Courage to Resist

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes, you choose to use them. You choose to use them as we all do sometimes when someone can echo our thoughts better than we can. You chose him as an authority on this topic. Any Libertarian would support your right to do that. A fascist, however, might impose their authority upon you.

farfromglorified wrote:

This is going to get offensive...but it's the best way to explain it. My apologies in advance.

Tell me, do you sleep with every guy who comes along? Or do you withhold your body based on the idea that we are not "all connected" and that, in fact, each of us owns ourselves, our choices, and the products that come of them.

farfromglorified wrote:

My system? You mean a democracy without limits wherein individual rights become secondary to governmental whims and where corrupt politicians, businessmen and "community leaders" bargain with property that isn't theirs? That ain't my system.

You speak of "equality" as if two unequal things should be equal. And you speak of "power" as if your "community" wouldn't be just a new incarnation of the state or the businessman. The instant you demand something against your neighbor's will is not only the instant you stop being a Libertarian but its also the instant you justify every crime you professed to be better than.

farfromglorified wrote:

So his words have no meaning? They just are?

farfromglorified wrote:

All socialists claim otherwise, and all socialist societies have embraced the principle that they have a right to use the bodies of others to accomplish their aims.

Now, let's say I were a pimp. How could I not use the following argument to get you to sleep with the fat, drooling, drunken slob who just happens to be my sister's cousin:

"Communal ownership which includes everyone. I believe we are all connnected to each other and our actions should always reflect that."

farfromglorified wrote:

Good question. Do you have an employer? If so, why?

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course. You an I are not the same. We are not equal.



No one "deserves" the resources of this land. That's a silly concept and would imply someone to grant those resources. It's what socialism is based upon -- that all people somehow "deserve" something, regardless of their qualities. Nature did not give you life in order to "deserve" things, Nature gave you life such that you have to sustain it by your effort. It prescribes earning things, not deserving things. And regardless of whatever political system you implement, you cannot escape that truth. Effort consistent with life is the only thing that will sustain you, be it your own or someone else's.

People use the resources of this land. And those who should own those resources are those who best serve those uses. And that is not determined by me, or by you, or by "the community" (by which of course you mean a sub-set of the community) but rather by all of us through our participation in a market, wherein we exchange our efforts with the efforts of others.

Your system would grant a farm to a fool, because he "deserves" it. Mine would make him earn it, based on the abilities of his efforts. My system is cold-hearted. But my system is what makes sure hearts continue beating. In every socialist experiment, the only thing that has sustained men through the fascism is production. And production and labor are not necessarily the same thing, abook.

Cosmo wrote:

...
Yeah. They mention you the rates are going to be about 1% or so... they weren't lying but, they really weren't telling the truth and it ends up being 23%. It's not listed anywhere in the contract except where it says 'plus interest charges'. You bought the car and are getting screwed and i say, 'You're an idiot because no one forced you to buy the car'. That supporting you, ain't it?
My point is saying no one forced them to enlist is not supporting the troops... it's calling them idiots.

farfromglorified wrote:

Along with the rest of the community, right? Isn't it completely selfish to proclaim that you have sole ownership of your body? And what morals does "the community" have? Where do these morals reside?



Of course. It happened in Russia, Japan, China, East Germany and nearly every other established socialistic society. That said, it's happened in plenty of non-socialistic societies as well.

My point in bringing this concept up is not to say "if you form a socialist nation, your women will be raped". That's silly since rape is not primarily a function of society, rape is a function of individual morality in which society simply plays a role. My point in bringing this concept up is to show you four things:

1) That you recognize the validity of ownership, when it comes to your own body.
2) That ownership can exist outside the social construct (the concept of I)
3) That "communal ownership" is to property what rape is to willing sex between two people -- a horrific contradiction.
4) Similarly, that socialism is to freedom what fiat is to a contract -- a horrific contradiction.

farfromglorified wrote:

Fair enough. I figured your own experience would be an answer, but obviously not. I'll answer your question ("Why would someone wish to sell their labor instead of owning themselves and earning a higher profit for it?") from my experience.

I've held 3 employers in my life. The first taught me how a business runs. The second taught me how to use computers. The third taught me how to use computers even better. The instant I decided that I could do things better myself for myself than my employers could do things for me, I left and started my own business. A number of my employees since have done the same. In other words, I sold my labor to someone else because I did not have the knowledge, nor was my labor valuable enough, to stand on its own. I used my employers to gain knowledge and experience up until the point that I felt I had nothing else to learn there that I could not learn on my own. I used employment to learn.

Speaking for my experience with employees, there is another reason people choose to sell their labor to an employer: minimized risk. When I started my first business I had negative money (debt), no health insurance, little sleep, and little social life. I sacrificed those things in exchange for what I felt would be greater returns in each category in the future. That sacrifice worked out for me. For others, it has not. Entrepeneurs accept great risk in exchange for potential great reward. Employees, however, forgo risk for minimal reward. Both approaches are completely valid, depending on those who make the choice. I have a good friend who owns his own remodling/construction company. Some days he would be considered a wealthy man. Other days he would be considered a poor man. He just had a child and the risks associated with his operation may very well make him return to an employment situation.



You cannot be "half equal". You either are, or you are not.



Huh? More conflicts have been started in the name of "communal ownership" than will ever be started in the name of individual ownership. Nearly every war, every murder, every rape, every theft is committed by a man or woman who has decided that the words "ownership" and "control" are synonymous, just like your friend who provided that quote.

Do you think that "communal ownership" will put an end to conflict? Simply ask yourself how you'll achieve that "communal ownership" to begin with.



What "problem" do you see here? What do my "fellow human beings" have to "buy back" from me??? What do I have that was once theirs, and how does it represent a debt?

farfromglorified wrote:

No, I'm comparing the underlying philosophy of owning apples and oranges here. You wouldn't suggest, in your socialistic philosophy, that apples should be owned by a community but oranges should be owned by individuals, would you?

farfromglorified wrote:

What "sufferring" happens because of their choice? And who am I "competing" with? And what makes that competition "overly"?

farfromglorified wrote:

Who do I have "power" over? And where am I proposing that "working harder" should give someone power over "another group of people"?

farfromglorified wrote:

Abook, my view says that what you do with your fruit loops, cartoons, and blocks should be up to you. My view doesn't say that you shouldn't share, particularly if you recognize that you're being a brat. It's your view the prescribes the clash when you either force someone to share or, alternatively, force someone to be selfish.

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course! If you don't agree with me, do what you'd like. Share whatever you wish to share.