About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 6:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,
Thanks, Ed, for your explanation and for pointing out the obvious! :-/
As the second-most analytical mind currently participating in this forum, I felt I just had to step up and say something.

:-)

Ed


Post 21

Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Welcome to RoR, Mike I. I ... I ... I forgot to tell you that when you got here.

Ed
[needs a buggy whip ... "Bad director of outreach!" ... "Bad, bad director of outreach!"]


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Mike,

I think folks should be given a choice as to how they want to live. That way they can decide what they like and what they don't -- what's fun and what isn't. So I have a suggestion. Why don't we give the people of Cuba a choice as to where they want to live. That way if they want to stay in Cuba, they can do so, and if they want to leave, because they think they'll have a better life elsewhere, they can do so.

Suppose they were given that choice. Do you think most of them would choose to stay or to leave? I think Castro knows which choice they'd make, which is why he's denied them the freedom to emigrate.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 6:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent point, Bill.

Why outlaw it if nobody wanted to do it in the first place (because Cuba was such a good place to live)? The law wouldn't even be worth the paper it is printed on (if scores of people didn't first want to leave).

And what is it, specifically, about places that intend to hold you hostage? Do they tend to be good places to live? Are they ever good places to live? What historical examples do we have about places where emigration was made illegal? Were they good places to live?:















Ed 

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/27, 6:53pm)


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 6:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike:

TODAY, I would go for Cuba and here is why. Cuba is a dictatorial State without pretence. There is none of that nonsense talk of freedom and democracy, everyone knows where he stands. There is little incentive to work, but people have LOTS more fun then they do in States. You should see how much time they have on their hands, and what they can do with it!
 
But, Mike, you don't have to go to Cuba to do that. You can stay in the US and join a commune as many did in the 60s and 70s and we all know how they turned out. If you would need a tin-pot dictator I would volunteer — no pretense, just do as I say, or else.The reverse isn't true in Cuba where you would be prohibited from entering into a free enterprise relationship.
 
You dismiss all the cited instances of pollution and depredation of resources in the past and say that today is inherently different.  
 ...only that being there I did not get an impression of people suffering from ecologically related illnesses, or anything of the kind. Far from it, everyone is quite healthy, busy diving for sea food and digging for roots.
 
Do you really think that you're going to convince anyone on this forum, or the general populace of the US for that matter, that we would aspire to digging for roots as our means of survival? This is really repugnant to me.
 
Nuff said.
 
Sam
 

(Edited by Sam Erica on 3/27, 8:39pm)


Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike wrote, "TODAY, I would go for Cuba...

Well, what's keeping you? Why are you still here?

I think you're all talk and that you will stay here and make use of the freedom you don't value in order to to criticize it.

Post 26

Sunday, March 27, 2011 - 7:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This yellow highlight business is something strange..

John:

Gulag and dictator bad way to go. I agree with you.

Teresa:

Shall there be laws as to what kind of property and how much of it an individual may own?

Dean:

good to know someone is still searching. What do you think can be done in a mean time to make sure that ecosystem does not collapse? See, in nature things are rather interrelated. I remember this from school, something about water evaporates, falls down as rain, rivers flow into the sea. Kind of hard to determine which part is whose, dont you think?

Hi Ed.

William:

Cuba was brought up as an example that industrial progress does not automatically means clean environment, and vice verse.
Most of Cubans today want to live like they imagine people live in US. Some wish to return as soon as they realise there is no such thing as free lunch. I did express my personal preference, and neither one of this countries would be my first choice, today.

Sam:

digging for roots can be fun too. On top of that you get a pound of rice and 2 eggs - FREE!


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 3:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This yellow highlight business is something strange..

The site generates a yellow highlight when something is misspelled, or isn't a recognized concept.

Shall there be laws as to what kind of property and how much of it an individual may own?
Seeing as how every attempt through history aiming to control property (and thus human beings) has ended in shortages, starvation, and failure, and seeing how every individual owns his/her own life and actions, I see no reason artificially limit human actions which don't violate or interfere with the lives of others.  Trade got us this far. Artificial limits and controls didn't.


Post 28

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 6:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve:

Negative, no one is critisizing freedom. In the context of this discussion I d like to ask, how do you personally define freedom and in which shape or form it is practised in US today?

Teresa:

Thanks for the highlights.
So we know that trade was usually regulated in some way. I may like it or not, but thats how humanity developed. Personally, I am all for individual rights, but there is unavoidable fact that we live as a group, sharing same space. When you drive a car it pollutes my space, vice versa. When a nuclear plant leaks it pollutes a lot of peoples spaces. The thing about property is that most of it is owned on "first come first served" basis, and a lot of it was won over, or plainly stolen. It is easy enough to apply property rights to lets say a book you wrote. Things get more complicated when a lot of people are involved, like ownership of resources.     


Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 39, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
'MIke I', before you challenge a position you ought to explain yours. How do YOU define freedom, and why do YOU think a dictator in Cuba would be better at allocating resources? Why should anyone here defend their positions when your own are fuzzy and ill defined? You said you'd rather live in Cuba, but then you contradicted yourself by saying gulags and dictators are bad, when Cuba has both of them. Then you say you're not criticizing freedom, when actually you did when you praised the lifestyle of Cubans living without freedom and criticized people with too much freedom acting dishonorably by pursuing a profit motive.

I don't see the point in this. If you think freedom is inadequate for a happy living on Earth, it is your burden to prove a dictatorship is better.

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 8:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see virtually 0 evidence of any dangerous environmental issues. I can breathe fine living next to a large city of millions of people. There are lots of trees, no poisons, and abundant things to buy with resources we use to make them. Things are good -- EXCEPT for the people who are crying about regulating everything to death to save the environment. Those people make everything cost more, and can cause this great civilization we have now to either stagnate or degrade, or commit suicide. You have been sold a bill of goods by hucksters who want control. The environmentalists have sang this tune since I was a child, and in my 46 years all I have seen is things get better, yet their cries go increasingly strident, totally at odds with reality.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 9:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

For me, the right to "freedom" means the right to control your own life without interference from others. It means freedom of action, and can only be violated if someone prevents you from acting on your own judgment through the initiation of physical force. For example, freedom is violated by rape, robbery, assault and even fraud -- in short, by any action that prevents you from making your own choices. Since the right to freedom applies to everyone without exception, that means that no one has the right to an action that violates other people's freedom of action. Anyone who does violate it -- who initiates force against another person -- may properly be stopped by retaliatory force. Force is proper only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.


Post 32

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John:

Please dont extract my comments and knit them into a theory.

Kurt:

Used to think that too.

William:

I understand your point and agree on it fully. Is this kind of freedom practised in US today?     


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 4:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So we know that trade was usually regulated in some way. I may like it or not, but thats how humanity developed.
I don't think that's true, Mike I.  There is lots of empirical evidence to more than suggest regulations do nothing for a population's overall well being. It isn't a coincidence that lifespans increased, as did birth rates, following Western industrialization, which was not regulated for many years. And don't bore me with complaints of child labor. The use of child labor was practically non-existent before any laws were passed to "regulate" it.

Now the law artificially extends "childhood" into young adulthood, which is burdensome for every single young adult. The law regulates how parents can give permission for their children to work, even if they are present for the "labor." Child actors can only be on camera for seven minutes a day.  Circus families, who have entertained all over the world for generations, can't use their act in some states or cities if it includes their minor children.

These regulations aren't protecting anyone, but they do cause real economic harm.

Millions of people immigrated here to escape the "regulations" that eventually killed off every incentive to breed in Eastern Europe, which is still suffering from the effects.

Immigrants gratefully took the dirtiest, smelliest, most dangerous jobs they could find. American "rags to riches" stories are legendary from these humble, sometimes humiliating beginnings. No regulations mean a greater return for taking a risk, and a greater return means everyone benefits. Everyone. Even ungrateful busybodies benefit.  

When you drive a car it pollutes my space, vice versa. When a nuclear plant leaks it pollutes a lot of peoples spaces.
I know a whole lot of people who think they're entitled to a risk free life. I know women who would sue their workplace over the scent of a co-workers perfume. Others initiate litigation over bad joke. Everyone thinks their little tiny life is more important than everyone else's. Your example is simply an extension of that view. 

And I know other people, usually hard core Christians, who are simply authority worshippers, the "oh, the rule/law/control must be in place for a good reason" dolts. They're the worst.

(Posting tip: If you click "Preview with Spell Check" on the bottom right of your post screen, you can fix issues before they appear. Click it before and after you fix a problem in your posts for the corrections to adhere to the post.) 




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 34

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MIke I. "Please dont extract my comments and knit them into a theory."

You have no one but yourself to blame for that. State your position clearly without contradiction before you challenge and ask others to defend theirs.

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 7:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike wrote, "I understand your point [about the right to freedom of action] and agree on it fully. Is this kind of freedom practised in US today?"

No, not consistently, but there's considerably more respect for it in the United States than there is in Cuba. Unfortunately, the U.S. is becoming less free, as the government gains ever more power and control over its citizens' lives and property. I find it exceedingly ironic that our laws prohibit robbery at the hands of private citizens but allow it to be practiced by the government in the form of taxation, which has gotten progressively worse over the years.

Taxation is by no means the only violation of the right to freedom of action even though it is perhaps the most widespread. Our government violates the right to freedom of action any time that it interferes with voluntary trade by, for example, imposing rent controls on landlords and minimum-wage laws on businesses or by requiring a license in order to sell a product or service.

Our government violates the right to freedom of action when it prevents people from obtaining recreational drugs, outlaws sexual activity between consenting adults, prohibits abortion, or forces people to buy a particular product like health insurance. It violates the right to freedom of action when it zones out commercial establishments by preventing stores like Walmart from locating in a particular neighborhood, or when it confiscates people's property through eminent domain in order to enable stores like Walmart to move into a particular neighborhood.

Our government violates the right to freedom of action by restrictions on the importation of goods and services through tariffs and quotas and by immigration laws that prevent foreign workers from emigrating to the U.S. It violates freedom of action when it uses anti-discrimination laws to prevent employers from hiring whom they choose. It violates freedom of action when it plunders taxpayers to bail out businesses that are said to be "too big to fail." It violates freedom of action when its regulations make it too costly to start a business, with the result that consumers are thereby denied goods and services that they would otherwise have been able to buy.

Our government violates the right to freedom of action in so many ways, it's difficult if not impossible to count them all. Yet despite all that, the freedom of action in a communist country like Cuba or North Korea pales by comparison to the freedom of action enjoyed by American citizens, which is why people from all over the world are risking their lives to come here.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/28, 10:46pm)


Post 36

Monday, March 28, 2011 - 10:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa:

Regulations did and do exist, and they will exist for as long as interests of individuals overlap, and come to confrontation. However, it is easy to see how such need for regulation becomes a feeding ground for lazy, untalanted and criminal element, and who obuse it to exist and multiply. To get rid of this small but very harmful bunch of people is extremely difficult. Many societies tried, so far no one succeded. 
Driving a car which pollutes space is an interesting question. If majority of the herd tries to choke itself to death, how am I to protect my natural right to clean air, a right which I am sure is beyond need of proof, and in what way I can apply philosophy to understand this right in first place?   

John:

My current position is thus. Universal cure which answers to all our problems does not exist, but we dont loose hope.

William:

Thank you for time and honesty. Everything you said is true and the list is long.
A normal person shall not choose to live in dictatorial state, such as Cuba or North Korea. My preference for Cuba was based on my personal experience of both places. Cubans are extremely nice people, and I d rather help them to shake off old Fidel, than try to explain to 300 million americans what is really going on. Now here is a job for true Atlas.
I would like to know your opinion in regards to the question I asked Teresa just above.   


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 3:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MIke I, How about you do some science (using The Scientific Method) to determine whether car's exhaust actually has a measurable negative effect on your health. Then compare that negative effect to the positive effect of all of the benefits that are gained by high speed transportation.

Crackpot "scientists" who claim carbon dioxide causes global warming is not valid... that's a hijack of the word "science". Using "The Scientific Method" is the only time in which one is a scientist.

Given the small amount of pollution that cars create (the non-CO2, non-H2O, actually harmful stuff)... I think you will realize you need to find a new form of pollution (such as coal power plants) to complain about. Now there is a pollution problem!

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 6:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

You said:
"Please dont extract my comments and knit them into a theory."
John replied:
You have no one but yourself to blame for that. State your position clearly without contradiction before you challenge and ask others to defend theirs.
And John is right, you are at fault for others taking your comments and knitting them into a theory (if you don't first provide one, it will be provided for you). Facts are theory-invariant, which is almost like saying that facts aren't theory-free. Facts lock you into specific theories. That is how some theories fail (because facts contradict them). 

And you do not have some kind of a magical get-out-of-theory-free card that you can wave in our faces.

Ed




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 6:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

If majority of the herd tries to choke itself to death, how am I to protect my natural right to clean air, a right which I am sure is beyond need of proof, and in what way I can apply philosophy to understand this right in first place?  
Dean was right when he said (post 37) that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. You want to live in advanced nation without the risks of living in an advanced nation. Like the example of the bubonic plague in pre-industrial London shows, you overlook the benefits of technology, industry, or capitalism and put a magnifying glass on whatever imperfection you can find.

I think you should try to live by yourself in the jungle for a while, and then come back into society and see if you will still complain.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/29, 9:28am)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.