Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
1) You don't know people very well, apparently. Do you think everyone has sense? If they did, would they not be espousing Libertarian or conservative views about the government?
2) No, my security is not all that matters to me.
You've addressed the nicer of the two scenarios- the freeloaders. Sure that's easy. Oh wait, it's not. I don't get upset about a parking meter because it's less than 25 cents. If I have to donate thousands of dollars for the defense of those who don't want to pay, then it's a big damn problem. I'm sure you'll jump in and proclaim a black and white principle, that the amount shouldn't matter, but it does. That's real life. I may give a bum a dollar, but I won't give him $100.
But turn your attention to the worse scenario- being overrun. I see you haven't touched that one yet. For the third time: If only some of us donate, our military will likely not be able to compete with a war on our own soil. Is it right that those of us who paid are taken over or killed along with those who didn't pay? If you're cool with this, then we may as well have no military at all, and then see what happens to the rights you hold so dearly.
1) No not really. I don't take Libertarianism as obviously better really than other systems. I have a particular axiom set I like. Libertarianism is the only system which can be drawn from it. Other people have other axioms that they like. I disagree, but that hardly makes them stupid. Most of them have very noble reasons to embrace collectivist systems. I think they're blinded to the disadvantages and inevitable outcomes of them and only driven by good intentions. It hardly makes them illogical. My libertarian / conservative comment was an illustration in jest. My point was that lots of people don't have sense, and so won't donate to the military. Yes I agree that if we had a military run by donations, it is in people's best interest to donate. No one is arguing that. I'm saying that people won't donate. They'll buy a Playstation 4 first. In sum, your argument is based on a faith in people's common sense that I simply do not share.
Political opinion is different than rationality. I assume people are rational on the whole. Yes I'm well aware of how they are not, but overall I think you can say man is a rational creature. Why are people unwilling to ever cut the defense budget? They like a good defense.
Are we going to beat this into the ground? You and I disagree on this. You have absolutely no chance of changing my mind. I'm being honest there. My mind will either be changed by a much more eloquent argument than you're going to post on this forum, or via some internal change in my value system. I doubt I'm going to change your mind. I love arguing, and I'm too stubborn to stop if you continue. However, we haven't touched any new ground in at least the last 2 posts, nor here. That's a shame, Pat. You're a guy who just likes to hear himself talk.
2) What else does? If I really have to answer that, then I pity you. I know you won't care about that.
Of course you won't give a bum a large sum of money, but that's totally different. Suppose the parking meter was $1000 dollars. You still get your use independently of the guy coming after you and using the surplus. This isn't a wealth transfer, you still get your service. If the parking meter was $1000, I wouldn't park there.
Okay, so I'll assume that for whatever reason not enough people donate to keep our military competitive. Is it right that the payers are slaughtered by a foreign army? Well obviously, no it is not. Does the moral responsibility rest on those who did not donate? No it does not. It rests on the invaders. People are not obliged to put up for your defense, nor their own. And this talk of moral responsibility keeps us all alive how?
Am I cool with that? What does that mean? I'm cool with the logic of it, but that doesn't mean I'm cool with it happening. Your implication that if something could possibly fail then it useless to try is ridiculous and you know it. Wow...this coming from someone who made a remark about my possible eloquence...um...Would you build a house out of bananas? Why not? By golly, you should try it!
I don't reject something because it could possibly fail. I reject your idea of a donation-funded military because I am sure it will fail. You've given absolutely no reason why it would work other than "Well, it's in people's best interest, so they'll do it."
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 12 2010 at 15:28
Slartibartfast wrote:
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
1) No not really. I don't take Libertarianism as obviously better really than other systems. I have a particular axiom set I like. Libertarianism is the only system which can be drawn from it. Other people have other axioms that they like. I disagree, but that hardly makes them stupid. Most of them have very noble reasons to embrace collectivist systems. I think they're blinded to the disadvantages and inevitable outcomes of them and only driven by good intentions. It hardly makes them illogical.
Damn! So all that stupid-calling (not just to me of course) and all that "your opinion is irrelevant to me" was only good debating... Well, I guess that explains why you really think a donation-based army would be as well funded as a taxes-based one...
Again, inconsistency is not one of your flaws. Consistency for consistency's sake is quite dangerous though...
Well, it is certainly possible to be consistently dumb...
Better than inconsistently dumb I guess.
Maybe.
I hope.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
To clarify, I don't think a donation funded army would be as well funded as our current one. I don't want an army as well funded as our current one. In fact, current levels of funding are unsustainable.
Our current level of funding is only unsustainable because we are funding so much other stupid sh*t.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 12 2010 at 15:36
Epignosis wrote:
1) No not really. I don't take Libertarianism as obviously better really than other systems. I have a particular axiom set I like. Libertarianism is the only system which can be drawn from it. Other people have other axioms that they like. I disagree, but that hardly makes them stupid. Most of them have very noble reasons to embrace collectivist systems. I think they're blinded to the disadvantages and inevitable outcomes of them and only driven by good intentions. It hardly makes them illogical. My libertarian / conservative comment was an illustration in jest. My point was that lots of people don't have sense, and so won't donate to the military. Yes I agree that if we had a military run by donations, it is in people's best interest to donate. No one is arguing that. I'm saying that people won't donate. They'll buy a Playstation 4 first. In sum, your argument is based on a faith in people's common sense that I simply do not share. You have a lot of faith in free market ideas. You advocate a very free, government relaxed economy. If people are as irrational then I think you might want to rethink some stances.
Political opinion is different than rationality. I assume people are rational on the whole. Yes I'm well aware of how they are not, but overall I think you can say man is a rational creature. Why are people unwilling to ever cut the defense budget? They like a good defense.
Are we going to beat this into the ground? You and I disagree on this. You have absolutely no chance of changing my mind. I'm being honest there. My mind will either be changed by a much more eloquent argument than you're going to post on this forum, or via some internal change in my value system. I doubt I'm going to change your mind. I love arguing, and I'm too stubborn to stop if you continue. However, we haven't touched any new ground in at least the last 2 posts, nor here. That's a shame, Pat. You're a guy who just likes to hear himself talk. Do you have fun laying down insults Rob? I like arguing. As do you. For every post I make you have responded, so I think you equally like to hear yourself talk. I've thought long and hard about this issue. After pouring hours upon hours of intensive thought into this do you expect me to be swayed by the meager arguments you are offering here? That's not to insult your arguments. I think you make cogent ones for the medium, but seriously 2 sentence rebuttals are hardly the things to have you even reconsider fundamental beliefs.
2) What else does? If I really have to answer that, then I pity you. I know you won't care about that. Yes you do. Sorry let me rephrase actually, What matters besides the safety of you and the ones you love?
Of course you won't give a bum a large sum of money, but that's totally different. Suppose the parking meter was $1000 dollars. You still get your use independently of the guy coming after you and using the surplus. This isn't a wealth transfer, you still get your service. If the parking meter was $1000, I wouldn't park there. Oh yes I guess not. My question is answered.
Okay, so I'll assume that for whatever reason not enough people donate to keep our military competitive. Is it right that the payers are slaughtered by a foreign army? Well obviously, no it is not. Does the moral responsibility rest on those who did not donate? No it does not. It rests on the invaders. People are not obliged to put up for your defense, nor their own. And this talk of moral responsibility keeps us all alive how? Is that what moral responsibility is supposed to do?
Am I cool with that? What does that mean? I'm cool with the logic of it, but that doesn't mean I'm cool with it happening. Your implication that if something could possibly fail then it useless to try is ridiculous and you know it. Wow...this coming from someone who made a remark about my possible eloquence...um...Would you build a house out of bananas? Why not? By golly, you should try it! Yes Rob that is the sense in which I meant it.
I don't reject something because it could possibly fail. I reject your idea of a donation-funded military because I am sure it will fail. You've given absolutely no reason why it would work other than "Well, it's in people's best interest, so they'll do it."
Why does the free market work? Jesus Christ you act like people acting in their best interest isn't the foundation of our system here.
And logic doesn't stop bullets. Fear doesn't change logic either.
[/QUOTE]
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 12 2010 at 15:41
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
To clarify, I don't think a donation funded army would be as well funded as our current one. I don't want an army as well funded as our current one. In fact, current levels of funding are unsustainable.
Our current level of funding is only unsustainable because we are funding so much other stupid sh*t.
True. I would rather have our government spending money on unemployment benefits than most of our war budget.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: August 12 2010 at 15:42
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
To clarify, I don't think a donation funded army would be as well funded as our current one. I don't want an army as well funded as our current one. In fact, current levels of funding are unsustainable.
Our current level of funding is only unsustainable because we are funding so much other stupid sh*t.
And because the army is actually in countries where it shouldn't be cough*Iraq*cough
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 12 2010 at 15:53
I'm taking a break for awhile. Great article on Galois Connections between semantic and syntactical first order logic that has been sitting on my desk waiting to be read for too long. I'll probably post some during the Phillies game.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
To clarify, I don't think a donation funded army would be as well funded as our current one. I don't want an army as well funded as our current one. In fact, current levels of funding are unsustainable.
Our current level of funding is only unsustainable because we are funding so much other stupid sh*t.
And because the army is actually in countries where it shouldn't be cough*Iraq*cough
I think thats one thing we all agreed on here. Defense budget cut/military reduction all that. Then there's Pat who wants a true army of one
1) No not really. I don't take Libertarianism as obviously better really than other systems. I have a particular axiom set I like. Libertarianism is the only system which can be drawn from it. Other people have other axioms that they like. I disagree, but that hardly makes them stupid. Most of them have very noble reasons to embrace collectivist systems. I think they're blinded to the disadvantages and inevitable outcomes of them and only driven by good intentions. It hardly makes them illogical. My libertarian / conservative comment was an illustration in jest. My point was that lots of people don't have sense, and so won't donate to the military. Yes I agree that if we had a military run by donations, it is in people's best interest to donate. No one is arguing that. I'm saying that people won't donate. They'll buy a Playstation 4 first. In sum, your argument is based on a faith in people's common sense that I simply do not share. You have a lot of faith in free market ideas. You advocate a very free, government relaxed economy. If people are as irrational then I think you might want to rethink some stances. A free market economy works to the benefit of the wise and foolish alike (generally speaking). A poorly funded military works to the end of the wise and foolish alike (generally speaking). No need to rethink anything here.
Political opinion is different than rationality. I assume people are rational on the whole. Yes I'm well aware of how they are not, but overall I think you can say man is a rational creature. Why are people unwilling to ever cut the defense budget? They like a good defense.
Are we going to beat this into the ground? You and I disagree on this. You have absolutely no chance of changing my mind. I'm being honest there. My mind will either be changed by a much more eloquent argument than you're going to post on this forum, or via some internal change in my value system. I doubt I'm going to change your mind. I love arguing, and I'm too stubborn to stop if you continue. However, we haven't touched any new ground in at least the last 2 posts, nor here. That's a shame, Pat. You're a guy who just likes to hear himself talk. Do you have fun laying down insults Rob? I like arguing. As do you. For every post I make you have responded, so I think you equally like to hear yourself talk. I've thought long and hard about this issue. After pouring hours upon hours of intensive thought into this do you expect me to be swayed by the meager arguments you are offering here? That's not to insult your arguments. I think you make cogent ones for the medium, but seriously 2 sentence rebuttals are hardly the things to have you even reconsider fundamental beliefs. Do you feel insulted? If you like to argue but don't care about other people's opinions (as you've admitted more than once), then you are a guy who just likes to hear himself talk. If you take it as an insult, then perhaps you should change yourself. The difference between you and me is that I care what you have to say and would want you to retain respect for me after the debating is over. You, however, could give a sh*t either way. Am I right? As for 2 sentence rebuttals, I have changed my mind over those before (my opinion on school vouchers was changed from 2 sentences). Why do I have to write a novel when I can say what I want to say in ten words? Don't you appreciate economy?
2) What else does? If I really have to answer that, then I pity you. I know you won't care about that. Yes you do. Sorry let me rephrase actually, What matters besides the safety of you and the ones you love? I care about the safety and prosperity of this nation. I mourn when children who aren't even born are snuffed out. I know you can't fathom caring about anyone outside of your circle, but there you are.
Of course you won't give a bum a large sum of money, but that's totally different. Suppose the parking meter was $1000 dollars. You still get your use independently of the guy coming after you and using the surplus. This isn't a wealth transfer, you still get your service. If the parking meter was $1000, I wouldn't park there. Oh yes I guess not. My question is answered.
Okay, so I'll assume that for whatever reason not enough people donate to keep our military competitive. Is it right that the payers are slaughtered by a foreign army? Well obviously, no it is not. Does the moral responsibility rest on those who did not donate? No it does not. It rests on the invaders. People are not obliged to put up for your defense, nor their own. And this talk of moral responsibility keeps us all alive how? Is that what moral responsibility is supposed to do? No. That's what a military is supposed to do. Which is what we were talking about in the first place.
Am I cool with that? What does that mean? I'm cool with the logic of it, but that doesn't mean I'm cool with it happening. Your implication that if something could possibly fail then it useless to try is ridiculous and you know it. Wow...this coming from someone who made a remark about my possible eloquence...um...Would you build a house out of bananas? Why not? By golly, you should try it! Yes Rob that is the sense in which I meant it.
I don't reject something because it could possibly fail. I reject your idea of a donation-funded military because I am sure it will fail. You've given absolutely no reason why it would work other than "Well, it's in people's best interest, so they'll do it."
Why does the free market work? Jesus Christ you act like people acting in their best interest isn't the foundation of our system here. Lots of people don't act in their own best interest. That's why we have a plethora of addictions. If these people were in a "vacuum," no big deal right? But if you have people depending on these addicts, what happens? In your system of military funding, everyone is depending on everyone else's "goodwill." How is that any different from collectivism except for providing a bigger possibility that we get our asses kicked eventually?
You keep forgetting this: When it comes to national security, everyone has to care. When lots of people don't (and trust me, lots of people won't when it comes to the military), we're f**ked.
And logic doesn't stop bullets. Fear doesn't change logic either. Oh yes it does. That's why we are where we are now.
To clarify, I don't think a donation funded army would be as well funded as our current one. I don't want an army as well funded as our current one. In fact, current levels of funding are unsustainable.
Our current level of funding is only unsustainable because we are funding so much other stupid sh*t.
And because the army is actually in countries where it shouldn't be cough*Iraq*cough
No need to cough. I can respect that opinion, but I have heard the side you don't get to hear by talking with military folks who've actually been there.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: August 12 2010 at 19:30
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
1) No not really. I don't take Libertarianism as obviously better really than other systems. I have a particular axiom set I like. Libertarianism is the only system which can be drawn from it. Other people have other axioms that they like. I disagree, but that hardly makes them stupid. Most of them have very noble reasons to embrace collectivist systems. I think they're blinded to the disadvantages and inevitable outcomes of them and only driven by good intentions. It hardly makes them illogical. My libertarian / conservative comment was an illustration in jest. My point was that lots of people don't have sense, and so won't donate to the military. Yes I agree that if we had a military run by donations, it is in people's best interest to donate. No one is arguing that. I'm saying that people won't donate. They'll buy a Playstation 4 first. In sum, your argument is based on a faith in people's common sense that I simply do not share. You have a lot of faith in free market ideas. You advocate a very free, government relaxed economy. If people are as irrational then I think you might want to rethink some stances. A free market economy works to the benefit of the wise and foolish alike (generally speaking). A poorly funded military works to the end of the wise and foolish alike (generally speaking). No need to rethink anything here.
It does not benefit those who act irrationally.
Political opinion is different than rationality. I assume people are rational on the whole. Yes I'm well aware of how they are not, but overall I think you can say man is a rational creature. Why are people unwilling to ever cut the defense budget? They like a good defense.
Are we going to beat this into the ground? You and I disagree on this. You have absolutely no chance of changing my mind. I'm being honest there. My mind will either be changed by a much more eloquent argument than you're going to post on this forum, or via some internal change in my value system. I doubt I'm going to change your mind. I love arguing, and I'm too stubborn to stop if you continue. However, we haven't touched any new ground in at least the last 2 posts, nor here. That's a shame, Pat. You're a guy who just likes to hear himself talk. Do you have fun laying down insults Rob? I like arguing. As do you. For every post I make you have responded, so I think you equally like to hear yourself talk. I've thought long and hard about this issue. After pouring hours upon hours of intensive thought into this do you expect me to be swayed by the meager arguments you are offering here? That's not to insult your arguments. I think you make cogent ones for the medium, but seriously 2 sentence rebuttals are hardly the things to have you even reconsider fundamental beliefs. Do you feel insulted? If you like to argue but don't care about other people's opinions (as you've admitted more than once), then you are a guy who just likes to hear himself talk. If you take it as an insult, then perhaps you should change yourself. The difference between you and me is that I care what you have to say and would want you to retain respect for me after the debating is over. You, however, could give a sh*t either way. Am I right? As for 2 sentence rebuttals, I have changed my mind over those before (my opinion on school vouchers was changed from 2 sentences). Why do I have to write a novel when I can say what I want to say in ten words? Don't you appreciate economy?
I don't think I need to be insulted for something to be an insult. I don't care what people think about me, but I care about other people's opinions. That is why I debate. If I wished to hear myself talk without other's opinions I would blog instead of sitting here. I would also hope you retain respect for me. I'm not saying longer answers are intrinsically better, but most issues cannot be settled so easily.
2) What else does? If I really have to answer that, then I pity you. I know you won't care about that. Yes you do. Sorry let me rephrase actually, What matters besides the safety of you and the ones you love? I care about the safety and prosperity of this nation. I mourn when children who aren't even born are snuffed out. I know you can't fathom caring about anyone outside of your circle, but there you are. I seem to care about others, thus my primary arguments against a large military budget. Tying this back to the main point then, if those people are safe why does it matter about the freeloaders? (In case you forgot that was why I asked that question i the first place)
Of course you won't give a bum a large sum of money, but that's totally different. Suppose the parking meter was $1000 dollars. You still get your use independently of the guy coming after you and using the surplus. This isn't a wealth transfer, you still get your service. If the parking meter was $1000, I wouldn't park there. Oh yes I guess not. My question is answered.
Okay, so I'll assume that for whatever reason not enough people donate to keep our military competitive. Is it right that the payers are slaughtered by a foreign army? Well obviously, no it is not. Does the moral responsibility rest on those who did not donate? No it does not. It rests on the invaders. People are not obliged to put up for your defense, nor their own. And this talk of moral responsibility keeps us all alive how? Is that what moral responsibility is supposed to do? No. That's what a military is supposed to do. Which is what we were talking about in the first place.Yes it is what its supposed to do. Don't see what that has to do with anything.
Am I cool with that? What does that mean? I'm cool with the logic of it, but that doesn't mean I'm cool with it happening. Your implication that if something could possibly fail then it useless to try is ridiculous and you know it. Wow...this coming from someone who made a remark about my possible eloquence...um...Would you build a house out of bananas? Why not? By golly, you should try it! Yes Rob that is the sense in which I meant it.
I don't reject something because it could possibly fail. I reject your idea of a donation-funded military because I am sure it will fail. You've given absolutely no reason why it would work other than "Well, it's in people's best interest, so they'll do it."
Why does the free market work? Jesus Christ you act like people acting in their best interest isn't the foundation of our system here. Lots of people don't act in their own best interest. That's why we have a plethora of addictions. If these people were in a "vacuum," no big deal right? But if you have people depending on these addicts, what happens? In your system of military funding, everyone is depending on everyone else's "goodwill." How is that any different from collectivism except for providing a bigger possibility that we get our asses kicked eventually? In your system you depend on other's "goodwill" by hoping enough people will serve in the military for it to be large enough to protect you. Our entire economic system depends on others "goodwill" through division of labour and assumed willingness to trade. That has nothing to do with collectivism. Your proposition that people must give money to provide for defense is collectivist.
You keep forgetting this: When it comes to national security, everyone has to care. When lots of people don't (and trust me, lots of people won't when it comes to the military), we're f**ked. Sorry don't take arguments on your trust. I disagree, and I don't understand from where your position derives. I'm not forgetting that (though the literal statement is not true). I understand it. You seem unconcerned about the issue of theft because you don't see it as such. This is really the locus of our disagreement.
And logic doesn't stop bullets. Fear doesn't change logic either. Oh yes it does. That's why we are where we are now.
[/QUOTE]
Oh man had to break out the pink/purple thing.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.625 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Posted: August 12 2010 at 15:28
I can respect that opinion, but I have heard the side you don't get to hear by talking with military folks who've actually been there.
For my Libertarian friends
Topic Options
Equality 7-2521 wrote: