RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : Indians and Finance Reform

Wednesday
January 11, 2006

Indians and Finance Reform by Robert Davison (Wolf)

By now, it should be apparent, to one and to all, that ‘patching’ Senate rules will not mend the fabric of the republic. Because Senators are elected they advocate, not what is moral or what is best, but for that which will get them elected; and once elected they spend most of their time fund-raising and campaigning to be reelected. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (57 messages)

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 1:42pm

Steven,

Even if that were necessarily the case, it would cease to be anarchy and so how would totalitarianism be an anarchist aim?

Sarah

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:01pm

The Communist's "aim" was for everyone to work in harmony and the state to wither away, and how did that turn out?

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:06pm

Kurt,

No, that would be the communists' aim. The Communists' aim was power.

Sarah

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:25pm

Frankly, I see that this head-in-the-sand approach by Libertarians and Objectivists

I have to agree Michael.

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:28pm

George,

Thank you for the kind words. You know what a fan I am of your work.

Robert Davison, please do not respond to those who forgot to refill their Lithium prescription.

LMAO. Since I have been accused of crotchity behavior myself of late, I am trying to turn over a new leaf.

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:30pm

M. Pasotto, there is no such thing as an uncalled-for slur on anarchists.

An observation well worth making Steven.

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:33pm

Sarah,

I have been often impressed with your posts. It saddens me to see you offering a defense of Anarchy.

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:39pm

I'm not really interested in defending anarchy, I'm just confused about how the goal of an anarchist is totalitarianism. Rand's argument can be claimed to show that anarchism leads to totalitarianism, but Steven's not claiming that. I just don't get it.

Sarah

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:40pm

Wait, are we talking Anarchy or anarchy and is there a difference?

Sarah

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:52pm

Well, I would not have stated that anarchy = totalitarianism but it does lead to it, and remember that Communism did begin with the idealists, it was only later that it became a pure power play. I think the anarchist "idealists" would be the first martyrs to the anarchist cause, same as with Communism. So while his wording was not exactly right, the overall "anarchist" idea is impossible, therefore incompatable with reality, just as is the ultimate "altruist" ideal is incompatable with reality.

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 3:04pm

I would not have stated that anarchy = totalitarianism but it does lead to it

Given your assumptions, which I'm not sure about yet.

Sarah

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 9:27pm

So how does it feel, Sarah, to relate to men who can't make a coherent, logical argument, even if the conclusion they're defending may happen to be correct?! Obviously, you'd have more success with these guys if you discussed some sports related subject, like the NFL playoffs, that they're better able to handle.

I see that you haven't read my book on how to talk to men, or at least the section on politics and current events in which I cite a study proving that most men are incapable of defending their political ideas with clearly reasoned arguments.

The aim of anarchists is an omnipotent government?? Oookaaay! The next thing I expect to hear is that the aim of Objectivists is a theocracy, because they're so antagonistic to religion, they're sure to create a backlash, causing the religious right to take over. See how easy it is to come up with a plausible sounding argument for a crackpot theory! Of course, I'm a guy, so it was easy. As a woman, you might find it a bit more challenging! ;-)

- Bill

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 9:57pm

Heh.

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 6:40am

If anarchists do not recognize the massive philosophical error that they are making after ever well-reasoned argument reveals that error, then yes, they are evading the truth and are overtly rooting for serial gang warfare and an eventual oppressive state.

Anarchists want to take the easy way out; instead of actively participating and ensuring that government doesn't overstep it's bounds, they just want to get rid of it and cross their fingers. Anarchism is a lazy doctrine, one that makes complaints and expects that everything will work out well without any kind of effort. Please.

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 7:08am

Steven,

I'm scouring your post for a non-fallacious argument. I can't find it.

Sarah

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:07am

Sarah wrote: "Hooray for guilt by association!"

Thank you, Sarah.

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:21am

MSK wrote: "All right. I'll play for another spin."

At least you admit you're playing and spinning rather than discussing.

Then he wrote: "Any thoughts on the principle of checks-and-balances?"

Why would you ask that question? Yes, I do think it's a good idea to balance your checkbook. Now, do you have something at all related to what I have written to ask?

Your attempted ad hominem was totally un-called for since it came out of nowhere and bore no relevance to what had been previously said. It was un-called for since all it accomplished was to hijack the thread.

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:29am

Unfortunately, Steven Druckenmiller has learned nothing about anarcho-capitalism since Ayn Rand expressed her own misunderstanding over 40 years ago.

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:33am

Sarah, anyone who claims that advocating the goal of no government is somehow really advocating some particular kind of government is obviously very confused.

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:37am

If anti-anarchists do not recognize the massive philosophical [and logical] error[s] that they are making after ever well-reasoned argument reveals [those] errors, then yes, they are evading the truth and are overtly rooting for serial gang warfare and an eventual oppressive state.