4 ms·

Loving your children can be one of your chosen "ends." What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you. We should not want that. We should

by javert 6y ago

Loving your children can be one of your chosen "ends." What is abhorrent is when the government choses your ends, for you. We should not want that. We should not want government-forced sacrifice instead of giving an inheritance to a beloved person according to our own choices. I would argue that people who want to ban inheritance love their "brothers" (random and probably non-deserving strangers) too much, and love their children too little.

geofft 6y ago
Can hiring only white people be one of my chosen "ends," which the government has no business interfering with? Can serving food to only white people be one of my chosen "ends"?
- javert 6y ago
  Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices. What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory. What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian? What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs. Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
  - CRConrad 6y ago
    > What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? The state doesn't think that it's "stupid" to only serve white people; it thinks that it's evil to only serve white people. Therefore the state makes that illegal. (And rightly so. Had it thought -- or, as you say, when it did think -- the opposite, then it was the state that was evil.) The state also seems to (at least to) some tiny extent think that it's bad to contribute to (or by inaction to allow) economic power becoming concentrated in ever fewer hands, and therefore tries to avoid doing that by limiting your freedom to aggravate this concentration. You don't seem to have a cogent counter-argument; what you're spewing is just simplistic libertarian rah-rah. > Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Yeah, right. That's why the USA kept doing precisely that for at least another century after the civil war. (Or, arguably, is still doing it.) The view you're proclaiming is hilariously Pollyanna. (That often seems to go hand-in-hand with simplistic libertarian rah-rah.)
Can_Not 6y ago
> sacrifice Recieving an unearned $11.70 million untaxed income for free is the opposite of "our own ends" and "sacrifice". It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time but want to make a special exception for yourself and your kids.
- javert 6y ago
  The government forcing someone to give their estate to random strangers is absolutely a forced sacrifice. This is not me being poetic. I think we can agree on this. Do you not? The question is, whether we want human sacrifice, or not. I think many people want that and would admit it openly. I, on the other hand, do not support human sacrifice. > It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time Do you want to have an honest intellectual discussion or do you want to try to advocate for your ideal system using emotionalism? Because obviously what you've said in this part has no intellectual content. Seems like you're on the border. Make a decision. Do you want to be rational, or not?

by javert 6y ago

geofft 6y ago

Can hiring only white people be one of my chosen "ends," which the government has no business interfering with? Can serving food to only white people be one of my chosen "ends"?

javert 6y ago
Yes. Freedom does not work if we are not also permitted to make irrational choices. What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? That was true in my home state within living memory. What if the state thinks it's irrational to not be a Christian? What if the state thinks horses are "good enough," and cars are too dangerous to be allowed? Today's America would never allow the automobile to be invented. And Big Candle would probably lobby against the creation of lightbulbs. Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Whether on the level of a single establishment, or a country. Rightly so. The civilized world--if there is one--will move on, and will help the discriminated relocate to free societies. (It's a shame we are not doing this for the Uigyurs--we should.)
- CRConrad 6y ago
  > What if the state thinks it's stupid to not only serve white people? The state doesn't think that it's "stupid" to only serve white people; it thinks that it's evil to only serve white people. Therefore the state makes that illegal. (And rightly so. Had it thought -- or, as you say, when it did think -- the opposite, then it was the state that was evil.) The state also seems to (at least to) some tiny extent think that it's bad to contribute to (or by inaction to allow) economic power becoming concentrated in ever fewer hands, and therefore tries to avoid doing that by limiting your freedom to aggravate this concentration. You don't seem to have a cogent counter-argument; what you're spewing is just simplistic libertarian rah-rah. > Places that practice the kind of racism you are talking about will be the subject of ridicule and will face economic stagnation. Yeah, right. That's why the USA kept doing precisely that for at least another century after the civil war. (Or, arguably, is still doing it.) The view you're proclaiming is hilariously Pollyanna. (That often seems to go hand-in-hand with simplistic libertarian rah-rah.)

Can_Not 6y ago

> sacrifice Recieving an unearned $11.70 million untaxed income for free is the opposite of "our own ends" and "sacrifice". It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time but want to make a special exception for yourself and your kids.

javert 6y ago
The government forcing someone to give their estate to random strangers is absolutely a forced sacrifice. This is not me being poetic. I think we can agree on this. Do you not? The question is, whether we want human sacrifice, or not. I think many people want that and would admit it openly. I, on the other hand, do not support human sacrifice. > It sounds like you fetishize everyone else having a hard time Do you want to have an honest intellectual discussion or do you want to try to advocate for your ideal system using emotionalism? Because obviously what you've said in this part has no intellectual content. Seems like you're on the border. Make a decision. Do you want to be rational, or not?