RoR: Forum

Post 40

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:50am

Link

Edit

Here's an idea:

Each individual gets to allocate their individual tax dollars towards the programs they think are worthwhile.

Post 41

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:26am

Link

Edit

Tom:
"It's political posturing, on both sides, and that's all it is."

No, that is not correct, either.

It is: a single President's religous beliefs informing him in the arena of science, and his personal religious preferences becoming the law of the land.

It doesn't matter if the Feds were spending $1.95 on it, if they are making policy based on superstitious belief, then it isn't right. And, it isn't always the entitty which spends the most money on something that makes a scientific breakthrough.

It is also an issue of a President doing things under the table to dissuade private research in the same area. Read Hong's post.

Your position here is similar to someone saying that all the fuss about abortion is simply political posturing. Except, while it MAY be political posturing, it also has an effect beyond the political posturing, on actualy peoples' lives. It also sets a precedent as to what we will accept as a valid basis for our government's decisions.

Hat's off to you if your personal finances are such that you don't think any good can come of an investment of $25 million. But that $25 million might make all the difference in the world.

Post 42

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:28am

Link

Edit

The federal government is not the "major source" of funding for stem cell research (or, for that matter, most scientific research, period). Not even close. Not even in the same league, let alone the same ballpark, as the state governments and the private sector.

What?! Do you know the annual total budget of NIH for intramural and extramural research? Yes, their ridiculous small $25 million for stem-cell research is just a drop in the ocean compared to their total budget. And that's exactly how the stem-cell research is restricted.

Hong

Post 43

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:03pm

Link

Edit

Scott you have what is known as a prozaic or literal mind. No offense intended.

Post 44

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:34pm

Link

Edit

I think its supposed to be spelled prosaic, but I understood what you meant without the definition.

You strike me as having a gawkish mind. No offense intended.

Post 45

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:47pm

Link

Edit

Scott:

"It is: a single President's religous beliefs informing him in the arena of science, and his personal religious preferences becoming the law of the land."

I certainly agree with you on that much.

Tom Knapp

Post 46

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 1:54pm

Link

Edit

Scott DeSalvo:

Tom:
"It's political posturing, on both sides, and that's all it is."

No, that is not correct, either.

It is: a single President's religous beliefs informing him in the arena of science, and his personal religious preferences becoming the law of the land.

It doesn't matter if the Feds were spending $1.95 on it, if they are making policy based on superstitious belief, then it isn't right.

As far as I'm concerned, if the State has any rights at all, it is to stop funding for something. The epistemological validity of the motivations and reasoning behind the cessation of funding, on the part of the politicians, should not enter into it. If Bush decided to cut welfare spending because he thought it violated Christian ethics, would you complain?

It is immoral for the government to spend money on this, money which is stolen from the private sector and the people who earned it. Period.

Hat's off to you if your personal finances are such that you don't think any good can come of an investment of $25 million. But that $25 million might make all the difference in the world.

When the hell did this forum become a springboard for defending science socialism?

You all have no problem with Bush expanding the State and laying waste to two countries, murdering tens of thousands of innocents and torturing likely innocent people in dungeons. But then he cuts spending on something and you guys complain?

Post 47

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:22pm

Link

Edit

"The epistemological validity of the motivations and reasoning behind the cessation of funding, on the part of the politicians, should not enter into it."

So if Bush just decided that, as God's chosen, Christians didn't have to pay taxes, that's ok with you? Because the government is getting less tax dollars?
What about if the government just decided not to maintain roads, an army, or a Court system (cessation of funding), in favor of just shovelling out truckloads of cash to white, conservative Christians?

"You all have no problem with Bush expanding the State and laying waste to two countries, murdering tens of thousands of innocents and torturing likely innocent people in dungeons. But then he cuts spending on something and you guys complain?"

Aha! Showing your true colors, I see. But anyway, WHO SAID I had no problem with what you cite above? Sorry to upset the applecart of your unwarranted assumptions, but shouldn't you ASK about someone's beliefs on other issues before issuing blanket statements like that?

Post 48

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:40pm

Link

Edit

Scott DeSalvo said: �So if Bush just decided that, as God's chosen, Christians didn't have to pay taxes, that's ok with you? Because the government is getting less tax dollars? What about if the government just decided not to maintain roads, an army, or a Court system (cessation of funding), in favor of just shovelling out truckloads of cash to white, conservative Christians?�

Your line of logic doesn�t follow. If Hitler lines up a 1,000,000 Jews in a row and then decides to only kill the ones taller than 5�0�, it�s a crime against morality. If he would have shot them all, it�s still a crime against morality. If he kills 1� guess what?

In other words, there is NO DIFFERENCE between stealing someone�s money to give to someone else, no matter who ultimately gets it. Stealing is STEALING. Is there really any one individual on this forum that doesn�t understand that, when the government steals money at the point of a gun in the form of direct taxes, it�s, uhhmm� STEALING? Which part of that do you so-called �Objectivists� not understand?

- B.

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

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

Post 49

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 2:53pm

Link

Edit

Brian: "In other words, there is NO DIFFERENCE between stealing someone�s money to give to someone else, no matter who ultimately gets it. Stealing is STEALING. Is there really any one individual on this forum that doesn�t understand that, when the government steals money at the point of a gun in the form of direct taxes, it�s, uhhmm� STEALING? Which part of that do you so-called �Objectivists� not understand?"

I'm going to benevolently give you the benefit of the doubt here.

If you take a look at my earlier posts, you'll notice that I have bent myself into a pretzel making is clear that I UNDERSTAND THAT TAXATION IS THEFT. AND IMMORAL. AND WRONG.

Whether taxation is theft is not even on the table, it is so clearly agreed upon.

The issue is: "Whether we should celebrate or cringe when our President makes funding decisions based on his particular flavor of superstition?"

If you never get past the fact that taxation is theft, BUT THAT IT DOES EXIST, you will never even acknowledge the also-terrible issue of "Whether we should celebrate or cringe when our President makes funding decisions based on his particular flavor of superstition?"

I'll do you one better, and maybe this will help. I DON'T THINK IT IS MORAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STEAL MY MONEY FOR ANY RESEARCH.

But since it is, rational standards, not superstitious prejudice, should inform its use. Even though it is wrong, and even though it is still theft.

Post 50

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:18pm

Link

Edit

"So if Bush just decided that, as God's chosen, Christians didn't have to pay taxes, that's ok with you? Because the government is getting less tax dollars?"

If its spending goes down too, I would consider it a step in the right direction. Fewer people being stolen from.

"What about if the government just decided not to maintain roads, an army, or a Court system (cessation of funding), in favor of just shovelling out truckloads of cash to white, conservative Christians?"

Tax cuts are not the same as expenditures. I have nothing against "white, conservative Christians," except to the extent they support statism.

I think that roads shouldn't be maintained by the government. I think a standing army is not only unnecessary to protect liberty, but is, as the Founding Fathers saw it, a principal engine of tyranny. I don't believe any of these things should be funded coercively, no. But there is more of a minarchist case, and especially an Objectivist case, for the State funding presumed rights-protecting agencies such as courts, than stem-cell research.

"Aha! Showing your true colors, I see. But anyway, WHO SAID I had no problem with [the war on terror policies] you cite above? Sorry to upset the applecart of your unwarranted assumptions, but shouldn't you ASK about someone's beliefs on other issues before issuing blanket statements like that?"

Well, you did say this:

President Bush, in his historic address to Congress, galvanized the American people after the World Trade Center attacks, in a stirring and unapologetically-patriotic speech the likes of which had not been heard from an occupant of the White House since Franklin D. Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor speech on December 8, 1941. His administration built a coalition of nations that deposed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and toppled the al Quaeda power base in the Middle East. Faced with the ongoing threat of terrorist support in Iraq, a smaller coalition toppled the Hussein regime in mere weeks, when detractors estimated a Vietnam-like "quagmire," a military engagement with heavy casualties and without end. He is doing what no American President before or since has ever accomplished: he remains engaged in the Middle East.

It doesn't exactly appear as though you consider the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions to be enormous acts of murderous aggression, does it?

On civil liberties and the war on terror, there's this quote by you, which perhaps I misread by assuming you simply muddled the sentence:

Although civil libertarians and prudent Objectivists correctly worry over such Bush initiatives as the establishment of the Cabinet-level 'Department of Homeland Security,' and investigation into a TIA (Total Information Awareness) system, which seem patently Orwellian in their implications for individual freedom, no one can doubt that President Bush's response to terror and the economy have been other than sorely-needed and spot-on.

See, I assumed you meant, "no one can doubt that President Bush's response to terror and the economy [has] been nothing other than sorely-needed and spot-on."

But, perhaps you did mean that Bush's responses have been other than "sorely-needed and spot-on" � a strange way to put it, but, if you meant it this way, I must apologize.

Incidentally, I mean not to insult you on the basis of a small error in your writing. I make them all the time. I only mean to cover all my bases, for I really was a bit confused by the construction of the sentence.

At any rate, people always have a right to change their minds. So, I will ask you: do you consider the War on Terror, including the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the detentions at Guantanamo and elsewhere, to be evil? If so, I apologize for assuming, based only on your warmongering in a past article, that you supported this war. I really do. Calling a peaceful person a warmonger is a horrible thing to do, even if an honest mistake.

On the other hand, if you do support the horrific and tyrannical War on Terror, my original rhetorical question stands, which was:

"You all have no problem with Bush expanding the State and laying waste to two countries, murdering tens of thousands of innocents and torturing likely innocent people in dungeons. But then he cuts spending on something and you guys complain?"

Post 51

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 3:42pm

Link

Edit

Anthony Gregory asks:

"You all have no problem with Bush expanding the State and laying waste to two countries, murdering tens of thousands of innocents and torturing likely innocent people in dungeons. But then he cuts spending on something and you guys complain?"

What the hell does one thing have to do with the other? This thread is about the funding of stem-cell research. That's the topic and that's what the discussion is about. No one in this thread complained about Bush's attitude toward gay marriage, or the fact that he's too stupid to pronounce "nuclear" correctly, or the fact that he's doing everything in his power to erode our freedom. Why didn't anyone complain about these things? Because they weren't the topic under discussion.

If you want to try to hijack this thread, go right ahead. But your rhetorical question is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Glenn

Post 52

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:30pm

Link

Edit

Glenn, not only is it a forum hijack, but it is package-dealing, to boot. I'm not asked to defend the merit sof my words as written, in context. According to Anthony Fletcher, I have to defend his interpretation of my words, with him adding his own qualifiers and definitions. Its an invitation I dont plan an accepting, because it is a waste of time.

I will say this, though. As concerete proof that, as I correctly diagnosed several posts ago, this is an issue of context switching, take a look at this :

""So if Bush just decided that, as God's chosen, Christians didn't have to pay taxes, that's ok with you? Because the government is getting less tax dollars?"

"If its spending goes down too, I would consider it a step in the right direction. Fewer people being stolen from."

See my point? Utterly incapable of focusing on the issue at hand.

As for the rest of the snide post, I don't know what to say. I guess Anthony seems to have formed all the opinions of me and my ideas he cares to using some interesting techniques. I don't see much point in repeating myself, again, or trying to edify him. But good luck to him, and his interesting ideas.

Post 53

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:49pm

Link

Edit

Scott DeSalvo said: �The issue is: "Whether we should celebrate or cringe when our President makes funding decisions based on his particular flavor of superstition?"

Scott DeSalvo also said: �But since it is, rational standards, not superstitious prejudice, should inform its use. Even though it is wrong, and even though it is still theft.�

This is a good example of why I continue to be perplexed by the minds of so-called Objectivists. Going back to my example of Hitler killing 1, or 500,000, or 1,000,000 Jews� you�re logic holds that, since Hitler will kill, purportedly �rational standards� should inform� how he kills. By your argument, you DIRECTLY sanction Hitler to kill, as long as he does so by �rational standards.�

This type of �logic� and �rationality� reminds me of Dr. Robert Stadler in Atlas Shrugged. Dr. Stadler was extremely dangerous because he had a great mind and he used it to directly sanction immoral actions. Most of the socialistic tripe that I read on this forum is because many of you refuse to acknowledge the foundational breaches of morality. You accept them (or, rather, rationalize them away) as �well, the government�s going to steal anyway, so let�s at least discuss the �rational standards� for using that stolen property.�

Further, your thought-process here reminds me of a quote:

�Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of public good.

�Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act.� -- Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

Mr. DeSalvo (or anyone else, as I don�t mean this as a personal attack), who are you to define what is �the good� (e.g., stem-cell research)? It�s not enough (morally) for you to state that �taxation is theft and immoral and wrong� if you�re not going to do anything with those words (not to mention contradict them by attempting to frame a wrong in terms of �rational standards� for its use). Why are you all so eager to sanction an immoral government? Is this a self-esteem issue? Do you all really feel you are that incapable of motivating positive moral change? I understand why those that refuse to think feel helpless against the enormity of our problems � and I understand the agendas of some on this forum who want to encourage socialism� but why is it that the rest of you feel so helpless and, thus, rationalize immoral actions? Is it your flawed attempt to feel less guilt because you aren�t taking what you know to be the morally correct actions?

�Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.� -- Francisco d'Anconia, Atlas Shrugged

We, who have read Rand and understood the principles she propounds, should be the ones most responsible for putting an end to the theft. We are the ones who are most capable to understand the motivations and repercussions. We are the ones who are most capable to immediately identify them and to understand their intentions. Instead, you choose to sanction the moral code of some very evil people by rationalizing it away. Like Stadler, you all should know better. Like Stadler, that makes you very, very dangerous people.

- B.

�Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.� -- George Washington

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

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

Post 54

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:14pm

Link

Edit

Brian:
"By your argument, you DIRECTLY sanction Hitler to kill, as long as he does so by �rational standards.�"

No, I'm not. You just don't seem to be understanding this.

Are you employed? Are you paying taxes? Do you comply with seatbelt laws and speed limits? Why?

Don't you understand you are sanctioning this evil by your very actions?

Why haven't you moved to Galt's Gulch? HOW can you continue to support this corrupt system?

Hey, you know, didn't Ayn Rand pay taxes, too?

The ARI complies with any number of irrational, but required, Federal guidelines to maintian its favored tax status. Isn't seeking any tax status a concession and cooperation with this corrupt theft of tax dollars?

Well, to you, and the ARI, I say: "We, who have read Rand and understood the principles she propounds, should be the ones most responsible for putting an end to the theft."

Your paying taxes and ARI's tax status is cooperation on the order of shoveling helpless Jews into an oven. Of course, I don't mean this as a personal attack on you or the ARI.

Nothing is more dangerous than intelligent people who cannot focus their conciousness in a particular context.

Now, here's the thing. I understand your argument. The ARI line is that you do not consort and carry on a dialogue with a group once you know it's evil, because you are sanctioning the evil. I understand the argument. I just think its horseshit, and a prescription for stagnation. It also makes hypocrites or criminals of all of the followers of Objectivism who subscribe to it (eg.., either you pay taxes or you are arrested).

There is another very important reason why its contradictory to the basics of Objectivism. A primary of Objectivism is that man's life and enjoyment of life, here and now, is the ultimate standard of value. Your path is dogmatic acceptance of one of Rand's statements even though it results in sacrificing to your ultimate value. It also leads to contradictions, like being unable to unwilling to agree that rational use of taxes is superior, in any context, to allocation of taxes based on superstition. Objectivists holding to these kinds of ideas virtually guarantee that Objectivism will remain a cult of dogmatists. That isn't what SOLO is about.

Post 55

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:30pm

Link

Edit

And I just thought of something else I'd like to add, regarding this "You are sanctioning taxation by examining the relative morality of how taxes are spent" issue.

I ran across a similar position by a Political Science professor in college. We went around and around in class about it. He never convinced me, and I saw it for the cheap manipulation it was.

The context, though, was different.

His position was that every person who is not black is racist and actively supports racism, and is perpetuating racism against black people.

His reasoning was that "the system" (being, I dont know, everything in life--politics, economics, everything) is racist, and any participation in any aspect of the system made you guilty by association. Of course, your ideas and actions made no difference. We were all racists.

I have a name for arguments that label people regardless of their ideas and actions.

Worthless.

This is sort of an Objectivist version of original sin, and I reject it. I denounce it. I damn thee, I damn thee, I damn thee.
(Edited by Scott DeSalvo
on 5/27, 8:31pm)

Post 56

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 9:09pm

Link

Edit

It was easier to just respond below.

- B.

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott DeSalvo [mailto:SoloBot@SoloHQ.com]
Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:15 PM
To: Recipients@SoloHQ.com
Subject: [SoloHQ] I am in favor of federally funded stem-cell research for the... (#54)

From: Scott DeSalvo
----------------------
Brian:
"By your argument, you DIRECTLY sanction Hitler to kill, as long as he does so by �rational standards.�"

No, I'm not. You just don't seem to be understanding this.

Are you employed?

[Brian says...] Yes.

Are you paying taxes?

[Brian says...] Any taxes for which I am LIABLE (e.g., see Irwin Schiff�s site).

Do you comply with seatbelt laws

[Brian says...] Yes because it is to my benefit to do so (e.g., if I get into an accident, I am safer with my seatbelt on).

and speed limits?

[Brian says...] Typically, no, except when it is to my benefit to do so (e.g., there�s a cop by me who will give me a ticket).

Why?

Don't you understand you are sanctioning this evil by your very actions?

[Brian says...] You obviously haven�t seen my Website. I don�t sanction evil � I attack it.

Why haven't you moved to Galt's Gulch?

[Brian says...] Damn � if I knew where it was, I�d be there in a second.

HOW can you continue to support this corrupt system?

[Brian says...] I don�t.

Hey, you know, didn't Ayn Rand pay taxes, too?

[Brian says...] Beats me. If she did, maybe she didn�t realize that she wasn�t liable. I�ve done the research � did she?

The ARI complies with any number of irrational, but required, Federal guidelines to maintian its favored tax status.

[Brian says...] That�s its problem.

Isn't seeking any tax status a concession and cooperation with this corrupt theft of tax dollars?

[Brian says...] Nope. The Constitution properly provides for two ways that taxes can LEGALLY be applied: as indirect or direct through apportionment. (But I digress, as this likely isn�t the purpose of this thread.)

Well, to you, and the ARI, I say: "We, who have read Rand and understood the principles she propounds, should be the ones most responsible for putting an end to the theft."

[Brian says...] Which is EXACTLY what I�m doing.

Your p aying taxes

[Brian says...] See above.

and ARI's tax status

[Brian says...] Other than ARI�s book program (which I FULLY support), I don�t agree with the ARI on most things (as least the things that I�ve heard/read).

is cooperation on the order of shoveling helpless Jews into an oven.

[Brian says...] This was one of the primary things I learned from Rand: that it was my past cooperation that sanctioned these terrorists. I no longer do so.

Of course, I don't mean this as a personal attack on you or the ARI.

[Brian says...] I haven�t taken it as such, nor would I care. My self-esteem is quite intact.

Nothing is more dangerous than intelligent people who cannot focus their conciousness in a particular context.

[Brian says...] Like I suggested, read my Website, and then see if you still think that about my focus.

Now, here's the thing. I understand your argument.

[Brian says...] I know you do (as I BELIEVE many of you do). That�s what makes this so scary.

The ARI line is that you do not consort and carry on a dialogue with a group once you know it's evil,

[Brian says...] Like I said, I don�t agree with the ARI on most things. If this is their view (I�ll take you at your word for argument�s sake), I disagree.

because you are sanctioning the evil.

[Brian says...] Completely wrong. That�s like saying: �Gee, I know this thief who just broke my window, entered my home, and is pointing a gun is evil. Therefore, I will just ignore him.� What would you like on your headstone?

I understand the argument. I just think its horseshit, and a prescription for stagnation. It also makes hypocrites or criminals of all of the followers of Objectivism who subscribe to it (eg.., either you pay taxes or you are arrested).

[Brian says...] Are you really that scared of our government? Guess we know where you would have stood at the founding of our country. Goodness - where have all of the heroes gone?

There is another very important reason why its contradictory to the basics of Objectivism. A primary of Objectivism is that man's life and enjoyment of life, here and now, is the ultimate standard of value. Your path is dogmatic acceptance of one of Rand's statements even though it results in sacrificing to your ultimate value.

[Brian says...] Come now � do you really believe that? John Galt lived in a decrepit apartment for 10 YEARS while he was taking direct action to live-up to the standard of his moral code. Did you forget that? Here�s a quote that you may not remember:

�If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who's willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.� -- John Galt, Atlas Shrugged

Seems to me that, if you've read Atlas Shrugged, you ought to go read it again as, IMO, you missed one of the most important points.

It also leads to contradictions, like being unable to unwilling to agree that rational use of taxes is superior, in any context, to allocation of taxes based on superstition.

[Brian says...] To what superstition are you referring? Are you (or is anyone here, for that matter) familiar at all with the taxing clauses of the Constitution? Don�t you think you should do some research and learn some facts before spouting off what you BELIEVE to be true?

Objectivists holding to these kinds of ideas virtually guarantee that Objectivism will remain a cult of dogmatists.

[Brian says...] I don�t consider myself an Objectivist, as I find no value in doing so. My own thoughts and actions define who I am. What more does anyone need? (Granted, those with less-than-strong self-esteem may have a need for the crutch of calling themselves as such as to benefit from the implication.)

That isn't what SOLO is about.
[Brian says...] Hmmm� Well, I just read this and don�t see any conflict between what I�m saying and SOLO�s credo.

Post 57

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:23pm

Link

Edit

Brian, I find your ideas either contradictory or poorly defined. You ignore my points, and aren't really making your own very clear.

For example, you say that by even discussing the relative morality of use of tax dollars, I am sanctiioning taxation, even though I have made the opposite quite clear. Yet, you admit that you pay taxes and otherwise participate in the same government tax system, which by your own reasoning, means that YOU are sanctioning taxation. Then you say you are fighting it. Okay, fine, you criticize taxation, just like I do, and you call it fighting, and this somehow relieves you of any moral culpability, but not me? Very strange.

I wrote that "A primary of Objectivism is that man's life and enjoyment of life, here and now, is the ultimate standard of value." Then, you cite a portion of AS which supports the idea that man may choose his values as to what HE values most highly--the context of importance to him in his life, by his estimation, is necessarily implicit in this decision--but it is cited as if a refutation that man's life is the ultimate standard of value. Do you agree that man's life is the ultimate standard of value? Do you believe that there is a single standard of value by which a successful path in life may be chosen? I don't get it--your cited quote essentially directly supports what I just wrote.

Then there is this exchange:
[Scott]"It also leads to contradictions, like being unable to unwilling to agree that rational use of taxes is superior, in any context, to allocation of taxes based on superstition.

[Brian says...] To what superstition are you referring? Are you (or is anyone here, for that matter) familiar at all with the taxing clauses of the Constitution? Don�t you think you should do some research and learn some facts before spouting off what you BELIEVE to be true?"

My response is any superstition!!! Have you read any of my posts in this thread at all? Do you agree or disagree that use of reason to solve a problem, in any context, is superior to using ANY superstition (pick any you like--Chrisitianity, paganism, whatever). I find that this might be evidence that you are not really engaging the argument, but sort of skirting it.

The problem with arguing these issues are primarily two-fold: first you have to frame the issues (context) and then, you must define what terms like 'sanction' and 'fighting' taxation mean. Under any definition, I don't see how you can possibly accuse me of sanctioning taxation while you claim not to, when our actions and beliefs as to the issue are essentially identical.

Now, it is true that you essentially have borrowed an argument from ARI Objectivism re: sanctioning evil, and then, in the last post, made it clear that, while you borrowed the words Objectivism uses, your meaning is different, when you write the following in this exchange:
"The ARI line is that you do not consort and carry on a dialogue with a group once you know it's evil,

[Brian says...] Like I said, I don�t agree with the ARI on most things. If this is their view (I�ll take you at your word for argument�s sake), I disagree.

because you are sanctioning the evil.

[Brian says...] Completely wrong. That�s like saying: �Gee, I know this thief who just broke my window, entered my home, and is pointing a gun is evil. Therefore, I will just ignore him.� What would you like on your headstone?"

So, it is clear, you do not agree with the party line on sanctioning evil. Sorry if I misunderstood you. But if you are not using their argument, then your position is unsupported and doesnt make sense, as I have demonstrated above (re: paying taxes).

Finally, you need to define what you are arguing for and against. Are you arguing that taxation is immoral or taxation for stem cell research is unConstitutional. Big difference, and depending on which part of your post, you seem to be arguing for both, and neither. Here are some examples:

[Example of Brian framing argument as one of Constitutionality]: " Isn't seeking any tax status a concession and cooperation with this corrupt theft of tax dollars?

[Brian says...] Nope. The Constitution properly provides for two ways that taxes can LEGALLY be applied: as indirect or direct through apportionment. (But I digress, as this likely isn�t the purpose of this thread.)"

[Brian framing issue as one of morality]: "Most of the socialistic tripe that I read on this forum is because many of you refuse to acknowledge the foundational breaches of morality."

I know you must not be an Objectivist, because I'm not sure these distinctions are clear to you. You are familiar with the words, but I wonder at your integration of the concepts. Which is fine. NO ONE needs to be an Objectivist unless these take the time to figure it out and choose to do so. You seem like a smart guy, so I will check out your web site. I already took a peek at your profile, and your fight in family court is admirable. Good luck with that.

I don't know, with the above problems, whether we can really do a whole lot of meaningful exchange on this thread until these are cleared up.

Post 58

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:49pm

Link

Edit

Scott,

You sure walked off into a hornet's nest for nothing this time.

For the record, let me state that your basic argument, which as I understand it, is that so long as there are tax dollars to spend, (and you made it very clear that you do not approve of the existence of tax dollars in themselves - but you can't do anything short term about that), we are better off spending them for good things rather than for bad. And you consider stem cell research to be a good thing.

I do too and I agree with you. I am absolutely sure that I am not the only one too. I personally don't have the patience to argue in long posts about tangents and not the core issue. But you are not alone in your conclusion. It is correct.

The only argument that has anything to do with what you are talking about is that a couple of posters (Thomas Knapp and Marnee I believe) sincerely think that federally funded research is poor quality, so this particular science is better left to private enterprise. Not a bad issue to mull over either.

It would be much more interesting to talk about the quality of federally funded projects than to try to prove that you are guilty of giving a moral sanction to the bad guys by evasion and other such crap. At least some of the information would be useful and interesting. All the rest of the arguments I have seen in this thread, from joking about male cows to Hitler accusations, is beside the point - mostly arguing by example, missing the point and wasting time. It can even get you so flustered that you no longer know who you are posting to. You wrote in Post 52:

According to Anthony Fletcher, I have to defend his interpretation of my words, with him adding his own qualifiers and definitions

Who the devil is Anthony Fletcher?

Michael

Post 59

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:04pm

Link

Edit

Michael:

I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and you never know when you might learn something. I have no problem testing my ideas against those of another. But in this case, you are correct--the only lession is 'don't waste your time!'

Anthony Gregory is the fellow I mistakenly calleg Anthony Fletcher. Glenn Fletcher posted with a shared position of mine, and I got the last names confused.