7 ms·
Yes, the government is the most evil thing in the history of evil, there is no such thing as a justified law, and this is just the parasites trying to leech off
by ubernostrum 14y ago
Yes, the government is the most evil thing in the history of evil, there is no such thing as a justified law, and this is just the parasites trying to leech off of and get power over the brilliant Galt-like geniuses whose intelligence was so inestimably massive that they apparently consciously filed a legal form that said "oh, that thing that we do and advertise that we do? Of course we don't do that".
- javert 14y ago> Yes, the government is the most evil thing in the history of evil, there is no such thing as a justified law, I agree that the quote is overblown in this context, but your argument is a strawman. Ayn Rand made strong intellectual arguments in _support_ of government and the rule of law, in contrast to anarchists and various flavors of libertarians.
- mindcrime 14y agoYes, the government is the most evil thing in the history of evil Governments, in practice, do tend to be sources of substantial amounts of "evil" behavior. Probably the largest source, outside of religious institutions. So while your attempt at sarcasm is appreciated, it's pretty off base. there is no such thing as a justified law Nah, limit "law" to nothing more than a collective extension to our innate, individual right to self-defense[1], and you'd find very few arguments against it, even from radical libertarians. [1]: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
- rayiner 14y agoI can't understand how you trash religions institutions in one paragraph, then veer off into the utterly supernatural by talking about "innate" individual rights in the next.
- mindcrime 14y agoI'm sorry you don't understand.
- javert 14y agoYou can break down the argument for individual rights as follows. (a) The best and moral thing for you (or anyone) to do is to act in your own self-interest, i.e., in the pursuit of your happiness (b) The governmental system that best allows this is one in which each individual is sovereign as long as they don't impinge on another's sovereignty. i.e., _initiating_ force is diasllowed, but retaliatory force under objective control (i.e., the government) is allowed. Of course, establishing (a) and (b) objectively requires many dissertations-worth of philosophy, but I think it can be and has been done. And fortunately, they are intuitively plausible. I wouldn't call rights "innate," but some people do. More often, people arguing for "innate" rights are just making an assertion.
- mindcrime 14y agoPerhaps "innate" wasn't the best choice of words. Certainly I did not intend to make any "supernatural" claim in what I said. The problem with any discussion of "rights" is that, ultimately, it reduces to a debate over metaphysics and epistemology. What is a "right" and what is the source of a "right", etc. In this case, I am taking an intuitive approach, based on the idea that if I exist, I can choose to defend myself, and I can do so without initiating any forceful action against anyone else. And if I choose not to defend myself, I (presumably) stand to cease to be. IMO, that makes "self-defense" what one could reasonably refer to as an innate[1] right. [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innate
- javert 14y agoI don't follow that argument. It seems like you're arguing that a right is something that you can choose to do, as long as it doesn't involve using force against someone. I agree with that, but it begs the question. Why _can_ you choose to do anything you want? And why _can't_ you initiate force against people? My earlier answer is a starting point that connects rights to ethics. Speaking of which, you're wrong that the question reduces to metaphysics and epistemology. I mean, it does, but only indirectly. Actually, the hierarchy is: metaphysics (what exists) epistemology (how we know it) ethics (what is good) <- you left this out government (what is good in a social context)
- sdoowpilihp 14y agoDo you care to back up your claim about religious institutions. I am not saying that you are wrong, but you have made a very serious claim sans any quantifiable evidence.
- ianstallings 14y agoHere ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
- mindcrime 14y agoDo you care to back up your claim about religious institutions. No, I do not. Anybody who has even a passing familiarity with history should be able to recognize the truth in my comment. Beyond that, this discussion isn't important enough to me to justify going out and treating it like a research project and providing citations and sources in meticulous detail. OTOH, perhaps I am wrong. So be it.
- jtc331 14y agoYeah, actually the evidence demonstrates that an order of magnitude (or more) of people have been killed by governments than by religion. And most of those governments were (officially) atheistic.
- mindcrime 14y agoYeah, but who cares who is "1" and "2" on the list, or "1a" and "1b" even. Both have been responsible for an awful lot of killing and mayhem.
- sageikosa 14y agoIf you have a value system that includes rationality, then religious institutions are diametrically opposed due to their "turtles all the way down" reliance on irrationality, no matter how deep you go eventually you have to make a leap of faith off of the rationality train.
- ubernostrum 14y agoeven from radical libertarians I have never understood why having my rights denied, trampled upon and generally treated as nonexistent is considered a great evil when done by "government", but a great and necessary moral victory when done by "the free market". I also do not understand how anyone can look at, say, the first few stages of the industrial revolution -- when, for example, in the United States any attempt to protect the innate rights of workers was viciously struck down in service to the great "freedom" of contract -- and believe that markets will solve problems on their own, or that government has no place beyond a bare minimum of defense of property. But then, people also don't read Thomas Hobbes anymore, because even though he was right about the state-of-nature thought experiment, his ideas on its consequences are no longer fashionable.
- Torgo 14y agoMt. Gox is qualitatively and quantitatively less evil than the US banking system that the US government operates at the behest of.
- sdoowpilihp 14y agoWe assume it is due to a _lack_ of evidence saying that MtGox is _not_ "evil". MtGox has a much shorter track record than the US banking industry. Corruption is like a cancer; It does not happen over night.