Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Atlas Shrugged, et al.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The family of the victim.

Do you think that a just society lets the quality of justice be decided by the wealth of the family?

And investigating crimes are rather expensive, so I'd think there would be many who couldn't afford it at all. A murderer would be wise to pick poor targets because he'd know he would get away with it.

It sounds to me you are charmed by the principle of a society which governs itself. And I can see the charm in it. I'm very sympathetic towards it myself. But as long as people are motivated by greed and selfishness the system simple can not work in a way we would consider righteous.

The consequences of your answers aren't that complicated to determine. My advise is to go beyond just having an answer to having a practical solution. Accept that the society you have in mind is a worthy one but we as human beings have a lot of growing up to do in order to make it work.

 

[Traitorfish]

These are mostly fair criticisms, but, seriously, guys, when did liberals all develop such a raging state-boner? You can act like you're above the lolbertarians, but if they allow you to forget three hundred years of civil libertarianism in a flurry of knee-jerking stateism, then you've already lost.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Guys.

That's not very specific.

 

[Traitorfish]

Like a Randian superman, I shall not let the burning star of my self-expression be dimmed by petty, jealous voices calling for me to explain what the hell I'm blethering about.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think part of being a liberal is believing that a bad state is better than no state, even while retaining the fundamental liberal distrust of governmental power.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh, very meta. Well played.

 

[brennan]

Are people still discussing this?

Look guys, we tried letting the wealthy have it their own way. When Engels wrote 'The Condition of the Working Class in England' the poor were still living in abject poverty, when Orwell wrote 'The Road to Wigan Pier' the poor were still living in abject poverty. Detroit city council is cutting off poor people's water supplies as we discuss this.

These ideas have failed for centuries. They are a non-starter. Read your Marx. Note that well educated economists all read Marx as well - and take him seriously. The next time you listen to a Tory or a Republican or an economic libertarian, just mock them, it's what they deserve.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think part of being a liberal is believing that a bad state is better than no state, even while retaining the fundamental liberal distrust of governmental power.

True, liberals have always viewed the state as a necessary evil. My concern is that some are overemphasising the "necessary" and underemphasising the "evil".

 

[Hygro]

Are people still discussing this?

Look guys, we tried letting the wealthy have it their own way. When Engels wrote 'The Condition of the Working Class in England' the poor were still living in abject poverty, when Orwell wrote 'The Road to Wigan Pier' the poor were still living in abject poverty. Detroit city council is cutting off poor people's water supplies as we discuss this.

These ideas have failed for centuries. They are a non-starter. Read your Marx. Note that well educated economists all read Marx as well - and take him seriously. The next time you listen to a Tory or a Republican or an economic libertarian, just mock them, it's what they deserve.

Yeah, this is pretty much the truth.

 

[Flying Pig]

True, liberals have always viewed the state as a necessary evil. My concern is that some are overemphasising the "necessary" and underemphasising the "evil".

Yes; I think the Liberal Democrats in this country have only quite recently (with a General Election looming...) woken up to the idea that liberals can't use the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' argument with regard to increasing the power of the state.

 

[Cutlass]

No, that's what we have now under the State. The State is the most willing to use violence, has a legal monopoly on doing so, and has even convinced most people that its violence is moral. Its time to challenge and break down that paradigm.

Isn't it ironic that in this era of strong governments a person was never less likely to die from the actions of another person.

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

Do you think that a just society lets the quality of justice be decided by the wealth of the family?

And investigating crimes are rather expensive, so I'd think there would be many who couldn't afford it at all. A murderer would be wise to pick poor targets because he'd know he would get away with it.

It sounds to me you are charmed by the principle of a society which governs itself. And I can see the charm in it. I'm very sympathetic towards it myself. But as long as people are motivated by greed and selfishness the system simple can not work in a way we would consider righteous.

The consequences of your answers aren't that complicated to determine. My advise is to go beyond just having an answer to having a practical solution. Accept that the society you have in mind is a worthy one but we as human beings have a lot of growing up to do in order to make it work.

I think humans do have some growing up to do. But I do think that justice would be cheaper than it is right now if it were a market good. So, I don't think you'd have gobs and gobs of poor people who couldn't afford to pursue it. And for those who are:

1- It is probably better for them that they do not have to pay for those things anyway, if they are that poor (the current system forces them to pay, even if that money would be better spent on food.)

2- Charity can help those at the botom like it currenty does with food.

Actually the quote from Franklin is rather Biblical, because every person has a duty to society that he does what is right. Paul makes this rather clear in Romans 13, plus Saul was a tyrant because he disobeyed God and collected far too much tax that is needed, but God did warn such a thin would happen if they had a king instead of him ruling. The people got what they wanted and got what they deserved as a result.

Its Biblical that private property belongs to the public?

 

[RFC_Viceroy]

Isn't it ironic that in this era of strong governments a person was never less likely to die from the actions of another person.

Unless that "person" is a police officer. Or are you saying cops aren't people?

 

[Cutlass]

These are mostly fair criticisms, but, seriously, guys, when did liberals all develop such a raging state-boner? You can act like you're above the lolbertarians, but if they allow you to forget three hundred years of civil libertarianism in a flurry of knee-jerking stateism, then you've already lost.

The state is a tool. It can be used for good or ill. Like that old quip about whether a sword is good or evil. It isn't the tool which is good or evil, but rather the task it is used for. States can certainly be used for evil. And, in nations which are not functioning democracies, the level of evil the state is put to is often very high indeed. The better functioning the democracy is, the less evil the state tends to be used for. And, importantly, the more good the state can do.

If it more often sounds like people love the state for the purpose of loving the state, well blame that on living in the age of soundbites.

 

[Cutlass]

Unless that "person" is a police officer. Or are you saying cops aren't people?

What are you trying to say? Never has a police officer been less likely to be killed in the line of duty as now. And never has a police officer been less likely to kill someone else in the line of duty. So your ambiguously worded statement is false in either way the meaning is taken.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think humans do have some growing up to do. But I do think that justice would be cheaper than it is right now if it were a market good. So, I don't think you'd have gobs and gobs of poor people who couldn't afford to pursue it. And for those who are:

1- It is probably better for them that they do not have to pay for those things anyway, if they are that poor (the current system forces them to pay, even if that money would be better spent on food.)

2- Charity can help those at the botom like it currenty does with food.

1. Poor people shouldn't waste money on justice, when they need food.

2. Charity won't be enough by a looooooong shot. Using charity as cop-out every single time just shows the bancruptcy of your ideas.

It won't work. If you have any sense of reality you also know that.

 

[El_Machinae]

Justice cannot come sufficiently down in price, not yet anyway. The only way to make it accessible to the poor right now is subsidy. Charity will always be woefully insufficient.

All the drops in price will be through conversion into an information technology. All other solutions are mostly lying to ourselves, they'll be too token. We'd still need subsidy. Removing that subsidy before it becomes sufficiently cheap will only increase injustice. It needs to be timed properly.

 

[Arakhor]

So, RFC, given that you (in no way over-dramatically or unnecessarily) compared abortion doctors to Nazis during the Holocaust, who exactly in your anarchist utopia will be paying for the prosecution of women who have abortions and the unfeeling monsters who enable their heartless disregard for human life?

 

[Cutlass]

So, RFC, given that you (in no way over-dramatically or unnecessarily) compared abortion doctors to Nazis during the Holocaust, who exactly in your anarchist utopia will be paying for the prosecution of women who have abortions and the unfeeling monsters who enable their heartless disregard for human life?

He did that too? I missed it. Guess we have just another ultra conservative masquerading as 'libertarian' or 'anarchist' because it seems like the trendy and cool way to sell their oppressive ideology.

 

[Arakhor]

... vocal support for child murder (abortion) ... are all serious problems with Obama's presidency.

This is literally no better than Nazi Germany dehumanizing the Jews. God have mercy on America.

I should probably spend even less time than I do in OT these days.