Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Edge · Feb 28, 2004, 11:30 pm

I read this quote the other day:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

"'Fair' is one of the most dangerous concepts in politics. Since no two people are likely to agree on what is 'fair,' this means that there must be some third party with power -- the government -- to impose its will. The road to despotism is paved with 'fairness'." Thomas Sowell<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have observed several posts lately where the thrust of the argument boils down to an evaluation of fairness or equality.

Is Thomas Sowell right, that the very concept of fairness in politics, especially in what people believe is a democracy, will of it's very nature lead to tyranny?

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 01:36 am

yes, sowell is right... he is a brilliant man

http://www.tsowell.com/

Leopard · Feb 29, 2004, 02:04 am

agreed - 'fair' is both relative and subjective... all the politicing and speeches that include the word are just spin: 'Fair Tax', 'Fair Trade', 'Fair <insert your favorite special program here>'.......

castille · Feb 29, 2004, 07:23 am

Problem is nobody is going to be fair.

See, people have a nasty habit of being different.

So if you give 10 people $100 every week, some of them will be starving, some will be millionaires, and some will just be average joes.

Lets take politics....is it fair to invade Iraq? Is it fair to let Saddam kill his people? Its not fair, and its fair, to do either. So you never have a fair solution.

Packratt · Feb 29, 2004, 08:55 am

Ever notice that it's only the bully who fears the word "fair"?

The people who complain about fairness in the manner of neoconservatives are like the playground bully who runs crying to the teacher for protection when the kids he abused mercilessly finally band together to fight back. They only like the unfair fight, and don't want to accept the consequences for their actions.

Impenitent · Feb 29, 2004, 11:24 am

its not fair! big bad bully...

life isn't fair, suck it up or die... :rolleyes:

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 29, 2004, 12:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
'Fair' is one of the most dangerous concepts in politics. Since no two people are likely to agree on what is 'fair,' this means that there must be some third party with power -- the government -- to impose its will. The road to despotism is paved with 'fairness'." Thomas Sowell<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This "man" is the fucking anti-christ.

No shit people don't agree on shit....THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD SIMPLY DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY EACH WANT. DUH!

No need for some BS government to force one person to do something that someone else wants.

Edge · Feb 29, 2004, 04:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)

This "man" is the fucking anti-christ.

No shit people don't agree on shit....THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD SIMPLY DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY EACH WANT. DUH!

No need for some BS government to force one person to do something that someone else wants.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Tman,
Does your post have any point to it? First you insult the man, then you make a statement that appears to agree with the very man you deride.

Edge · Feb 29, 2004, 04:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Ever notice that it's only the bully who fears the word "fair"?

The people who complain about fairness in the manner of neoconservatives are like the playground bully who runs crying to the teacher for protection when the kids he abused mercilessly finally band together to fight back. They only like the unfair fight, and don't want to accept the consequences for their actions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your post is an Ad Hominem attack, and not an argument at all. Do you have a comment on whether the concept of fairness inherently mandates a third party to rule for fairness?

Packratt · Feb 29, 2004, 04:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Ever notice that it's only the bully who fears the word "fair"?

The people who complain about fairness in the manner of neoconservatives are like the playground bully who runs crying to the teacher for protection when the kids he abused mercilessly finally band together to fight back. They only like the unfair fight, and don't want to accept the consequences for their actions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your post is an Ad Hominem attack, and not an argument at all. Do you have a comment on whether the concept of fairness inherently mandates a third party to rule for fairness?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is it really an ad hominem or is it a statement of fact? Is it an attack against any person here or is it a statement condenming the arguement itself for being exactly what it is, an argument against fairness, against justice, against morality? An excuse for sociopathic rule.

Well, I tell you what, you convinced me, you and all the other "libertarians" and anarcho capitalists, and right wing fanatics here have convinced me that there is a need for government, that I must do my moral duty to protect the ideas of fairness and justice from those who would wish to abolish such ideas.

Thank you all for showing me that I must do my part, that I must vote, that i must get involved in the political process, that I must do what I can to convince everyone I can that they too must fight the tyranical tendencies of the far right.

I give up on stupid notions of anarchy and self rule, things I used to believe were possible. Thank you all for showing me how utterly stupid such ideas are, so long as there are people out there who demonstrate that they have no concept of the need to control themselves then there is a need for people to control you.

Yes, it's obvious now that there is a need for people to ENFORCE concepts of fairness and justice! Just as there is a need to leash an animal and fence in the beasts. Thank you all for showing me this much at least.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 29, 2004, 05:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)

This "man" is the fucking anti-christ.

No shit people don't agree on shit....THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD SIMPLY DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY EACH WANT. DUH!

No need for some BS government to force one person to do something that someone else wants.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Tman,
Does your post have any point to it? First you insult the man, then you make a statement that appears to agree with the very man you deride.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What?!?!?

The guy in the quote thinks that since people can't agree on what's fair in certain situatiosn then you have to have government FORCE people to think what they feel is the officialy fair.

I'm saying people should think what they want to think and do what they want to think. No one should force either person to think anything.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 29, 2004, 05:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Ever notice that it's only the bully who fears the word "fair"?

The people who complain about fairness in the manner of neoconservatives are like the playground bully who runs crying to the teacher for protection when the kids he abused mercilessly finally band together to fight back. They only like the unfair fight, and don't want to accept the consequences for their actions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your post is an Ad Hominem attack, and not an argument at all. Do you have a comment on whether the concept of fairness inherently mandates a third party to rule for fairness?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Is it really an ad hominem or is it a statement of fact? Is it an attack against any person here or is it a statement condenming the arguement itself for being exactly what it is, an argument against fairness, against justice, against morality? An excuse for sociopathic rule.

Well, I tell you what, you convinced me, you and all the other "libertarians" and anarcho capitalists, and right wing fanatics here have convinced me that there is a need for government, that I must do my moral duty to protect the ideas of fairness and justice from those who would wish to abolish such ideas.

Thank you all for showing me that I must do my part, that I must vote, that i must get involved in the political process, that I must do what I can to convince everyone I can that they too must fight the tyranical tendencies of the far right.

I give up on stupid notions of anarchy and self rule, things I used to believe were possible. Thank you all for showing me how utterly stupid such ideas are, so long as there are people out there who demonstrate that they have no concept of the need to control themselves then there is a need for people to control you.

Yes, it's obvious now that there is a need for people to ENFORCE concepts of fairness and justice! Just as there is a need to leash an animal and fence in the beasts. Thank you all for showing me this much at least.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Come try and enforce me...see what happens.

Major Billy · Feb 29, 2004, 06:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent)
yes, sowell is right... he is a brilliant man<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

He sounds like just another right-wing talk show host:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Thomas Sowell)
It also has a left-wing hidden agenda, as so many other fad programs do. One of the program's supporters gushed that it teaches students "how to think globally"<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

IE, if you disagree with Sowel you "gush" rather than talk.

james? · Feb 29, 2004, 06:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)

This "man" is the fucking anti-christ.

No shit people don't agree on shit....THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD SIMPLY DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY EACH WANT. DUH!

No need for some BS government to force one person to do something that someone else wants.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Tman,
Does your post have any point to it? First you insult the man, then you make a statement that appears to agree with the very man you deride.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What?!?!?

The guy in the quote thinks that since people can't agree on what's fair in certain situatiosn then you have to have government FORCE people to think what they feel is the officialy fair.

I'm saying people should think what they want to think and do what they want to think. No one should force either person to think anything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No, you missed the line 'The road to despotism is paved with 'fairness.'' He's just saying that so-called fairness directly leads to tyranny.

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 29, 2004, 08:44 pm

Ah...yes i did miss that.

Thank you.

Edge · Feb 29, 2004, 11:02 pm

I thought it interesting that everyone agreed that fairness is subjective, even if there was not unanimity in whether it was good or not. I tend to think that this yet another example of the trend in society toward relativeness, where truth, right, wrong, the very concept of rights, etc. become negotiable.
Once things become negotiable, you need someone to decide which version of fairness rules. Ultimately, even if not immediately, under the force of arms.

Leopard · Feb 29, 2004, 11:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,)
I thought it interesting that everyone agreed that fairness is subjective, even if there was not unanimity in whether it was good or not. I tend to think that this yet another example of the trend in society toward relativeness, where truth, right, wrong, the very concept of rights, etc. become negotiable.
Once things become negotiable, you need someone to decide which version of fairness rules. Ultimately, even if not immediately, under the force of arms.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

right, wrong and 'rights' ARE relative, denying this is to deny reality

truth, is both absolute and relative: two objects moving at the same velocity in space parallel to each other view each other as standing still, yet they are both moving, relative to an outside observer. Death is a truth, yet life springs from dead things, composed of the same bits of matter...

Now, for humans to exist with each other, we need a set of 'rules' - an agreement of sorts on the definitions of right, wrong and 'rights' and truth. Our agreements does not 'overrule' that these are in fact, abstractions of reality - but we require such agreements in order for our minds to deal effectively with each other.

My own view of these things are simple:

(1) It is wrong to initiate force upon another human

(2) It is wrong to commit a fraud upon another human

These two basic concepts form the fundation of thought known as libertarianism, which happens to exactly follow the most efficient method of social interaction: the free market

does anyone disagree with these premises (1 & 2)?

describe a situation in which it would be 'right' to violate the above two (2) premises?

Packratt · Feb 29, 2004, 11:41 pm

Alright then, let's pose this. Since the libertarians support the idea of indentured servitude and do not believe there should be restrictions on what can be charged for necessities like shelter, food, water, or medical care,(free market after all), would it be considered both fraud and an initiation of force when the majority who cannot afford the outrageous prices for such necessities are thus forced into slavery just for the right to live?

While one can argue that there may be a "tyranny of fairness", it could also be argued that there is tyranny in unrestrained freedom.

Leopard · Mar 1, 2004, 01:07 am

Packratt,

how do you define 'indentured servitude'? If you mean slavery (defined as forcing another to serve you) then I would say that libertarians strictly DO NOT believe in it. If you mean that a person should be allowed to sell their services as they see fit for a price they agree to, then I would say 'yes' - being an employee is an example of this.

...would it be considered both fraud and an initiation of force when the majority who cannot afford the outrageous prices for such necessities are thus forced into slavery just for the right to live?

this is a strawman in that in a free market, the 'majority' or even significant 'minority' will always be able to afford such items. If some worldwide crop plague occurred and there was only enough food for half the population, then half will starve no matter what system for (re)distribution you use. The free market will distribute the most food to the most folks most efficiently.

Why do you create such implausible situations? Do you have any 'real-life' concerns or just ones that exist only in some world which is not governed by physical laws?

Kyran · Mar 1, 2004, 04:58 am

Oh boy, great topic title!!

Yes "FAIR" is tyrannical. When does government come with legislation that says "Unfair" on it?

Remember, the Economic Equality Bracket (liberals, socialists, and populists) believes that the government must regulate the people into Fairness. It's often called "levelling the playing field."

Packratt, sadly, represents the defeatism prevalent among these big government advocates.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
I give up on stupid notions of anarchy and self rule, things I used to believe were possible. Thank you all for showing me how utterly stupid such ideas are, so long as there are people out there who demonstrate that they have no concept of the need to control themselves then there is a need for people to control you<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Then shut up and get me a sandwich.

And bring me a beer too slave.

Sorry to be hard on ya, dude. But your venting isn't making you feel any better. Joining the big government family is not going to beat neocons either. Think. If you want freedom from others, don't you need self-rule? Isn't that what choice is all about?

If you don't like the "evils" of corporate America...then why support it financially? Start your own business. You can do it. Compete and beat them at their own game. Don't work for em!

If you force everyone to be fair, you'll never know who genuinely is fair. How can you respect anyone then? Will you ever trust your own dog if it isn't in chains?

We use a different meaning of fair. We see freedom as fair; you reap what you sow. We believe that freedom is fairer than forced equality, and forced equality is unfair.

Who's the bigger enemy to you, capitalism or neoconservatism?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leopard, I like libertarian philosophy. I've said this before in another post, but fusionism has a similar set of rules. This will branch off-topic a bit for an example, but I'll bring it all back into the picture.

Do not damage/take/control another person's life, liberty, or property.

Do not abuse your own life, liberty, or property.

The latter rule should never result in punishment by law. The use of force is justified to save your own life, liberty and property; as well as anyone else's. Fraud is a type of theft.

This means that I can throw a crack addict into rehab, but not pass any laws prohibiting the sale of drugs. I can also stop a person from committing suicide, but not throw them in jail for attempting to. While there are very few just causes to use force, force itself is not innately evil. Those who use force and only force have embraced tyranny. Tyranny is evil.

You can see the difference. Here's an example of how fusionism is designed to undermine big government. The War on Drugs is one of the greatest government evils of our time. The last prohibition ended (to my knowledge, tell me if I'm wrong PLEASE) because working men believed all the rich were able to indulge and they weren't. The homes of the rich didn't get raided; it was the common man's home (same as today). I don't think we can recreate that scenario.

The LP movement deserves credit for bringing together a base opposition to this legislation. However, the LP philosophy gives no room for the Just Use of Force by individuals. The first argument you will hear out of a conservative's mouth about the drug war is that "We've got to stop people from destroying themselves" or the like. Moderate Americans seem to be okay with that logic. So how do we gain the support of the masses without compromising our principles?

The fusionist solution gives a middle-ground where people can smoke a blunt; and if they go off the deep end a fellow American can help them. Government never enters the equation. Taxpayer dollars never get wasted on cops who might be bribed, shot, or killed.

Conservatives would have option B to the Drug War. They believe it's okay for the government to arrest addicts; so why wouldn't they believe it's better for them to take matters into their own hands? We can drive a wedge into the GOP because prohibitionist neocons do NOT WANT to do the dirty work. They think government can stamp out the "immoral and destructive" behavior of drug use, despite what reality and history say. The two main factions of the republicans will fight at this point.

A classic libertarian/radical response to this fusionist solution is: "Why should people be able to interfere with someone lighting up in the first place?" And the answer is this. I enjoy alcohol. I used to binge drink. If I did not have the personal responsibility to regulate myself, I would not enjoy drinking today...I'd just be wasting good beer! I'm sure any pot smoker would feel the same way. Moderation is better than indulgence.

As you can see, fusionism and libertarianism are next-door neighbor philosophies. We both understand that "fairness" (forced equality) is inherently evil.

All men are born equal...but some grow pretty and some grow ugly. One obtains wisdom and another gains power. One becomes kind, and another becomes hateful. Good men are raised not born.

Equality is only fair in games. Life is not a game.

If one's spouse isn't loyal, does being equally adulterating amount to any good? Being free would be more suitable. Yet, if one forces their spouse to be as equally loyal, is the relationship any good? Is the spouse a mangy dog who deserves to be caged and monitored? Will we ever trust or love human beings if we force them to meet our standards?

Among the last things in life we learn is how to let go; accept the things we cannot change. Forced Fairness teaches backwards: to reject the things it cannot change, and to change the things it cannot accept.

Packratt's concept that "monopolistic businesses are going to enslave us" can never happen. As soon as groceries get too expensive, somebody is gonna compete. We'll be eating chinese rice and mexican first. Perhaps he has some faith in the idea that World Government will prevent this problem by taking control of the earth's resources. Hmm, maybe it CAN happen.

Your thoughts and opinions.

Feb 28, 2004, 11:30 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	I read this quote the other day: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by "'Fair' is one of the most dangerous concepts in politics. Since no two people are likely to agree on what is 'fair,' this means that there must be some third party with power -- the government -- to impose its will. The road to despotism is paved with 'fairness'." Thomas Sowell<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have observed several posts lately where the thrust of the argument boils down to an evaluation of fairness or equality. Is Thomas Sowell right, that the very concept of fairness in politics, especially in what people believe is a democracy, will of it's very nature lead to tyranny?

Feb 29, 2004, 01:36 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	yes, sowell is right... he is a brilliant man http://www.tsowell.com/ "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 02:04 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	agreed - 'fair' is both relative and subjective... all the politicing and speeches that include the word are just spin: 'Fair Tax', 'Fair Trade', 'Fair <insert your favorite special program here>'....... Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 29, 2004, 07:23 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Problem is nobody is going to be fair. See, people have a nasty habit of being different. So if you give 10 people $100 every week, some of them will be starving, some will be millionaires, and some will just be average joes. Lets take politics....is it fair to invade Iraq? Is it fair to let Saddam kill his people? Its not fair, and its fair, to do either. So you never have a fair solution. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 29, 2004, 08:55 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Ever notice that it's only the bully who fears the word "fair"? The people who complain about fairness in the manner of neoconservatives are like the playground bully who runs crying to the teacher for protection when the kids he abused mercilessly finally band together to fight back. They only like the unfair fight, and don't want to accept the consequences for their actions. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 29, 2004, 11:24 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	its not fair! big bad bully... life isn't fair, suck it up or die... :rolleyes: "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 29, 2004, 12:22 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by 'Fair' is one of the most dangerous concepts in politics. Since no two people are likely to agree on what is 'fair,' this means that there must be some third party with power -- the government -- to impose its will. The road to despotism is paved with 'fairness'." Thomas Sowell<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This "man" is the fucking anti-christ. No shit people don't agree on shit....THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD SIMPLY DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY EACH WANT. DUH! No need for some BS government to force one person to do something that someone else wants.

Feb 29, 2004, 04:06 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) This "man" is the fucking anti-christ. No shit people don't agree on shit....THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD SIMPLY DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY EACH WANT. DUH! No need for some BS government to force one person to do something that someone else wants.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Tman, Does your post have any point to it? First you insult the man, then you make a statement that appears to agree with the very man you deride.

Feb 29, 2004, 04:19 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) Ever notice that it's only the bully who fears the word "fair"? The people who complain about fairness in the manner of neoconservatives are like the playground bully who runs crying to the teacher for protection when the kids he abused mercilessly finally band together to fight back. They only like the unfair fight, and don't want to accept the consequences for their actions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your post is an Ad Hominem attack, and not an argument at all. Do you have a comment on whether the concept of fairness inherently mandates a third party to rule for fairness?

Feb 29, 2004, 04:53 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) Ever notice that it's only the bully who fears the word "fair"? The people who complain about fairness in the manner of neoconservatives are like the playground bully who runs crying to the teacher for protection when the kids he abused mercilessly finally band together to fight back. They only like the unfair fight, and don't want to accept the consequences for their actions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your post is an Ad Hominem attack, and not an argument at all. Do you have a comment on whether the concept of fairness inherently mandates a third party to rule for fairness?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is it really an ad hominem or is it a statement of fact? Is it an attack against any person here or is it a statement condenming the arguement itself for being exactly what it is, an argument against fairness, against justice, against morality? An excuse for sociopathic rule. Well, I tell you what, you convinced me, you and all the other "libertarians" and anarcho capitalists, and right wing fanatics here have convinced me that there is a need for government, that I must do my moral duty to protect the ideas of fairness and justice from those who would wish to abolish such ideas. Thank you all for showing me that I must do my part, that I must vote, that i must get involved in the political process, that I must do what I can to convince everyone I can that they too must fight the tyranical tendencies of the far right. I give up on stupid notions of anarchy and self rule, things I used to believe were possible. Thank you all for showing me how utterly stupid such ideas are, so long as there are people out there who demonstrate that they have no concept of the need to control themselves then there is a need for people to control you. Yes, it's obvious now that there is a need for people to ENFORCE concepts of fairness and justice! Just as there is a need to leash an animal and fence in the beasts. Thank you all for showing me this much at least. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 29, 2004, 05:13 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) This "man" is the fucking anti-christ. No shit people don't agree on shit....THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD SIMPLY DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY EACH WANT. DUH! No need for some BS government to force one person to do something that someone else wants.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Tman, Does your post have any point to it? First you insult the man, then you make a statement that appears to agree with the very man you deride.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What?!?!? The guy in the quote thinks that since people can't agree on what's fair in certain situatiosn then you have to have government FORCE people to think what they feel is the officialy fair. I'm saying people should think what they want to think and do what they want to think. No one should force either person to think anything.

Feb 29, 2004, 05:14 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) Ever notice that it's only the bully who fears the word "fair"? The people who complain about fairness in the manner of neoconservatives are like the playground bully who runs crying to the teacher for protection when the kids he abused mercilessly finally band together to fight back. They only like the unfair fight, and don't want to accept the consequences for their actions.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your post is an Ad Hominem attack, and not an argument at all. Do you have a comment on whether the concept of fairness inherently mandates a third party to rule for fairness?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Is it really an ad hominem or is it a statement of fact? Is it an attack against any person here or is it a statement condenming the arguement itself for being exactly what it is, an argument against fairness, against justice, against morality? An excuse for sociopathic rule. Well, I tell you what, you convinced me, you and all the other "libertarians" and anarcho capitalists, and right wing fanatics here have convinced me that there is a need for government, that I must do my moral duty to protect the ideas of fairness and justice from those who would wish to abolish such ideas. Thank you all for showing me that I must do my part, that I must vote, that i must get involved in the political process, that I must do what I can to convince everyone I can that they too must fight the tyranical tendencies of the far right. I give up on stupid notions of anarchy and self rule, things I used to believe were possible. Thank you all for showing me how utterly stupid such ideas are, so long as there are people out there who demonstrate that they have no concept of the need to control themselves then there is a need for people to control you. Yes, it's obvious now that there is a need for people to ENFORCE concepts of fairness and justice! Just as there is a need to leash an animal and fence in the beasts. Thank you all for showing me this much at least.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Come try and enforce me...see what happens.

Feb 29, 2004, 06:18 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Major Billy Molten Ash Posts: 90	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent) yes, sowell is right... he is a brilliant man<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> He sounds like just another right-wing talk show host: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Thomas Sowell) It also has a left-wing hidden agenda, as so many other fad programs do. One of the program's supporters gushed that it teaches students "how to think globally"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> IE, if you disagree with Sowel you "gush" rather than talk. >>>--~(ô¿ô)~--->

Feb 29, 2004, 06:37 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
james? Molten Ash Location: Minnesota Posts: 84	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) This "man" is the fucking anti-christ. No shit people don't agree on shit....THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD SIMPLY DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY EACH WANT. DUH! No need for some BS government to force one person to do something that someone else wants.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Tman, Does your post have any point to it? First you insult the man, then you make a statement that appears to agree with the very man you deride.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What?!?!? The guy in the quote thinks that since people can't agree on what's fair in certain situatiosn then you have to have government FORCE people to think what they feel is the officialy fair. I'm saying people should think what they want to think and do what they want to think. No one should force either person to think anything.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, you missed the line 'The road to despotism is paved with 'fairness.'' He's just saying that so-called fairness directly leads to tyranny.

Feb 29, 2004, 08:44 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Ah...yes i did miss that. Thank you.

Feb 29, 2004, 11:02 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	I thought it interesting that everyone agreed that fairness is subjective, even if there was not unanimity in whether it was good or not. I tend to think that this yet another example of the trend in society toward relativeness, where truth, right, wrong, the very concept of rights, etc. become negotiable. Once things become negotiable, you need someone to decide which version of fairness rules. Ultimately, even if not immediately, under the force of arms.

Feb 29, 2004, 11:32 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Edge,) I thought it interesting that everyone agreed that fairness is subjective, even if there was not unanimity in whether it was good or not. I tend to think that this yet another example of the trend in society toward relativeness, where truth, right, wrong, the very concept of rights, etc. become negotiable. Once things become negotiable, you need someone to decide which version of fairness rules. Ultimately, even if not immediately, under the force of arms.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> right, wrong and 'rights' ARE relative, denying this is to deny reality truth, is both absolute and relative: two objects moving at the same velocity in space parallel to each other view each other as standing still, yet they are both moving, relative to an outside observer. Death is a truth, yet life springs from dead things, composed of the same bits of matter... Now, for humans to exist with each other, we need a set of 'rules' - an agreement of sorts on the definitions of right, wrong and 'rights' and truth. Our agreements does not 'overrule' that these are in fact, abstractions of reality - but we require such agreements in order for our minds to deal effectively with each other. My own view of these things are simple: (1) It is wrong to initiate force upon another human (2) It is wrong to commit a fraud upon another human These two basic concepts form the fundation of thought known as libertarianism, which happens to exactly follow the most efficient method of social interaction: the free market does anyone disagree with these premises (1 & 2)? describe a situation in which it would be 'right' to violate the above two (2) premises? Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 29, 2004, 11:41 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Alright then, let's pose this. Since the libertarians support the idea of indentured servitude and do not believe there should be restrictions on what can be charged for necessities like shelter, food, water, or medical care,(free market after all), would it be considered both fraud and an initiation of force when the majority who cannot afford the outrageous prices for such necessities are thus forced into slavery just for the right to live? While one can argue that there may be a "tyranny of fairness", it could also be argued that there is tyranny in unrestrained freedom. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Mar 1, 2004, 01:07 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Packratt, how do you define 'indentured servitude'? If you mean slavery (defined as forcing another to serve you) then I would say that libertarians strictly DO NOT believe in it. If you mean that a person should be allowed to sell their services as they see fit for a price they agree to, then I would say 'yes' - being an employee is an example of this. ...would it be considered both fraud and an initiation of force when the majority who cannot afford the outrageous prices for such necessities are thus forced into slavery just for the right to live? this is a strawman in that in a free market, the 'majority' or even significant 'minority' will always be able to afford such items. If some worldwide crop plague occurred and there was only enough food for half the population, then half will starve no matter what system for (re)distribution you use. The free market will distribute the most food to the most folks most efficiently. Why do you create such implausible situations? Do you have any 'real-life' concerns or just ones that exist only in some world which is not governed by physical laws? Take on the responsibility to be free

Mar 1, 2004, 04:58 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	Oh boy, great topic title!! Yes "FAIR" is tyrannical. When does government come with legislation that says "Unfair" on it? Remember, the Economic Equality Bracket (liberals, socialists, and populists) believes that the government must regulate the people into Fairness. It's often called "levelling the playing field." Packratt, sadly, represents the defeatism prevalent among these big government advocates. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) I give up on stupid notions of anarchy and self rule, things I used to believe were possible. Thank you all for showing me how utterly stupid such ideas are, so long as there are people out there who demonstrate that they have no concept of the need to control themselves then there is a need for people to control you<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Then shut up and get me a sandwich. And bring me a beer too slave. Sorry to be hard on ya, dude. But your venting isn't making you feel any better. Joining the big government family is not going to beat neocons either. Think. If you want freedom from others, don't you need self-rule? Isn't that what choice is all about? If you don't like the "evils" of corporate America...then why support it financially? Start your own business. You can do it. Compete and beat them at their own game. Don't work for em! If you force everyone to be fair, you'll never know who genuinely is fair. How can you respect anyone then? Will you ever trust your own dog if it isn't in chains? We use a different meaning of fair. We see freedom as fair; you reap what you sow. We believe that freedom is fairer than forced equality, and forced equality is unfair. Who's the bigger enemy to you, capitalism or neoconservatism? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leopard, I like libertarian philosophy. I've said this before in another post, but fusionism has a similar set of rules. This will branch off-topic a bit for an example, but I'll bring it all back into the picture. Do not damage/take/control another person's life, liberty, or property. Do not abuse your own life, liberty, or property. The latter rule should never result in punishment by law. The use of force is justified to save your own life, liberty and property; as well as anyone else's. Fraud is a type of theft. This means that I can throw a crack addict into rehab, but not pass any laws prohibiting the sale of drugs. I can also stop a person from committing suicide, but not throw them in jail for attempting to. While there are very few just causes to use force, force itself is not innately evil. Those who use force and only force have embraced tyranny. Tyranny is evil. You can see the difference. Here's an example of how fusionism is designed to undermine big government. The War on Drugs is one of the greatest government evils of our time. The last prohibition ended (to my knowledge, tell me if I'm wrong PLEASE) because working men believed all the rich were able to indulge and they weren't. The homes of the rich didn't get raided; it was the common man's home (same as today). I don't think we can recreate that scenario. The LP movement deserves credit for bringing together a base opposition to this legislation. However, the LP philosophy gives no room for the Just Use of Force by individuals. The first argument you will hear out of a conservative's mouth about the drug war is that "We've got to stop people from destroying themselves" or the like. Moderate Americans seem to be okay with that logic. So how do we gain the support of the masses without compromising our principles? The fusionist solution gives a middle-ground where people can smoke a blunt; and if they go off the deep end a fellow American can help them. Government never enters the equation. Taxpayer dollars never get wasted on cops who might be bribed, shot, or killed. Conservatives would have option B to the Drug War. They believe it's okay for the government to arrest addicts; so why wouldn't they believe it's better for them to take matters into their own hands? We can drive a wedge into the GOP because prohibitionist neocons do NOT WANT to do the dirty work. They think government can stamp out the "immoral and destructive" behavior of drug use, despite what reality and history say. The two main factions of the republicans will fight at this point. A classic libertarian/radical response to this fusionist solution is: "Why should people be able to interfere with someone lighting up in the first place?" And the answer is this. I enjoy alcohol. I used to binge drink. If I did not have the personal responsibility to regulate myself, I would not enjoy drinking today...I'd just be wasting good beer! I'm sure any pot smoker would feel the same way. Moderation is better than indulgence. As you can see, fusionism and libertarianism are next-door neighbor philosophies. We both understand that "fairness" (forced equality) is inherently evil. All men are born equal...but some grow pretty and some grow ugly. One obtains wisdom and another gains power. One becomes kind, and another becomes hateful. Good men are raised not born. Equality is only fair in games. Life is not a game. If one's spouse isn't loyal, does being equally adulterating amount to any good? Being free would be more suitable. Yet, if one forces their spouse to be as equally loyal, is the relationship any good? Is the spouse a mangy dog who deserves to be caged and monitored? Will we ever trust or love human beings if we force them to meet our standards? Among the last things in life we learn is how to let go; accept the things we cannot change. Forced Fairness teaches backwards: to reject the things it cannot change, and to change the things it cannot accept. Packratt's concept that "monopolistic businesses are going to enslave us" can never happen. As soon as groceries get too expensive, somebody is gonna compete. We'll be eating chinese rice and mexican first. Perhaps he has some faith in the idea that World Government will prevent this problem by taking control of the earth's resources. Hmm, maybe it CAN happen. Your thoughts and opinions.