maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Harumpfh. English Gentlemen hardly need lectures on manners from some rabid colonial bumpkin



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 911 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 92  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:51 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 11383
Reputation points: 15300
normski- wrote:
@EUB

'Hence why socialism, even democratic socialism, has a fundamentally totalitarian undercurrent.

Think about it. What I have for dinner tonight, you have a stake in. WTF? Doesn't get much more total than that.'

If you get cancer, you still want me to fund your treatment.

The flaw in your argument is that we are all interconnected regardless of whether we pretend not to be. Our actions or inactions as many individuals have a total aggregated effect on other people. Also I think you're using the word 'totalitarian' here in a similar way to how you observe people use 'fascism'. 'Totalitarianism' is usually associated with people being dragged from their beds and murdered in ditches, whereas the purpose of social protection is to produce outcomes which are beneficial to the maximum number of people. Being unnecessarily sick isn't objectively beneficial to anyone except whoever is selling you your disease.

In the battlefield of ideology, you have a stake in what I have for dinner.


Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

There are such things as 'total institutions' as well, the idea being that the totallity of life is controlled. No private sphere. When what I have for lunch isnt private then that's pretty "total".

As for funding cancer treatment - not especially. That's how it is under the NHS, but then of course it is, it is collectivism after all. I don't agree with collectivisation precisely for this sort of reason, it's just an excuse for total control. Somehow I doubt thats what Attlee actually intended, but it's an inevitable consequence.

As for being unnecessarily sick, it's none of your business. Simple as. If you think the NHS is an excuse to make it your business, get rid of the NHS.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:11 pm 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 1780
EUBanana wrote:
normski- wrote:
@EUB

'Hence why socialism, even democratic socialism, has a fundamentally totalitarian undercurrent.

Think about it. What I have for dinner tonight, you have a stake in. WTF? Doesn't get much more total than that.'

If you get cancer, you still want me to fund your treatment.

The flaw in your argument is that we are all interconnected regardless of whether we pretend not to be. Our actions or inactions as many individuals have a total aggregated effect on other people. Also I think you're using the word 'totalitarian' here in a similar way to how you observe people use 'fascism'. 'Totalitarianism' is usually associated with people being dragged from their beds and murdered in ditches, whereas the purpose of social protection is to produce outcomes which are beneficial to the maximum number of people. Being unnecessarily sick isn't objectively beneficial to anyone except whoever is selling you your disease.

In the battlefield of ideology, you have a stake in what I have for dinner.


Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

There are such things as 'total institutions' as well, the idea being that the totallity of life is controlled. No private sphere. When what I have for lunch isnt private then that's pretty "total".

As for funding cancer treatment - not especially. That's how it is under the NHS, but then of course it is, it is collectivism after all. I don't agree with collectivisation precisely for this sort of reason, it's just an excuse for total control. Somehow I doubt thats what Attlee actually intended, but it's an inevitable consequence.

As for being unnecessarily sick, it's none of your business. Simple as. If you think the NHS is an excuse to make it your business, get rid of the NHS.



The definition you posted about totalitarianism talks about a state recognizing no limits" in its authority to regulate EVERY aspect of private and public life...

Okay, but what about when there ARE limits and the state strives to regulate MANY or SOME aspects of public AND private life wherever feasible...?

In western culture there is some type of deification of privacy. It seems "privacy" has become a buzz word we accept as some type of an ultimate right which nobody can touch. But, before accepting unquestionably the right of privacy, you may want to see the reasons for doing so and the qualifications which should exist. To me, if privacy helps people make free choices which match their desires of their unique personalities , then it makes sense to protect it provided two things: The first thing (which we often hear) is that this freedom of choice should not harm the freedom of others. The second thing (which we do not hear very often) is that this freedom of choice should be rational. In other words freedom in the form of offering irrational choices, like choosing between being healthy and sick is not meaningful and worthy of any respect. And if you ask me "who will decide what is rational choosing?" I will say it will be the "common sense" of the community:

Now, we may disagree about the application of this "common sense" in specific cases, but my point is that it is worth to debate if the state should in many cases regulate our private life instead of dismissing it out of hand. If we accept this deification of our right for privacy, we will never be able to justify "common sense" state regulations. Take for example regulation against drugs. We may disagree about the regulations regarding soft drugs or about the position of the line that separates soft from hard drugs, but is not it common sense to have regulations against the very heavy narcotics? Or are you going to say that this should be a private issue and everybody should decide for himself the types of substances he uses to feed his body? After all you seemed to argue that someone's meal, even if it is unhealthy, is a private act that must be kept away from the state's regulations. So, if this the case for someone's meal, why should not it be the same case with someone's dose?

All the above are related to my final point: make sure that common sense does not become a victim of your effort to protect privacy from the state

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 12:34 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 26608
Reputation points: 20000
"The common sense of the community" would include such US laws as anti-sodomy laws, anti mixed marriage laws, forced adoption of Indian children and the worst law of all time...Prohibition. Globally it is even worse...apartheid, extermination of the Jews and Gypsies, Armenian genocide

What if the "common sense of the community" decided next week on a forced extermination of Greeks?

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 2:11 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15091
Reputation points: 1834
jack t ripper wrote:
"The common sense of the community" would include such US laws as anti-sodomy laws, anti mixed marriage laws, forced adoption of Indian children and the worst law of all time...Prohibition. Globally it is even worse...apartheid, extermination of the Jews and Gypsies, Armenian genocide

What if the "common sense of the community" decided next week on a forced extermination of Greeks?

How about internment of muslims? :roll:

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:57 am 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 pm
Posts: 5965
Reputation points: 1780
jack t ripper wrote:
"The common sense of the community" would include such US laws as anti-sodomy laws, anti mixed marriage laws, forced adoption of Indian children and the worst law of all time...Prohibition. Globally it is even worse...apartheid, extermination of the Jews and Gypsies, Armenian genocide

What if the "common sense of the community" decided next week on a forced extermination of Greeks?



I did not say that "common sense" should be the only thing we should consider in our decision. For example, I mentioned (and we all accept it as uncontroversial) that freedom should not harm others. This pretty much eliminates most of the examples of your list. As for the prohibition, I do not think it was the common sense if the community at the time to COMPLETELY eliminate all alcohol. That was an extremist view by certain activists who managed to translate their beliefs to political action. Still, the prohibition laws were a colossal failure exactly because most people did not want to go to that extreme. On the other hand, the anti-sodomy laws is a better example: But I cannot imagine that these laws would be "common sense" today.

_________________
I have blocked mdhiel and will do the same to any person who may decide to alter my quotes in the future
(see thread viewtopic.php?f=5&p=273210#p273210)


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:31 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:49 pm
Posts: 1114
Location: Republic of Bastardia
Reputation points: 1377
@EUB

'As for funding cancer treatment - not especially. That's how it is under the NHS, but then of course it is, it is collectivism after all. I don't agree with collectivisation precisely for this sort of reason, it's just an excuse for total control. Somehow I doubt thats what Attlee actually intended, but it's an inevitable consequence.'

Does cancer make you more, or less free?

'As for being unnecessarily sick, it's none of your business. Simple as. If you think the NHS is an excuse to make it your business, get rid of the NHS.'

Do you never use the NHS?

If you never use it, is that because you have so much personal wealth that you don't need to use it?

If you get sick and can't afford private healthcare, do you refuse to use the NHS on a point of principle?

'get rid of the NHS'

By treating cancer etc. does the NHS make people more, or less free?


On a slightly different tack:

'I don't agree with collectivisation precisely for this sort of reason, it's just an excuse for total control.'

All clubs are collectives. All political parties are collectives. All corporations are collectives. All groups which pursue common aims, are collectives. There is no escape from collectivism unless you are a hermit.

'it's just an excuse for total control'

You say that like it's a bad thing.

_________________
Guns don't kill people, healthcare kills people.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Ben Stein, New York Times 26/11/06


Last edited by normski- on Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:59 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 11383
Reputation points: 15300
normski- wrote:
@EUB

'As for funding cancer treatment - not especially. That's how it is under the NHS, but then of course it is, it is collectivism after all. I don't agree with collectivisation precisely for this sort of reason, it's just an excuse for total control. Somehow I doubt thats what Attlee actually intended, but it's an inevitable consequence.'

Does cancer make you more, or less free?


Everybody dies. I would say its irrelevant to the equation.

Quote:
'As for being unnecessarily sick, it's none of your business. Simple as. If you think the NHS is an excuse to make it your business, get rid of the NHS.'

Do you never use the NHS?

If you never use it, is that because you have so much personal wealth that you don't need to use it?

If you get sick and can't afford private healthcare, do you refuse to use the NHS on a point of principle?


Of course I don't, I'm not an idiot, or a martyr. I consider it a tax rebate. :lol:

Quote:
'get rid of the NHS'

By treating cancer etc. does the NHS make people more, or less free?


The NHS itself probably is neither here nor there. One thing is certain; there would be a healthcare system of some form in existence.

You and your sugar tax however, do not. It's not really the NHS's fault that you're using it as an excuse, but you are.

Quote:
All clubs are collectives. All political parties are collectives. All corporations are collectives. All groups with common aims, are collectives. There is no escape from collectivism unless you are a hermit.


Voluntary collectives. Libertarianism is very much in favour of voluntary cooperation. Hence why Friendly Societies get brought up as an alternative to the welfare state, for example.

Collectivisation in political terms generally implies force of some sort.

There's an old saw about how you could be a communist in a libertarian society but not a libertarian in a communist society. And it's true, if you could find enough fellow communists to set up a commune, then why not. So long as no force is involved.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Last edited by EUBanana on Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:04 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 11383
Reputation points: 15300
pamak wrote:
In western culture there is some type of deification of privacy. It seems "privacy" has become a buzz word we accept as some type of an ultimate right which nobody can touch. But, before accepting unquestionably the right of privacy, you may want to see the reasons for doing so and the qualifications which should exist. To me, if privacy helps people make free choices which match their desires of their unique personalities , then it makes sense to protect it provided two things: The first thing (which we often hear) is that this freedom of choice should not harm the freedom of others. The second thing (which we do not hear very often) is that this freedom of choice should be rational. In other words freedom in the form of offering irrational choices, like choosing between being healthy and sick is not meaningful and worthy of any respect. And if you ask me "who will decide what is rational choosing?" I will say it will be the "common sense" of the community:


Sounds a bit like communist thought on the subject. They claimed scientific validity for their social experiments, which is all the justification they needed to oppress the shit out of people. Presumably you would be the same, your conscience would rest easy if you felt you were stopping people from being 'irrational'.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:12 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 3:49 pm
Posts: 1114
Location: Republic of Bastardia
Reputation points: 1377
@EUB

'Of course I don't, I'm not an idiot, or a martyr. I consider it a tax rebate. :lol: '

Others might consider you a leech.

' 'Does cancer make you more, or less free?'

'Everybody dies. I would say its irrelevant to the equation.' '

That's an evasion. An equivalent argument would be, everyone dies, therefore all freedom is irrelevant.

Cancer might not kill you, especially if you get treatment. So whilst you're living with it, does it make you more, or less free?

'Collectivisation in political terms generally implies force of some sort.'

So does libertarianism.

_________________
Guns don't kill people, healthcare kills people.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Ben Stein, New York Times 26/11/06


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: EU and Brexit
PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 6:12 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 11383
Reputation points: 15300
normski- wrote:
@EUB

'Of course I don't, I'm not an idiot, or a martyr. I consider it a tax rebate. :lol: '

Others might consider you a leech.


As I pay tax, "others" would be unambiguously wrong. I pay as much as anybody else pays, and have the same right to public services as anybody else. Unless you think people should be persecuted, ie treated unequally, due to their political views.

That said given what I've seen so far on this thread I wouldn't be at all surprised if you actually do think that.

Quote:
' 'Does cancer make you more, or less free?'

'Everybody dies. I would say its irrelevant to the equation.' '

That's an evasion. An equivalent argument would be, everyone dies, therefore all freedom is irrelevant.


No it's not, you were talking about cancer, not the futility of existence ;).

Your life choices have an impact on your death, sure. If you play rugby you could end up a paraplegic - I know someone personally for whom this happened after a spinal injury. Some dude went climbing on his own in Vietnam and died, age 22, I read that in the Guardian the other day. Some people were saying he was an idiot. I say he died doing what he loved. I wouldn't want the State to stop him.

Quote:
'Collectivisation in political terms generally implies force of some sort.'

So does libertarianism.


No.

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 911 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 92  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group