[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…when did it become immoral to help others?
It’s Headhunterland. Adjacent to the 1000 year Reich which lies right next to the 1984 Zone: Slavery is Freedom, War is Peace…[/quote]
People are free to help whoever they want. It is not moral to steal from one individual for the benifit of others.
My aunt has breast cancer. I think you should donate 10% of your salary to breast cancer awareness. Or better yet, just send my aunt the check to pay for her medical care. You don’t want to? Here’s a nice jail sell.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…well, maybe at one point this was true, but today it isn’t, is it? If anything, the US government is barely able to maintain the illusion of being morally just…
America became altruistic. It kept coming to the rescue of Britain and France. But altruism is counter to the principles of our government. In its origins, the sanctity of person and property was the supreme principle. But then we became embroiled with others, out of altruism, which is a truly vile philosophy.
When you begin by helping others, you then begin to think it moral to FORCE your citizens to help others. You create and raise taxes. You create welfare, forcing some citizens to work for others (in essence, create slaves). The excuse was that it ‘was for the good of others’.
No one’s good can be sacrificed to another without the use of force. We then begin resembling other nations, and become immoral. We initiate violence.
If anyone wants to blame America for the fiasco in Iraq, they should look in the mirror. It was the philosophy of altruism which made this government and what it does possible.
…when did it become immoral to help others?
[/quote]
When you send armed men to arrest another for not participating. Though it is perfectly moral to help others.
I think you’re confusing something, helping others and altruism says nothing of stealing.
We can argue if taxes are a necessary evil or simply evil, but altruism is just a rare trait, practically only possible in theory.
Helping others is a nice thng to do, it doesn’t require you to steal first.
…i have a hard time envisioning a society a person like HeadHunter has in mind. Is it a romanticised version of the Wild West? A society where everything is privatized? I wouldn’t want to live there, tbh…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i have a hard time envisioning a society a person like HeadHunter has in mind. Is it a romanticised version of the Wild West? A society where everything is privatized? I wouldn’t want to live there, tbh…[/quote]
Helping others should be done willingly. When help is forced, then the person who is being forced becomes the slave of the recipient. THAT’S a truly evil world.
Altruism done from force is legalised extortion.
Consider the case of someone who bakes a cake. Let’s call that a positive, something of value was produced. Why is the enjoyment of the person who baked and now eats the cake an immoral indulgence, while if the cake is taken from that person and given to another, then their enjoyment is good? To enjoy a cake you made is selfish and of no moral worth, but to have it stolen and given to another person is good?
We have all accepted the notion of selflessness as moral. Why is it moral? Why is someone else’s happiness and enjoyment more important than my own, especially if I produced the source of the enjoyment (like a cake)?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Consider the case of someone who bakes a cake. Let’s call that a positive, something of value was produced. Why is the enjoyment of the person who baked and now eats the cake an immoral indulgence, while if the cake is taken from that person and given to another, then their enjoyment is good? To enjoy a cake you made is selfish and of no moral worth, but to have it stolen and given to another person is good?
We have all accepted the notion of selflessness as moral. Why is it moral? Why is someone else’s happiness and enjoyment more important than my own, especially if I produced the source of the enjoyment (like a cake)?
Governmental authority can only be enforced with violence or coercion, both of which violate the non-aggression axiom. Government is immoral.[/quote]
A very famous guy who probably had altruistic statements written in against His will once said, “Do unto others as you’d have done unto you.” In modern words: “All relationships between human beings should and must be VOLUNTARY on all sides. Anyone violating this principle is a criminal.”
I think its possible to create a government that acts to follow that as its primary axiom. As long as it is enforcing that axiom and arresting/defeating those who violate the axiom, then its actions (even if violent) are moral and just.
Certainly we would use the least amount of force necessary — chopping hands off for stealing an apple would not be part of any rational legal code.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
America is pretty great.[/quote]
What does that German-born woman have to do with America being great? (Other than the fact that she’s HERE now bwa hahah!)
…And why is it suddenly not cool to say positive things about the United States? I love this country. I’m incredibly grateful I was born and raised here. I love the entrepreneurial possibilities there are. I love that people can get rich if they want to and that people can lose their ass if they screw up.
as much as I love being in the States, and I do, but the points you make are completely laughable when you consider that this country was founded on the backs of slaves.
That does nothing to take away from the greatness of this country though (even if its leadership goes from good to bad at times)
[quote]Ren wrote:
as much as I love being in the States, and I do, but the points you make are completely laughable when you consider that this country was founded on the backs of slaves.
That does nothing to take away from the greatness of this country though (even if its leadership goes from good to bad at times)[/quote]
We saw it was an injustice and got rid of it. Compromises had to be made to get the Constitution ratified. I certainly wish that no one had ever had to be a slave, but the point is that we got rid of it OURSELVES.
We bankrupted ourselves with altruism as our standard. All we did was make ourselves destitute and the rest of the world hate us. The results of altruism…
…nobody has yet to answer how the new america could look like. How does this society function? Do you pay taxes at all? Is everything privatized? If you don’t pay taxes, do you expect to be left with more money in your pocket when you have to pay for everything else? Clear this up for me please?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
America became altruistic. It kept coming to the rescue of Britain and France. But altruism is counter to the principles of our government.
[/quote]
Really? There was no other reason/s or motives that America involved itself in the war?
[quote]Ren wrote:
as much as I love being in the States, and I do, but the points you make are completely laughable when you consider that this country was founded on the backs of slaves.
[/quote]
Not the North, but the Southern aristocracy certainly was.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…nobody has yet to answer how the new america could look like. How does this society function? Do you pay taxes at all? Is everything privatized? If you don’t pay taxes, do you expect to be left with more money in your pocket when you have to pay for everything else? Clear this up for me please?[/quote]
The idea of taxes treats humans as cattle, or perhaps milking cows. I would say that if a government can only exist by forcing its citizens to pay for it, then that government is immoral.
There are many ideas for financing that is non-extortionary. An excellent example is offering a choice, when purchasing real estate, of whether the buyer wants government protection from fraud. Paying a small fee ensures that the government will pursue and prosecute any fraud. You have a CHOICE to not pay the fee. If you are defrauded, you’re out of luck. If you were buying property from your parents, you probably wouldn’t buy this insurance, for example. If you were buying from a stranger, you’d certainly opt for the insurance.
Government should be something you hire, NOT something you obey or else.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I think its possible to create a government that acts to follow that as its primary axiom. As long as it is enforcing that axiom and arresting/defeating those who violate the axiom, then its actions (even if violent) are moral and just.
[/quote]
What happens when I do not want to voluntarily follow its laws? Will the government just forget about me and just let me live my life? I think not.
In an anarchic society that respects natural rights if a particular “rule” did not agree with me I would leave or change providers.
[quote]sands wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
America became altruistic. It kept coming to the rescue of Britain and France. But altruism is counter to the principles of our government.
Really? There was no other reason/s or motives that America involved itself in the war?
[/quote]
As usual, altruism was used as an excuse, as a gateway to evil. No one would fight so that Morgan could get juicy war contracts (he did) or his 1% as the middleman for Engish/French bond sales (he did). Americans however did fight on the fields of France to save France and/or Britain. Why? What prompted millions of men to go fight a war that had absolutely no meaning to them? Do you think some farm kid from Indiana cared in any way about the losses of Britain at the Somme?
Fighting and dying to protect your country is one thing but to die for another one means that you’ve been tricked and victimised by evil men (like Churchill). It also means that you are altruistic.
