Dinner with Obama

[knukk]

Well, to me, this is utter nonsense and the problem with Randism. You can't say people are sovereign and have rights, and then claim you have a right to impose laws on them against their will.

This is how I want it:

I hold that people are sovereign and have individual rights. There can be imposed laws as long as the laws do not conflict with the individual rights (i.e. as put forth in a constitution). These laws will therefore be minor contributions and specifications, for example, it could be a law that specified something about abuse of a new technology to inflict with someone's property rights, or it could be editing the max penalties for criminal acts. There must also be little or no room for interpretation of the individual rights and the constitution must not be changed. It's ok that laws that are imposed such as a Contract Act is open to objective interpretations, but the constitution must not be.

Since there won't be an unstable welfare state and social democracy (*cough* i.e. USA *cough*) to throw laws back and forth in, there won't be need for many full time politicians that are representatives at a national assembly.

The Supreme Court is supposed to protect men's rights, so it should be able to overthrow law acts that have been passed. In Norway, for example, we have parliamentarian rule and the national assembly holds absolute power. This means it can pass whatever law they please, and the courts can't do shit about it. This includes the constitution. Although the US has an independent judicial branch, this doesn't help really much when most people (obviously) agree with faulty interpretations of laws and accept that laws that conflict with rights are allowed to pass. The world is polluted with positive rights and the need for negative rights has been forgotten.

And I agree that the homophobia Rand expressed once was a shitty comment which I don't agree with. She later withdrew the statement more or less by expressing some uncertainty on the subject, which I still say WTF to. It is also true what you say about Objectivism being a closed system. It's only what Ayn Rand defined it to be, and later additions and developments are only in accordance with Objectivism but cannot be included in Objectivism itself.

Yes, taxes are indeed conflicting with individual rights and should not be passed. Any state function should be financed through voluntary payments. While I do agree with that for practical reasons, abolishing taxes completely should probably be one of the last things to do when converting from fascism (today's system) to laissez-faire, I hold the moral values above the practical ones. This means that I indeed support any tax reduction and abolishing taxes completely, even if there's a good step left before we're at laissez-faire. Every man that holds that taxes are OK does not respect property rights as individual rights, but hold collective rights higher than the individual rights. It's even sad that I have to sit here an differ between "collective" and "individual" rights since there are only one set of rights that actually apply.

Do you care to explain what you mean about the human rights with respect to Rand?

 

[MakeMoneyTutor]

Hmmm, nice story buddy.

 

[knukk]

Regarding human rights: many of the human rights in the UN charter should be abolished. For example: Article 22, Article 23, Article 24, Article 25, Article 26 and Article 30.

 

[gutterseo]

For all you Obama haters there is a town close to where I live called kilbarrack.

 

[knukk]

Last time I checked I didn't have to pay 100% of my income to the government for welfare programs so your analogy sucks. Yeah no one wants to pay taxes and of course many people abuse welfare but boo fuckin hoo move to another country then where the government shuts down your internet at any moment and dictates what websites you can go on and makes you pay 40% in taxes.

Taxation in itself is an extreme concept.

 

[guerilla]

This is how I want it:

I hold that people are sovereign and have individual rights.

Agreed. The rest of your post qualifies and limits sovereignty and rights though.

There can be imposed laws as long as the laws do not conflict with the individual rights (i.e. as put forth in a constitution). These laws will therefore be minor contributions and specifications, for example, it could be a law that specified something about abuse of a new technology to inflict with someone's property rights, or it could be editing the max penalties for criminal acts.

The basic universal law of an ancap, is do not commit aggression (against person or property).

If it is always wrong to interfere with property, then no specific laws need be made, right?

There must also be little or no room for interpretation of the individual rights and the constitution must not be changed. It's ok that laws that are imposed such as a Contract Act is open to objective interpretations, but the constitution must not be.

A contract that cannot be changed? Can someone opt out?

The world is polluted with positive rights and the need for negative rights has been forgotten.

Positive rights are rationally incoherent, but most people do not think rationally. They just repeat what they are told.

Yes, taxes are indeed conflicting with individual rights and should not be passed. Any state function should be financed through voluntary payments. While I do agree with that for practical reasons, abolishing taxes completely should probably be one of the last things to do when converting from fascism (today's system) to laissez-faire, I hold the moral values above the practical ones. This means that I indeed support any tax reduction and abolishing taxes completely, even if there's a good step left before we're at laissez-faire. Every man that holds that taxes are OK does not respect property rights as individual rights, but hold collective rights higher than the individual rights. It's even sad that I have to sit here an differ between "collective" and "individual" rights since there are only one set of rights that actually apply.

Generally, I agree with all of that.

Ancaps are close to Objectivists on laissez-faire, negative rights, rational egoism, methodological individualism, capitalism. Where we go a step further is the rejection of a blanket social contract, and monopolistic legal institutions.

Do you care to explain what you mean about the human rights with respect to Rand?

I reject aggressive violence (self defense is ok). Rand had some particularly bloodthirsty views regarding civilians living under totalitarian states. IIRC, she seemed to think that if they did not overthrow their government, then they were tacitly supporting it. Which is ironic, because she fled Russia instead of fighting to change it.

I don't like picking on Rand because she's been a big influence on me. Her ideas on reason are top notch, her expressions of reason I differ with.

 

[knukk]

A contract that cannot be changed? Can someone opt out?

One cannot opt out of the social contract between man and constitution. Just to be clear: this is assuming the law and the constitution already defend and secure man's right to property, freedom of expression and his self-governance over his own body.

Let me explain a little:
For example it is OK that the Norwegian constitution can be changed because it does not secure freedom (those rights I mentioned above) in its present form. Now, say there was a perfect constitution put forth that ensured this. Then there would be no sense in me supporting that it could be changed, since then I would support imposing laws and "rights" that were in conflict with the rights I originally supported and granted all men.

To illustrate this further: both you and I agree that one has property rights that cannot be governed by anyone else then the owner. This includes the government which under no circumstances should be allowed to expropriate private property or impose taxes. If Joe Doe was allowed to opt out of the constitution (social contract) it would mean he no longer was bound to respect those rights secured in the constitution. Now, the constitution and the rights are derived from lockean natural rights which we both agree to. So if a citizen could opt out of the constitution, it would mean the citizens could opt out of being bound to the natural rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only difference between you and I here is that I want the constitution explicitly defined because I support a mini-state with police, courts and military. I cannot support a state to serve those functions without a constitution defined to protect the citizens and that ensures that there will be no law passed that infringes with these rights. The government must be limited, and to ensure this, the constitution - after it is perfectly defined - must not leave room for loose interpretations or to changes.

 

[guerilla]

One cannot opt out of the social contract between man and constitution. Just to be clear: this is assuming the law and the constitution already defend and secure man's right to property, freedom of expression and his self-governance over his own body.

Then the contract is illegitimate. You can't have a contract without an opt-in, that does not allow an opt-out. That cannot be compatible with individual sovereignty.

Man needs no contract for rights, as he already has them, prior to any Constitution. His rights are natural, and they are given to him either by his creator, or more broadly, as a portion of his existence, his "nature" as a human being.

A Constitution only specifies the delegation of rights to government, for the purpose of protecting said rights. But I believe, that everyone has the sovereign right, under laissez-faire, to choose their own contracts, and their own protectors of rights.

To illustrate this further: both you and I agree that one has property rights that cannot be governed by anyone else then the owner. This includes the government which under no circumstances should be allowed to expropriate private property or impose taxes.

The only power the government has, is to expropriate private property. All rights are property rights, stemming from self ownership, and thus all exercises of government power is a violation of property rights (if it is involuntary).

You can't have the paradox of a legitimate involuntary system and claim reason (individualism) as the justification for it.

If Joe Doe was allowed to opt out of the constitution (social contract) it would mean he no longer was bound to respect those rights secured in the constitution.

Check your premises. That is a non sequitur. He has rights prior to the Constitution, and only delegates them through a Constitution. He has the right to withdraw consent (secede) at any time.

It's a non sequitur, because he doesn't have to respect rights because he is under a Constitution. He can respect rights without a Constitution. His rights are always his, they are inalienable (unseparable) from himself.

So if a citizen could opt out of the constitution, it would mean the citizens could opt out of being bound to the natural rights.

Again, this is a non sequitur. The Constitution is merely a contract. It has nothing to do with the origin of rights.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the only difference between you and I here is that I want the constitution explicitly defined because I support a mini-state with police, courts and military.

I support those sorts of services, provided under laissez-faire, not by a legal monopoly.

I cannot support a state to serve those functions without a constitution defined to protect the citizens and that ensures that there will be no law passed that infringes with these rights.

Just don't support a monopoly state. Don't support a monopoly you have to fear or defend yourself from and problem solved. You can still have social contracts, but they can be voluntary.

The government must be limited, and to ensure this, the constitution - after it is perfectly defined - must not leave room for loose interpretations or to changes.

It doesn't matter though, because government is the final arbiter of what the interpretations are. That was the problem with Rand. She wanted the organization to be limited, to be in charge of limiting itself. Like asking the fat kid to guard the cookie jar.

The ultimate check on government, is secession. When the people withdraw their consent, and no longer recognize the government as legitimate. That was what the American revolutionaries did to Britain. They withdrew their consent to be subjects of the King. That was the check on tyrannical or even undesirable government.

Where we differ is, I don't think law and defense and justice can only be provided by a monopoly.

I am for 100% laissez-faire without compromise and everything that entails. We either believe the market is a rational, prosperous and moral system for human interaction, or we do not. There is no third solution that doesn't lead to collectivism.

 

[bprimeelite]

I agree that taxation is an extreme concept in many situations as I don't see why my taxes are starting to increase just because I spent a lot of time perfecting my business. I am all for a consumer tax so that people who consume more will pay and those who want to make good investments and hire people in their communities won't be hit with all kinds of outrageous taxes and fees for doing so. I guess it all comes down to we pay A LOT in taxes and don't get much in return for it because we have a shitty system where politicians funnel the money to themselves and friends.

 

[icwkd]

Me? I happen to be Randian in philosophy. Looking out for #1. I'm going to sell as many weight loss quick fixes, anti-aging cures and skin restoring miracles to as many plebeians as I can in the next 5 years so I can shuffle off to a remote island that enjoys tax haven status and is insulated from the bullshit of modern western society...as quickly as humanly possible. My own personal gulch.

You do that, but don't flatter yourself as a Randian. Rand would classify you as a societal leach right along with dishonest government beaurocrats. Rand believed that man's calling was to live off of the creation of value. The anti-thesis to that is living off of destruction, deriving one's well-being from the misfortune of others: in other words, exactly what snake oil peddlers like yourself do.

I'm not judging you, I'm just pointing out Ayn Rand's stated position on the matter. Personally, I think Rand was full of shit. You cannot logically derive morality. It's a product of our biological evolution.