FWIS3

Anyone seen this guy asking politicians questions to show how they don't have legitimate rights?
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/report ... -question/

I don't know why all these politicians have problems answering and setting him straight but no one seems to know how to. Even Bernie Sanders got upset and had no legitimate answers to the simple questions. wtf?

Contradiction it may be, but it's kind of necessary, if you want to have taxes (and everything funded by taxes). Likewise for a military.

There is no contradiction. It's a leading question that deflects the point of the issue to something else.

vendic wrote:There is no contradiction. It's a leading question that deflects the point of the issue to something else.

I refer to it as a logic trap. It also ignores the fact that individuals and governments are not equivalent entities.

Sounds like something Heinlein wrote in his novels. It's an argument often used by libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. It's funny, because those people often hate laws, but this question presumes legalism with its core premise.

I wouldn't call it a logical trap. There are logical responses that are not paradoxes or hypocritical.

SciFiFisher wrote:

vendic wrote:There is no contradiction. It's a leading question that deflects the point of the issue to something else.

I refer to it as a logic trap. It also ignores the fact that individuals and governments are not equivalent entities.

Exactly. A person cannot delegate the right to steal, but a group can, particularly if the majority has conceded the power of representative govenment. So his statement that this is exactly how democracy works is flawed from the premise.

One of the best and most crucial questions that Helfeld has asked over the years is simple enough: “can you delegate a right that you don’t have to someone else?”

To use an example, if an average citizen does not have the right to steal from his neighbor, then he can not go ahead and vote for one of his friends to do it. Furthermore, if a particular group, even a group with a majority in a certain area decided to vote for themselves or one another, to steal from innocent people, they would not be justified in doing so. In this situation, these people would essentially be granting a privilege to another person that they themselves did not have, which is obviously a ridiculous idea.

False equivalence. Does anyone have a right to restrain someone else? Does saying no to that question imply that kidnapping, and restraining kidnappers, must be treated as equally wrong?

So, even though there is obviously nuance, what kind of taxes are justified? (I *think* that is the example that they are describing.) Tolls? Sales tax? Income tax? Head tax? Poll tax? Droit du seigneur? Hunger games?

grapes wrote:

One of the best and most crucial questions that Helfeld has asked over the years is simple enough: “can you delegate a right that you don’t have to someone else?”

To use an example, if an average citizen does not have the right to steal from his neighbor, then he can not go ahead and vote for one of his friends to do it. Furthermore, if a particular group, even a group with a majority in a certain area decided to vote for themselves or one another, to steal from innocent people, they would not be justified in doing so. In this situation, these people would essentially be granting a privilege to another person that they themselves did not have, which is obviously a ridiculous idea.

False equivalence. Does anyone have a right to restrain someone else? Does saying no to that question imply that kidnapping, and restraining kidnappers, must be treated as equally wrong?

Yes. Law enforcement.

Rommie wrote:

grapes wrote:

One of the best and most crucial questions that Helfeld has asked over the years is simple enough: “can you delegate a right that you don’t have to someone else?”

To use an example, if an average citizen does not have the right to steal from his neighbor, then he can not go ahead and vote for one of his friends to do it. Furthermore, if a particular group, even a group with a majority in a certain area decided to vote for themselves or one another, to steal from innocent people, they would not be justified in doing so. In this situation, these people would essentially be granting a privilege to another person that they themselves did not have, which is obviously a ridiculous idea.

False equivalence. Does anyone have a right to restrain someone else? Does saying no to that question imply that kidnapping, and restraining kidnappers, must be treated as equally wrong?

Yes. Law enforcement.

Maybe the question should have read, does anyone have a right to kidnap someone else. That's more in line with their approach, where "stealing" might be used, when they are talking about taxation.

I think it can be summed up as crazy libertarian, but I still don't know why the politicians get completely stumped by it.

Personally I look at it as citizens privilege. When you are a citizen, you get various privileges that come with it. Libertarians and like minded individuals have no problem with getting the benefits but refuse to acknowledge that privilege comes with obligations too. It's a two way exchange, not a one way street.

It's fun to watch people tie themselves into logical knots over this instead in order to avoid stating the obvious and appearing anti-social: Rights are a fiction we create to help us get along with each other. When they stop working, we abandon them. Once upon a time, when the world still had wilderness, if someone didn't like the rules - didn't like paying a share of the costs for public works and services- they could GTFO.

People treat rights as if they are immutable. They aren't. Humans are self-programming biological computers and are capable of inventing all sorts of rights, exceptions, and loopholes. Some people seem to think that if we remove all the legalism currently binding rights, that leaves a Golden Age human of the Enlightenment. It doesn't. It leaves the law of the jungle as humans revert to savagery. Civilization is a thin veneer, and libertarians and their ilk take it for granted.

Tarragon wrote:It's fun to watch people tie themselves into logical knots over this instead in order to avoid stating the obvious and appearing anti-social: Rights are a fiction we create to help us get along with each other. When they stop working, we abandon them. Once upon a time, when the world still had wilderness, if someone didn't like the rules - didn't like paying a share of the costs for public works and services- they could GTFO.

People treat rights as if they are immutable. They aren't. Humans are self-programming biological computers and are capable of inventing all sorts of rights, exceptions, and loopholes. Some people seem to think that if we remove all the legalism currently binding rights, that leaves a Golden Age human of the Enlightenment. It doesn't. It leaves the law of the jungle as humans revert to savagery. Civilization is a thin veneer, and libertarians and their ilk take it for granted.

I think a lot of Libertarians really believe that if we take away all the rules people will just be nice.

SciFiFisher wrote:

Tarragon wrote:It's fun to watch people tie themselves into logical knots over this instead in order to avoid stating the obvious and appearing anti-social: Rights are a fiction we create to help us get along with each other. When they stop working, we abandon them. Once upon a time, when the world still had wilderness, if someone didn't like the rules - didn't like paying a share of the costs for public works and services- they could GTFO.

People treat rights as if they are immutable. They aren't. Humans are self-programming biological computers and are capable of inventing all sorts of rights, exceptions, and loopholes. Some people seem to think that if we remove all the legalism currently binding rights, that leaves a Golden Age human of the Enlightenment. It doesn't. It leaves the law of the jungle as humans revert to savagery. Civilization is a thin veneer, and libertarians and their ilk take it for granted.

I think a lot of Libertarians really believe that if we take away all the rules people will just be nice.

Yep. That's my fundamental problem with most ideologies. They all fail to address what to do if there is a large portion of the public that doesn't tow the ideological line.
Communism works!!! In theory.
Fascism works!!! In theory
Libertarian-ism works!!! In theory.
All XXXX-isms work!!! In theory.

They all shit themselves and become corrupt, becoming the opposite of their intended purpose because the ones that are attracted to power eventually get to hold the wheel. Then it might as well be discarded as it no longer is what it was.
I call it zombie-ism.
They just aren't the same movement we once loved, we have to let them go, or shoot them in the proverbial head, just remember them fondly before they were bitten and turned. Whatever you do, don't get too close or you will turn into one too!

Hmm, new way to describe all these groups members that have lost the plot.
Comombie.
Fascombie
Libombie
Femnombie
Mrombie (MRA Zombie)
GrOmbie (Green party Zombie)
Islombi (Islamic zombie)
Capombie
Demombie
Conombie

lol

You forgot Nazombi. Although my favorite would probably be MilDictombie.

Wot? No Cathombie?

Has something to do with catheters I think

Cathombie sounds like a girl I know! lol

Vegazombie.

Thumper wrote:Vegazombie.

Beware the dreaded Zuccombi. They multiply faster than any other zombie class.

Thumper wrote:Vegazombie.

So I was reading reviews of that meat glue I posted about in the Grill forum.
Turns out you can get it cheap at Amazon in a 50g bag, so I was reading the reviews.
Someone actually asked if it's vegetarian...

vendic wrote:

Thumper wrote:Vegazombie.

So I was reading reviews of that meat glue I posted about in the Grill forum.
Turns out you can get it cheap at Amazon in a 50g bag, so I was reading the reviews.
Someone actually asked if it's vegetarian...

There's a saying a friend of mine liked to say which I'm really getting to be more fond of lately.
"Some people are educated beyond their intelligence".

vendic wrote:There's a saying a friend of mine liked to say which I'm really getting to be more fond of lately.
"Some people are educated beyond their intelligence".

I like it. Don't think I've heard it before. I run into them all the time, and not just when looking in a mirror.

This is why underachievers should rule the world.

Underombies?

Tarragon wrote:

vendic wrote:There's a saying a friend of mine liked to say which I'm really getting to be more fond of lately.
"Some people are educated beyond their intelligence".

I like it. Don't think I've heard it before. I run into them all the time, and not just when looking in a mirror.

I started hearing it in the Christian church back in the eighties and nineties. It was started by preachers lamenting the fact that so many young people would head off to college as Christians and come back as atheists.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Tarragon wrote:

vendic wrote:There's a saying a friend of mine liked to say which I'm really getting to be more fond of lately.
"Some people are educated beyond their intelligence".

I like it. Don't think I've heard it before. I run into them all the time, and not just when looking in a mirror.

I started hearing it in the Christian church back in the eighties and nineties. It was started by preachers lamenting the fact that so many young people would head off to college as Christians and come back as atheists.

I heard similar arguments against secular colleges and universities from some people in the church I grew up in, but not that particular phrasing. It has a bit more of a sanctimonious connotation now.