Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[SpontaneousOrder]

I guess free people could voluntarily form companies to build roads to serve their area,

As they currently do.

everyone with a vehicle or who wished their dwelling to be accessible could voluntarily contribute some of their inalienable property

You mean pay in exchange to use the road? Sure.

, if they had any money left after voluntarily paying for their private health care, private education for their children, private Fire Brigade, private police force (to defend their property rights, natch).

You mean all of the things we currently pay for?

... of course the road taxes would be entirely voluntary, and we rational self-interested Objectivists would attempt to get the most road for the least money, which might lead to a shortfall.

Does not compute. If you want the most road for your money (which is of course a good thing), then you will get exactly as much road as you're wiling to pay for. What is this imaginary 'shortfall'?
Currently I can't drive from my house to New York because there is no bridge to take me there. Is that due to such a shortfall?

So maybe, to ensure there's a road network for all we would invite shareholders to vote on making the road levy compulsory. Wait! WHAT AM I THINKING!

For all? you mean for those that want roads, AND those that don't want roads? Strange concept.


Of course all of this is evasion of the point at hand - which is your condemnation of a book you haven't read, based on a philosophy that it attempts to illustrate - which you don't understand.

We're on page 16 or something crazy - and you haven't given a coherent justification yet. Nor have you given a coherent response to any fault i've highlighted in your logic.

If you really are out, then I accept your deference to my superior.... everything. It could have been more gracious, instead of bearing a close similarity to a landed fish desperately twitching and flapping about as it gasps for it's last breath - only less honest.

[pjclarke]

If the demand is the why not? It is how the railways were built. .

And the free market dream steams on with the success story that is the privatised rail system!

[speling bee]

So, lets assume that it really was some kind of joke, and you're not just desperately trying to dig yourself out of a hole...

What happens if I refuse to pay my taxes, and refuse to comply in any way with any efforts of the state to get hold of my taxes?

Simple question, right?

I hope you will be treated the same as any other thief who would flout the laws pertaining to property.

[pjclarke]

We're on page 16 or something crazy - and you haven't given a coherent justification yet. Nor have you given a coherent response to any fault i've highlighted in your logic.

Remind me of one? Oh, I concede you're better than I at playground insults: 'brain damaged;, 'slime', 'a numpty', 'rotter' . Some might feel this is rather more indicative of a ' landed fish desperately twitching and flapping ', I could not possibly comment.

And we await a cogent apology for the parody video that started the thread. Wot it was real?

Its a lie to say I have not read the book, I did not finish it, but the 'point' was obvious by Page 60 and I reckoned I could get the same effect as reading the last 700 pages by closing it and banging myself over the head for two hours, I saw enough of the prolix hectoring lectures, shrill tone, risible assertions, turgid style, lack of character development, strained un-natural dialogue and implausible plot to conclude that there were more deserving tomes on my to-read list.

Upthread I challenged you to support the opinion that the evidence shows that 'public expenditure on healthcare makes it more expensive'



I also pointed out that the assertion that because I demur from that proposition that charity donors need to assess 'the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.' before helping someone, why then I must treat random strangers as I treat my son is a non sequiteur (does not follow). Random strangers do benefit, in a small way, from my charity, without me paying for their University fees. Numpty.

Then there's the purile debating tactic of posing a question to which we both know the answer in the hope of framing the debate and making, yet again the same sledgehammer metaphor of taxes as theft.

No, I don't think I'll take any lessons in logic from this particular source, thank you.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Then there's the purile debating tactic of posing a question to which we both know the answer in the hope of framing the debate and making, yet again the same sledgehammer metaphor of taxes as theft.

It's called the 'Sorcatic method', and is a surefire way to either 1) force a numpty to realise his own mistake, or 2) out a charlatan who no longer has any route to escape.


Anyhow, either 1) you're an utter simpleton - in which case this thread stands here as testimony to your simpleness for anyone why might be tempted to take your AGW arguments as anything more than on-the-fly google search results that sound roughly as though they support the position you're adopting.

Or 2) You;re a proper deceiving, slippery scumbag - in which case this thread stands as testimony and education for any passing traffic that may not have learned yet to spot a sophist (think of it like a 'sophistry for dummies' book - a stepping stone to tougher & less transparent examples).

Either way, you know the truth. Sleep sound.

[pjclarke]

You're many things SO. But you're no Socrates.

[Old Greg]

It's called the 'Sorcatic method', and is a surefire way to either 1) force a numpty to realise his own mistake, or 2) out a charlatan who no longer has any route to escape.


Anyhow, either 1) you're an utter simpleton - in which case this thread stands here as testimony to your simpleness for anyone why might be tempted to take your AGW arguments as anything more than on-the-fly google search results that sound roughly as though they support the position you're adopting.

Or 2) You;re a proper deceiving, slippery scumbag - in which case this thread stands as testimony and education for any passing traffic that may not have learned yet to spot a sophist (think of it like a 'sophistry for dummies' book - a stepping stone to tougher & less transparent examples).

Either way, you know the truth. Sleep sound.

If only you could objectively prove your position on property rights. But I accept you may be suffering a delusion .

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

I reject your premise. Taxation levied by a democratically elected (and removable) Government is not obtaining aid by force. And giving just 'out of the goodness of one's heart' is distinctly un-Randian.
A society which has chosen to provide for those unable to work through a mandatory levy is more compassionate than one which has not, in my view.

Let's think this through ...

According to Rand, Charity is moral as long as it does not involve self-sacrifice, the donor has decided the recipient is worthy and the giving will increase the donor's happiness in some way.

Also according to Rand, those unable to work must rely on the voluntary charity of others.

Let us posit a man born with disabilities so severe he can not work, or an elderly man with Alzheimers, or an authoress in her seventies who has lung cancer and can no longer write. There may well be nobody who can afford to help, thinks them worthy and believes helping them is in the donor's interest.

And so they go to the wall. Hardly compassionate.

Strike one for Monbiot.

Let's quote the woman herself shall we rather than biased commentators:

"The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . ."

What she is saying is that true charity comes from a desire to help and not an enforced moral obligation - she's not saying that charity is wrong

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

Remind me of one? Oh, I concede you're better than I at playground insults: 'brain damaged;, 'slime', 'a numpty', 'rotter' . Some might feel this is rather more indicative of a ' landed fish desperately twitching and flapping ', I could not possibly comment.

And we await a cogent apology for the parody video that started the thread. Wot it was real?

Its a lie to say I have not read the book, I did not finish it, but the 'point' was obvious by Page 60 and I reckoned I could get the same effect as reading the last 700 pages by closing it and banging myself over the head for two hours, I saw enough of the prolix hectoring lectures, shrill tone, risible assertions, turgid style, lack of character development, strained un-natural dialogue and implausible plot to conclude that there were more deserving tomes on my to-read list.

Upthread I challenged you to support the opinion that the evidence shows that 'public expenditure on healthcare makes it more expensive'



I also pointed out that the assertion that because I demur from that proposition that charity donors need to assess 'the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness.' before helping someone, why then I must treat random strangers as I treat my son is a non sequiteur (does not follow). Random strangers do benefit, in a small way, from my charity, without me paying for their University fees. Numpty.

Then there's the purile debating tactic of posing a question to which we both know the answer in the hope of framing the debate and making, yet again the same sledgehammer metaphor of taxes as theft.

No, I don't think I'll take any lessons in logic from this particular source, thank you.

The book is over 1100 pages - reading 70 pages does not give you a realistic insight into the philosophy

[Old Greg]

The book is over 1100 pages - reading 70 pages does not give you a realistic insight into the philosophy

How much of the Koran have you read, Lisa?