Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    59

MisterSwig last won the day on March 8

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Radical Animal

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Chat Nick
    MisterSwig
  • Real Name
    William
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    YouTube show, Welcome To Reality! https://youtu.be/YEQTs3ovbtc
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://freewilltheory.blogspot.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Biology, Volition, Values, Rights, Music

Recent Profile Visitors

4930 profile views
  1. Biddle should do a better job fact-checking what Barney's been feeding him. It wasn't until the '70s that Hubbard developed the cross? Hold on. Here's the cover of Ability #147 from March 1963. And, yes, that was the official Scientology publication in America. Hubbard didn't assert the existence of God? Hold on. Here we have the official Scientology creed from the same issue in '63. Yep, there's God being asserted. It's really not hard to fact-check these things. I literally asked Google: "When did Scientology start using the cross?" Try it! She says that they started prominently displaying the cross in 1969 after some bad press. And if you dig deeper you will discover, like I did, that it was prominently displayed to Hubbard's followers much earlier than that. While the old man would no doubt assert the existence of pink elephants if he could make a buck off doing so, it is simply a fact that Scientology presented itself as theistic. Given that Biddle has so easily accepted Barney's misrepresentations of reality, it's a wonder anyone takes him seriously as a publisher of serious articles on philosophy. I certainly would not want him as my editor.
  2. Definitions exist within a context of knowledge. If you don't know what "talking" means, then you're probably not worth talking to.
  3. Public schools in California are partially funded by the California lottery, a voluntary system. So it's not even the case that free lunches for poor schoolkids will necessarily be paid for by involuntary taxes. Thus your straw man is wrong on theory and in practice.
  4. No, I'm not. That's your straw man. I think I've explained my position well enough for now.
  5. No, it wouldn't. The state will garnish your wages or throw you in prison. If there were ever a popular movement against involuntary taxes, then we wouldn't have them, because our leaders would change the Constitution. But you seem to believe that a few people not paying taxes can solve the problem. They can't. You're preaching to the choir here. The issue isn't whether we should have involuntary taxes. We shouldn't. That's a given around here. The issue is whether taxes should be used to feed children who can't afford to buy food.
  6. Refusing to pay taxes and refusing to send your children to public school is going to stop the motor of the world? It's going to spell disaster for America? You realize that Atlas Shrugged is romanticized fiction, right? There is no Galt's Gulch. Petty rebels get thrown in jail, ruined and forgotten in the real world. We need to persuade our leaders to change the system from within the system--or we can start preparing for civil war. Civil disobedience is fine, if that's your thing. But speaking out and protesting and making smart choices at election time is good too. You need to consider whether it's worth going to prison over taxes and food for children.
  7. So, are you in hiding or in prison for resisting statist oppression? Are there warrants for your arrest? What have you done to fight evil?
  8. But you do have a gun to your head. What exactly are you proposing? That parents refuse to pay taxes and refuse to send their children to public school? What will that solve?
  9. You're still under the assumption that my view is similar to Eiuol's. It's not. My view isn't based on reparations or justice. It's based on responsibility and possession. If you forcibly take a child from its parents, then you have to care for that child now, because you possess the child. You're responsible for it. You don't have to feed the child because you stole it from its parents. You have to feed it because children need food to survive. You also need to shelter and clothe them. Reparations is an argument for continuing the cycle of violence. Who's going to pay for the free lunches? The parents whose children are forced into public schools? That's silly.
  10. If you compel parents to surrender their children into your care for the day, then you are responsible for the teaching and feeding of those children. This of course costs money, which the government and public schools acquire through various means, including involuntary taxation.
  11. A radical change in philosophy and behavior is possible, more so in young adults than old. So we aren't doomed, as long as good people stand up against evil. The real social problem isn't spoiled Millennials. It's tolerant, spineless capitalists.
  12. When Styx is right, he's right. Biden just sucks the least. Now that everyone else dropped out, I don't think Sanders can win a brokered convention, if it comes to that--unless Sanders has some really spicy dirt on Biden.
  13. In her theory of concept-formation, Rand uses the idea of an "implicit concept," which is actually a percept with the constituents from which the concept is later formed. In this case we might be dealing with an implicit right, which is actually an action with the constituents from which the right is later formed. For example, an adult has the right to life, meaning generally that he has the freedom to act to preserve his life without interference from others. The core of this right is acting to preserve one's life. (The rest of it requires a social context to be meaningful.) And that core action exists even in a newborn baby, who, among other life-sustaining behaviors, reflexively suckles at the breast for nourishment. The baby, lacking self-awareness and rationality, doesn't yet understand the purpose for its actions, but the constituents of the right are all there: a conscious human, a social unit, the acting, and the life-sustaining from the acting. What's missing is the development of these things into maturity: a rational form of conscious human, a more complex social unit involving not just the mother, voluntary actions instead of involuntary, and a self-awareness and choice of standard for one's actions. So while the constituents exist at birth, they have not developed into the form of an explicit right.
  14. To be clear, my position is that there will be loot until we change the Constitution and repeal the government's power to tax. However, we can still reasonably debate the proper use of taxes, because such government funding would also exist in a voluntary system. Consider how children are compelled to attend public school. This doesn't mean we can't set rules for their behavior at school since we forced them to attend. Rules for behavior would exist at any school, and there is a separate basis for determining what those rules should be that has nothing to do with whether the kids are there voluntarily or not.
  15. Chimps form societies. Are they collectivists? Yes, when you're old and not able to work hard, you'll be thankful that young people accept cash for the food and supplies and labor you need to sustain your life. Fine, but I asked you what should be done with the taxes that are not returned to their rightful owners, and you didn't reply. Your position is akin to throwing up one's hands and saying, "I don't care what we do as long as it's what I want to do." Okay, well, we're not doing what you want to do, so let me know if you want a say in how we spend this loot.
×
×
  • Create New...