The absence of government would be mayhem.

No one here has argued for an absence of gov't. Not I, not Scary.

Some feel that governments can be a source of great good, if peopled by honest representatives and directed by an educated and involved public.

Except that people disagree about the definition of "great good." Except that they aren't honest. Except that people disagree about whether they are being honest. Except that people are free not to learn what you think they should learn. Except that most of the public isn't involved. Except that even if they were, they would STILL disagree, sometimes vehemently.

Lots of problems with those silly ideas.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I think the topic was meant for people to state their opinion on the question. Not to state what they believe is wrong with other people's opinion. My opinion is if there is limits (even ones that everyone can see) then the answer simply can not be YES alone. It becomes Yes, but (add limits here).


Forget what is wrong with his opinion and state your opinion without bringing up what is wrong with his. That is the way

I just felt the guy was stating his opinion. To me he didn't seem to say it was fact.

When I was reading your response it seemed (to me) that you were concerned too much about his opinion that it got in the way of your opinion.

He supports a system that uses gov't force to make people do things and support things that they would otherwise not do.

When the only standard is "whatever someone can convince the gov't to force onto others" what you have is this result. It's OK to force people to pay for wars and weapons and corporate welfare--and it's OK to force them to pay for the CIA and the WHISC and everything (or anything) else. There's always someone who will get the gov't to force crap onto people, and that will ALWAYS utterly destroy those that can afford it the least.

With that said I do believe that your opinion has good points. Both opinions do. In this case and at this moment I lean a bit more towards your opinion. Could I be an evil no good flip flopper ... maybe. Personally I believe in free will. I do think people have the right to exist for their own sake and own happyness. I selfish thought, but a right. This being said a lot of crazy people's definition of happyness is well ... crazy. So there are limits, even if those limits are applied by other people stopping the crazy people.

Of course, there are limits. Scary Capitalist knows better than most that there are limits, and he knows exactly where they lie and why. He understands the principles involved and the nature of the rights that humans have. He understands that one cannot have a right that infringes on the same right that other people have.

Then the definition of crazy becomes important. What happens if two people try to exist for conflicting happyness? What if one can not be happy unless the other is sad? These are questions that I will have to answer to myself before I can form my complete opinion.

The short answer is that one cannot seek to initiate force or fraud onto others. Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose, your right to contract freely with me ends at the point where you would use fraud to induce me to do something I otherwise would not have done.

The quesiton is not an easy one to answer. It has more levels than it may first appear.

The question isn't that difficult, but it does require a bit of thought and an understanding of the nature of the rights that humans have.

---

I am a lover of ancient civilizations. In my opinion what you said is right. When the Greeks ended their oligarchy and started to form a democracy their civilization entered its golden era. Government is necessary. Government programs have to exist. To what level is decided by the people that are in Government. No one person, party or group is ever exactly correct in deciding the level of Government. Even our founding fathers made a mistake with the Articles of Confederation. Later fixing it by increasing the power of the central government in our current constitution .... (well the one before bush).

One example, without good government we would have never walked on the moon. Without that then the computers we are using now would not be around.

Just my opinion.

Thanks,
Chris.

The absence of government would be mayhem.

Some feel that governments can be a source of great good, if peopled by honest representatives and directed by an educated and involved public.

---

I think the topic was meant for people to state their opinion on the question. Not to state what they believe is wrong with other people's opinion. My opinion is if there is limits (even ones that everyone can see) then the answer simply can not be YES alone. It becomes Yes, but (add limits here).

Did you even read the post you quoted? The "(add limits here)" were included in the term "rights," because human rights do not include the right to infringe the rights of others.

Forget what is wrong with his opinion and state your opinion without bringing up what is wrong with his. That is the way

You are welcome to post as you wish, Chris, as am I.

A list of all of our feelings is not a discussion. I choose to discuss the positions stated here. If you would just like to list how you feel, feel free.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

we happen to live in world were nature has laid out that there are no rules,
if we happen to agree by ourselves that we follow other rules, we can do that,
but it is fad. long before and long after us it will be : there are no rules
and if i look what people are doing, we don´t follow those rules well enough
that some one could not break them and walk away, so human rights doesn´t
mean anything if i decide that i don´t follow them anymore.
by natures point of wiew, i have that right

simple answer: no we(I) don't

arguing against someones view is pointless lawyer(barister) talk. The original intent was to see what people think about the original question not to show your derision to their view. Perhaps if we just stick to our view without getting political and lawyerly we'd actually have a discussion.

I have noticed in my years that the more emphatic and personal an attack gets the more the person making the attack is unsure of their own beliefs. Have your beliefs and live by it. Don't expect anyone one to follow or understand and you'll be a happier man.

Well, except a LOT of the people here want to use gov't force to make others do as they wish. They want to use that force to take away your beliefs and your right to live by them. They "don't expect anyone to follow or understand," so they use the awesome and nearly unlimited power of gov't force to make damn sure they follow.

Did I sy anything about anything other than what I think. I give two shakes about gov't in my opinion if you'd read it you'd see that. Esxtrapolating about gov't/global intervention in a personal opinion seems overdone. I kept my opinion on topic by answering the question not about what a gov't will and won't do to assist or hinder ones abilities in any way.
It's a hypothetical question that didn't ask about world politics. Just your opinion on one simple question.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Ever notice how it's the moral swindler that advocates 'gray areas'...insisting that no absolutes belong in the realm of man and this world? Ever wonder what possible motive underlies such a. mind?

Of course, asserting that there are "no absolutes" is of course, an absolute in itself.

You'll rarely find an advocate of peace and genuine good will toward men advocating such a perverted moral claim that implies that a thug and his victim are both "gray" morally.

Of course, R. Waite consistently advocates for the very explicit acts of force upon his fellow man. It's in his morally 'gray' nature he might say in his defense. But of course he can't defend any of his claims so long as he believes nothing is 'black and white' , reality isn't really reality, and facts aren't really facts.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

LOL
The greatest advocate of self interest and greed claims the high moral ground.
Welcome to Bizzaro world.

Thanks, I needed a chuckle.

LOL
The greatest advocate of self interest and greed claims the high moral ground.

That's because he has the moral high ground. He doesn't advocate the use of gov't force against anyone who has not initiated the use of force. Not initiating force against others is the very definition of the moral high ground.

You, on the other hand, ALWAYS advocate the initiation of gov't force against others to make them pay for your silly programs. Yet you act surprised when people who are diametrically opposed to your programs do the same thing to you.

Shocking, eh?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You, on the other hand, ALWAYS advocate the initiation of gov't force against others to make them pay for your silly programs. Yet you act surprised when people who are diametrically opposed to your programs do the same thing to you.

I'm never going to understand how you came to believe that democratic socialism is the same as government force.
It is the will of the people.

In the same way I must live with the results of the election Tuesday night, the pampered elites, the uber-rich and and the corporatists would have to live with it should we ever elect a progressive government.

I'm not oppressed by government force in my disagreement with present conservative thought. They don't have a gun in my face over every issue.

It is the will of the people.
If I don't like it, I must work to change attitudes.

In a democracy, I am free to try to change things without the government sticking a gun in my face.
So, get off that horse Rush, it's getting very old.

You, on the other hand, ALWAYS advocate the initiation of gov't force against others to make them pay for your silly programs. Yet you act surprised when people who are diametrically opposed to your programs do the same thing to you.

I'm never going to understand how you came to believe that democratic socialism is the same as government force.
It is the will of the people.

No, it's just the "will of [some] people" that voted for some particular BS being forced on the others that did not vote for it. What that means is that sometimes you get welfare programs (forced on those people that did not vote for it), and sometimes you get War in Iraq, the CIA, corporate welfare, and massive gov't bailouts (forced on people like you, that did not vote for it). That's just gov't force.

In the same way I must live with the results of the election Tuesday night, the pampered elites, the uber-rich and and the corporatists would have to live with it should we ever elect a progressive government.

Wouldn't it be better to have a gov't limited by principle that does not do this to you?

I'm not oppressed by government force in my disagreement with present conservative thought. They don't have a gun in my face over every issue.

Well, except, that they do. They will use every level of force necessary to take from you whatever they need to make damn hell ass sure you pay for it. That IS a gun in your face.

It is the will of the people.
If I don't like it, I must work to change attitudes.

That's fine. Which means, that sometimes you get your silly welfare programs, and other times you get War in Iraq and the CIA and corporate welfare. Because other people, who disagree with you, will change attitudes to make sure YOU get to pay for crap you hate.

In a democracy, I am free to try to change things without the government sticking a gun in my face.

Ummmm, you are free to change things, of course. But that has never been my point. The point is when you fail in changing things, because other people succeeded in changing things in ways you didn't like, yes, the gun is in your face. You. Will. Pay. You. Will. Obey.

That is the very definition of gov't force. They will bleed you, and your precious workers, DRY to support BS programs that you HATE. Yay you.

So, get off that horse Rush, it's getting very old.

Get used to it. It is what it is, no matter how old you think it is. But it's the system you support, so you should be THRILLED.

Aren't you?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

don´t you have anything new to say, parrots keep repeating couple of lines they have learned.

is it getting paranoid in here? or have they already gotten to me.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

LOL
Paranoia is only a mental illness when people aren't out to get you.

LOL
Paranoia is only a mental illness when people aren't out to get you.

I know they are coming for me.

don´t you have anything new to say, parrots keep repeating couple of lines they have learned.

Please don't insult the parrots... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Let me know when you ask a question that is philosophically valid. Until then, leave the practice of Philosophy to the professionals.

---

Until then, leave the practice of Philosophy to the professionals.

Like they haven't FUBAR'd it.

---

there never was suppose to be professional philosophers, that is when things went wrong

Let me know when you ask a question that is philosophically valid. Until then, leave the practice of Philosophy to the professionals.

PS: I never posed the question in the first place so I believe my amateur status is intact.
I promise never to profit from my ponderings, insights or flashes of brilliance.LOL