Courage to Resist

trappedinmyradio · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/

I know there are plenty here who will say if you sign up then it's your duty and you have to obey....but I say bullshit! You're always going to be a human before a soldier. Your conscience and your abilty to choose to not participate in something you feel is wrong, unjust or not in your own best interest should always come first. People make bad decisions, are mislead, change their minds after seeing the true nature of a situation and no one should feel locked into participating in actions that they feel are wrong....I don't care how papers they have signed.

it's a contract...you make the wrong decision, you ride out the remainder of the contract and then you find something else...that's the way it works. it's easy. i don't like war...but people who sign up for the military know that they could go to war and have to do things that they may be against...if you're not intelligent enough to realize that before you sign the paper then you should never sign the contract in the first place.

but, again, as i have said before, time and time again, let's not worry about the problems facing soldiers in war...they're there, that's that...let's worry about situations that lead to a war instead!

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

We have a mix of both principles in our society today because people have different moralities, principles and perspectives.

Do you really think that? Do you have air conditioning? How many calories did you eat today? What's your home made of? Do you have a car? How about a television, or a radio? How much money in your pocket?

If you want to let all of humanity hang on your neck like an albatros, I won't stop you or question your right do to so. I just won't let you hang it on my neck for you.

Hehe...there is "plenty for all". Always has been. Likely will be for a very long time. But the "resources" you speak of are in part the labor of friends and neighbors. And if you think you can "share" that labor or the products that come of it against their will isn't a form of slavery, then we can go back to the questions about your body and whom you choose to give it to or not to.

Of course! Everyone's choices are limited. Am I oppressed because I'm not Bill Gates? Is he oppressed because he's not God?

Except their own greed, apparently.

Opportunities for what??? Making money? Being happy? Being comfortable? The opportunities for those things are limited only by the capacity of the human mind, abook.

Help me understand this better. The last sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. You don't view them how?

Huh? My labor created it all in the first place. And their labor, absent mine, would be much less valuable. Look -- imagine a car factory. Imagine a guy putting lug nuts on a vehicle. His labor is almost completely worthless on its own. Turning a wrist to tighten a bolt on a car only has worth with the concept of the motive power -- the automobile's purpose. That is where the value lies. Abesnt that principle, achieved by another's mind, the exact same labor would be completely worthless.

What do you mean you won't "look at people in that light"? Your ideals require it. They force you to separate men into two factions and forcibly take from one to give to the other.

You accuse me of "capitalizing on their labor". How is this? Because I make money from their labor? They make money from mine, as well as their own. People have healthcare because of my labor, and because of their own. For all the blustering here about healthcare and labor, I'm actually providing healthcare to people. For all the blustering here about money and labor, I'm
actually providing it to people.

Why is it negative that I "capitalize on their labor"???? Why is it negative that they capitalize on mine? That's the essence of cooperation, that word you keep stripping of meaning when you suggest that one party may simply force the other to play along.

I have no problem with this. Why would you think I would?

Hehe...of course!!! That's the whole point. Do you think my own applications are only for my benefit? Every dollar a customer hands me is a sanction of the benefit I'm providing them. That's the seal of approval upon my mind.

Who is telling you that you have to? See, here's the thing -- if you actually want to live by your own standards, then you and I are agreeing. However, if you want me to live by your standards, then I ask you why you think it's wrong that others force you to live by theirs??????

Then give it to them.

Hehe...so it's no "all people", huh?

If you think it's wrong to split humanity up into the deserving and the undeserving, you've forgotten what makes humanity possible -- production. If, in your mind, the man who grows no food and can provide no value to the farmer "deserving" of food, your system will end up starving just like the many before it.

Cool. Be as tolerant as you wish. But don't pretend that your stomach is "tolerant" of starvation. Don't pretend that your body is "tolerant" of freezing.

Not oppress, simply share. You'll be as good off as he. That's a big improvement of living standards overall! Isn't that enough to make you happy with what you've got? No one has to go without
If you were talking about "sharing", we wouldn't be having this discussion. I have no problem with sharing. I simply have a problem with those who say "sharing" is possible absent the concepts of will or property.

Sigh...yet everything you stand for is what destroys food and medicine, abook. It removes the value from those who create it. Go look at the societies that have survived by your tenants. See how well they eat, how well they live, and at what cost. They simply loot until they destroy all the wealth available to them. And that's what causes misery, abook. The absence of wealth, the absence of property, is what destroys everything you profess to stand for. The defense of these thing is what has made them possible in the first place.

Wealth is not the product of labor. Wealth is the product of the reasoned mind. The exact same labor of a man who builds a skyscraper is worthless absent the man who gives it its purpose. Labor simply has the commodity value of muscle. Minds on the other hand, are what create wealth in the first place.

I give. There's no way anything is going to come of this either way. You don't get me and I'm not getting you. I can't really justify taking the time to break down these posts, quote by quote, when we never get anywhere but the same spot we started. It's ok for a while but it's run it's course, yet again. You have more patience for this than me, by a long shot. It just feels like a chore now so I'm letting you have it.

I will say, however, I do go without a lot. I hardly ever use the air conditioning. I buy from used clothing stores very often. We buy used appliances. I hand wash the dishes. I don't wear jewlery. I wear shoes until they just break down. And I give a lot as well. Now it's true, I'm not breaking up the little I have and giving it to others...but truth be told, I don't have too much to be giving other than what I already do. I think if everyone split the wealth of this country up more evenly they'd be seeing a hell of a lot more than what I have. I do try to live simply and help where I'm able.

farfromglorified · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I will say, however, I do go without a lot. I hardly ever use the air conditioning. I buy from used clothing stores very often. We buy used appliances. I hand wash the dishes. I don't wear jewlery. I wear shoes until they just break down. And I give a lot as well. Now it's true, I'm not breaking up the little I have and giving it to others...but truth be told, I don't have too much to be giving other than what I already do. I think if everyone split the wealth of this country up more evenly they'd be seeing a hell of a lot more than what I have. I do try to live simply and help where I'm able.

This is all cool. I'm not trying to call you out as some kind of hypocrite here -- I know you believe in what you're saying. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that humans flourish best when individuals address their problems and innovate to make their own lives better, rather than worrying about "sharing" whatever happens to exist at a given time. Asceticism and looting are the root of poverty, not their solutions.

Good night, abook. I'm sorry if I frustrate or bother you or get overly aggressive in my posts -- it's not my intent. I care very much about a lot of the same issues that you do, I simply disagree regarding the solutions.

baraka · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I do apply that logic to myself. You may remove the roads. You may stop printing money. You may stop "protecting" my freedoms. Do so immediately. I will not complain. I never asked you for those things to begin with.

Uh, what is your flavor of libertarianism exactly? Perhaps you should clarify that so I know what I'm dealing with here. The statement above would suggest you are one of those anarchist, isolationist types.

farfromglorified · May 2007

baraka wrote:

Uh, what is your flavor of libertarianism exactly? Perhaps you should clarify that so I know what I'm dealing with here.

I'm not a pure libertarian. I'm an Objectivist. I simply share much in common with libertarians.

The statement above would suggest you are one of those anarchist, isolationist types.

There's nothing "isolationist" in suggesting that men should be dealt with via exchange rather than force.

baraka · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not a pure libertarian. I'm an Objectivist. I simply share much in common with libertarians.

There's nothing "isolationist" in suggesting that men should be dealt with via exchange rather than force.

I thought you were an objectivist, but when I brought it up in the libertarian ideology thread, I thought you implied that you were more mainstream libertarian than an objectivist. I probably misunderstood you. Again, this notion that we owe most of civilization's progress to the overarching achievements of a few seems elitist.

To get back to your comment concerning you not wanting all these services you don't think twice about utilizing: it seems to me you have a few options. You can tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to work toward changing it, leave it by emigrating, violate it, or revolt. What is your approach? And what would happen if all the gov't benefits you use daily just disappeared? You should really think about this, ffg.

To me, Libertarianism seems like a utopian ideal like those of some Marxists that would essentially require some sort of human perfection to work. Also there is not much compassion in the objectivist's worldview, which is a big problem for me, not to mention all the flaws in the libertarian logic. No regulatory agencies at all, eh? Yeah, I'm sure large corporations will do a hell of a job self-regulating themselves. So let's abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages and the folks that can't afford to do so should just shut up. Is this what you want? The libertarian tax argument is pretty weak too. Taxation is theft to you because you feel you have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation. :rolleyes: As I read more about this, specifically objectivism, it seems very cult-ish to me, the focus is very narrow, much like a hard-core bible thumper. They spend a lot of time building up 'strawmen' to tear down. The libertarian movement are not the first to be outraged over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc.

baraka · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

There's nothing "isolationist" in suggesting that men should be dealt with via exchange rather than force.

I somewhat got off on an tangent in my last post, so I wanted to come back to this. I asked if you were an isolationist because it seems the only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or become a hermit and I would argue that you would still probably use minimal gov't services. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudgingly is implicit agreement of the social contract. The force you perceive is an illusion.

Rushlimbo · May 2007

baraka wrote:

I thought you were an objectivist, but when I brought it up in the libertarian ideology thread, I thought you implied that you were more mainstream libertarian than an objectivist. I probably misunderstood you. Again, this notion that we owe most of civilization's progress to the overarching achievements of a few seems elitist.

To get back to your comment concerning you not wanting all these services you don't think twice about utilizing: it seems to me you have a few options. You can tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to work toward changing it, leave it by emigrating, violate it, or revolt. What is your approach? And what would happen if all the gov't benefits you use daily just disappeared? You should really think about this, ffg.

To me, Libertarianism seems like a utopian ideal like those of some Marxists that would essentially require some sort of human perfection to work. Also there is not much compassion in the objectivist's worldview, which is a big problem for me, not to mention all the flaws in the libertarian logic. No regulatory agencies at all, eh? Yeah, I'm sure large corporations will do a hell of a job self-regulating themselves. So let's abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages and the folks that can't afford to do so should just shut up. Is this what you want? The libertarian tax argument is pretty weak too. Taxation is theft to you because you feel you have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation. :rolleyes: As I read more about this, specifically objectivism, it seems very cult-ish to me, the focus is very narrow, much like a hard-core bible thumper. They spend a lot of time building up 'strawmen' to tear down. The libertarian movement are not the first to be outraged over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc.

Very well stated. It wont make much sense though when he breaks it down line by line instead of looking at the entire idea you are arguing. But that is his tactic.

farfromglorified · May 2007

baraka wrote:

I somewhat got off on an tangent in my last post, so I wanted to come back to this. I asked if you were an isolationist because it seems the only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or become a hermit and I would argue that you would still probably use minimal gov't services. Any consumption of public goods, no matter how begrudgingly is implicit agreement of the social contract. The force you perceive is an illusion.

There are dozens of ways to avoid public goods and services. "Shrugging" is common among objectivists, as are tax shelters and other forms of avoidance. Not actually having public goods and services in the first place, however, is the most effective way.

Your "any consumption" logic is flawed. Why shouldn't I consume these services? I'm paying for them, after all. I'm not suggesting that I should be free to not pay taxes but also free to use public services. If I stop using them, you won't stop making me pay for them, and you'll force me to do so. So please stop with the "illusion" talk. The force is very real.

farfromglorified · May 2007

baraka wrote:

I thought you were an objectivist, but when I brought it up in the libertarian ideology thread, I thought you implied that you were more mainstream libertarian than an objectivist. I probably misunderstood you. Again, this notion that we owe most of civilization's progress to the overarching achievements of a few seems elitist.

It is elitist. So what? Is it incorrect?

To get back to your comment concerning you not wanting all these services you don't think twice about utilizing: it seems to me you have a few options. You can tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to work toward changing it, leave it by emigrating, violate it, or revolt. What is your approach? And what would happen if all the gov't benefits you use daily just disappeared?

My approach is standing up for my rights and advocating them. I will not sacrifice those rights, however, in the name of "saving them". Others may choose to do that, and that's certainly their right.

You should really think about this, ffg.

Hehe...I have. I don't believe that, absent public services, life will go on as it is now. Things would be quite different.

To me, Libertarianism seems like a utopian ideal like those of some Marxists that would essentially require some sort of human perfection to work.

Huh? No one is perfect, nor does anyone have to be.

Also there is not much compassion in the objectivist's worldview, which is a big problem for me, not to mention all the flaws in the libertarian logic. No regulatory agencies at all, eh? Yeah, I'm sure large corporations will do a hell of a job self-regulating themselves. So let's abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages and the folks that can't afford to do so should just shut up. Is this what you want? The libertarian tax argument is pretty weak too. Taxation is theft to you because you feel you have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation. :rolleyes: As I read more about this, specifically objectivism, it seems very cult-ish to me, the focus is very narrow, much like a hard-core bible thumper. They spend a lot of time building up 'strawmen' to tear down. The libertarian movement are not the first to be outraged over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc.

You seem to be saying the following above.

1) Objectivism is non-compassionate.

This is false. Objectivism simply states that no human being has an inherent obligation to be compassionate.

2. Corporations cannot self-regulate.

This is partly correct and partly incorrect. Some corporations will not self-regulate. Others will. Thankfully, all are regulated by consumer choice.

3. Obectivism is a cult.

"Cult" implies figureheads and faith. Figureheads and faith are rejected by objectivism since objectivism believes every individual is an absolute and has no inherent obligation to answer to anyone.

You seemed to vacillate between criticizing Libertarianism and Objectivism, so if I confused anything just let me know.

farfromglorified · May 2007

Rushlimbo wrote:

Very well stated. It wont make much sense though when he breaks it down line by line instead of looking at the entire idea you are arguing. But that is his tactic.

Sigh...is your tactic trying to sideways-disprove someone by criticizing their approach, as opposed to their premises?

If you think an "entire idea" is greater than the premises that comprise it, you should always ask: what is missing?

Abookamongstthemany · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

There are dozens of ways to avoid public goods and services. "Shrugging" is common among objectivists, as are tax shelters and other forms of avoidance. Not actually having public goods and services in the first place, however, is the most effective way.

Your "any consumption" logic is flawed. Why shouldn't I consume these services? I'm paying for them, after all. I'm not suggesting that I should be free to not pay taxes but also free to use public services. If I stop using them, you won't stop making me pay for them, and you'll force me to do so. So please stop with the "illusion" talk. The force is very real.

You used that same logic on me. So... it would be better if everything were equal to begin with and even if I split up the small share I have, it isn't going to make the system we live in any less capitalistic.

baraka · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

There are dozens of ways to avoid public goods and services. "Shrugging" is common among objectivists, as are tax shelters and other forms of avoidance. Not actually having public goods and services in the first place, however, is the most effective way.

Your "any consumption" logic is flawed. Why shouldn't I consume these services? I'm paying for them, after all. I'm not suggesting that I should be free to not pay taxes but also free to use public services. If I stop using them, you won't stop making me pay for them, and you'll force me to do so. So please stop with the "illusion" talk. The force is very real.

ha ha. Tell you what. I'll stop with the 'illusion' talk if you stop with the 'tax is theft' talk.

The flaw is yours, I'm afraid. Absolutely, you should consume these services, since you pay for them via taxes. And remember, you can end this contract at any time.

farfromglorified · May 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You used that same logic on me.

How did I use that same logic one you?

So... it would be better if everything were equal to begin with and even if I split up the small share I have, it isn't going to make the system we live in any less capitalistic.

I don't understand what you're saying here? If you're forcibly splitting up wealth while ignoring economic merit, you're not talking about capitalism.

farfromglorified · May 2007

baraka wrote:

ha ha. Tell you what. I'll stop with the 'illusion' talk if you stop with the 'tax is theft' talk.

Theft is the expropriation of property against the will of the owner. Taxes are expropriation of property, often against the will of the owner. In other words, taxes are theft whenever the person would not willingly pay the tax without the force you use to extract it.

The flaw is yours, I'm afraid. Absolutely, you should consume these services, since you pay for them via taxes. And remember, you can end this contract at any time.

No, I can't. I can only run across the border. That's not the same thing. You can end poverty and suffering at any point through suicide too. Doesn't make much sense there either, huh?

baraka · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

It is elitist. So what? Is it incorrect?

My approach is standing up for my rights and advocating them. I will not sacrifice those rights, however, in the name of "saving them". Others may choose to do that, and that's certainly their right.

So you want to keep the current political structure, and simply convince the majority of voters to pass an anti-tax amendment? This is a reasonable approach. But if you do, then you are legitimizing the social contract, which hardly puts you in a position to call taxation 'theft'.

farfromglorified wrote:

You seem to be saying the following above.

1) Objectivism is non-compassionate.

This is false. Objectivism simply states that no human being has an inherent obligation to be compassionate.

2. Corporations cannot self-regulate.

This is partly correct and partly incorrect. Some corporations will not self-regulate. Others will. Thankfully, all are regulated by consumer choice.

3. Obectivism is a cult.

"Cult" implies figureheads and faith. Figureheads and faith are rejected by objectivism since objectivism believes every individual is an absolute and has no inherent obligation to answer to anyone.

You seemed to vacillate between criticizing Libertarianism and Objectivism, so if I confused anything just let me know.

I apologize, I tried to focus on the the libertarian aspect, but you brought up objectivism and I imagine this 'philosophy' would be attractive to libertarians.

No objectivist cult figure, eh? How about the exalted Ayn Rand? :rolleyes: I've been reading up on her a lot lately, as she is mentioned in a lot of libertarian literature. Rand was the very picture of eccentricity and had a very powerful personality. Her thick Russian accent added to the exoticism. Oh and I just read about her 'second in command' Nathaniel Branden, her leading disciple. Branden was pompous, dogmatic, utterly self-infatuated. He was the chief enforcer of a cult that demanded total obedience and agreement on every conceivable subject, in the name of individualism. Any deviation from the Randian line, and they had a line on everything, was taken as evidence of 'bad premises', and grounds for expulsion from the inner circle. There are your figureheads and faith.

baraka · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

It is elitist. So what? Is it incorrect?

Yes, it is incorrect. I mentioned this in the libertarian thread before. It is an egotistical (an erroneous) premise to think everything you make is by your effort alone. Like I stated before, we live in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. So it's elitist and wrong.

farfromglorified · May 2007

baraka wrote:

So you want to keep the current political structure, and simply convince the majority of voters to pass an anti-tax amendment?

What? Of course not. I definitely don't want to keep the current political structure. I want a political structure that follows rights, rather than believes it creates those rights. And I want political structures left to small groups, not states and nations.

I apologize, I tried to focus on the the libertarian aspect, but you brought up objectivism and I imagine this 'philosophy' would be attractive to libertarians.

No apologies necessary. I wasn't faulting the post, I just wanted to make sure I was addressing the correct points.

No objectivist cult figure, eh? How about the exalted Ayn Rand?

Ayn Rand is just a person, and not a perfect one. Ayn Rand is not worshipped by most Objectivists. Rather, she is simply respected in the same way Objectivists respect other men and women who are champions of reason. Rand is simply considered the mother of Objectivism, not its God, ruler, or determinant (final arbiter).

I've been reading up on her a lot lately, as she is mentioned in a lot of libertarian literature. Rand was the very picture of eccentricity and had a very powerful personality. Her thick Russian accent added to the exoticism. Oh and I just read about her 'second in command' Nathaniel Branden, her leading disciple. Branden was pompous, dogmatic, utterly self-infatuated. He was the chief enforcer of a cult that demanded total obedience and agreement on every conceivable subject, in the name of individualism. Any deviation from the Randian line, and they had a line on everything, was taken as evidence of 'bad premises', and grounds for expulsion from the inner circle. There are your figureheads and faith.

Hehe...this is cute. First, Branden and Rand barely even got along following their split and often disagreed. Furthermore, the "inner circle" you've invented is a handful of people who worked editing Atlas Shrugged. Their is no objectivist institution to which objectivists pay homage. There is no church, there is no organization, there is no figurehead. Objectivists reject all those things. You've simply taken very real concepts from most religious and leftist political movements and tried to assign them to objectivism, which doesn't work very well.

farfromglorified · May 2007

baraka wrote:

Yes, it is incorrect. I mentioned this in the libertarian thread before. It is an egotistical (an erroneous) premise to think everything you make is by your effort alone. Like I stated before, we live in an interdependent, specialized economy where the free market is supported by public goods and services. So it's elitist and wrong.

The free market is not "supported by public goods and services". That's like suggesting that good is "supported by" evil, or that evil is "supported by" good. Just because they coexist, and come into contact, does not mean they support one another. They contradict one another. Public goods and services contradict free markets, and vice versa.

I'm not sure what you mean by "[you] think everything you make is by your effort alone". This is not an objectivist view. Things are made by the people who make them.

baraka · May 2007

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...this is cute. First, Branden and Rand barely even got along following their split and often disagreed. Furthermore, the "inner circle" you've invented is a handful of people who worked editing Atlas Shrugged. Their is no objectivist institution to which objectivists pay homage. There is no church, there is no organization, there is no figurehead. Objectivists reject all those things. You've simply taken very real concepts from most religious and leftist political movements and tried to assign them to objectivism, which doesn't work very well.

Oh but it does work VERY well. It true that there is no church, etc. It is somewhat of a fringe following, like most cults. I need to find you the link that I read the other night. Back in the day, apparently many of her leading followers began to speak with a noticeable accent, a Russian accent like Rand's, although each and every one of them had been born in North America. I found this ironic, since the 'individual' is the premise of much of their arguments.

I don't want to turn this thread into a Ayn Rand thread, but she was NO philosopher. I haven't read any of her novels to comment on them (although I do plan on reading Atlas Shrugged). In her nonfiction tirades, Rand quotes mainly from her own works. This was due not only to her inflated self-estimate, but also to a colossal ignorance. Seems like she read almost nothing but detective novels. Her 'philosophy' of rational self-interest was an eccentric modern variation on a much older philosophical tradition. The only precedent she acknowledged was Aristotle from what I can tell. I have to admit, I find her very interesting as I like reading about unusual personalities and beliefs.

Courage to Resist

Comments

Categories