven't a clue what I'd agree with or not agree with, to any degree. Nor have you any way of knowing what I have or have not read, or experienced. You don't know me and I don't know you, but your tone is a mite angry, and so I'm going to infer that when someone questions your opinions, even jokingly, perhaps you feel it's an attack on you personally. Since I'm someone who isn't defined solely by my opinions (opinions which can change as I grow as a person and learn from experience and knowledge gained), I'll choose not to be angry that a complete stranger decided on the basis of a single post that I'm a facist.

So you don't like the idea of individual sovereignty, but you aren't a fascist?

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:You own your person, however once the child begins to think (cogito ergo sum) around the fourth or fifth week, it owns its person. By right, you can do whatever you want with your person and other property, but your exercise of that right also entails the responsibility not to violate the same right of others.

Granted, the first neurons begin to differentiate at around week five, but that hardly adds up to "I think, therefore I am." There are many different historical and cultural points of view regarding when life begins - even changing within the Catholic church over time. Some philosophers believe that it's only after the 20th week that rational thought is even possible (see: When Does Human Life Begin?). All that said, don't presume that I'd have an abortion - just because I believe other women have the right to choose, does not mean it is the choice I would make for myself.

Actually, the neurons begin to differentiate in the third to fourth week. When it is capable of rational thought is irrelevant, imo, as most people can't even manage that as fully grown adults; it's still a thinking member of a sapient species.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:Yep. Try reading The Law by Frédéric Bastiat, and The Ethics and Economics of Private Property by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, for more information.

And try not to assume you know what I have or have not read. I, at least, granted you the respect of assuming you were well-read... I made the mistake of assuming you could take a joke. I'll not make the mistake again.

Humor doesn't translate well on here, and I clarified what I meant by "natural law" because it was unclear from your response as to whether or not you understood my intention.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:Demonstrate how sewers and roads cannot be provided without resorting to force. They're both certainly useful, so by what magical force are they rendered unprofitable?

As I finished by saying, don't throw the baby out with the bath-water. I'm sorry that I'm such a facist that I don't view taxation for the purposes of maintaining roads and sewers as 'force'... or perhaps it's a lack of intellectual facism... a liberal addlepatedness resulting from my clearly mushy brains... I apologize profusely for my lack of intellectual rigor... my unforgivable deficit of cerebral weightiness... I was under the clearly mistaken impression that public works in relation to sanitation might actually be a good thing... part of the wonders of Western Civilization handed down to us by the ancients..

Taxation is always force; it is a forcible siezure of private property. Roads and sewers are great things to have, just as farms are great things to have, but the assertion that any of them must be provided by force is a positive claim with no supporting evidence or argument.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:Myths About Enron

Again... apparently the joke was missed... my sincere apologies for not typing my post with a heavier mallet...

As I stated above, humor does not translate well here; using smilies might help a bit.

massively opiated wrote:I stand by what I wrote. I don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive, and I believe that a balance is required.

The "common good" must, of necessity, violate the "individual good", but the reverse is not true. The "common good" is nothing but a code word for human sacrifice.

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:Yeah! F**k everybody else!

<br>Concern with one's own interests does NOT translate to "fuck everybody else". I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness; it's only seven bucks, and well worth reading.

Dictionary... definition... selfishness:
1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

I have this 'thing' about language... The English language is the richest in existence, with over 250,000 words. It grants us a gift of specificity that is as close as we can come as humans to 'sharing thoughts' absolutely, removing as much as is possible misunderstanding and allowing a clarity of communication that is too often squandered. The misuse of language, of words... the twisting of meaning, only debases the currency of that language. So, when you write 'selfishness', assume I'll understand it as it's defined in the dictionary, and not as you choose to use it.

So then what is the word for "concern for one's own interests"? Fifty years ago, it was "selfishness". The addition of the "without regard for others" part is relatively recent, and a result of the efforts of altruists to corrupt the term to mean what they want it to mean. The term has been redefined to include the altruistic value judgement that concern for one's self is evil. Apparently, now, there is no word which simply means "concern for one's own interests"; such was not always the case.

massively opiated wrote:Dictionary... definition... altruism:
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Nowhere in this definition do I see the word 'evil'. And I don't believe that altruism and 'self-concern' are mutually exclusive... and... JOKE...

Altruism is the antonym of selfishness, which IS concern for one's own interests, so they are mutually exclusive. The altruist moral philosophy does consider self-concern to be evil, and it pervades every aspect of our culture today. An individual who works hard and builds a fortune is considered morally equivalent to a thief, as both act in their own interests, but an individual who acts only in the interests of others is considered virtuous by the prevailing standard of morality. Sadistic sociopaths like Mother Theresa or Che Gueverra are considered to be great moral figures, while hard working businessmen like Jack Welsh are considered to be greedy assholes, no different from your average mugger in moral character.

massively opiated wrote:Oh... believe me. I well aware that government does not provide security. If you've read any of my other posts, you'd know that. But then, as I've said, you don't have a clue who I am, and have presumed to think you do from a single post.

So if government doesn't provide any security that would not otherwise exist, how does your argument against privatization of security make any sense? Either security is attained for the individual by the individual, or it is attained for the individual by the state. The notion that the latter can be the case is nothing but superstitious nonsense, so it would seem that the former would be the viable case. Is it simply your contention that individual security cannot exist at all?

massively opiated wrote:Of course they weren't. Are you always this profoundly overly earnest? It was a FREAKING JOKE!

There wasn't anything in your post to indicate that it was a joke.

massively opiated wrote:Yes.. yes.. apparently everyone should have read Bastiat... and yes.. I've actually read That Which is Not Seen... It was required reading for a post-grad course in Auditing, of all things. But then, I studied Accounting, Econ and Ethics, so I guess it wasn't such a strange thing. I actually share his mistrust of government, as much as I dislike Keynes' support of interventionist policy, but I am able to recognize that some of Keynes' ideas have lead to (in my opinion) decent predictive tools... and that Bastiat was of his time. The guy died in 1850. And the world has evolved - markets have evolved (or at least I am of the opinion that they have)... and technology has evolved to create the potential for faster transfer of information, and for greater degrees of manipulation. As I've said, you have no idea who I am or what I believe, and couldn't possibly have gleaned enough about me from a single post to have made the judgements you appear to have made.

The market is individuals acting in the pursuit of their own happiness; the specifics of what they pursue may have changed, but the nature of the pursuit has not. How can you predict what will make me happy?

massively opiated wrote:

Rich333 wrote:No, you just don't understand the meaning of certain words, like selfishness. Again, I suggest you read The Virtue of Selfishness.

No... I don't understand your definition of the word selfishness. I understand the one in the dictionary perfectly.

"My" definition was the dictionary definition not too long ago. Sorry, but I'm not a big fan of newspeak revisions to the language.

massively opiated wrote:Goodness... my parents will be so disappointed to know they raised Stalin... and here I was under the misguided assumption that I was a decent human being... It's never actually ocurred to me to slaughter or enslave others... which begs the question, where are you getting this from?

Oh, that's right, you just have others do it for you. My bad.

massively opiated wrote:Wow... apparently I have completely misunderstood the meanings of the terms.... I'll have to stop operating under the misapprehension that 'selfishness' and 'altruism' mean what the dictionary says they do (I guess it's my drone-ness showing... ). Or maybe I'm simpy too much of a drone to puzzle it all out.

Look up newspeak. Dictionaries have changed to reflect the meanings of certain words liberty-haters want them to mean. Find me the word that simply means "concern for one's own interests", and its antonym, and I'll use those instead. I doubt you'll be able to find them, because they no longer exist.

massively opiated wrote:Lynch mobs? I guess I don't go around lynching people because I don't want to be lynched - a metric I apply to my behaviour as a matter of course, because unlike your unfounded and reactionary assessment of me, I'm not a facist or a sociopath or a drone.

So you don't lynch people out of selfishness. Same here.

massively opiated wrote:How you could actually infer enough from my post to make those judgements of me is beyond me, though I can, with certainty, say that there was enough information in your reply for me to infer that you're an insecure ass who holds his opinions a little too closely to his ego, to the point where they define who he is... I generally don't like to psychoanalyze others - as I don't like having it done to me and find it disrespectful (there's that metric again) - but you opened that door when you likened me to Stalin, so pardon me for having at it.

I didn't psychoanalyze you, I responded to your positions. As for the Stalin comment, what was it you were saying about jokes?

massively opiated wrote:It's been my experience that when a person's opinions come to define them to the point that any dissent is seen as a personal attack on them, and they react by lashing out beyond what it called for, that that individual is often in possession of a massive ego developed as a protective response to equally massive insecurities... I know it won't help, but I'll have a try at it anyway... Rich333.

Let me see if I got this straight. Being rabidly pro-liberty - opposed to any and all forms of collectivism - makes me massively insecure, with a massive ego. Is that about right?

massively opiated wrote:It's okay for people to disagree with you... even to joke. It doesn't mean they think less of you as a person. But when you attack people and call them names, people often won't like you very much.

I don't particularly care about being liked, I care about being free, and I find opposition to liberty offensive.

Rich333 wrote:So you don't like the idea of individual sovereignty, but you aren't a fascist?

Rich333 wrote:Actually, the neurons begin to differentiate in the third to fourth week. When it is capable of rational thought is irrelevant, imo, as most people can't even manage that as fully grown adults; it's still a thinking member of a sapient species.

Rich333 wrote:I clarified what I meant by "natural law" because it was unclear from your response as to whether or not you understood my intention.

Rich333 wrote:Taxation is always force; it is a forcible siezure of private property. Roads and sewers are great things to have, just as farms are great things to have, but the assertion that any of them must be provided by force is a positive claim with no supporting evidence or argument.

Rich333 wrote:The "common good" must, of necessity, violate the "individual good", but the reverse is not true. The "common good" is nothing but a code word for human sacrifice.

Rich333 wrote:Altruism is the antonym of selfishness, which IS concern for one's own interests, so they are mutually exclusive. The altruist moral philosophy does consider self-concern to be evil, and it pervades every aspect of our culture today. An individual who works hard and builds a fortune is considered morally equivalent to a thief, as both act in their own interests, but an individual who acts only in the interests of others is considered virtuous by the prevailing standard of morality. Sadistic sociopaths like Mother Theresa or Che Gueverra are considered to be great moral figures, while hard working businessmen like Jack Welsh are considered to be greedy assholes, no different from your average mugger in moral character.

Rich333 wrote:So if government doesn't provide any security that would not otherwise exist, how does your argument against privatization of security make any sense? Either security is attained for the individual by the individual, or it is attained for the individual by the state. The notion that the latter can be the case is nothing but superstitious nonsense, so it would seem that the former would be the viable case. Is it simply your contention that individual security cannot exist at all?

Rich333 wrote:The market is individuals acting in the pursuit of their own happiness; the specifics of what they pursue may have changed, but the nature of the pursuit has not. How can you predict what will make me happy?

Rich333 wrote:"My" definition was the dictionary definition not too long ago. Sorry, but I'm not a big fan of newspeak revisions to the language.

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:... and here I was under the misguided assumption that I was a decent human being... It's never actually ocurred to me to slaughter or enslave others... which begs the question, where are you getting this from?

Oh, that's right, you just have others do it for you. My bad.

Rich333 wrote:Look up newspeak. Dictionaries have changed to reflect the meanings of certain words liberty-haters want them to mean. Find me the word that simply means "concern for one's own interests", and its antonym, and I'll use those instead. I doubt you'll be able to find them, because they no longer exist.

Rich333 wrote:

massively opiated wrote:Lynch mobs? I guess I don't go around lynching people because I don't want to be lynched - a metric I apply to my behaviour as a matter of course, because unlike your unfounded and reactionary assessment of me, I'm not a facist or a sociopath or a drone.

So you don't lynch people out of selfishness. Same here.

No Rich333 - let me be clearer. I don't lynch people at all, nor slaughter or enslave others, nor have anyone do it for me.

Rich333 wrote:I didn't psychoanalyze you, I responded to your positions. As for the Stalin comment, what was it you were saying about jokes?

Rich333 wrote:Let me see if I got this straight. Being rabidly pro-liberty - opposed to any and all forms of collectivism - makes me massively insecure, with a massive ego. Is that about right?

Rich333 wrote:I don't particularly care about being liked, I care about being free, and I find opposition to liberty offensive.

Congratulations Rich333 - You Have a Manifesto! It doesn't actually contain any original ideas, but it's a bouncing baby manifesto nonetheless.

There is actually a reasonable place for government in a free society, albeit much more limited than it is. You yourself said, "as most people can't even manage (rational thought) as fully grown adults." And yet you want to rely on the "selfishness" of others who aren't capable of the same level of rational thought as you to be self-controlling in how they treat with you. Now I understand why you talk about lynching and slaughter and enslavement of others so much - it's the only way you'd be able to defend yourself.

I'm glad to know you're not interested in being 'liked'. You're an intellectual Fascist. I just don't think you'd survive long in the world you want to build.