Thursday, November 8, 2012

"We're All In 'This' Together": Translated to Reality


George ought to help.

And so ought you.

OR ELSE.
Because what could possibly shout moral suasion, humanitarian ethos, enlightened social progress and essential justice louder than violent coercion by threat of lethal force from armed agents enforcing absolute compliance with the dictated will of an arbitrary collective citing democratic legitimacy to wield total control over all life and property?

Funny me, I kind of thought that the whole point of our system of constitutionally-limited self-governance was to guard us from this, not inflict it on us.

7 comments:

delacrat said...

If George has paid into Social Security, Medicare etc,.

Should George get zilch back if he needs the help ?

bitbutter said...

"If George has paid into Social Security, Medicare etc,.
Should George get zilch back if he needs the help ?"

It's the wrong question-of course it would ne _nice_ if George got help when he needed it. But as usual the more foundational question is: Is it legitimate to threaten violence against peaceful people to support such schemes? I think the answer is no.

delacrat said...

" the more foundational question: Is it legitimate to threaten violence against peaceful people to support such schemes?" - bitbutter

The real "foundational question" is why you, George and Tyler feel no responsibility to aid people of misfortune. The question of employing state coercion to do so is just a red herring, because if you actually agreed with helping Oliver, the question of state coercion would be moot.

You may not like it, but since the implementation of FDR's New Deal, the national consensus has been: "Yes, we are 'our brother's keeper'."






anonone said...

All western democracies have agreed that having publicly-funded school systems and compulsory education for children is a benefit to the general welfare of society.

Libertarians like George believe that education should be private and available only to those children who can afford it and whose parents want them to attend. So, in George's Libertarian world, the kids who weren't fortunate to be born to parents with either of these assets don't get educated.

Fact is that the economy has taxes built into the system as a necessary part of the capitalist system. If George does not like this, he can move to another country (Somalia! :)) or persuade a majority of people that taxing for public education is a bad idea.

Ideological libertarians are the same as ideological communists: both are envisioning utopias that are preposterous given the realities of human nature.

Tyler Nixon said...

George and Tyler feel no responsibility to aid people of misfortune.

Funny how you think the victims of state violence and coercion aren't "people of misfortune". So, keeping with your theme of gross mischaracterization, I will assume it is your belief that the jackboot and the truncheon are the only indispensable tools of social charity or "aid".

Re: a1...when it is logically possible for armed state thugs to blast their way into people's homes to forcibly impose liberty on them we can talk all day about such bizarre, nonsensical notions as abstract-to-the-point-of-absurdity utopian equivalency-drawing between the humanitarian value of libertarian ethos and the daily human reality of violent force as the foundation of collectivism's unquenchable will to power.

Tyler Nixon said...

The question of employing state coercion to do so is just a red herring, because if you actually agreed with helping Oliver, the question of state coercion would be moot.

In other words, "if you would just follow orders, think like we do and hand it over like we say then you wouldn't force us to have to beat you into subjugation."

Righto. Gotcha. I really want humanity to get on board with that all day long. Do you have a newsletter?

Anonone said...

So, Tyler, are you advocating a tax-free world where all functions currently provided by nation-state governments are funded (or not) by voluntary contributions of individuals and corporations? Because taxes are either mandatory or not and you can't have mandatory taxes for some things (like defense) but not others (like welfare) without your (George's) argument against coerced taxation falling apart.