|
Anonymous
Guest
|
 |
July 15, 2011, 09:36:06 PM |
|
I have come to the conclusion that the only people who truly believe in people are the ones who advocate the dissolution of violence as a means to an end, because they know men can act in their own best interest. All others can only view men as irrational animals that are to be admonished and ruled by a select "worthy" few.
Just admit it lovers of the state, you hate man. You think he is incapable and that only a wise elite can guide him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, which will follow the rules of the network no matter what miners do. Even if every miner decided to create 1000 bitcoins per block, full nodes would stick to the rules and reject those blocks.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 15, 2011, 09:51:34 PM |
|
You think he is incapable and that only a wise elite can guide him.
They freely do. That's one of their main arguments. |
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
July 15, 2011, 09:55:12 PM |
|
Prostrating and groveling never has been one of my better traits  |
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
July 15, 2011, 10:00:55 PM |
|
Frederic Bastiat said it perfectly,
"To all these persons, the relations between mankind and the legislator appear to be the same as those that exist between the clay and the potter. Moreover, if they have consented to recognize in the heart of man a capability of action, and in his intellect a faculty of discernment, they have looked upon this gift of God as a fatal one, and thought that mankind, under these two impulses, tended fatally towards ruin."
|
|
|
|
|
J180
|
|
July 16, 2011, 03:37:23 AM |
|
You think he is incapable and that only a wise elite can guide him.
They freely do. That's one of their main arguments. Or they think some so and some don't. And they consider the restriction on the few to be worth the cost of imposing it on the rest. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin_Silver_Supply
|
|
July 16, 2011, 08:16:52 PM |
|
I have come to the conclusion that the only people who truly believe in people are the ones who advocate the dissolution of violence as a means to an end, because they know men can act in their own best interest. All others can only view men as irrational animals that are to be admonished and ruled by a select "worthy" few.
Just admit it lovers of the state, you hate man. You think he is incapable and that only a wise elite can guide him.
In western thought it started with Plato. The rest has just been a series of footnotes to his concept of the absolutely planned and regimented society. Socialism, technocracy, traditional conservatism, communitarianism and all other collectivist ideologies are simply variations on the same idea. Ironically, even Rand bought fully into collectivism in her analysis of the Israel/Palestine situation. Denying that any groups in society exist is a fallacy, but the ideological view that individuals are nothing more than a herd of untapped labour requiring "management" from above has constantly proved itself to be evil throughout history. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
July 16, 2011, 10:04:33 PM |
|
Denying that any groups in society exist is a fallacy... I'm pretty sure nobody is denying that. However, groups are nothing above and beyond the individuals that compose that group. That group doesn't gain anything extra by being a group. There are no extra rights granted to the group above and beyond the individual rights. Since you can't grant someone the right to do something you don't have the right to do yourself, then groups are nothing special. They can't suddenly decide they have the right to steal from others for the good of the "group". |
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin_Silver_Supply
|
|
July 17, 2011, 12:38:49 AM |
|
Denying that any groups in society exist is a fallacy... I'm pretty sure nobody is denying that. I have met objectivists who actively deny such and argue that all groups are simply fabrications of the state. Group culture is rooted in tribalism which is very much a part of human nature and a family unit is the inevitable starting point of any prosperous community. That said, this instinct is very much used/abused by technocrats and state planners to control the masses with an endless list of hyphenated collective designations. Families and communities are both inevitable and "something special;" collectivism and centralized redistribution of wealth are modes of artificial control. The line between community and collectivism can often be hard to draw in the modern age, but the voluntary principle does a decent job of such. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
July 17, 2011, 01:18:02 AM |
|
I have met objectivists who actively deny such and argue that all groups are simply fabrications of the state. I met a guy that thought he was a truck. When he backed up, he said "beep, beep". I meant here in this thread though. Group culture is rooted in tribalism which is very much a part of human nature and a family unit is the inevitable starting point of any prosperous community. That said, this instinct is very much used/abused by technocrats and state planners to control the masses with an endless list of hyphenated collective designations.
Families and communities are both inevitable and "something special;" collectivism and centralized redistribution of wealth are modes of artificial control. The line between community and collectivism can often be hard to draw in the modern age, but the voluntary principle does a decent job of such. That's the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural or inevitable doesn't make it good. |
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
|
July 17, 2011, 02:19:38 AM |
|
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
~Samuel Adams
|
insert coin here:
Dash XfXZL8WL18zzNhaAqWqEziX2bUvyJbrC8s
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin_Silver_Supply
|
|
July 17, 2011, 02:37:53 AM |
|
That's the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural or inevitable doesn't make it good.
It could well be a fallacy, but simply stating such does not make it so. In what ways are the inevitabilities of a family unit "bad" and what would be a good means of replacing it? Or, if you prefer an easier one, what makes the inevitability of community bad? I could make an argument for the latter myself, but the former is a hard one to run with short of advocating Brave New World. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
July 17, 2011, 02:49:43 AM |
|
It could well be a fallacy, but simply stating such does not make it so. In what ways are the inevitabilities of a family unit "bad" and what would be a good means of replacing it? Or, if you prefer an easier one, what makes the inevitability of community bad?
I could make an argument for the latter myself, but the former is a hard one to run with short of advocating Brave New World.
I'm only pointing out that something being natural or inevitable isn't an argument for it's being either good or bad. Cancer is natural. Death is inevitable. Neither are good, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
