Eva:

This you intentionally conflate with rape, which is considered by most to be an evil end.

An incomplete thought; why, exactly, is it considered by most to be an evil end?  What characteristic of 'rape' makes it so?

Is it, the physical sexual act? 

Or, is it the forced association?

We all know exactly what differentiates an act of love from an act of rape, and that element is precisely 'forced association.'

The same analysis can be applied to slavery.  What characteristic makes it considered by most to be an evil end?

Is it the hard work and long days?

We all know exactly what differentiates a day at the job from a day in slavery, and that element is precisely 'forced association.'

And no, I don't mean the childish interpretation of 'the universe forces us to work for a living.'   That is a boundary condition of existence; it is not others who force us to work for a living(other than, their refusal to be our slaves.)  Grousing at that boundary condition is why so many of a certain bent end up collecting up at those Dust Bunny U's/Disneylands of pure subsidy.   A liesurely reprieve from the demands of the endless Thirteenth Grade of Life.

It is the -involuntary- nature of human interactions that make them considered by most to be an evil end.

Do we involuntarily pay taxes?   No more than we involuntarily pay for bread at the 7-11.   It is an irational wish to take benefit from others without providing value in return; that is what a simple criminal does.  It is a form of forced association (ie, no victim signs up to be stolen from.)  The necessary overhead of self-government must necessarily be paid for.  Where the ethics get murky is when the purpose of the tax system is not to pay for common government, but to be an instrument of forced association with -some- folks mere theories of redistributive social justice-- emperor wannabees.    If it is reasonable to do that with taxes in a nation of peers, then why not do the same thing with bread in the 7-11?   Oh yes, we do...via food stamps for other than the destitute.    We have hardly starving fat asses buying their mac and cheese with foodstamps-- but totally moot and lost in the noise while the rest of the free-for-some is being looted by the hundreds of billions by corporatist con artists taking advantage of an out of all control tribal free-for-some, the CronyFest on the Potomac.   What is going on in and aroound the beltway isn't even being hidden very well at all.   The 'justification for other than open competition' boogey is going on full speed ahead.

For a start, go check this out. https://www.fbo.gov/

(used the new 'insert link tool'; the link is fine.  No clue.  Just type in www.fbo.gov into your browser.)

Now, realize, this is the way this works: by the time anyone ever sees mention of something at some place like this, the deal is long done, guaranteed.   All that is left is the paperwork and charade, boob bait for boobs. 

regards,

Fred 

For sure, Fred, whatever...physical aggression is the 'same' as forcing someone to pay taxes for those programs for which he/she does not agree.

This, indeed, is the Frosh-Philo 101 stuff from the academia that you ridivule. Real-life experience

says this is nonsense and simply moves on.... 

Eva:

Do we involuntarily pay taxes?   No more than we involuntarily pay for bread at the 7-11.   It is an irational wish to take benefit from others without providing value in return; that is what a simple criminal does.

In the 70s, at my Dust Bunny U., there was this quaint idea about 'context' still being taught.    It was suggested that, in addition to syntax and lexicon, context was somehow important in applying meaning to vowels and consonants strung together into words.

Do we involuntarily pay taxes?   No more than we involuntarily pay for bread at the 7-11.

Followed by: It is an irational wish to take benefit from others without providing value in return; that is what a simple criminal does. It is a form of forced association (ie, no victim signs up to be stolen from.)  The necessary overhead of self-government must necessarily be paid for. 

The inartful writer, painfully unaware of the modern trend in losing focus of the thought expressed in an immediately preceding sentence, meant to convey his mere belief that the necessary overhead of self-government must necessarily be paid for via taxes, and it would be irrational to receive the benefit of self-government without providing value in return.     As seemingly impossible as that is to interpret without being overwhelmed by our own bias about what the writer believes, it is a statement in support of taxation.

Pressing my luck beyond reason, I, as the writer, then qualified my support for taxation as not extending to 'for any whim whatsoever,' and perhaps that is where you mistook that for my equating taxation with physical agression.

Or not.    Perhaps you mean, my illustrating the nature of forced association by using an example you find inconvenient, distasteful, or effective(hard to tell; I'm on the edge of my seat trying to figure that one out.)

regards,

Fred

Fred,

 >>>>that is where you mistook that for my equating taxation with physical agression<<<<

No, you're equating taxes you don't like paying to being physically aggressed.

My point is that you've made your point.

My second point is that your point is counterproductive to any meaningful dialogue intended to lower taxes.

Eva

Eva:

No, you're equating taxes you don't like paying to being physically aggressed.

Quote please. I don't beleive that, I've expressely detailed what I did say, as if to a child,  and now, as a child,  you persist.    It's beginning to look like you've got nothing but what others have put into your skull, and when the rote instruction fails, you flail.    We'll need to give you some time to ripen, it appears.  

regards,

Fred

Teresa:

Is it possible that she thinks America is or ever was a pure democracy?

What IS being taught at those Dust Bunny U's these days??????

regards,

Fred

Dean,  

We have the structure of a constitutionally limited representative government.  And although it is very true that the constitution is being disregarded more and more each year, there is still a giant difference between what we are now, and what we would be if the constitution were totally ignored.  

If it were mostly ignored, then Obama could declare himself President for Life, and the current members of the Senate and Congress could 'pass a law' that no new elections would be held for federal office till the end of the current economic downturn (or whatever), and laws could be passed that forced some income equality measures (just ways to confiscate from the wealthy)... you get the idea.  And if the constitution were totally ignored, then it would be dicator Obama and no Congress and no Supreme Court and the only law being his decrees.

It is a matter of degree to which the constitution is being ignored and there is a giant difference between zero and 100%.  

The part that is scary is that the trend lines for this kind of thing (going towards being a more statist government) are not linear towards the end - instead they arc very sharply with a lot of change occuring suddenly.  The chaos of rapid change, the economic crisis brought on by rapid political change are both reacted to with greater (and more irrational) centralized control.

Matthews,

Your last post offered absolutely nothing of value that I could see for anyone at this forum.  It appeared to be nothing more than a string of cheap insults. You insulted Fred, and appeared to revel in joining with others at your university in bouts of ridicule.  You mocked Objectivism, and apparently just for the fun of doing so.  Maybe this is a signal.  Now you have confirmed in your mind that there is nothing here for you, and since what others think is more important than what you think, and since you can't think of anything in Objectivism that is of great value to you, you can move on.

Smirking chimps, gibbering over an imagined sense of superiority is what comes to mind when I think of the kind of glee taken in cheap shots that won't be returned, by people who joy in demeaning others rather than seriously addressing an idea.  The kind of inbred, intellectual posturing in the humanities and the soft-sciences that pretends to be thought in today's universities is a sad thing to see.  The measure of 'truth' appears to be how withering is the ridicule against the opposing 'ideas.'  Those with the sharpest tongues, and meanest spirits get to be the queens of the dung hill for the day.

I no longer see any reason to discuss anything with you.  Your tone is disrespectful and you fail to make arguments worth addressing.  I no longer believe that you share any principles of any consequence with me or with any libertarianism I'd recognize.  You appear to favor determinism over any form of free will, don't believe that there can be an individual ethics based upon principles of human nature, you dismiss natural rights out of hand, your sympathies always seem to be with the collectivists and statists, your history and often your language itself is Marxist, you've consistently refused to provide the details of what you'd offer instead, and your style of argument is sophmoric at best, and often just plain dishonest.

By now there should have been some kind of settling in to this forum on your part that represented finding a niche here based upon common agreements.  I don't see that happening.  Your appearance here is more like an infection - attacking, disagreeing, attempting to present principles that if you really are intellegent, you know to be the opposite of Objectivism.  All troll-like behavior and if you aren't here for troll-like purposes, then I'd be looking in the mirror and asking what the Hell are you hoping to get?  Is this a pattern in your life?  Finding places where you can attack, demean, and diminish others?

Eva:

"Pure" democracy is simple majority rule, unfettered by any other principle other than, what most people want.   Exactly what goes on at a gang rape.

Compare with:  constitutionally limited democracy in a republic, fettered by a constitution of personal liberty.   Meant to keep the herdists, and their existentially terrified, child like fealty to their atavistic herd mentality genes,  at bay.

Steve:

There was no insult apparent, only delightful folly.   She is trying to make an old engineer, who long ago graduated magna cum laude from his own Dust Bunny U, Princeton, with a graduate degree from MIT, feel inadequate about his engineer's  grasp of the English language.   It is a hoot; the idea of someone -- anyone -- attempting to make an engineer feel inadequate about his grasp of the English language -- much less, an Ivy League/MIT trained engineer -- is a hilarious exercise in futility.    The Ivy League and MIT is where insufferable pricks are cast in concrete for life;  the one question never asked in those universities is, "I wonder what they would say about this down at the English Department of some other Dust Bunny U?....anywhere in the world, much less, Podunk Ga.

It is like making an ice dancer feel inadequate about their ability to repair diesel engines.   Is there a point?   Or is it a sad attempt to leglift when no actual argument is forthcoming?

Say there, Don Quixote, what's up today?  "Well, it's a tossup.   I was either going to try to make Justin Bieber feel inadequate about his endemic shyness, or convince some Ivy League prick that his education was lacking; not sure which, but rest assured, it's not like I'm wasting my time."

If I need help from an English major about anything, -- say, breathing through the soles of my feet -- I'll run down to the PA Renaiisance Faire parking lot and wave a $5 bill, and have access to entire busloads of former English Deparatment heads(now wearing velvet and carrying a staff)---and not just from the lands that gave us the Waffle House, Paula Dean fried chicken, and SEC footballl.    Roll Tide!   Not likely to happen unless I hit my head really, really hard someday.

Seriously-- she "submitted" my stream of consciousness posts here to the entire otherwise not busy at all English Department somewhere(never named), and they gave me a grade of 'incoherent.'    It's hard to tell via this medium, but I'm sure you can tell how crushed I am.   I know I've hit a nerve when the venom comes out, and nothing else.   

Somewhere never named, down South.    Duke maybe?   That's where I once asked the impossible question to a fourth year PolitSci major: 'What is your working definition of the word 'politics' after studying PolitSci for nearly four years here?"   Was as if I had C4 strapped to my chest.   She stammered, hemmed, and hawed, and finally admitted, "I never really thought about it."

Perfect.   And this was Duke.

I'll need to go eat some veal tonite with the wife, drink some wine, and see if I can piece myself back together.   

It's a process.

regards,

Fred

Sadly Fred it seems she is a victim of the process of having her mind comprachicoed by the ever so benign place that our educational system has become.

Mathews Fred has one of the keenest intellects you may ever come across on any forum.  His style is unique and his metaphors colourful and I am sure he is sitting back in his chair sipping a cold one as he types his next post.  He also as well as ALL who post here are amongst the most benevolent good natured people I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with.

I am pretty sure that if I mentioned on a post that according to ASME Section VIII that density of porosity in a radiograph is not cause for acceptance or rejection not only would he be able to verify that but probably point out what clause it was written under.  Or if I mentioned the Curie point of a type of Austinetic steel he would know what I am talking about and probably know the number to the 1/1000 decimal point.

By the way nearly all  academics that have some skin in the game in the philosophy department will of course say Rand's philosophy is somehow deficient. Tibor Machan being a brilliant exception who I see you have also attacked with your scorpion tail-like tongue.  It is because for the most part the only place they can actually feel any feelings of self worth are within the educational system.  Put them out in the real world and they would be Walmart greeters at best.(no offence meant to the hard working Walmart greeters intended!)  Rand scares the SHIT out of these people.

Anyways what do I know, I am just an oilfield worker involved with the QCC end of things trying to make sure shit doesn't blow up when it is put into service who in his spare time likes to take pictures of stuff that may try to eat me if I get too close.