Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of SnowDog
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SnowDog

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Episodes & Show Prep / Re: 2011-10-17
« on: October 18, 2011, 12:50:39 PM »
Is there a link for Luther's story on London traffic lights?

2
Episodes & Show Prep / Saturday 8/13 Podcast
« on: August 14, 2011, 01:28:08 PM »
The podcast appears to be only 24 minutes long?

3
General / Re: A Question to the Athiests
« on: January 01, 2010, 12:36:46 PM »
"My question is, why have ethics at all? This ties into point (3) but I don't understand why an atheist would have a conscience about anything. Given a simple cost/benefit analysis, you stand to gain more from not having personal scruples because limiting yourself comes at a disadvantage, while not having those limits produces benefit."

What are 'ethics'? In my opinion, an ethical framework is a set of principles why which you try to live your life. The reason we need to live within such a framework is to maximize our relationship with others. Treat others well; tell them you respect them, and then you'll be able to work with others to mutual benefit.

Would you go into business with someone you don't trust? Many businesses are successfully run through a partnership. Throw away the respect and trust, and you become isolated from society which limits your options,  and significantly impacts your cost/benefit analysis.


4
General / Re: Liberty Activism / Civil Disobedience in Germany!!!
« on: July 11, 2009, 11:39:14 PM »
Good work!

5
General / Re: Principled Minarchy
« on: July 11, 2009, 11:30:33 PM »
No... the principled minarchy is not the result of a utilitiarian approach. It is the final resting state of the current government, as it approaches principle. The point is that we should guide the way for the state to achieve this goal. The principled minarchy is this way.

If we don't do this... if we don't provide a way for the state to morph into a voluntary organization, then we open the door to all the criticisisms that anarchy encompasses. We MUST show the way, and the principled minarchy is that way.

6
General / Re: Principled Minarchy
« on: July 10, 2009, 04:54:32 PM »
You can also think of the principled minarchy as a transitional government. Unless you believe that large numbers of people are just going to stop obeying the government, (and I know there are some people who believe this), then the path to liberty lies in winning the hearts and minds of the people. This will lead to people dismantling the state, through the state. So, until the state reaches its end point, it will turn into a smaller government, then a minarchy, then the foundation will be laid for the voluntary society, then it will turn into the principled minarchy, which you might then want to call something else...

7
The Show / Re: Wal Mart & Healthcare
« on: July 09, 2009, 09:47:30 AM »

If corporate law at times seems to approximate the way true liability, as determined in an objective court of law, is assigned, that isn't a justification for all the injustice, unfairness and distortions of the free market that come with it.


If your point is that government shouldn't create the fictitious entity, the corporation, even if the law wouldn't effectively change any type of behavior by individuals working together in companies, then that makes sense. Good point.

But then you talk about the injustice, unfairness, and distortiions that come with corporations, and that confuses me. Can you give me an example of injustice, unfairness, and distortions created by corporate law?


8
The Show / Re: Wal Mart & Healthcare
« on: July 09, 2009, 05:50:37 AM »
Which law do you believe is unjust?

My point is that corporate law IS just. It's just a natural reflection of how the market would work. Just because you own something, doesn't mean that you're responsible for how people use that something. An owner of a corporation is not responsible for how it runs, and should not be held liable for the actions of others.

9
General / Re: Breaking up with libertarianism...
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:59:35 PM »
With due respect, you're missing the point...

I have not written any statements about minarchy in this thread. I am not advocating that anyone commit any type of aggression in this thread, unless it's necessary to save one's life. This is a personal moral code, based upon egoism. No one can argue that they should choose death over life, in a lifeboat scenario. That's just pure self-immolation, based upon the idea that the non-aggression principle is an axiom. It is not an axiom. If you believe it is, prove it. However, this idea has nothing to do with minarchy. I am not advocating that we build a state to kill people on my behalf. Sorry to disappoint.

The original poster seemed frustrated that he was forced to work within a system with which he did not agree. I am simply pointing out that his life should be the most important thing to him.


10
General / Re: Breaking up with libertarianism...
« on: July 08, 2009, 07:48:35 PM »

Quote
The mistake underlying libertarian theory is that they assume that the non-aggression principle is an axiom. It is not. We need a moral code to guide our actions, for the purpose of living our lives. Therefore, we must never forget that our individual lives are the most important values that we have, (including everything important in our lives). Therefore aggression is not wrong when necessary to preserve our individual lives.

Tell me how many people's rights may be violated by theft, unprovoked violence, slavery and murder, in the name of self preservation, in order to use up one's allowable quota for aggression or do you live according to the principle of unlimited necessary aggression?


You should kill as many people as you need, to live.

What type of self-esteem would you have, to put the life of a total stranger above your own?

At first I thought this type of murder scenario would never come up, (and realistically, it never will), but imagine if you were discovered as a spy behind enemy lines. In such a case, you shouldn't hesitate to kill everyone in your way, to get back. It actually seems like a classic movie plot.

And I agree with the rest of your points, as I understand them... One should not feel bad, to work within a system with which one disagrees. It's not our system. We wouldn't have it this way, but we still have our lives to live, and that's the higher value.


So, your "minarchy" is actually totally unprincipled. Not surprising.

I don't see how you get to that point. He was asking me a question about morality. The principled minarchy is a different topic.

People need freedom. It's how we're designed. We don't live by instinct; we live by reason, and our minds are our only tools for reason, and we use our minds to figure out how to live. So freedom is essential; as essential as food, water, clothing, housing, etc. This requirement for freedom is the source of our rights. Likewise, we must design society to protect our rights, and this is not being done today. But, when put in a kill-or-be-killed situation with strangers, there's no choice but to kill. What would you do? Die? What logic would lead you to that conclusion?

11
The Show / Re: Wal Mart & Healthcare
« on: July 08, 2009, 06:04:53 PM »
Most corporations are not traded publicly. This makes it very difficult to sell stock in them. Once you buy the stock in the corporation, you really don't have a way to unload the stock easily. So if the corporation takes action to which you disagree, and creates a liability for itself, you might spend a year or more, trying to sell your stock to avoid the personal liability. You could be trapped, running up a liability for an action for which you disagree.

Now, if some court ruled that a company did something so wrong, that anyone who took profit from the corporation while it was making illegal money, would have to return that money.. that might make sense in some very specific circumstances, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. For all practial purposes, companies buy insurance to cover their liabilities. I can't think of a single instance where a company went out of business because of some unbacked liability, other than bankruptcy and those types of debts associated with bankruptcy could be contracted away from the stockholders. The whole point may just be a moot point, and that is my point: that talking about changing corporate structure, implying that corporations wouldn't exist in the free market, or that something fundamental would change with the way corporations are run ... is just incorrect.


If that's true, then limited liability isn't necessary, yet so many businesses incorporate just for that purpose. Especially the smaller ones with only one owner.

Do you know why?

One reason is to save on insurance costs, including the cost of following safety rules instituted by insurance companies. Why spend money when you can socialize the cost?

I'm not sure why single owner companies incorporate. I incorporated my business in 1991 because we had three owners. Banks will also give loans to corporations, knowing that the liability is with the corporation and not the owners, but if you borrow money as a proprietor, you're personally liable.

There is another reason to incorporate. Some non-profit corporations don't have shareholders; like churches. They specify a method of governance when they incorporate, and then they can own property without any actual shareholders.


12
General / Re: Breaking up with libertarianism...
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:08:31 AM »

Quote
The mistake underlying libertarian theory is that they assume that the non-aggression principle is an axiom. It is not. We need a moral code to guide our actions, for the purpose of living our lives. Therefore, we must never forget that our individual lives are the most important values that we have, (including everything important in our lives). Therefore aggression is not wrong when necessary to preserve our individual lives.

Tell me how many people's rights may be violated by theft, unprovoked violence, slavery and murder, in the name of self preservation, in order to use up one's allowable quota for aggression or do you live according to the principle of unlimited necessary aggression?


You should kill as many people as you need, to live.

What type of self-esteem would you have, to put the life of a total stranger above your own?

At first I thought this type of murder scenario would never come up, (and realistically, it never will), but imagine if you were discovered as a spy behind enemy lines. In such a case, you shouldn't hesitate to kill everyone in your way, to get back. It actually seems like a classic movie plot.

And I agree with the rest of your points, as I understand them... One should not feel bad, to work within a system with which one disagrees. It's not our system. We wouldn't have it this way, but we still have our lives to live, and that's the higher value.

13
General / Re: Principled Minarchy
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:02:01 AM »
But we shouldn't 'junk the state'... that's the point.

The ancaps make it sound as if they want to dismantle the state, and hope that everything turns out alright. This isn't going to win the hearts of people who are afraid of violence, which they think might ensue. Instead of dismantling the state, we need to disarm the state and turn it into a voluntary organization. This solves the problem the ancaps seem to ignore, and creates a political path from where we are now, to where we want to be. People who want the protection of the state will still have it. After all, it's just a mutual defense pact between people. Those who don't want the state, will not be threatened by it.

If we change the name of this organization, or call it anything else, then that might be technically correct, but it doesn't solve the problem we have, to market our ideas to the public. And that's the bottom line.

14
General / Re: Principled Minarchy
« on: July 07, 2009, 10:50:10 PM »
Funny... but what would you call it?

15
General / Re: Principled Minarchy
« on: July 07, 2009, 10:21:48 PM »
It doesn't have to be done by a single organizaiton; but it COULD be done by a voluntary association known as a government. This type of government would have the credibility backed by a large plurality of the people, and that would give it weight.

My point is that the government doesn't have to use force to be a monopoly on the use of force. It would simply be the largest organization in the area, created and maintained to ensure justice and national defense. The biggest fear that people have, regarding a society with no government, is that they wouldn't feel secure in their persons, places, and effects. So, let them organize, voluntarily, to solve those fears. Let's support a voluntary minarchy, with no more power than any other group, and we'll solve the dilema facing almost all people who disagree with the voluntarist position.

We need to not only tolerate, but push this idea. The Texas provisional government in 1836, was just such an organization; yet they raised an army and defeated Santa Ana in their war for independence. The principled minarchy has teeth, and has a monopoly on the use of force, simply because it would be composed of the largest number of people.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 30 queries.