Author Topic: George Will going off on his libertarian nonsense yet again (Read 3945 times)

BitDudeX · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2014, 08:33:04 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: BitDudeX
Private law, arbitrators.

The government is needed to keep the peace and order of society. That is a logical fact and only an anarchist thinks otherwise.

Quote
Taxes are stealing.

Taxes are needed to raise revenue for the government to run efficiently.

Quote
lol

Good grasp of the English language there. I would suggest you read Rerum Novarum and see Pope Leo XIII himself said that the government should be used to support social justice.

Quote
sɛҳuąƖ Orgies? What in heavens name are you taling about?

I am speaking of libertarianism's social liberalism.

Quote
Wow you sound like a socialist.

If we want to use name-calling here you sound like a liberal and are basically a mirror-Marxist since you see man as an economic animal.

Quote
Libertarianism is the only logical choice.

For an anarchist, drug-user, and a pimp perhaps.

>Taxes are needed to raise revenue for the government to run efficiently.

It's still stealing.

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: BitDudeX
I actually feel psychically sick from reading this post.

Statists are insane.

To see a libertarian admit defeat brings a smile to my face. Libertarians are insane.

How so.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2014, 08:44:10 PM »

Quote from: BitDudeX

It's still stealing.

No it's not. If you are a citizen of a nation you are required to support its government.

Quote

How so.

There has never been a successful society built on democratic capitalism. In fact all socities in history have been their most successful built on repression, autocracy, mercantilism, authoritarianism, etc.

BitDudeX · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2014, 08:55:45 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: BitDudeX
It's still stealing.

No it's not. If you are a citizen of a nation you are required to support its government.

Quote
How so.

There has never been a successful society built on democratic capitalism. In fact all socities in history have been their most successful built on repression, autocracy, mercantilism, authoritarianism, etc.

>No it's not. If you are a citizen of a nation you are required to support its government.

So the government taking someones salary(which the government did not work for) is not considered stealing? It is an act of aggression against an individual.

>There has never been a successful society built on democratic capitalism. In fact all socities in history have been their most successful built on repression, autocracy, mercantilism, authoritarianism, etc.

"Successful Society"

Why would you want a successful society? I do not think the idea of society is good. Society is a form of collectivism. It exists to take away the individuality of person. There is nothing wrong with communities though.

You really do believe that centralizing all the power into the hands of one individual is a good idea? How would you be able to trust someone like that?

Also explain to me how authoritarianism is good.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2014, 09:09:51 PM »

Quote from: BitDudeX

So the government taking someones salary(which the government did not work for) is not considered stealing? It is an act of aggression against an individual.

The individual worked for his salary for the society or community as a whole. You see the individual working for his own self-interest but no the individual works for the common good of society since he is just a cog in the machine of the community.

Quote

Why would you want a successful society? I do not think the idea of society is good. Society is a form of collectivism. It exists to take away the individuality of person. There is nothing wrong with communities though.

No you would see something wrong with a community since you see simply the self-interest of the individual instead of the good of the community. So according to the good of the community everyone does not have the right to do what they want.

Quote

You really do believe that centralizing all the power into the hands of one individual is a good idea? How would you be able to trust someone like that?

Well obviously you wouldn't want power going to someone on the Left but I do support right-wing tyrants like Franco or Pinochet.

Quote

Also explain to me how authoritarianism is good.

The individual more often than not, does not know what is best for him and so the leader should tell the individaul what is needed for him or her to help the society. Democracy, putting power in the hands of a mob, is shown to be a failure.

BitDudeX · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2014, 09:19:36 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: BitDudeX
So the government taking someones salary(which the government did not work for) is not considered stealing? It is an act of aggression against an individual.

The individual worked for his salary for the society or community as a whole. You see the individual working for his own self-interest but no the individual works for the common good of society since he is just a cog in the machine of the community.

Quote
Why would you want a successful society? I do not think the idea of society is good. Society is a form of collectivism. It exists to take away the individuality of person. There is nothing wrong with communities though.

No you would see something wrong with a community since you see simply the self-interest of the individual instead of the good of the community. So according to the good of the community everyone does not have the right to do what they want.

Quote
You really do believe that centralizing all the power into the hands of one individual is a good idea? How would you be able to trust someone like that?

Well obviously you wouldn't want power going to someone on the Left but I do support right-wing tyrants like Franco or Pinochet.

Quote
Also explain to me how authoritarianism is good.

The individual more often than not, does not know what is best for him and so the leader should tell the individaul what is needed for him or her to help the society. Democracy, putting power in the hands of a mob, is shown to be a failure.

>The individual worked for his salary for the society or community as a whole. You see the individual working for his own self-interest but no the individual works for the common good of society since he is just a cog in the machine of the community.

There is no such thing as a common good(If you can define it for my it would be most helpful). That sounds like crypto-leftwing propaganda.

>Well obviously you wouldn't want power going to someone on the Left but I do support right-wing tyrants like Franco or Pinochet.

Why? Both left and right are wrong.

>The individual more often than not, does not know what is best for him and so the leader should tell the individaul what is needed for him or her to help the society. Democracy, putting power in the hands of a mob, is shown to be a failure.

I do not trust anyone else except my self(and my peers/friends/family) to tell me what is best for me.

I'm not super pro-democracy. I'm more for small communities where everything is privately owned and there is a free-market. Each man does what he see's as fit to be done.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2014, 09:28:37 PM »

Quote from: BitDudeX

There is no such thing as a common good(If you can define it for my it would be most helpful). That sounds like crypto-leftwing propaganda.

There is such a thing as a common good where as many members of society are taken care of as possible. And actually you are using left-wing propaganda since liberals like Adam Smith, Bastiat, Cobden, etc. argued that the individual's self-interest should navigate outside what is good for the community.

Quote

Why? Both left and right are wrong.

So both Franco and Pinochet were wrong to fight Communism?

Quote

I do not trust anyone else except my self(and my peers/friends/family) to tell me what is best for me.

You are thinking only of yourself then and do not see the community at large and see that sacrifices by you must be made to ensure the maximum happiness of all members of the society.

Quote

I'm not super pro-democracy. I'm more for small communities where everything is privately owned and there is a free-market. Each man does what he see's as fit to be done.

The people do not work for the market, the market works for the people. And government is needed to shape the thoughts and attitudes of the people. I do think small businesses are good but I do not support Big Business which simply has profit-seeking impulses.

BitDudeX · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2014, 09:36:09 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: BitDudeX
There is no such thing as a common good(If you can define it for my it would be most helpful). That sounds like crypto-leftwing propaganda.

There is such a thing as a common good where as many members of society are taken care of as possible. And actually you are using left-wing propaganda since liberals like Adam Smith, Bastiat, Cobden, etc. argued that the individual's self-interest should navigate outside what is good for the community.

Quote
Why? Both left and right are wrong.

So both Franco and Pinochet were wrong to fight Communism?

Quote
I do not trust anyone else except my self(and my peers/friends/family) to tell me what is best for me.

You are thinking only of yourself then and do not see the community at large and see that sacrifices by you must be made to ensure the maximum happiness of all members of the society.

Quote
I'm not super pro-democracy. I'm more for small communities where everything is privately owned and there is a free-market. Each man does what he see's as fit to be done.

The people do not work for the market, the market works for the people. And government is needed to shape the thoughts and attitudes of the people. I do think small businesses are good but I do not support Big Business which simply has profit-seeking impulses.

>There is such a thing as a common good where as many members of society are taken care of as possible. And actually you are using left-wing propaganda since liberals like Adam Smith, Bastiat, Cobden, etc. argued that the individual's self-interest should navigate outside what is good for the community.

Each person is responsible for taking care of himself. It isn't "society's" responsibility to take care of everyone(though there is nothing wrong with choosing to do so)

Each person has a right to pursue self-interest as long as it does not violate the NAP.

>So both Franco and Pinochet were wrong to fight Communism?
No.

>You are thinking only of yourself then and do not see the community at large and see that sacrifices by you must be made to ensure the maximum happiness of all members of the society.

It's not my responsibility. I will choose to help them on my own free will. Not because some big sloth government told me so.

>The people do not work for the market, the market works for the people. And government is needed to shape the thoughts and attitudes of the people. I do think small businesses are good but I do not support Big Business which simply has profit-seeking impulses

Neither am I.
Big government(which you are advocating for) and big business go hand in hand.
What gives you the right to tell an individual: "Don't work in your own self interest!!! THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE!!!!"
It's extremely arrogant.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2014, 10:13:41 PM »

Quote from: BitDudeX

Each person is responsible for taking care of himself. It isn't "society's" responsibility to take care of everyone(though there is nothing wrong with choosing to do so)

Each person has a right to pursue self-interest as long as it does not violate the NAP.

Well some of those who are poor are incapable of taking care of themselves, considering they are unsure if they can keep their jobs and have their wages decreased. It has to do with their circuмstances, not that they are unable to take care of themselves.

Quote

It's not my responsibility. I will choose to help them on my own free will. Not because some big sloth government told me so.

It is your responsibility as you are a member of the community at large. You are not so self-important that you should refuse to help out your fellow man. If we leave help to free will, the rich more often than not have no problem keeping their big bonuses.

Quote

Neither am I.
Big government(which you are advocating for) and big business go hand in hand.
What gives you the right to tell an individual: "Don't work in your own self interest!!! THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE!!!!"
It's extremely arrogant.

I don't support Big Government but I also do not support no government which you advocate. And it is not arrogant if the leader himself knows of the circuмstances that the hard-pressed of society go through.

Graham · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2014, 10:26:02 PM »

Quote from: BitDudeX

There is no such thing as a common good(If you can define it for my it would be most helpful). That sounds like crypto-leftwing propaganda.

The common good is the central concept in Catholic social teaching. Pope Leo XIII in the social encyclical Rerum Novarum:

Quote

Civil society exists for the common good, and hence is concerned with the interests of all in general, albeit with individual interests also in their due place and degree.

Pope Leo based his teaching on that of St. Thomas, who said that private property was according to human agreement rather than natural law:

Quote from: II-II, 66, ii, ad 1.

Community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own: but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law, as stated above (57, 2,3). Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.

My reading of Q66 is that private property is sanctioned because it contributes to the common good, rather than due it being some kind of inherent right of the individual. Hence, civil society is concerned with individual interests in a secondary way, to the extent that running roughshod over them is destructive of the common good at which civil society primarily aims.

BitDudeX · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2014, 10:38:42 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: BitDudeX
Each person is responsible for taking care of himself. It isn't "society's" responsibility to take care of everyone(though there is nothing wrong with choosing to do so)

Each person has a right to pursue self-interest as long as it does not violate the NAP.

Well some of those who are poor are incapable of taking care of themselves, considering they are unsure if they can keep their jobs and have their wages decreased. It has to do with their circuмstances, not that they are unable to take care of themselves.

Quote
It's not my responsibility. I will choose to help them on my own free will. Not because some big sloth government told me so.

It is your responsibility as you are a member of the community at large. You are not so self-important that you should refuse to help out your fellow man. If we leave help to free will, the rich more often than not have no problem keeping their big bonuses.

Quote
Neither am I.
Big government(which you are advocating for) and big business go hand in hand.
What gives you the right to tell an individual: "Don't work in your own self interest!!! THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE!!!!"
It's extremely arrogant.

I don't support Big Government but I also do not support no government which you advocate. And it is not arrogant if the leader himself knows of the circuмstances that the hard-pressed of society go through.

>Well some of those who are poor are incapable of taking care of themselves, considering they are unsure if they can keep their jobs and have their wages decreased. It has to do with their circuмstances, not that they are unable to take care of themselves

Private charity companies will help them.

>It is your responsibility as you are a member of the community at large. You are not so self-important that you should refuse to help out your fellow man. If we leave help to free will, the rich more often than not have no problem keeping their big bonuses.
I am not part of a community unless I voluntarily join it.
It is not my responsibility. I am not saying that I would not voluntarily help my fellow man, I just do not believe in the government coercing my into doing it.

>I don't support Big Government but I also do not support no government which you advocate. And it is not arrogant if the leader himself knows of the circuмstances that the hard-pressed of society go through.
But you do. How else would the monarch/leader keep his power unless there is a fat government to enforce his rules?

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: BitDudeX
There is no such thing as a common good(If you can define it for my it would be most helpful). That sounds like crypto-leftwing propaganda.

The common good is the central concept in Catholic social teaching. Pope Leo XIII in the social encyclical Rerum Novarum:

Quote
Civil society exists for the common good, and hence is concerned with the interests of all in general, albeit with individual interests also in their due place and degree.

Pope Leo based his teaching on that of St. Thomas, who said that private property was according to human agreement rather than natural law:

Quote from: II-II, 66, ii, ad 1.
Community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own: but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law, as stated above (57, 2,3). Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.

My reading of Q66 is that private property is sanctioned because it contributes to the common good, rather than due it being some kind of inherent right of the individual. Hence, civil society is concerned with individual interests in a secondary way, to the extent that running roughshod over them is destructive of the common good at which civil society primarily aims.

>The common good is the central concept in Catholic social teaching. Pope Leo XIII in the social encyclical Rerum Novarum:

Then I guess I disagree with Pope Leo XIII.

>Pope Leo based his teaching on that of St. Thomas, who said that private
property was according to human agreement rather than natural law:

No. Private property is a basic right, any government that does not recognize the sovereignty of property rights is invalid.

>My reading of Q66 is that private property is sanctioned because it contributes to the common good, rather than due it being some kind of inherent right of the individual.
But it is an inherent right of the individual.