Limited government

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, because then the 10% can benefit from the welfare state too, without paying for it.

No, because the 10% would not be able to claim welfare.

But if things are around the other way, will the 90% pay the 10%.

If a dole bludger breaks into one of the 10%ers house and burglarizes it will the great collective cash up. Because despite your claims that we should pay people not to steal from us, they are the ones doing exactly that now. Do you really think burglars and other criminals come home from a days work then go out all hours of the night making mischief with other peoples properties and lives? No, it's all those people being paid not to steal from us.

You over state the benefits of welfare, let's just call it square you join your collective and lure in as many like minded people as you can, voluntarily.

Originally posted by Wajoma
No, because the 10% would not be able to claim welfare.

But if things are around the other way, will the 90% pay the 10%.

If a dole bludger breaks into one of the 10%ers house and burglarizes it will the great collective cash up. Because despite your claims that we should pay people not to steal from us, they are the ones doing exactly that now. Do quare you join your collective and lure in as many like minded people as you can, voluntarily.

As long as they unwillingly contribute to funding guards - "men with guns" in Rand's terms - for heirs' unearned fortunes, right?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
As long as they unwillingly contribute to funding guards - "men with guns" in Rand's terms - for heirs' unearned fortunes, right?

Prove they are unearned.

Originally posted by Wajoma
No, because the 10% would not be able to claim welfare.

But if things are around the other way, will the 90% pay the 10%.

If a dole bludger breaks into one of the 10%ers house and burglarizes it will the great collective cash up. Because despite your claims that we should pay people not to steal from us, they are the ones doing exactly that now. Do ...[text shortened]... quare you join your collective and lure in as many like minded people as you can, voluntarily.

They would sign up as soon as they need it. Meanwhile, the people who don't need it will drop out since they realize they can just sign up in case they need it and the system collapses. So in fact the wish of the 90% will be ignored and the 10% is "stomping" on the "rights" of the 90%.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
They would sign up as soon as they need it. Meanwhile, the people who don't need it will drop out since they realize they can just sign up in case they need it and the system collapses. So in fact the wish of the 90% will be ignored and the 10% is "stomping" on the "rights" of the 90%.

Now you're being a silly billy.

Simply a matter of contract, if you can't come up with some conditions to cover the scenarios you put forward, you'd be showing less imagination than your last post.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Now you're being a silly billy.

Simply a matter of contract, if you can't come up with some conditions to cover the scenarios you put forward, you'd be showing less imagination than your last post.

I can come up with a condition. The condition is that everyone is in and no one can cop out and later sign back in.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I can come up with a condition. The condition is that everyone is in and no one can cop out and later sign back in.

Now that's what you call trampling rights.

And that is what you need to recognise.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Now that's what you call trampling rights.

And that is what you need to recognise.

Suppose the 90% do not want a welfare state, but want to get rid of law and order and refuse to acknowledge the authority of courts and the police. Are their rights being "trampled on" if they are still forced to abide by law and order?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Suppose the 90% do not want a welfare state, but want to get rid of law and order and refuse to acknowledge the authority of courts and the police. Are their rights being "trampled on" if they are still forced to abide by law and order?

If you have a right, then it follows the other guy has a right.

So if you have a right to life, then the other guy has a right to life.

If the other guy cannot or will not accept that you have a right to life (i.e. he is an objective threat to your life) then you are justified in acting against that threat.

I don't know why you keep coming back with this 90% number, it doesn't matter if it's 99.999% or 50.001%, what we're trying to establish is what is right and what is wrong.

Originally posted by Wajoma
If you have a right, then it follows the other guy has a right.

So if you have a right to life, then the other guy has a right to life.

If the other guy cannot or will not accept that you have a right to life (i.e. he is an objective threat to your life) then you are justified in acting against that threat.

I don't know why you keep coming back with ...[text shortened]... it's 99.999% or 50.001%, what we're trying to establish is what is right and what is wrong.

Do you really think you can get away with this kind of blatant evasion of the debate without being ridiculed?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Do you really think you can get away with this kind of blatant evasion of the debate without being ridiculed?

There is no evasion, what you need to understand is, what a right is, and I'm helping you to do that, it's a big step for you because a lot of your control freak ways will then start to crumble.

Originally posted by Wajoma
There is no evasion, what you need to understand is, what a right is, and I'm helping you to do that, it's a big step for you because a lot of your control freak ways will then start to crumble.

What mechanism do you suggest is used to change a certain society's laws?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What mechanism do you suggest is used to change a certain society's laws?

The ideal is a constitution similar to what the US almost had, limiting the power of guvamint. It took a revolution to get there. I don't see another revolution on the horizon so we're stuck with dermocracy.

I agree that a society is shaped largely by the prevailing philosophy the once rugged individualism of 100 hundred years ago is slipping away to be replaced by euroweenie collectivism. As mentioned earlier this is the major conflict between Libertarianism and Objectivism, you have to have the 'why' men should live free from force. Some objectivists claim that Libertarians are trying to take the short cut and the result will not be sound or lasting. I would like to see the state rolled back in my life time or at least the brakes applied to creeping statism, I would like to get a little bit more of my life back and the political road is the way, if a Libertarian political party can start grabbing a few votes from the major parties they will in turn take a more freedom orientated approach because their main objective is, as always, to have their hands on the control levers regardless, they will sell out any and all of their principles to stay in the hot seat, if they adopt Libertarian policies to do so that is a small win for all freedom lovers.

Originally posted by Wajoma
The ideal is a constitution similar to what the US almost had, limiting the power of guvamint. It took a revolution to get there. I don't see another revolution on the horizon so we're stuck with dermocracy.

I agree that a society is shaped largely by the prevailing philosophy the once rugged individualism of 100 hundred years ago is slipping away to be ...[text shortened]... eat, if they adopt Libertarian policies to do so that is a small win for all freedom lovers.

So it seems that once again you are contradicting yourself. Or do you suggest setting up a constitution that would forbid any form of social security?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So it seems that once again you are contradicting yourself. Or do you suggest setting up a constitution that would forbid any form of social security?

If you believe in 'social security' I would never dream of limiting your freedom to start/join/contribute to/advertise any scheme you'd like to dream up, you just couldn't force it on the unwilling.

Every so often we make a little progress with you KN, I'm optimistic.