Compromise?

Lastly, you haven't answered your own question, what principles are you willing to compromise and in trade for what?

When I asked this question I said nothing about anybody’s principles. This is a concept that you introduced into the discussion. I was talking about politics and public policy. You are claiming core principles that can no longer exist in the real world. This means that you have no intention of compromising anything for the common good. So what is the point of trying to discuss anything with you?

BTW: I find it ironic and highly disingenuous on your part that you come here harping about respecting other people’s rights when the name you call yourself mentions an Indian tribe- whose land was stolen.
 
Werbung:
What would you, as a liberal or a conservative, be willing to give up in order for the other side to let you have something that you want? Are you willing to compromise, and if so what for?

Would you as a liberal be willing to accept a conservative policy if it can achieve a liberal goal?

Would you as a conservative be willing to accept a liberal policy if it can achieve a conservative goal?


Well, its sad that goals are viewed as conservative or liberal as opposed to Constitutional and necessary. But it is the case now so no pretending otherwise.

I am ignorant of any liberal goals I can support.

Mind you that there are so-called liberal goals that are lies. Health care reform being the most obvious one. Nothing in the bills reforms health care., only insurance. Were the dems willig to go back to the drawing board on this them perhaps but I don't see this happening.
 
What harm?

Oh little things like trying to find creative new ways to strip away a woman's right to choose...

trying to privatize Social Security and force American seniors into the stock market just months before it colapsed...

outing undercover CIA agents...

stripping away some American Civil Liberties...

producing selective intel and in many cases outright lying to get the country to go along with an invasion & occupation of Iraq costing us 4000 American lives and $12 Billion Dollars per month for 7+ years...

TORTURING bound defenseless detainees...

I could go on but you get the point... some very bad things.


 
Oh little things like trying to find creative new ways to strip away a woman's right to choose...

trying to privatize Social Security and force American seniors into the stock market just months before it colapsed...

outing undercover CIA agents...

stripping away some American Civil Liberties...

producing selective intel and in many cases outright lying to get the country to go along with an invasion & occupation of Iraq costing us 4000 American lives and $12 Billion Dollars per month for 7+ years...

TORTURING bound defenseless detainees...

I could go on but you get the point... some very bad things.



that you have nothing ?
 
When capitalism is totally unregulated by law, capitalism and hedonism are the same thing.
Now you are making another mistake common among anti-capitalists, namely that of equating capitalism with anarchy.

Governments proper role is to protect us from force and fraud, which is accomplished through laws. So laws that punish fraud are necessary, and expected to be rigorously enforced, in a laissez-faire capitalist society.

When I asked this question I said nothing about anybody’s principles... I was talking about politics and public policy.
Politics, and public policy, are an extension of ones principles being applied in a social context. I am now even more intrigued as to your political beliefs since you seem to be making the case that you hold opinions about politics and public policy that are, by your own admission, devoid of any principles.

You are claiming core principles that can no longer exist in the real world.
Individual rights shall always exist so long as there are individuals. Whether these rights are recognized and protected in no way erases their existence.

This means that you have no intention of compromising anything for the common good.
"“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?

It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual.

Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism; The unknown ideal

I find it ironic and highly disingenuous on your part that you come here harping about respecting other people’s rights when the name you call yourself mentions an Indian tribe- whose land was stolen.
Fallacy, Ad Hominem of Tu Quoque: A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

Seneca is my Latin name and so naturally I was drawn to translating and reading the works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca.

"Let us therefore act, in all our plans and conduct, just as we are accustomed to act whenever we approach a huckster who has certain wares for sale; let us see how much we must pay for that which we crave. Very often the things that cost nothing cost us the most heavily; I can show you many objects the quest and acquisition of which have wrested freedom from our hands." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4BC - 65AD)

That quote is particularly relevant given that collectivist hucksters have always tried to sell the "common good" to other men at the cost of their individual liberty.
 
Now you are making another mistake common among anti-capitalists, namely that of equating capitalism with anarchy.

Governments proper role is to protect us from force and fraud, which is accomplished through laws. So laws that punish fraud are necessary, and expected to be rigorously enforced, in a laissez-faire capitalist society.

Government regulation is the antithesis of laissez faire capitalism. Please make up your mind about what you believe before you waste any more of time trying to discuss this issue. If you support government regulation to protect the marketplace from human nature, then you do not favor laissez-faire capitalism.
 
that you have nothing ?

That's my whole point on why you guys can't be in power... you think these are nothing.

Originally Posted by top gun
Oh little things like trying to find creative new ways to strip away a woman's right to choose...

trying to privatize Social Security and force American seniors into the stock market just months before it colapsed...

outing undercover CIA agents...

stripping away some American Civil Liberties...

producing selective intel and in many cases outright lying to get the country to go along with an invasion & occupation of Iraq costing us 4000 American lives and $12 Billion Dollars per month for 7+ years...

TORTURING bound defenseless detainees...

I could go on but you get the point... some very bad things.
 
Oh little things like trying to find creative new ways to strip away a woman's right to choose...
To choose what- the most effective way to kill a human being in the womb?

Well since you can't force someone to carry something inside their own personal body anyway it's a rather obvious right but as far as the decision making process goes it one that not I nor you nor the government but the actual woman involved must decide.

Government forced incubators were never a good or working idea. The only thing that happened was woman died either self aborting or going to some back ally clinic.

Woman won't be going back there.


 
Oh little things like trying to find creative new ways to strip away a woman's right to choose...

Well since you can't force someone to carry something inside their own personal body anyway it's a rather obvious right but as far as the decision making process goes it one that not I nor you nor the government but the actual woman involved must decide.


On the contrary. The Supreme Court declared in the Roe decision that a woman’s right to abortion exists only because neither the Constitution, nor statutory law, define the legal status of the unborn. The Court ruled that should the unborn ever be defined as a person for 14th Amendment purposes, the Court would have reason to review its Roe decision since the unborn’s right to life may then take precedence over a woman’s right to an abortion. Furthermore, any child that a woman has in her womb half the fathers. What about his rights?
 
Government regulation is the antithesis of laissez faire capitalism. Please make up your mind about what you believe before you waste any more of time trying to discuss this issue. If you support government regulation to protect the marketplace from human nature, then you do not favor laissez-faire capitalism.
That's a pretty common misconception.

Take this quote for example:

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. - Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics

So from the point of view of a propagandist looking to exclude relevant context to promote their own agenda, such a quote could be used to claim that Rand is calling for economic anarchy, completely devoid of any laws that would protect the rights of those who participate in the economy.

Nothing could be further from the truth:

A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises. - Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

Clearly Rand is stating here that both force and fraud are violation of individual rights, therefore violations of the capitalist ethics.

What then is governments role in a capitalist society?

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. - Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual

Rather than promoting a world of economic chaos and darwinistic anarchy (as our opponents would have you believe), capitalists want a strong government but for its powers to be strictly limited to protecting individual rights.

You know the saying "jack of all trades, master of none"? Well government has become an incompetent, waste-filled, corrupt, jack of all trades and we capitalists would like to see it become the master of one - protecting individual rights.

One last quote:
Free market economics is closely associated with laissez-faire economic philosophy, which advocates approximating this condition in the real world by mostly confining government intervention in economic matters to regulating against force and fraud among market participants.
Only snake-oil salesmen trying to sell you their magic-economic-elixer ever make the case that laissez-faire capitalists do not support governments proper role of protecting individual rights.
 
That's a pretty common misconception.

Take this quote for example:



So from the point of view of a propagandist looking to exclude relevant context to promote their own agenda, such a quote could be used to claim that Rand is calling for economic anarchy, completely devoid of any laws that would protect the rights of those who participate in the economy.

And any sensible person would think she was. Get over it.
 
Werbung:
That’s how we got into the fix we are in. Too many people want laissez-faire capitalism because they are greedy for monetary gain regardless of the cost to others, and too many people have the philosophy of if it feels good, do it regardless of the cost to society.
.
1570219496-3818[1].jpg
.
 
Back
Top