Which can, most of the time, be protected only by depriving individuals of their rights. Take the military service, for example.
Only if it's compulsory military service. If one voluntarily chooses to join the military, then one voluntarily accepts the strict regime that accompanies it, and the rights of no individual have been violated.
You libertarians are free to leave the society and live your lives as true individuals. Just don't expect to use any of the society's services then. You can't both have the cake and eat it. You're free to join the society and accept the responsibilities like taking care of the weak and common good by taxation. You are also free to refuse and live outside our society. You can't, however, have both. Which is exactly what I do, to the limits permissible by law. For those actions which I am compelled to by law, I grudgingly go along with them so I will still be free (i.e. not incarcerated) to fight against them.
If you are a member of the society you're subject to its rules.
Only if those rules are subordinate to moral law.
"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."--Ayn Rand.
The primary function of a society is to provide security to its citizens -- not to guarantee the "right to profit".
No. Government/society exists for the following purposes, in order of importance: 1) protect individual rights 2) resolve disputes between individuals 3) protect individuals from the initiatory use of foreign or domestic violence
If the primary function of the society requires it, any private possession is subject to being handed over to the society.
No, because the individual is more important than society.
If you don't agree with this you're just a freeloader who takes advantage of the security provided by the State but is not willing to contribute back when required.
No, he's someone who realizes that the individual is more important than society.
I take care of myself, and I expect others to take care of themselves as well. Each individual is responsible for his own well-being, and he accomplishes that by pursuing his own rational self-interest. I am not my brother's keeper.
Such a project would not necessarily require direct action on the part of the government (as was/is the case with space program), but could be achieved through tax breaks and other "encouragement."
Yes, but that still ultimately has the same effect--coercing people into going along with the way the government would have things be by punishing those who don't.
If a government can put forces in harms way, designate areas as national parks, and even redirect rivers, what is to prevent government from outlining a long-term policy that would likely benefit citizens and the global population?
Freedom of speech simply means that you have the right to express your ideas and government will not stop you. It doesn't mean that owners of private property can't stop you from expressing your ideas on their own property.
You know what? The United States was founded on the concept that rights are derived not by permission from the government, but from the fact that we are human. Private property rights are sacred...if you want to use someone else's property, you've got to accept whatever terms they offer or not use it. You have a choice.
I agree with you in that government-created monopolies are the only bad kind of monopoly. However, you are still free to choose to not subscribe to telephone service.
Well, I guess if you don't want to hook up your phones to the phone company's network, then you're fine. But if you do, then both sides must agree to a set of mutually acceptable terms, and either side is free to include whatever terms it wishes because each side is also free to refuse to accept the terms (provided no threats of violence are made if one should choose not to accept the terms, of course) if they deem the requirements imposed by those terms to not be worth the value gained by accepting those terms. Thus, if a phone company chooses to make access to telemarketers one of the terms of you hooking up to their network, and you accept those terms (thus signifying that you value having telephone service more than what you lose with telemarketer interruptions), then government has no place putting in place anti-telemarketing laws.
Actions such as statewide "no-call" lists are NOT the proper role of government. You do NOT have a right to not be annoyed by phone calls at dinner, because you DO have a right to do without a phone. Phone lines are owned by the telephone company, and they have every right to do as they please with them--including letting telemarketers call at all hours of the night. If a telephone company wishes to prevent telemarketers from calling numbers on its telephone network, then so be it--that's fully within the sacred private property rights of the company. However, it's not the government's proper role to interfere in this. If you don't like telemarketers, then you'll just have to decide what you value more--having a telephone, or not having to deal with telemarketers.
Microsoft is a private corporation, and as such has every right to do whatever is necessary to increase profits. Therefore, would you allow the management of Microsoft to continue as they have been doing, so as to allow them the freedom that every corporation should have--freedom from regulation of any sort?
It was just a matter of time before someone said this anyway, so I will.
Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for someone else's Internet access? It's bad enough we have public schools and public libraries. Also, why should the lazy and ignorant be the first to benefit from this?
You don't have to use Google to post to Usenet, but if you choose to you've got to follow their rules. What's wrong with that? It's no different from me saying that while I don't think smoking should be illegal, if you enter my house you can't smoke. You don't have to enter my house, but if you do (provided I allow you to) you've got to follow my rules.
But we didn't create a society--we created a nation.
Besides, what is society without the individual? And without freedom (including the freedom to make as much money as possible), what is the individual?
Junk faxes are illegal because the owner of the fax owned paid for the paper--the junk faxers had no right to waste that paper. Spamming is different. Yes, they use bandwidth that they didn't pay for, but when you visit a website you use bandwidth that you don't pay for. That's how the Internet is designed to work. You can't filter incoming faxes or telephone calls. You can filter incoming packets.
Spammers are bothersome (although not to me, I receive at the most one to two spams per week). However, I also find people who don't shower to be bothersome. Does that mean that I have the right to force people to take showers? No, it doesn't. What's the difference.
How do spammers cost recipients money? If I sit down at my computer, do I have to pay money to download and delete spam?
I admit that shutting down email servers is a pretty good point; however, I believe I can refute it (and I will attempt to once I can figure out how).
I am a prime example of protecting my email address. My email address contains my initials, and as I said, I receive very little spam--and this is without using spam filters.
I don't like receiving spam either, but I get around it by only giving out my email address when absolutely necessary. They have every right to exist, whether or not you like what they do. If you don't, don't do business with them. But don't try to force them out of business. This is just another anti-American law passed by the Kommie Kalifornians.
Slashdot Mirror
First war comes along and we are all fucked, nice idea there buddy.
Care to explain how?
Using the empty phrase "moral law" undermines the credibility of this poster's argument.
How so?
Furthermore, positions espoused by anyone who spouts Ayn Rand at me are immediately suspect.
Really? How so? Because it conflicts with the irrational leftist anti-freedom values you hold so dear, or because of actual logical flaws?
Which can, most of the time, be protected only by depriving individuals of their rights. Take the military service, for example.
Only if it's compulsory military service. If one voluntarily chooses to join the military, then one voluntarily accepts the strict regime that accompanies it, and the rights of no individual have been violated.
You libertarians are free to leave the society and live your lives as true individuals. Just don't expect to use any of the society's services then. You can't both have the cake and eat it. You're free to join the society and accept the responsibilities like taking care of the weak and common good by taxation. You are also free to refuse and live outside our society. You can't, however, have both.
Which is exactly what I do, to the limits permissible by law. For those actions which I am compelled to by law, I grudgingly go along with them so I will still be free (i.e. not incarcerated) to fight against them.
No, why?
Yes, it can. You make the choice, you accept whatever consequences derive from it. That's just.
If you are a member of the society you're subject to its rules.
Only if those rules are subordinate to moral law.
"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."--Ayn Rand.
The primary function of a society is to provide security to its citizens -- not to guarantee the "right to profit".
No. Government/society exists for the following purposes, in order of importance:
1) protect individual rights
2) resolve disputes between individuals
3) protect individuals from the initiatory use of foreign or domestic violence
If the primary function of the society requires it, any private possession is subject to being handed over to the society.
No, because the individual is more important than society.
If you don't agree with this you're just a freeloader who takes advantage of the security provided by the State but is not willing to contribute back when required.
No, he's someone who realizes that the individual is more important than society.
If you were to tell this guy "hard luck", then this is just as unjust as the guy who is profiting from this fellow's poor judgement.
Not really. Individuals have the capability to make choices, and are subject to the consequences of those choices.
I take care of myself, and I expect others to take care of themselves as well. Each individual is responsible for his own well-being, and he accomplishes that by pursuing his own rational self-interest. I am not my brother's keeper.
Such a project would not necessarily require direct action on the part of the government (as was/is the case with space program), but could be achieved through tax breaks and other "encouragement."
Yes, but that still ultimately has the same effect--coercing people into going along with the way the government would have things be by punishing those who don't.
If a government can put forces in harms way, designate areas as national parks, and even redirect rivers, what is to prevent government from outlining a long-term policy that would likely benefit citizens and the global population?
Who says they (rightfully) can?
Freedom of speech simply means that you have the right to express your ideas and government will not stop you. It doesn't mean that owners of private property can't stop you from expressing your ideas on their own property.
Smoking pot's against the law, but that doesn't mean it should be.
You know what? The United States was founded on the concept that rights are derived not by permission from the government, but from the fact that we are human. Private property rights are sacred...if you want to use someone else's property, you've got to accept whatever terms they offer or not use it. You have a choice.
I agree with you in that government-created monopolies are the only bad kind of monopoly. However, you are still free to choose to not subscribe to telephone service.
I'll admit that your point's totally lost on me. Care to clarify?
Well, I guess if you don't want to hook up your phones to the phone company's network, then you're fine. But if you do, then both sides must agree to a set of mutually acceptable terms, and either side is free to include whatever terms it wishes because each side is also free to refuse to accept the terms (provided no threats of violence are made if one should choose not to accept the terms, of course) if they deem the requirements imposed by those terms to not be worth the value gained by accepting those terms. Thus, if a phone company chooses to make access to telemarketers one of the terms of you hooking up to their network, and you accept those terms (thus signifying that you value having telephone service more than what you lose with telemarketer interruptions), then government has no place putting in place anti-telemarketing laws.
Actions such as statewide "no-call" lists are NOT the proper role of government. You do NOT have a right to not be annoyed by phone calls at dinner, because you DO have a right to do without a phone. Phone lines are owned by the telephone company, and they have every right to do as they please with them--including letting telemarketers call at all hours of the night. If a telephone company wishes to prevent telemarketers from calling numbers on its telephone network, then so be it--that's fully within the sacred private property rights of the company. However, it's not the government's proper role to interfere in this. If you don't like telemarketers, then you'll just have to decide what you value more--having a telephone, or not having to deal with telemarketers.
Hey!
Microsoft is a private corporation, and as such has every right to do whatever is necessary to increase profits. Therefore, would you allow the management of Microsoft to continue as they have been doing, so as to allow them the freedom that every corporation should have--freedom from regulation of any sort?
What about the innocent kids of the lazy and ingorant?
Let's create a police state...it's for the children.
It was just a matter of time before someone said this anyway, so I will.
Why should taxpayers be forced to pay for someone else's Internet access? It's bad enough we have public schools and public libraries. Also, why should the lazy and ignorant be the first to benefit from this?
Actually, "happiness" as used in the US Constitution is defined as "the ownership of property".
You don't have to use Google to post to Usenet, but if you choose to you've got to follow their rules. What's wrong with that? It's no different from me saying that while I don't think smoking should be illegal, if you enter my house you can't smoke. You don't have to enter my house, but if you do (provided I allow you to) you've got to follow my rules.
But we didn't create a society--we created a nation. Besides, what is society without the individual? And without freedom (including the freedom to make as much money as possible), what is the individual?
Junk faxes are illegal because the owner of the fax owned paid for the paper--the junk faxers had no right to waste that paper. Spamming is different. Yes, they use bandwidth that they didn't pay for, but when you visit a website you use bandwidth that you don't pay for. That's how the Internet is designed to work. You can't filter incoming faxes or telephone calls. You can filter incoming packets. Spammers are bothersome (although not to me, I receive at the most one to two spams per week). However, I also find people who don't shower to be bothersome. Does that mean that I have the right to force people to take showers? No, it doesn't. What's the difference. How do spammers cost recipients money? If I sit down at my computer, do I have to pay money to download and delete spam? I admit that shutting down email servers is a pretty good point; however, I believe I can refute it (and I will attempt to once I can figure out how). I am a prime example of protecting my email address. My email address contains my initials, and as I said, I receive very little spam--and this is without using spam filters.
I don't like receiving spam either, but I get around it by only giving out my email address when absolutely necessary. They have every right to exist, whether or not you like what they do. If you don't, don't do business with them. But don't try to force them out of business. This is just another anti-American law passed by the Kommie Kalifornians.