tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.comments2011-04-04T15:54:47.923-05:00PhilosophizerThe Bunhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08596489417768627544noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-23164546210132850822011-04-04T15:54:47.923-05:002011-04-04T15:54:47.923-05:00I really want to know what I kind use hair gel for...I really want to know what I kind use hair gel for, as well. Obvi I can put it in my hair, but what else can I put it in? It would be totes appreciated lolz. DadadadadaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-57059871660618828062010-05-21T15:50:36.137-05:002010-05-21T15:50:36.137-05:00ill take the makeup if you send it to me;)silversh...ill take the makeup if you send it to me;)silvershadow137@hotmail.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-14390957843938163362010-03-13T08:59:20.067-06:002010-03-13T08:59:20.067-06:00Don't know if I did it, or I was just an idiot...Don't know if I did it, or I was just an idiot and missed it, but Amazon has a Super Saver shipping filter now. Don't know when that happened, as I don't even remember posting this in the first place so I wasn't watching for it, but yeah.<br /><br />Yeah, I probably just missed it.The Bunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596489417768627544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-52076186858442248382009-11-20T23:58:56.144-06:002009-11-20T23:58:56.144-06:00I'm fully convinced that "You Belong With...I'm fully convinced that "You Belong With Me" is sung by a stalker to a guy tied up in a chair. "Standing by, waiting at your back door"? Yeah, waiting <i>with chloroform</i>. And I have the feeling that the "wake up and find that what you're looking for has been here the whole time" is literal--as in "wake up at 3 AM and find that I've been standing at the foot of your bed watching you this whole time." <br /><br />That song out-creepies "Every Step You Take."Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-24411128951057249282009-08-23T21:25:06.590-05:002009-08-23T21:25:06.590-05:00I miss kitties!I miss kitties!Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-36505304720516930752008-03-24T21:05:00.000-05:002008-03-24T21:05:00.000-05:00I just did this to a shirt I had and didn't like i...I just did this to a shirt I had and didn't like it so I made it into a dust rag. Maybe you could find other things to do with even a messed up shirt.Kelley Denningshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14047830847848195315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-45687722774937524522007-06-10T07:11:00.000-05:002007-06-10T07:11:00.000-05:00I thought Fergi was saying, "Flouncy, Flouncy." I...I thought Fergi was saying, "Flouncy, Flouncy." I like the way my mouth feels when I say "flouncy" so I say it around the house to amuse myself!Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07279808340904809552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1157315651033750582006-09-03T15:34:00.000-05:002006-09-03T15:34:00.000-05:00One day I will do a post on my makeup obsession, s...One day I will do a post on my makeup obsession, specifically eyeliner. I'm not brave enough yet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1155585066402880522006-08-14T14:51:00.000-05:002006-08-14T14:51:00.000-05:00I hate to drop in and blog flog, but please check ...I hate to drop in and blog flog, but please check out my entry;<BR/><BR/>http://andune.blogspot.com/2006/07/mccarthyism-paranoia-and-things-that.html<BR/><BR/>I look forward to your commentsDeep Thoughthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17438539845962372105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1154340261573705732006-07-31T05:04:00.000-05:002006-07-31T05:04:00.000-05:00-izer, Match this: "I live on the Mississippi, and...-izer, <BR/><BR/>Match this: "I live on the Mississippi, and it could be toxic if it weren't for farm pollution regulations from the fed. (side fact: most people don't know this, but Mississippi water is safe to drink - the only treatment it needs is to have the dust and silt removed for taste purposes. A friend had the Coast Guard labs test it for him.)"<BR/><BR/>With: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2669.htm<BR/><BR/>How do the two add up?mehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1154242557810614042006-07-30T01:55:00.000-05:002006-07-30T01:55:00.000-05:00"In the hegemonic state there is neither right nor..."In the hegemonic state there is neither right nor law; there are only directives and regulations which the director may change daily and apply with what discrimination he pleases which the wards must obey. The wards have one freedom only: to obey without asking questions." - Human Action<BR/><BR/>from Ludwig von Misesmehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1154214587068460692006-07-29T18:09:00.000-05:002006-07-29T18:09:00.000-05:00-izer, I hear what you're saying. Just remember t...-izer, <BR/><BR/>I hear what you're saying. Just remember that those, in Government, are from the same society that you see fault in.<BR/><BR/>It's obvious, from our experience alone, that ascension to "higher office" does not, automatically, imbue those individuals with "higher morals".<BR/><BR/>You mentioned "Jim Crow" laws as an example of "small-town" mentality, surely, it is.<BR/><BR/>Though, many were able to move away from those jurisdictions where they felt their Liberty was being impinged. Surely, many stayed and, some, chose to fight.<BR/>All three were options when "Gov't" is small.<BR/><BR/>Those options grow fewer, in number, as "Gov't" grows bigger.<BR/><BR/>If we were avail ourselves to the "moving" option, today, in re: USA Patriot Act, we would literally have to ex-patriate ourselves. Sweet choice, no?<BR/><BR/>Btw, I came across your weblog via a post of yours @ savvysaver.mehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153872805568805952006-07-25T19:13:00.000-05:002006-07-25T19:13:00.000-05:00I see that debt and lack of improvement etc you de...I see that debt and lack of improvement etc you describe as a flaw of administrations rather than of the concept itself.<BR/><BR/><I>With this: "Very good arguments, but it comes down to would you rather be oppressed by your local gov't, state gov't, or federal?"<BR/><BR/>I would think, along with the Anti-Federalists, that one would choose the smallest possible government, under which one was "oppressed".</I><BR/>I should have been more clear - my concern is about the small-town mentality and such; local and state governments made Jim Crow laws, there are towns where the schools wouldn't teach evolution, and there are states who'd like to take away any number of rights from any number of minorities that they just don't like. Under our current federal system the fed (ideally) keeps these people in check. <BR/><BR/><I>I'll certainly agree that governments operating at the behest of the citizens are best.<BR/><BR/>We, at this time, though, have done quite a poor job keeping ours constrained, and we are poorer for it.</I><BR/>Again, I see this as a flaw in people and administrations.<BR/><BR/><I>Closer to the original point: I'm not sure how it is that you interpret Rand as being for an "aristocracy". I would think that, at the max, she would found advocating a "meritocracy".<BR/><BR/>Would you expound on that viewpoint: "aristocracy" ?</I><BR/>I misspoke - I didn't mean to imply that Rand is advocating aristocracy - she's definitely a meritocracy kind of theorist. The aristocracy comment was in reference to the result of the system you and the other commenters are discussing. A system where people with no resources exist at the whim and charity of those with many resources, where, as you say, this group of resource-rich people can do anything that a government can do - at that point, they *are* a government! They're an oligarchy/plutocracy - government by the rich and their descendants. And they become an aristocracy, hence my reference.<BR/><BR/>In all honesty, I really wish we lived in a world where Rand's philosophy worked. But it requires a very different, nobler kind of human nature than what we currently have. Currently, whether due to our 'nature' as humans or our cultural 'education', people are simply not generous enough, unprejudiced enough, or rational enough to make it work yet. Which is a damn shame.<BR/><BR/>By the way, how did you find me?The Bunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596489417768627544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153571044397001482006-07-22T07:24:00.000-05:002006-07-22T07:24:00.000-05:00-izer, Those huge liabilities, U.S. U$D ~57 Trilli...-izer, <BR/><BR/>Those huge liabilities, U.S. U$D ~57 Trillion, et al., are prime examples of exactly how far the "genie" is out of the bottle.<BR/><BR/>Government debt(s) and unfunded liabilities are nothing more than promises of future Taxation. Evidence that the State not only consumes are great part of our Today, but is also busily devouring huge swaths of our Future.<BR/><BR/>Still, Johnny, by and large, still can't read, far too many go hungry, many stay ill for want of basic medical attention, and, best of all, we have so de-industrialized our Economic base that we couldn't supply our own demand, even if we wanted to.<BR/><BR/>All of the above can rightly be laid at the foot of our Gov't, and its policies, that radically distort and subvert the proper functioning of the marketplace.<BR/><BR/>With this: "Very good arguments, but it comes down to would you rather be oppressed by your local gov't, state gov't, or federal?"<BR/><BR/>I would think, along with the Anti-Federalists, that one would choose the smallest possible government, under which one was "oppressed".<BR/><BR/>The idea is two-fold. One, it is easier to remove one's self to a more accommodation jurisdiction, Two, thereby, there would be a "market" for competing Governmental "units".<BR/><BR/>If a person was not interested in having her government support "farm subsidies"( for example ), she would be better off in a universe of smaller of governments for, at least, two reasons. One, her voice would be more easier heard, to endeavor to effect change, if she desired, in a smaller group, and, Two, she could more easily move to a different, more accommodating jurisdiction, if she so chose.<BR/><BR/>The actuality behind TJ's insight: "Government governs best, when it governs least."-- is manifest in its, government's, necessity to be responsive to its inhabitants--or else fail.<BR/><BR/>When we allow government to slip into larger spheres, long experience shows, we not only become less, we get less.<BR/><BR/>I'll certainly agree that governments operating at the behest of the citizens are best.<BR/><BR/>We, at this time, though, have done quite a poor job keeping ours constrained, and we are poorer for it.<BR/><BR/>Closer to the original point: I'm not sure how it is that you interpret Rand as being for an "aristocracy". I would think that, at the max, she would found advocating a "meritocracy".<BR/><BR/>Would you expound on that viewpoint: "aristocracy" ?mehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153511697250332602006-07-21T14:54:00.000-05:002006-07-21T14:54:00.000-05:00Also, his original Declaration of Independence phr...Also, his original Declaration of Independence phrasing included 'preservation of life' as a right of all men created equal, and that the government was to secure this end. (I paraphrase for plurals - check out the quote on wikipedia to see the whole original draft.)<BR/>To me this suggests that as all people have the right to not starve or be killed, the government has to work to ensure that they do not starve or be killed.The Bunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596489417768627544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153511282742395722006-07-21T14:48:00.000-05:002006-07-21T14:48:00.000-05:00Most "first-world" countries are in stupefying lev...<I>Most "first-world" countries are in stupefying levels of indebtedness. Our own head of the GAO, David Walker, calls the # U$D~57 Trillion. The Euros and the Japanese have similiar problems.</I><BR/>I know, and it's quite pitiful. But you asked me to show 'genie kept in bottle', not financial issues.<BR/><BR/><I>Past the fact that the "Civil War" abrogated the Southern States right to succede( wholly within the Constitution ), it is interesting that you mention the Alien & Sedition Acts, for what are the USA Patriot Acts, if not kin to those?</I><BR/>I don't get how this disproves me, as the USA PATRIOT Acts, to me, are just Alien and Seditions that are going to get stomped quite soon. People are not always instantaneous in catching on that being ruled by fear is bad. But note how much of the country, and how much of the govvernment, opposes them. <BR/>I suppose, though I had intended to stay out of partisan politics here, that in my opinion, the Bush administration would be a good example of your side. But I think he's an anomaly of bad within a relatively sound structure.<BR/><BR/><I>The nature of Gov't is that it seeks ever more power-- Merely survey our own countries history over the course of the 20th C.</I><BR/>I don't see it. I see people trying to screw other people, and a system designed so that they can be stopped.<BR/><BR/><I>You mentioned that you thought the State should be empowered to take, from some, to give to others.<BR/><BR/>I was saying that the FedRes is the source of Inflation, they do control the money supply, after all. Also, "poor people" are furthest away from the fleeting short-run benefits of Inflation and always pay the highest costs for it.<BR/><BR/>The easiest way to begin to assist "all people" is to tell the FedRes to pack up their Notes, and<BR/>go home. A stable unit of account leads to much reduced costs, throughout the economy.</I><BR/>Again, I agree with you completely here. I guess what I meant is that, if I agree with you, and most rational people would, how does this disprove me? Or was this just a different point, in which case, I admire you for not having to make everything about 'the fight' when you discuss.<BR/><BR/><I>"I see democracies as examples of what happens when the people keep their government in check."<BR/><BR/>You should remember that we, Americans, have never lived in a Democracy. The Constitution set up a Representative Republic, for good reason. Even then, the framers well understood, through their knowledge of History, the dangers inherent in a Democracy without restraint. D'Tocqueville(sp?) also warned, over 120 years ago, of the danger of the day when Americans discover that they could "vote themselves "bounty"".</I><BR/>I was using democracy in the pop-culture fashion - most people, if asked, would call us a democracy, not understanding the difference. As such, it's a useful term for the 'spirit' of your governments where the people have some sort of say in what happens. De Tocqueville was quite right, and there are some modern scholars who think that his idea of being able to 'bribe' the electorate, as it were, is the beginning of the road to serfdom, using your earlier Hayek terms. I know I've got that book around here somewhere, so I'll come back and cite it for you when I find it.<BR/><BR/><I>You may be interested in the "Anti-Federalist Papers", a series of arguments from those who thought the Constitution provided a great danger in centralizing too much power in the Federal Gov't. Many of their arguments are proved to be quite accurate (foretelling).</I><BR/>Interesting that you assume I haven't read them. I have. Very good arguments, but it comes down to would you rather be oppressed by your local gov't, state gov't, or federal? In my readings of history, it appears that when you basically make the country a bunch of independent states with a common currency and common military, you get, well, basically border wars between the states. Think about some of the acts of the federal that could not have been done at the state level. There'd still be slavery, or at least disenfranchisement, in a good portion of the country. My state might teach evolution in biology, and plate tectonics in geology, and yours might teach that the world is 6000 years old. Many states would say that it's OK to kill gay people, and that women have no legal recourse against men. Substantial parts of the country would only have 'recovered' from the Depression by having large portions of their population die off. I live on the Mississippi, and it could be toxic if it weren't for farm pollution regulations from the fed. (side fact: most people don't know this, but Mississippi water is safe to drink - the only treatment it needs is to have the dust and silt removed for taste purposes. A friend had the Coast Guard labs test it for him.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think you might think I'm talking about a much more 'involved' fed than I am. I understand the concerns of an over-regulated society, but all I'm really defending is our current structure, or maybe the way our current system would ideally work, as opposed to the aristocracy that is Rand's world. In the end, if you have a small group of special people making the decisions as to how the rest of the people live and die, as she recommends (I don't know if you agree - you don't address her work) - that *is* a government, by all definitions. It's just an oligarchy. And as I understand it, people worked to get rid of those for a reason.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and I see your Jefferson, and raise you some more Jefferson:<BR/><I>I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for sub-dividing property, only taking care to let their subdivision go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. </I>The Bunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596489417768627544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153466900315970952006-07-21T02:28:00.000-05:002006-07-21T02:28:00.000-05:00-izer,"In my view, most 'first-world' countries, i...-izer,<BR/><BR/>"In my view, most 'first-world' countries, including the US, fit this description."<BR/><BR/>Most "first-world" countries are in stupefying levels of indebtedness. Our own head of the GAO, David Walker, calls the # U$D~57 Trillion. The Euros and the Japanese have similiar problems.<BR/><BR/>Past the fact that the "Civil War" abrogated the Southern States right to succede( wholly within the Constitution ), it is interesting that you mention the Alien & Sedition Acts, for what are the USA Patriot Acts, if not kin to those?<BR/><BR/>The nature of Gov't is that it seeks ever more power-- Merely survey our own countries history over the course of the 20th C.<BR/><BR/>"I agree. The Fed is causing much more trouble than it's worth, I think. Though I don't see the connection here either."<BR/><BR/>You mentioned that you thought the State should be empowered to take, from some, to give to others.<BR/><BR/>I was saying that the FedRes is the source of Inflation, they do control the money supply, after all. Also, "poor people" are furthest away from the fleeting short-run benefits of Inflation and always pay the highest costs for it.<BR/><BR/>The easiest way to begin to assist "all people" is to tell the FedRes to pack up their Notes, and<BR/>go home. A stable unit of account leads to much reduced costs, throughout the economy.<BR/><BR/>"I see democracies as examples of what happens when the people keep their government in check."<BR/><BR/>You should remember that we, Americans, have never lived in a Democracy. The Constitution set up a Representative Republic, for good reason. Even then, the framers well understood, through their knowledge of History, the dangers inherent in a Democracy without restraint. D'Tocqueville(sp?) also warned, over 120 years ago, of the danger of the day when Americans discover that they could "vote themselves "bounty"".<BR/><BR/>You may be interested in the "Anti-Federalist Papers", a series of arguments from those who thought the Constitution provided a great danger in centralizing too much power in the Federal Gov't. Many of their arguments are proved to be quite accurate (foretelling).mehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153465247246280342006-07-21T02:00:00.000-05:002006-07-21T02:00:00.000-05:00To take from one, because it is thought his own in...To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. --Thomas Jeffersonmehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153463656155551492006-07-21T01:34:00.000-05:002006-07-21T01:34:00.000-05:00You state that there is way to "keep the genie in ...<I>You state that there is way to "keep the genie in the bottle", in regard to Gov't wealth-redistibution schemas. Can you show me one that has been able to remain restrained?</I><BR/>In my view, most 'first-world' countries, including the US, fit this description. Also, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the HUAC, and the war powers taken during the Civil War and the French Revolution and its self-destruction - times when government was getting out of hand and its people fixed it, violently if necessary.<BR/><BR/><I>The nature of Gov't is that it seeks ever more power. </I><BR/>Assertion. Could you give examples? Preferably ones that don't rely on the numerical exceptions of Stalin, Franco, Hitler, and such? I'm not trying to be snarky here - I genuinely don't know how you came to this assertion.<BR/><BR/><I>If you really want to help "poor people", you'd also acquaint yourself with the inflationary effects of the Federal Reserve. Noone suffers worse, from their antice, than those "at the bottom".</I><BR/>I agree. The Fed is causing much more trouble than it's worth, I think. Though I don't see the connection here either.<BR/><BR/>I think it comes down to this: I see democracies as examples of what happens when the people keep their government in check. If you don't agree, then it's possible we are simply talking about two completely different concepts, and we probably won't get anywhere further than this. Not as a snarky way to imply you're wrong, simply a recognition of the possibility that we're talking at cross-purposes. If so, I may not have anything else I can add here. But I'm looking forward to hearing what you think.The Bunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596489417768627544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153462783854584622006-07-21T01:19:00.000-05:002006-07-21T01:19:00.000-05:00Mehoffer-For two people to interact in any reasona...Mehoffer-<BR/><BR/>For two people to interact in any reasonable and productive way, both must first have accepted some basic caveats: At the very minimum, they must agree to not commit physical harm or property crimes against each other. In a world without this, everyone would live in fear of everyone else and what could be productive collaboration, instead becomes conflict. One’s entire lifetime is spent protecting their lives and property from their fellow man, and individual potential goes the way of collaborative potential and is wasted.<BR/>When two people can agree to not physically harm one another and not steal from each other, we can call this, for lack of a better word, basic socialization. Getting people to surrender the ability to steal and kill – what are essentially freedoms – is the basic element of mass socialization; such a massive surrender of these freedoms requires coercion. <BR/>(Coercion is necessary because, while reasonable people benefit from a society where they are forbidden to kill and steal, there are times that a reasonable person will see murder or theft as the reasonable option.)<BR/>The type of coercion necessary to keep people from killing or stealing is typically referred to as the police power and requires, either real or perceived, superiority of those charged with the police power. This superiority serves as a deterrent to these destructive behaviors, (the promise of many police officers better prepared to use weapons better than we are, keeps us from stealing each others possessions, even if that is a beneficial and reasonable thing to do. The police power makes it unreasonable). <BR/>This is the most basic human interaction requires this socialization, although this is not a justification for “society” as it is commonly used. As you have said, these same ends could be accomplished by a committed group of individuals, who among themselves have agreed to not kill or steal. Such a collective of wealthy, reasonable people could hire a police force to protect them from those who are not part of the collective and to enforce the social contract among the members of the collective. <BR/>If the members of the collective have all agreed of their own free wills to be policed, then it cannot be considered tyranny. But to enforce the agreements of the collective’s contract on people who have not signed into the collective (by means of protecting the collective from outsiders who have not pledged to not kill or steal) is tyrannical.<BR/>How does this collective amount to anything but a government? Such an arrangement where wealthy individuals, no matter how benevolent their intentions, can enforce their private laws on others is tyrannical aristocracy. <BR/>Simply put, no government is unreasonable. Mass society is a beneficial arrangement for people, because we don’t have to wonder who has and who hasn’t agreed to not kills us or steal our possessions. As we all benefit from society’s security, it is acceptable that we share the financial burden of that security. <BR/>To assume that people are born believing to not kill or steal is to tread into a philosophy that requires a god or gods prescribing morality, something that Ayn Rand rejected and society cannot reasonably rely on. And, while reason dictates we not kill and steal, it only does so because of that coercive enforcement mechanism of police power. And anyone who believes everyone now living makes decisions using only their rational mind is obviously neglecting their own.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153350124469676202006-07-19T18:02:00.000-05:002006-07-19T18:02:00.000-05:00-izer,I didn't see where anyone called you a "Soci...-izer,<BR/><BR/>I didn't see where anyone called you a "Socialist", or, really, painted you as "extreme".<BR/><BR/>I think what I and the others are trying to get you to see is that Gov't intervention doesn't solve the problem you are seeking to rid.<BR/><BR/>You state that there is way to "keep the genie in the bottle", in regard to Gov't wealth-redistibution schemas. Can you show me one that has been able to remain restrained?<BR/><BR/>That's the point. The nature of Gov't is that it seeks ever more power. Patrick Henry knew well, all the political triangulation one needs to learn: "Liberty or Death".<BR/><BR/>If you really want to help "poor people", you'd also acquaint yourself with the inflationary effects of the Federal Reserve. Noone suffers worse, from their antice, than those "at the bottom".mehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153259280672665932006-07-18T16:48:00.000-05:002006-07-18T16:48:00.000-05:00Okay, assuming I was even talking about what you c...Okay, assuming I was even talking about what you claim I was, assuming that I am all for making people feel entitled, and that I love the tax man, answer me this: Hayek says that a planned society (which is not at all the same thing as a not-letting-people-starve society, but just for the sake of argument I'll pretend to be a socialist for you) leads to serfdom down that slippery slope of needing to control people. But people who starve or not at the whim of some higher-up person, having their human needs met if they choose to toss some charity their way, and I emphasize if, because that's what it is, aren't they living in serfdom now?<BR/><BR/>To me, I think keeping people out of certain serfdom is worth the effort of having to figure out where the line is, and sticking to it, to keep us from sliding down into Hayek's serfdom. Because that's the thing. Now that we know that Hayek's world is a possibility, we can, y'know, not do it that way. And I think that can be done without abandoning the poor to the whims of the rich.<BR/><BR/>The issue is that you've all decided to argue as if I'm representing some sort of socialism, and treat me as an extreme, so that you can counter with your own end of the spectrum. Hi, I'm a moderate, and I know extremes don't work. That's why I am most certainly *not* a socialist, and that's also why I can't agree with you.The Bunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596489417768627544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153254914412619572006-07-18T15:35:00.000-05:002006-07-18T15:35:00.000-05:00-izer, The point is: your beloved tax man carries ...-izer, <BR/><BR/>The point is: your beloved tax man carries a gun.<BR/><BR/>Rand was not interested in Man being an island, but Man being rationally Self-interested( Not selfish ).<BR/><BR/>Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" delineates, well, the end of the path that starts with State-intervention.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing the State can do more effectively than committed group of self-interested individuals; except, possibly, kill large #'s of people.<BR/><BR/>The 'entitlement' mindset you are propounding serves to enslaves us all at the mantle of inefficiency and corruption.<BR/><BR/>If the above sounds harsh, it's not meant to be personal.mehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153203694872628082006-07-18T01:21:00.000-05:002006-07-18T01:21:00.000-05:00I have read Hayek, but I appreciate the suggestion...I have read Hayek, but I appreciate the suggestions. However, I don't see the relevance, as no one else was talking about socialism or any kind of planned society. All I was saying was that, clichéd though it may be, no man is an island, and that Rand doesn't take this into consideration.<BR/><BR/><BR/>And, you know, I still don't understand how ravish thinks that he has disproved an ethical theory I didn't write anything about.The Bunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08596489417768627544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12369301.post-1153198698858915462006-07-17T23:58:00.000-05:002006-07-17T23:58:00.000-05:00I'd suggest you read F.A, Hayek's "The Road to Ser...I'd suggest you read F.A, Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" for a fuller exposition on the "unintended" effects of belief in the necessity of society held together by force.<BR/><BR/>Rand's point, in my mind, was that individuals, left to their own devices, will, through Reason, act, not selfishly, though, in their own self-interest.<BR/><BR/>Rand well knew the evil of a "society" that relied on the 'barrel of a gun' for its cohesion--it Is Tyranny.<BR/><BR/>We are not craven, yet, that we should believe, as a given, the worst possible about ourselves.<BR/><BR/>Another fine book on this topic is "Socialism" by Ludwig von Mises.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, one would do well to remember Matt Damon's witty retort in "Good Will Hunting"-- to the Haavard students: "You could of learned just as much with a Library Card and a buck fifty in late fees."mehofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05618986236607603703noreply@blogger.com