icedancer2theend
Verified User
Government healthcare is not a right. I have no problem protecting my own property as provided me under the law and the 5th amendment.
Who But The Mindless?
- Thread starter icedancer2theend
- Start date
Government healthcare is not a right. I have no problem protecting my own property as provided me under the law and the 5th amendment.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Who but the mindless weeps for the freedoms of cancer, and screams at people and calls them immoral for not wanting others to die of it?
Who but the mindless makes arguments literally consisting of little but calling their political opponents mindless repetitively?
Who but the mindless does not realize that Hitler and other extremist movements used repetition in this style because it's been scientifically proven to shut down the part of your brain dealing with reason?
Who but the mindless makes arguments literally consisting of little but calling their political opponents mindless repetitively?
Who but the mindless does not realize that Hitler and other extremist movements used repetition in this style because it's been scientifically proven to shut down the part of your brain dealing with reason?
Last edited:
icedancer2theend
Verified User
LOL you mean like Orwellian thought put to literature? That's your philosophical argument to dismiss Rand? Certainly you can do better then this- I mean you are in college- right?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
According to your evil, anti-human ideology.
Fine. Let's abolish police, socialized protection of property. If you can't defend your own property, you are unworthy of it, and I will congratulate the thief for beating the weaker.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
1984 was an interesting to read. Is it a solid philosophical argument against totalitarianism on its own? No. When you write a novel, you are God of that universe. You can make anything work. It cannot be a solid philosophical argument in and of itself.
I made two arguments.
She often begs the question in her arguments I.E. bases them on the implicit assumption that her philosophy is true.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Like Orwell, Rand used a medium she was able to play God in, to argue against socialism- No one believes that it is a solid argument against socialism on its own. See how that works? You made no arguments.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Social models aren't established according to objective truths. There's nothing objective about ethics. It is the product of social forces strifing with each other to produce the current situation. It is the product of social evolution. You can try to ignore reality and pretend that these forces don't exist, that the equilibrium they've established offends the universe and must be replaced by something that assumes society doesn't exist, but it's not going to work.
What establishes a society? Divine right? Natural law? Well, if a Divine right falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound? Kings in europe justified their position for centuries by saying that the God wanted them to be there. In the end, the King of France found that he had no head, and that was that. God, it seems, didn't care.
To enforce your ideology you're going to have to introduce totalitarian measures to enforce your ideology, which puts society into an unnatural state. Otherwise, society will naturally form against you, sweep you away, and reestablish a new equilibrium.
What establishes a society? Divine right? Natural law? Well, if a Divine right falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound? Kings in europe justified their position for centuries by saying that the God wanted them to be there. In the end, the King of France found that he had no head, and that was that. God, it seems, didn't care.
To enforce your ideology you're going to have to introduce totalitarian measures to enforce your ideology, which puts society into an unnatural state. Otherwise, society will naturally form against you, sweep you away, and reestablish a new equilibrium.
Theres that echo again.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
Yes they are. We establish laws due to objective truths. If you wish to live in a lawless society where there is no objective truths, then you would be siding with the likes of Nietzsche. I know I know- you establish laws based on a need to live in society- but then it is you, that needs a totalitarian enity to rule the classes and decide which laws are needed. Laws then become mere capricious exercises in futility, based on the cultural desires of the time- That's madness.
My ideology? You mean that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights? The ideology that was at the root of our nations founding? The one that wants smaller, not larger government? At least we have established that it is your ideology that is a complete fraud to our Constitution and not mine~
You should at least attend a traditional seminary for 2 years before attempting to espouse an accusation on God's actions or inaction.
Last edited:
No, you just proved his argument. Neither novelist is anything but a novelist. See how that works?
Which points are the "valid" ones?
Even with an abundance of humorous posts from pinheads, this one deserves a special recognition....
Socialized protection of property ?......thats funny stuff......do you really have
policemen surrounding your home and car, etc. protecting it.....?.....and you neighbors do too ?.....how many cops are in your neighborhood, 24/7 ?
I wonder why isn't there any cops protecting my home ?.........or are you fuckin' hallucinating....
..You should have said, " If you WON'T defend your own property, you are unworthy of it", then I'd agree with you....
icedancer2theend
Verified User
No, I proved he had no argument- I have never said Rand wasn't a novelist- see how that works?
Are you really too stupid to understand that all of our multiple overlapping layers of police are paid for by society?
So you admit she was a novelist?
Bfgrn
New member
Let me ask you a question icedancer2theend. If your 12 year old daughter was murdered, hacked up into pieces, the killer sewed her eyes open and brought your daughter's head and torso to your husband, would you have any problem with an author who gushed over your daughter's killer and filled her notebooks with worshipful praise of the person who extinguished your daughter's life?
Would hatred be 'wayward thinking~ '???
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Without police, the right to property would only exist as much as you individually have the right to protect it. So you'd effectively have a might makes right situation. You wouldn't have a right to property, you'd have a right to whatever you individually had the strength to protect. You'd also have a right to whatever you had the strength to take. A true right to property, on the other hand, is nothing but the government subsidization of weakness. Property is socialism.
Well, then. I suppose the government has every right to the taxes you pay. After all, you do not respond to them by refusing to pay them, and then shooting the police who come in an attempt to enforce the law. You won't defend your own property from what you actively label theft. Under your logic, you have no right to it.
Really, this is further than I'd ever be willing to go.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well now, that pretty much says it all.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
We sort of have two conflicting definitions of the word "law" in the west. There are laws of man and laws of nature. A law of man obviously can't be objective. A law of nature, on the other hand, can't be violated. If we find that something has violated a physical law, we don't pull it over and give it a ticket. Clearly we screwed up somewhere; that's one reason physics in recent times has shied away from calling it's models of the universe "laws". When you claim that your ideology is justified by natural law, your doing nothing but equivocating between these two definitions. It's total nonsense.
When did Nietzsche advocate a lawless society? You do know that Rand was influenced by Nietzsche, don't you? It was largely the Nietzsche of "The Will to Power" as well, which is a fascist book put heavily edited and put together by his fascist sister which doesn't really represent his true ideology. This is the same Nietzsche that influenced the Nazi's.
If it is madness, it is your job to change it. If those who perceive injustice simply sit back, don't fight, and do nothing, the system doesn't work.
The declaration of independence is that thing that starts with a natural rights justification, not the constitution. I don't disagree with the results of the Declaration, but it's become apparent to me that it's reasoning was poor. Simply declaring something to be self-evident has never been a good argument. Of course, people love fallacious things. From looking at the quotes of founders you see popularly thrown around, you'd think that they never made arguments. The proles snip the conclusion out of context and simply present that, utterly ignoring the long arguments that they often made for their position.