Daniel Unplugged

Just because a person wants to die for reasons other than the abovementioned, does not mean that they are insane or mentally unhealthy. There are perfectly sane reasons why a person may wish to die, such as their life really sux or they wish to donate their organs while they are still young and healthy. Just because an action is sane for one person doesnt mean all sane people will do it (killing yourself is an action, the words sane or insane do not apply to it).You do not have a right to defend a person or a persons property against their explicit wishes. That is a violation of their property rights.

Great point. In this case the suicide is a violation on the NAP, therefore preventing it is permissible. Doesn't that contradict your previous statement since the boat owner consented. If he didn't consent, different of course. I entirely disagree. If a person owns themself, then they have the right to do with themself whatever they see fit. Someone else does not have the right to interfere, especially by initiating force. Say there is someone standing on a bridge ready to jump. I would not prevent them (forgetting about the forced obligation on the clean up crew for a minute). I would of course attempt to talk them down, but it is not my right to prevent them from taking their own life. While I would wish for others not to initiate force also, I would not support them being jailed for tackling the person to the ground (It is reasonable to assume, at least temporarily, that the person doesn't want to die all that badly, otherwise they would have jumped already, or have found a more foolproof method than standing on a bridge waiting for someone to tackle them). If however, they proceeded to take the suicidal person to a mental hospital to have them locked in a padded room, I would consider their actions criminal, and worthy of jail time.

I can give you the argument that buying American products because they are made in America does not benefit (the economy of) America and is in fact counter productive. It is helpful to think of international trade (and all trade for that matter) as the exchange of goods and/or services. In this context, when you purchase an imported product of value X, it necessitates the other country purchasing product(s) from your country of the same value. Trade flows both ways. Regardless of whether you purchase local or imported products, products of value X will still be produced locally. There no benefit to the local economy by purchasing local products. So purchase based on the quality and price of the product, and save yourself some money. The argument that you should purchase American products instead of Chinese products is derived from racism (It is preferable for an American to have a job instead of a Chinese person.) It is not derived from sound economics.

I'm going to try out a few definitions of racism, and see if I am racist. Racism: A belief that not all races are equal. I do not believe that all races are equal, therefore I am a racist. Since the races are not equal (Whites are taller than asians, blacks can run faster than whites, asians are smarter than blacks etc.), anybody whom is in touch with reality is also racist. Racism: Openly stating that all races are not equal. I just openly stated that all races are not equal, therefore I am a racist. Anybody whom is in touch with reality, and speaks openly and honestly about racial inequality is also racist. Racism: Disliking or hating a person because of their race. I do not do such things, therefore I am not racist. KKK members and like people are racists. Racism: Treating people differently because of their race. I am not racist. Anybody whom supports race quota's or any form of affirmative action is racist. Racism: Calling a person racist for mentioning that their own race is in some ways 'more equal' than others. I am not racist. Anybody whom calls me racist for what I've said in this post is racist.

Not Really. I don't own a gun but getting one is not difficult. Just take the 1 day course, pass the test, make up some bullshit story about controlling feral animals, apply for the license, pay the fee, wait for the approval, then go to a gun shop. Granted, I would much prefer not to have to any of those steps except the last one - major waste of my time. In any case, it is far easier to get a gun license than a driving license. You now have to prove, and I use the word 'prove' loosely, that you have had 240 hours driving practice on a learner's permit, among other things, before you are allowed to apply for a probationary license. Luckily I got mine in 2002 when it was much easier.

Looks like the public schooling system is really helping to push people up the economic ladder. Great value for money in regards to the workers above.

Not exactly, although it is a common misconception, even among Australians. In 1996 there was the 'Port Arthur Massacre' in Tasmania, where some nutjob went on a rampage and killed 36 tourists at the old convict settlement. Within a year, handguns were near completely banned, as were automatic and semi automatic rifles. You can still own bolt action rifles and shotguns. All guns must be registered, and all owners licensed. For more information look on wiki, I think the article is called 'gun ownership in Australia'. I think about 5% of the population still have guns, mostly in country areas.

Yes monopolies can, and usually do, engage in profiteering, but remember that that is a tried and tested method for increasing competition. I don't consider it immoral. Businesses, and people will always sell for the highest price they can get, and buy for the lowest price they can get. This mechanism is what ensures markets are efficient, it is entirely necessary. It is not immoral for people to act in their own best interest, so long as doing so does not harm others. Morally requiring people to do otherwise is just collectivism, which I reject as immoral. Don't forget to distinguish between short term, and long term elasticity in demand. In the long term, the high gas priced would induce the consumer to reduce their consumption. In the long term they may; buy a more fuel efficient car, find a car pool buddy, find a job closer to home etc. I do not accept that (overall, as opposed to individual) demand for gas is particularly inelastic in the short term. There are usually many alternatives that are available at a moments notice, if the high price requires it.I didn't look it up in a dictionary, but I consider that coercion requires a threat to do harm to the victim. If that threat does not exist, I will always reject that there is coercion. I consider it to be an intentional innacuracy, designed to misrepresent and exadurate. (Not having a go at you personally. This problem comes up often. I think that it is important that we try to be accurate in the words we use.)

Hunger, tiredness, pain etc.

Did you just quote Rumsfeld? Lol I was never taught religion in school thank god. There is much less religion here in Australia than in the US. Actually, of the religious people I have met, most have been very nice to me, despite me being an athiest. It is definitely hard work unlearning all of the propaganda, but once you start, it is hard to stop, and once your mental blocks are removed, it becomes fairly easy.

People used to think the earth was flat. Communism is at one end of the political spectrum, and fascism at the other. All political positions are therefore somewhere in between the two (despite the fact that they are nearly identical). You can pick a position, so long as it in between tyranny and tyranny. The police exist to serve and protect you. The government obeys the will of the people. The government is good. Australia is a capitalist country. The police are good. Prison is where bad people are sent. I had to obey the teachers commands. Potential employers give a shit about my test scores. The goal of schools is to prepare people for the workforce. The things taught in school are useful. Australia is a free country. You only have 5 senses. The purpose of the military is to defend the freedom of Australians. Democracy is good. You have to obey. I could go on. Would anyone like to add anything?

Things are much worse in Australia. Of course, Australia was founded as a penal colony (police state) so it is to be expected. If you are pulled over you have to provide your drivers license, your name and your address. You have to submit to a breath test, which involves putting a straw in your mouth and blowing into it. You have to submit to a drug test which involves putting a medical swab in your mouth to collect a saliva sample. Failure to comply with the above will result in punishment, guaranteed. The police never even pretend that you have any rights at all (you pretty much don't). The notion of inalienable is completely foreign to them. Their only goal is to ensure obedience to the state.

I hate to nitpick, but I want to make a few points in regards to the above statement. Solar energy actually matches up quite well with peak demand for electricity. Solar power output tends to be at it's maximum during the hottest part of the day, which is also the period of peak demand due to the vast electricity consumption of air conditioners. Even in winter, where demand is usually less, the output of solar still roughly matches the peak demand period. The output of wind power is fairly random.Even with unreliable output, solar and wind can still (not that i think they should) effectively replace a large percentage of power from fossil fuels and nuclear, as long as there ia an adequate amount of 'baseload' power that is on standby, and easily turned on at a moments notice if the sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing. As I understand, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants are not very good for this, since it takes a long while to alter their power output. Hydroelectric however, is perfect for this purpose. Just open a couple of extra floodgates, and in seconds the power output can be increased significantly. So wind and solar can replace coal/nuclear at times, so long as there is a sufficient amount of hydro power on standby.Of course, they are way more expensive to produce, so I in no way endorce governments funding their construction. I'm not worried about carbon dioxide emissions either. There are significant safety concerns in regards to nuclear. Not because it is not easy to produce nuclear power safely, but because governments have shown themselves to be negligent in ensuring the safety of nuclear power. I wouldn't trust the government to ensure my haircut it up to scratch, let alone that a nuclear power plant is safe.

It's hard to argue that dsayers is not prolific in his postings, nor that he does not do a good job representing FDR philosophy.

Chicago: Toughest gun control laws and highest crime rate in America. Where you go if you if you don't want the ability to defend yourself against crime.

I think he was referring to dsayers.

Sure, in a monopolistic situation, a consumer may need to pay a monopoly premium on the good, but that is not coercion. It is a voluntary interaction, that benefits both parties. Of course, if a monopoly is charging a premium on their products, they are practically begging for new competitors to enter the market. All free market monopolies throughout history seem to follow the same life cycle. They obtain a monopoly, start to raise prices, make some good profits, encourage competitors to enter the market, and then they lose their monopoly and prices return to normal. The market has no mercy for monopolies. What are you referring to? Can you give examples?

The coercion of course. Take government police services for example. If a company sets up a police force to complete with the government, they will be subject to all kinds of violence and coercion from the state. The state has a coercive monopoly on violence. Also, look at the socialized medical services in Canada. If anybody attempts to provide those services, they are subjected to the violence of the state.You can also consider any service that requires licensing by the state to be a coercive monopoly/oligopoly, since any who attempt to compete, without a license, will be subject to violence.

Thanks

I didn't know that it was common for libertarians to describe utilitarianism this way. I made it up on the spot, but I suppose it figures.

Requiring experience for a job will only happen if the market allows it. If applicants were few and far between, that condition would probably not be there. It must be the case that there many more applicants than jobs available, otherwise the minimum standards wouldn't be so high. Government regulations have made becoming a capitalist much more difficult than it used to be. As a result, the relative values of capitalists and workers have changed. This is one or the reasons for the increases in inequality and higher unemployment that have occurred in the last 50 years. Capitalists are in demand, workers are not. Remember, the goal of socialists is to reduce everyone (except the rulers of course) to mere worker ants, and pay them a pittance. They have made great progress.

He got a taxi license, because if he operated his taxi without one, he would be subject to the violence of the state. Any contract made under duress is morally invalid.

The utilitarian principle, says that it is moral to harm an innocent person, if the benefits of that harm to other people are greater in magnitude. Harming an innocent person is never moral, and is always immoral.

Every product that has ever been invented/sold on a market began as a monopoly. I can think of none who have managed to keep it.

I use these forums on my mobile, but prefer desktop mode. I always have to click the 'full version' button at the bottom. It would be great if I could make my default setting 'full version'.