h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ah, I get it. You meant the exact opposite of what you said, because you realized I might agree.

It was sarcasm without the sarcastic tone. It is quite simple to go back on anything and say you didn't mean it, if you don't show a reason why this is to be believed.

As for the wolves and sheep, I argue for a society in which the wolves and sheep vote representatives to hold them accountable in order that none of them might be eaten for dinner. In a democracy they would vote the sheep for dinner without any repercussions. Its amazing that you couldn't even figure out that much. Or possibly you did, but realized you have no argument, so chose to ignore it.

"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human liberty. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave."

- William Pitt

No, you do not get what I say. You neither understand nor want democracy. You want anarchy (and I'm not sure that you even understand that fact).

I live in a free society, a society with more freedom than you can imagine. I chose to remain in this society because it is so free.

You live in a society which you feel is not what you would like it to be.

Don't forget to pay your debt to Aesclepius.

Enjoy your self. I will now begin to give you all the attention you deserve.

Yikesed post 659 was mine. It was a reference to the motto of the National Rifle Association.

On the subject of property being theft (P-J Proudhon), I suggested one way of prising property away from others.

Who Yikesed, btw? The s? An individual? S'no mind.

>>You don't want inheritance taxes.

A non issue for me. My entire inheritance has been my Grandpop's sewing machine and my Mum's nursing certificates. Granted, you will prise these out of my cold, dead, hands...

Hi, Ed, good to see you.

Certainly wasn't I who yikesed you, as you could probably guess.

Are you talking of Mr. Heston's motto?

right. answered it.

Oh...and her union card. She was one of the first nurses to leave the 'professional association' that was the RCN in favour of NALGO.

I thought Heston's motto was, "Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"

I am that dirty ape.

as if a bonobo would want to be reminded of that!

de

"My mother taught seven children for little more than the cost of books and her time, and so far, my sister and I have 4.0 or higher GPA"

So, do you mean you are a product of the "Home Schooling Movement"? (I ignore for a moment the Rushdoony connection) By whom was this GPA assessed (and I assume you mean that 4.0 is something better than 'average'. Forgive my unfamiliarity with your country's system. Is it the same system in every part of your country? Is there some sort of state body which legislates such things)? Some sort of institution which receives public funds or a privately owned institution with a curriculum over which the state has no control?

Based on your intellectual performance on this thread, Iluvitar, something definitely has to change in the education system of your country. I hope you can find some way to help out.

>> I am that dirty ape.<<

Here ya go..

Let's try again.

The place where you live needs a flood control system.

The locals have had a town meeting, and by a clear majority have voted in favour.

Should those who voted against be allowed not to contribute. Bearing in mind that they get the benefit anyway, should they be made to pay (violating their rights), or not (violating the rights of the majority)?

Should everyone pay the same, or should those with most to lose pay more (like paying higher insurance premiums for more cover)?

Noggin

I think we sometimes get to points in discussions where views are just incommensurable because assumptions are so radically different that it's impossible to engage in any meaningful way. Iluvatar's view of reality and of human nature and human society is so far removed from what everyone else thinks that it's almost impossible to have a discussion.

So let me try a different track.

Let's assume that there's a society with an absolute minimal government whose role is merely to keep the peace and enforce the rule of some kind of minimal civil and criminal legal code.

In the first scenario, a number of Friendly Societies, Credit Unions, Mutual Insurance Funds and so on are set up by free individuals coming together to pool resources to ensure something like a common education for their children, healthcare, shops with quality supplies at good prices, and insurance in the event of illness and unemployment. Some of these are mutual, and perhaps some are profit-making. Historically, this happened in the absence of a welfare state in the UK, at least in some places. One town in Wales had an excellent system that ended up employing about five doctors, and could afford to send people to see specialists in London. The success of this scheme was the model for the British NHS, incidentally.

Let's assume that everything goes well, more or less. Due to economies of scale and the purchasing power of larger organisations, there will be fewer and fewer of these Social Organisations. In Education, for example, there needs to be a standard (or a number of standard) qualifications so that employers can compare candidates. Otto's Cottage Hospital cannot compete with Ed's MegaShinyUberHealthComplex.

Result? These things tend towards monopoly. We then have a system where one or possibly two or three providers are dominant, and it's difficult or impossible for anyone else to offer serious alternatives. If that's so, isn't what we then have essentially just like a state but without democratic control?

In the second scenario, things go very well for a small number of people. They live in luxurious gated compounds surrounded by armed guards. They own pretty much everything. They and their children will have the best of everything for ever, as their wealth means that they are a permanent oligarchy, and the quality of education they can buy for their children means no-one else can ever compete. There are others who aren't quite so rich, but who still do okay. But the great majority leave in terrible slums, being paid only enough to scratch the most basic of livings. There is no health and safety legislation, no minimum wage, no working time directive, and no practical recourse for grievances - no money = no lawyer = no justice. And anyone who complains at work can be fired and replace for any reason or for none, because there are no employment rights. Prostitution, alcoholism, crime, disease, and drug use are rife.

Perhaps some charities provide some very basic education for some, and some very basic healthcare. Perhaps some people do club together to form insurance schemes, but because wages are so low, there's no real margin for people to pay much in.

My question is this..... let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm right, just as scenario 1 kind of assumes that you're right.... how bad would things have to get before you'd advocate change?

Can I throw my hat and butt in for a moment?

Iluvatar: your philosophy of life rings bells with me. It's not very far off what I thought at one time, based on deep discussions with my peers.

Then, by force majeure (experience), I had to change my mind. Since then I've paid my dues (not always happily but have been mainly content to do so).
On three occasions I have needed to take something out of the pot and been grateful for the pot. Overall, greatly more has gone in.

I do not wish to have to spend my time figuring out all those tiresome details of daily life, as my dues keep other, better able, people to do it for me.

I'm happy to contribute to the upkeep of those who are unable to tend for themselves.
I'm not happy to do so for those who won't - but I cannot yet see a way to differentiate, without imposing drastic testing on nearly everybody.

Tax is the price of civilisation
Else move to where you can compare teeth & claws.

Hat found.
Out butt.

Iluvatar, a civilised (ha!) question: Do you feel we are misrepresenting you? Do you feel we have misunderstood you? Do you feel we have put words in your mouth? Do you feel we are arguing against a caricature of libertarianism, and not against your true beliefs?

I ask because, as I have already said, I honestly don't understand libertarianism. It makes no sense to me. Your basic starting assumptions are completely alien to my mind. So it is more than possible that I am, much of the time, reading you wrong. (Just as you sometimes seem to have misunderstood me.)

Are we engaging in productive argument, or are we merely talking past each other? Is there anything you'd like to clarify? Is there any point on which you want to "set the record straight"?

TRiG.

Speaking as an atheist:

There's no god. Now go out and have some fun. Try not to harm anybody who doesn't specifically requested to be harmed* and you'll make their, and your, world a better place.

*cries of 'Tie me to the bed and spank me, big boy' can probably be accepted as a specific request.

Will cries of 'Tie me to the bed and spank me, statistically average boy' also count?

I've never found the distinction problematic.

Oh I didn't know the system was different in other countries. 4.0 stands for 100% As, 3.0 for an average B grade, 3.5 would be half As half Bs. And this is Arizona State University.

No I am not a product of any "homeschooling movement". Are you a product of the public-schooling movement?

Apparently you base "intelectual performance" not on rational logical thinking, but in agreeing with the majority and on the art of playing the part.