Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:31 am

Forcing folks to part with resources against their will is just theft.

The classic argument against colonialism and imperialism.

Indeed. I'm no supporter of such things.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:26 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:31 am

Forcing folks to part with resources against their will is just theft.

The classic argument against colonialism and imperialism.

Indeed. I'm no supporter of such things.

Good!.
So this argument is about how much we should be should be taxed to pay for goods that we all have a common need for?

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:17 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:26 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:31 am

The classic argument against colonialism and imperialism.

Indeed. I'm no supporter of such things.

Good!.
So this argument is about how much we should be should be taxed to pay for goods that we all have a common need for?

Not really, but what the hey...

I'm a minarchist: gov should consist of a sensible, local constabulary; sensible, local arbitration; sensible, border-stationed military; a militia.

The first three could be funded with a simple sales tax.

Anything else is outside of gov's purview.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:03 am This is your 2nd amendment yes?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."4

I know the Swiss are but how many gun owners in America are in well regulated militias?

nice note about the swiss, they are indeed. you seen to know history in this regard.

per your inquary and us americans. not per citizens explicitly in 2nd - but implied via prior common brit low.

nation quards are under the control of the governors of our states, so could be viewed as militia.

per law, for your education too, our supreme court under "heller" (a case first under Washington DC in the 80's?) in the SC (supreme court) - around 20? 15? yrs ago for the first time affirmed the view that the 2nd's intent/implication/interpretation included the right of individuals to posses guns (not just state millitia). a first in our courts.

....................


but as you know our 2nd is not need to posses guns, "we" (america) inherited your prior common brit law (and why aussies and kewis have guns legally) - our 2nd did not create a right to have guns, it only affirmed the prior right via Brit common law.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:12 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:03 am This is your 2nd amendment yes?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."4

I know the Swiss are but how many gun owners in America are in well regulated militias?

nice note about the swiss, they are indeed. you seen to know history in this regard.

per your inquary and us americans. not per citizens explicitly in 2nd - but implied via prior common brit low.

nation quards are under the control of the governors of our states, so could be viewed as militia.

per law, for your education too, our supreme court under "heller" (a case first under Washington DC in the 80's?) in the SC (supreme court) - around 20? 15? yrs ago for the first time affirmed the view that the 2nd's intent/implication/interpretation included the right of individuals to posses guns (not just state millitia). a first in our courts.

....................


but as you know our 2nd is not need to posses guns, "we" (america) inherited your prior common brit law (and why aussies and kewis have guns legally) - our 2nd did not create a right to have guns, it only affirmed the prior right via Brit common law.

Thank you for that gaffo.

My understanding was that Washington disliked militias intensely as it appears that back then they were much like the ones we have nowadays, i.e. shit soldiers and mainly just out and about terrorising local civilians on the 'wrong side' of the politics, as such George wanted to rein them in but it looks like English grammar, i.e. the comma, mucked-up that idea as I can see no well-regulated militia amongst the mass of American gun-owners, just a bunch of yahoos who if the shit hits the fan, on whichever side of a political divide, will be out and about terrorising the 'traitors', although I take your point about the national guard.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 4:14 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 08, 2019 11:17 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:26 pm

Indeed. I'm no supporter of such things.

Good!.
So this argument is about how much we should be should be taxed to pay for goods that we all have a common need for?

Not really, but what the hey...

I'm a minarchist: gov should consist of a sensible, local constabulary; sensible, local arbitration; sensible, border-stationed military; a militia.

The first three could be funded with a simple sales tax.

Anything else is outside of gov's purview.

Should the government provide for water, drainage, clean air, education, public health? These are good for everybody.

A simple sales tax on the above would not ensure the above services were properly administered because if they were run for profit there would be profiteering from people's basic needs.

"Should the government provide for water, drainage, clean air, education, public health?"

Where I live, water, garbage removal, electricity, natural gas, are sold to customers by private business. Government is not the source. At best, gov offers oversight (by way of needed contract enforcement and arbitration); at worst, gov just gets in the way.

Here, there are public schools and private schools. Guess which does a better job of it.

Public health: no such animal. There's only individuals with varying levels of healthiness and the capacity to self care.

#

"These are good for everybody."

Good is not always right. It would be good (in a certain way) for everyone if we capped population and made abortions mandatory but it wouldn't be right.

#

"A simple sales tax on the above would not ensure the above services were properly administered because if they were run for profit there would be profiteering from people's basic needs."

In a minarchy a simple local sales tax would more than pay for the first three of the four I mention up-thread. The others you mention (and a whole whack of others) ought be sourced among folks without an intervening gov ('cept as required for needed arbitration and enforcement of contract).

Profit and profiteering: the first is natural and normal, the second is an abuse best dealt with through customers simply goin' elsewhere (you want ten bucks for a gallon of milk? screw that! down the street I can get that gallon for four bucks.).

Thing is: sometimes, in an unrestrained market, it's hard to tell between legit profiting and profiteering cuz, in the unrestrained market, cost/price is dynamic (based on supply/demand). in the regulated market we have now, supply/demand is not king of the hill: the regulators are.

Henry Quirk wrote:

A simple sales tax on the above would not ensure the above services were properly administered because if they were run for profit there would be profiteering from people's basic needs."

In a minarchy a simple local sales tax would more than pay for the first three of the four I mention up-thread. The others you mention (and a whole whack of others) ought be sourced among folks without an intervening gov ('cept as required for needed arbitration and enforcement of contract).

Profit and profiteering: the first is natural and normal, the second is an abuse best dealt with through customers simply goin' elsewhere (you want ten bucks for a gallon of milk? screw that! down the street I can get that gallon for four bucks.).

Thing is: sometimes, in an unrestrained market, it's hard to tell between legit profiting and profiteering cuz, in the unrestrained market, cost/price is dynamic (based on supply/demand). in the regulated market we have now, supply/demand is not king of the hill: the regulators are.

What if one of the dairymen gets a monopoly on all milk supplies in your area? What if one of the railway companies gets to run all the local transport and cuts back on safety and timing?

Your objection to government run schools v. fee paying schools and your reason for supporting private schools is legitimate. The disadvantage of fee paying schools is families can buy power and prosperity for their offspring while state school children are more likely to get lowly work and leisure. this results in marked social class structures persisting through generations. It's better to provide state education of similar quality to the best of private, and to make fee paying schools illegal.
Public health is concerned with populations. If private provision of water, drainage, clean air, vaccinations, and clean food is all there is ,prevention of diseases can't be supplied retrospectively in response to a market as the people will be damaged or dead.

"What if one of the dairymen gets a monopoly on all milk supplies in your area?"

What's wrong with a natural monopoly? If Mike Milk gets a lock on the market by way of best product and best service, I'm not seein' the problem. He'll only hold the monopoly through continuing to provide the best product and service. The artificial monopoly, on the other hand, the one created by gov fiat, that one is plain wrong.

#

"What if one of the railway companies gets to run all the local transport and cuts back on safety and timing?"

In a minarchy, that's where the court comes in (cuz I reckon that company is violatin' it's contract). In the real world, as things are now, that company would probably be applauded.

#

"The disadvantage of fee paying schools is families can buy power and prosperity for their offspring while state school children are more likely to get lowly work and leisure."

This is how it is now. Might as well recognize the natural disparity and live with it than punish the wealthy just for bein' wealthy. In a minarchy, a good chunk of the wealthy wouldn't be cuz the gov wouldn't favor them, so those who are wealthy ought be left alone to educate their rug rats as they see fit. A natural dynasty is no more stable than a natural monopoly: both can fall or diminish easily. It's natural, of course, for powerful folks to protect their place (typically by skewing gov): that's where the minarchy's milita comes in.

#

"this results in marked social class structures persisting through generations."

You're gonna have that no matter what. Even in a full blown commie utopia you're gonna have those who direct and those who are directed. In a minarchy, where power and wealth actually have to be earned, where gov doesn't favor wealth and power, the curve is flatter and the base broader.

#

"It's better to provide state education of similar quality to the best of private, and to make fee paying schools illegal."

I say this, B, with all the affection I can muster (which is considerable: I like you, B. You're a good egg): fuck off, slaver!

#

"Public health is concerned with populations. If private provision of water, drainage, clean air, vaccinations, and clean food is all there is ,prevention of diseases can't be supplied retrospectively in response to a market as the people will be damaged or dead."

Why is it auto-assumed that folks in the private sphere cannot or will not work cooperatively, without the coercion of gov? I see private sphere cooperation all around me in business coalition and charities. Public health is just another market wherein folks with an eye for profit can, do, and (in a minarchy) would offer products and services in keeping with legit demand (the actual needs and wants of customers, not gov-stated or -presumed wants and needs).

We need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that we have a right to force other folks to attend to our needs simply cuz we have needs. No, in a minarchy where free enterprise (not state capitalism) is the thing, you get what you pay for or you get yourself to a charity.

The problem about monopolies is competition is good for the consumer and the product.

Private companies are run for profit whereas state owned utilities , such as water , drainage, and transport ,are run for the the benefit of consumers.





I agree social class inequality exists and will always exist. A socialist tries to put right some of the bad effects of social class inequality. Quality state schools go some of the way to educate socially disadvantaged people and this is not only nice for the individuals concerned by frees up a lot of talent a rigid class system has hidden and not used. Most socialists are not communists.

In a minarchy, a good chunk of the wealthy wouldn't be cuz the gov wouldn't favor them,

But rich people almost by definition are more bossy than poor people so the rich who get the best education for bossiness would get to be the government unless the hoi polloi were given a leg up. Henry , you are an optimist about human nature who thinks the masses of people are good at heart. You should study the great English 'public school' , Eton , to see just how that school educates boys precisely and efficiently to be political leaders. You think their parents pay all that money in fees so their boys will be hospital nurses?

I am in favour of free enterprise the more the better. But free enterprise should not include freedom from the basic tenet of morality which is you don't damage other people's lives and welfare.

"The problem about monopolies is competition is good for the consumer and the product."

In a minarchy, with a natural monopoly, competition drives the monopoly holder. Without the bulwark of gov, the monopoly holder has to watch his back cuz there's always gonna be someone gunnin' for a piece of the pie.

#

"Private companies are run for profit whereas state owned utilities , such as water , drainage, and transport ,are run for the the benefit of consumers."

Successful private companies are frugal and product/service-minded. Quality is a priority cuz quality promotes return business. State-owned services are largely too expensive, poorly run, and customer-indifferent (when you have a mandated lock on sumthin' you never worry about quality or competence).

#

"But rich people almost by definition are more bossy than poor people so the rich who get the best education for bossiness would get to be the government"

Doesn't matter. In a minarchy (my particular version) the militia is the moderator.

#

"Henry , you are an optimist about human nature who thinks the masses of people are good at heart."

Nope. I just don't think the average schmo is as powerless or incapable as you do.

#

"free enterprise should not include freedom from the basic tenet of morality which is you don't damage other people's lives and welfare."

Free enterprise is inherently moral while state capitalism, state socialism, pure capitalism, and pure socialism, are inherently amoral.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:15 pm you are an optimist about human nature who thinks the masses of people are good at heart.

Surely we are in an era beyond 'good' and 'evil'? Beyond simplistic notions of optimism or misanthropy. Where the most appropriate answer to all universals is "Well, it depends!"

Humans do what humans do. Every single one is capable of atrocity - majority of people never indulge that instinct, but some do.

I have no idea which category any particular human fits under, so my default position is trust, until evidence to the contrary presents itself. And so as James Mattis says: Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.

The same goes with governments. If people aren't good at heart and governments are made of people, then governments aren't good at heart.

Most governments don't indulge in democide/genocide, but some do. Have a plan to overthrow a government which deserves it.

Skepdick, only artificial intelligences are beyond good and evil. As long as men feel pain and pleasure they will think about good and evil.

The category of human being that you should be aware of is the category of wanting all the goods for himself and his tribe and to hell with everyone else .

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:17 pm Skepdick, only artificial intelligences are beyond good and evil.

Then Nietzsche is an artificial intelligence. I don't think 'good' and 'evil' are useful categories - it's too black-and-white.

I have seen 'good' people do evil deeds.
I have seen 'evil' people do good deeds.

It's not all that useful in practice for men who tread the line, having had to fight my own demons of choosing whether to execute a child rapist or not.
Knowing how to game the system to literally get away with murder - who am I accountable to if not the law? The choice isn't so simple...

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:17 pm As long as men feel pain and pleasure they will think about good and evil.

And as long as men seek justice they will justify their actions with the same.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:17 pm The category of human being that you should be aware of is the category of wanting all the goods for himself and his tribe and to hell with everyone else .

Greed is but one of the many vices of men. The relentless pursuit Economic Equality in the form of socialism/communism is another.

There are no easy answers... it depends.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:13 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 12:12 am

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:03 am This is your 2nd amendment yes?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."4

I know the Swiss are but how many gun owners in America are in well regulated militias?

nice note about the swiss, they are indeed. you seen to know history in this regard.

per your inquary and us americans. not per citizens explicitly in 2nd - but implied via prior common brit low.

nation quards are under the control of the governors of our states, so could be viewed as militia.

per law, for your education too, our supreme court under "heller" (a case first under Washington DC in the 80's?) in the SC (supreme court) - around 20? 15? yrs ago for the first time affirmed the view that the 2nd's intent/implication/interpretation included the right of individuals to posses guns (not just state millitia). a first in our courts.

....................


but as you know our 2nd is not need to posses guns, "we" (america) inherited your prior common brit law (and why aussies and kewis have guns legally) - our 2nd did not create a right to have guns, it only affirmed the prior right via Brit common law.

Thank you for that gaffo.

quite welcome Sir!

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:13 am My understanding was that Washington disliked militias intensely as it appears that back then they were much like the ones we have nowadays, i.e. shit soldiers and mainly just out and about terrorising local civilians on the 'wrong side'

yes, your undestanding is mime per Washington, who in order to win a war needed a unified "national army" (a unified 13 colonies army).

instead of 13 colonial militia. ;-/.

that war lasted what? 7 yrs? and of that time the first 5 "we were losing" (and "you"were wining) - in no small part because of the disparate command and control "state"/colonial armies - alleigence/commanders/etc..........


of course in my american history books in school as a kid, we are told the "French saved us" - but IMO they forced an earlier end to the war and my (your lose) victory.

French did not save us from remaining as a UK member state, she just allowed US to victory by 1782 instead of say 1790 give or take.

just my view on the matter.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 09, 2019 4:13 am regulated militia amongst the mass of American gun-owners, just a bunch of yahoos who if the shit hits the fan, on whichever side of a political divide, will be out and about terrorising the 'traitors', although I take your point about the national guard.

yahoo reich wingers take up too much of the population on both our nations (Trumpers in mine, Brexiter - Boris is a nitwit! (I've been watching - i know all about Boris ("i will be world King") Farage (looks like a Dolphin - gee wonder if that is why the a guy dressed up as one a couple of yrs ago) looks like Homer Simpson to BTW, Jacod Rees Mogg (grenvil(sp) hater,............let then eat smoke and choke..since they did not his common sense and instead listened to the fire marshal authorities and stayed in place.

I do know of 5 or so other smaller players nitwits - but now the names i've forgotten.

Digby Jones (seems a moron to me), somebody Graves?/Grieves?, dominick Cumming (mastermind asshole = to our Steve Bannon.

I've been watching "I am incarrigible"(sp) Youtube channel for a year now, so know quite a lot about your nation's Brexit travials and the characters involved.

the solution of source is for all British to vote for Joe Swinton and so remain in the EU, and thus not letting NI and Scottland go................otherwise both go, the former to RoI, the latter to herself, then 10 yrs later readmitted to the EU. .....and of course leaving "england" out and to herself (including Wales? or not - the latter may play the SNP game and leave "england" and the later join the EU as a State of Wales).

we shall see.


thanks for reply Sir!