Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[pjclarke]

Oh... I see. So you object to me saying 'you' as it's not what 'you' think, but what the collective thinks. Although the collective doesn't include those who want no part in it. So we could just replace instances of the word 'you', with 'you and your pals'?

Tiresome, even for CUK General. Your position is so volatile that it is impossible to know what you're really asking. You referred to my personal opinion so it simply does not stand up that you had any kind of collective in mind, please think your position through before posting so we don't have to do a search-and-replace after the fact to know what is really on your mind.

...as I hadn't even laid any criticism at your proposition, which was that it was some kind of shining beacon of civilisation (or something like that). I merely asked a question in order to clarify what it was that you believed to be so civilised.

Oh, I believe most people will have got the meaning. In my opinion, a society that has enacted laws to ensure everyone has access to healthcare is more civilised than one that has not.

And you are right, it was not pure appeal to authority, 'all intellegent people know x ' is the bastard love child of argumentum ab auctoritate and argumentum ad populum. HTH.

[Old Greg]

Oh, I believe most people will have got the meaning. In my opinion, a society that has enacted laws to ensure everyone has access to healthcare is more civilised than one that has not.

But your opinion is objectively wrong and you are EVIL. A right to healthcare can only be achieved by violating with threat of violence individuals' property rights, which are innate and inalienable according to a proof that SO has but is not posting as he is not clear as to the purpose of posting it. As the property rights are inalienable, a democratically elected Parliament has no more right to impose a tax (under threat of violence) than it does to send agents of the state to rape SO, but it is perfectly fine for SO to extract VAT from his clients under threat of state violence, as he has no choice if he is to trade, except he does have a choice because he could trade below the VAT threshold of about 81k, but he's ignoring that.

HTH

[pjclarke]

Not only am I wrong and , I am brain-damaged and a nihilist .

I think you should cut the guy some slack, OG. Puberty can be a difficult time.

[Old Greg]

Not only am I wrong and , I am brain-damaged and a nihilist .

I think you should cut the guy some slack, OG. Puberty can be a difficult time.

I have a good friend who has objectivist Randian tendencies. I was chatting to him the other evening over a few pints and asked him about this and he explained that nobody sane over the age on 16 actually believes in it. It's just a fun position to argue around. Bad man.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Tiresome, even for CUK General.

Yet strangely compelling. Clearly

You referred to my personal opinion so it simply does not stand up that you had any kind of collective in mind, please think your position through before posting so we don't have to do a search-and-replace after the fact to know what is really on your mind.

I referred to your personal opinion, regarding the collective enforcement of a collective institution funded collectively for the benefit of - in your words - 'society' (which is a collective).

And it doesn't stand up that I had any kind of collective in mind?

This though, ironically, could be a straw-man - if it were a product of intent rather than incompetence.
I was talking about you as an individual - because I see no need to delineate you from the collective which you voluntarily participate in. You volunteer to subjugate your individual authority to the collective, and therefore you are the collective, and the collective is you - so long as you choose to remain a part of it.

You believe in forcing onto others what the collective believes is best for them, regardless of what they think themselves, and regardless of what the collective's final adjudication may be for any particular scenario.

Conflating support for the mechanism with support for the verdict of that mechanism, when it suits you, is either moronic or deceptive. Either way, when you accuse me of introducing a straw-man you only damage whatever echo of credibility you might have had left.

Oh, I believe most people will have got the meaning. In my opinion, a society that has enacted laws to ensure everyone has access to healthcare is more civilised than one that has not.

I got your meaning. That was never in question. My question was raised in order to elucidate the implications such a statement hides within. I.e. you believe that a system whereby the mob forces those outside the mob to purchase what you (the mob) think is best for them (or should that be the mob?) whether they themselves happen to think that is, in fact, what is best for them or not?

[Old Greg]

Yet strangely compelling. Clearly



I referred to your personal opinion, regarding the collective enforcement of a collective institution funded collectively for the benefit of - in your words - 'society' (which is a collective).

And it doesn't stand up that I had any kind of collective in mind?

This though, ironically, could be a straw-man - if it were a product of intent rather than incompetence.
I was talking about you as an individual - because I see no need to delineate you from the collective which you voluntarily participate in. You volunteer to subjugate your individual authority to the collective, and therefore you are the collective, and the collective is you - so long as you choose to remain a part of it.

You believe in forcing onto others what the collective believes is best for them, regardless of what they think themselves, and regardless of what the collective's final adjudication may be for any particular scenario.

Conflating support for the mechanism with support for the verdict of that mechanism, when it suits you, is either moronic or deceptive. Either way, when you accuse me of introducing a straw-man you only damage whatever echo of credibility you might have had left.




I got your meaning. That was never in question. My question was raised in order to elucidate the implications such a statement hides within. I.e. you believe that a system whereby the mob forces those outside the mob to purchase what you (the mob) think is best for them (or should that be the mob?) whether they themselves happen to think that is, in fact, what is best for them or not?

Do you mean mob in the technical Roman manner: vulgus? Is it the same mob that uses the threat of state violence to prevent 10 year olds from working down coal mines?

[Robinho]

It looks like i've been displaced as the generic libertarian spam-merchant on this board.

[Old Greg]

It looks like i've been displaced as the generic libertarian spam-merchant on this board.

With Spontaneous Taxrapist and Zero Liability around, we positively miss your erudite contributions.

[SpontaneousOrder]

With Spontaneous Taxrapist and Zero Liability around, we positively miss your erudite contributions.

Resistance is futile.

[pjclarke]

You believe in forcing onto others what the collective believes is best for them, regardless of what they think themselves, and regardless of what the collective's final adjudication may be for any particular scenario.

On what evidence do you base that assertion?