RoR: Forum

Post 60

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:05am

Link

Edit

Scott,

This is off-topic, but what else hasn't been on this thread? You just now wrote:

Anthony Gregory is the fellow I mistakenly calleg Anthony Fletcher.

(my emphasis)

Hmmmmmmmm...

That's twice around dear Anthony (or Glenn, maybe?). Freud's on the loose all of a sudden. Is there a there there somewhere over there?

Michael

Post 61

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 4:01am

Link

Edit

Brian,

I think that you are overstating the case where sanction is concerned. Scott has made it clear that he opposes involuntary taxation on principle. He isn't sanctioning taxation, he's expressing an opinion of actions following, and subsidiary to,it.

By way of analogy, let's suppose that you were drafted, did not believe that you could successfully resist being drafted, and therefore reported for induction. Would you be "sanctioning conscription" if, at that point, you protested upon finding that Selective Service had decided to draft you for the purpose of ordaining you as a Baptist minister rather than for the purpose of swearing you into the army?

Scott's objection to the disposition of money stolen by taxation is an additional objection to something he opposes, not just a quibble about one aspect of something he supports.

Tom Knapp

Post 62

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 6:37am

Link

Edit

By insisting that the proceeds of taxation be used "rationally" you are helping to promote the idea that taxation can have good results and that therefore taxation is not really all that bad.

It should be noted that all the counter examples involve the individual being taxed whereas the funding of stem cell research does not. Making the best of a bad situation in which you are forced to be involved is quite different from being concerned with how the thief spends his loot.

Post 63

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 7:45am

Link

Edit

�well, the government�s going to steal anyway, so let�s at least discuss the �rational standards� for using that stolen property.�

Thank you Brian.

Post 64

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 7:55am

Link

Edit

Rick,

By insisting that the proceeds of taxation be used "rationally" you are helping to promote the idea that taxation can have good results and that therefore taxation is not really all that bad.

I don't agree. And I am one who does not just talk about things like this. I do it.

I had an internal moral crisis in Brazil once where I used to play in a government orchestra. I would walk the streets of S�o Paulo back then looking at the different people, bakers, taxi drivers, store workers, etc., thinking that their taxes were paying my wages and wondering just how many of them went to my symphony orchestra concerts. This made me feel like shit. So I took a moral stand based precisely on your quote above.

I quit. There were other reasons, but this was one of the main ones. Even afterwards, as I had many friends in the Secretary of Culture, I was called for several cultural projects and refused them all on this principle.

Well I got older. I made much less music in my life. The world didn't give a fuck. And I didn't prove anything to anyone.

I learned the hard way that taking yourself out of the game is not how to win it. (In Atlas Shrugged, there was an organized strike of selectively chosen key individuals who already had a backlog of achievements, not those starting out or in the middle of getting established - and that makes "shrugging" a dangerous symbol for someone like me.)

People with money do things. People without money do not and their voice gets lost. You (and I) may not like it, but that is the reality of our existence.

On a selfishness angle (and getting back on topic), the results of stem cell research are of great interest to me personally, as my own life will probably be extended and enhanced with this technology. So this area is much more than just concern about how a thief spends his loot. (I have problems with that metaphor anyway, as it is so incomplete and derogatory to a one-sided degree.)

As I mentioned before, a better way to attack this is to discredit the quality of federally funded scientific research - if poor quality is absolutely true. And if it is not, it is going to be awfully hard to convince anyone of why you should scrap something that is successful just because you don't like the source of funding. (Even Ayn Rand felt good enough about the federally funded moon landing to write a whole essay about the glory of it, as opposed to the disgrace of a rock festival funded by the capitalistic free-market.)

Michael

Post 65

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 8:09am

Link

Edit

Rick,

You wrote:

"It should be noted that all the counter examples involve the individual being taxed whereas the funding of stem cell research does not."

Not really. Take my conscription example -- it just as easily could be third-party. I object to conscription. If conscription occurred, I'd also object to changing the application of conscription from military purposes to religious purposes, whether I was the conscript in question or not.

Scott objects to taxation. He also objects to the insertion of religious criteria into the disposition of funds collected by the process he objects to. There's no contradiction there. At the very most, there's a tactical question of whether or not the subsidiary objection doesn't obscure the main objection.

I disagree with Scott on pragmatic grounds.

To throw in a religious allusion, he's obsessing over the mote while ignoring the beam ... by comparison to other areas on which Bush has translated religious delusion into public policy, such as gay marriage and foreign policy, the stem cell issue is so minor as to merit little attention except perhaps as part of a "big picture" argument.

Furthermore, the stem cell "ban" has had, if anything, a positive impact on stem cell research by focusing the attention -- and money -- of the private sector on it on a far larger scale than it has ever been a factor in federal spending.

Finally, the stem cell issue has already become a football for both sides of the abortion debate to dogpile each other over. It's a distraction -- and to be perfectly honest, it seems to have been intended as a distraction both by the administration's "throw a bone to the pro-lifers" faction and the pro-choice movement's "hey, we have to give the rank and file something to be frightened of" leadership. The terms on which the debate is being pursued -- outside places like this -- preclude reasonable argument.

Tom Knapp

Post 66

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 9:55am

Link

Edit

Tom:

"I disagree with Scott on pragmatic grounds.

To throw in a religious allusion, he's obsessing over the mote while ignoring the beam ... by comparison to other areas on which Bush has translated religious delusion into public policy, such as gay marriage and foreign policy, the stem cell issue is so minor as to merit little attention except perhaps as part of a "big picture" argument."

[Scott] Actually, Tom, we are a similar mind here. I praised Bush early on, but he has changed my mind. I should probably write an update tot hat Bush article I wrote earlier. But I am right there with you that stem cell research is just ONE example of a disturbing trend in Bush's decison-making.

[Tom] Furthermore, the stem cell "ban" has had, if anything, a positive impact on stem cell research by focusing the attention -- and money -- of the private sector on it on a far larger scale than it has ever been a factor in federal spending.

This may be true to some extent. I am not sure to what extent. But also recall Hong's post. Bush is not against using thuggery to get the private sector to tow the line he cannot draw precisely.

Post 67

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:00am

Link

Edit

Michael:

Thanks for the support on the underlying issues on the thread.

But what difference does it make if I mistype called as calleg (unless calleg is a word I am unfamilar with that somehow makes this exchange Freudian) or whether, late a night, I mix up some guy's last name?

Post 68

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:07am

Link

Edit

Scott,

"Actually, Tom, we are a similar mind here."

I was beginning to think as much.

"Bush is not against using thuggery to get the private sector to tow the line he cannot draw precisely."

That is probably the strongest point of your argument -- and it's also a disturbing trend. Ever since government started swinging deals for "voluntary action on the part of the private sector, so the government doesn't 'have' to act," it's become a worse and worse problem. Sort of reminds me of the whole scheme from Atlas Shrugged to get patent holders to "voluntarily" sign over their rights.

Thank you for a very interesting and enlightening discussion so far!

Tom Knapp

Post 69

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:25am

Link

Edit

Scott, you asked:

But what difference does it make if I mistype called as calleg (unless calleg is a word I am unfamilar with that somehow makes this exchange Freudian) or whether, late a night, I mix up some guy's last name?

None.

Michael

Post 70

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:15am

Link

Edit

Thomas,

I'm glad that you finally acknowledge the effectiveness of "administrative" pressure - through the FDA and other Federal agencies - in place of legislation.

You are correct that the proposed Federal anti-cloning law was blocked by procedural tricks in the Senate. I was misinformed because California is one of the nine states with a state anti-cloning law, and the restrictions were communicated at our University without identifying their source.

The California anti-cloning law is prettty scary. To get around the possibility of jury nullification, it imposes "civil" (not "criminal") penalties that can be levied by bureaucrats with minimal judicial review or none. The specified fine is a million dollars against a corporation, or $ 250,000. against an individual. And, if any income is derived from cloning, it is added to the fine, and then the whole amount is doubled.

Incidentally, this law is a demonstration of the on-going phenomenon of "the right" forming alliances with, and co-opting the ideology of what used to be called the "Marxist" or "Socialist" left. In this case, the anti-cloning alliance was formed of Christianists and Marxist Feminists, around the Marxist claim that cloning (presumably in combination with fetal organ transplant technologies) would "exploit" wimmen - this "exploitation" being "ungodly" to one gang and "capitalist" to the other. Stalin, the Orthodox Christian priests' seminary graduate who went on to "integrate" his worldview with Marxism, would have been proud of the result.

Post 71

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:53am

Link

Edit

Scott DS:In context, I haven't seen anything that refutes my position. All objections are essentially context-switching to the issue of whether the government should fund research (and derivatives of this issue, such as whether government witholding money is a 'ban').
Robert D: Scott, the obvious answer to your challenge is that because it is of and by the government, it will be staffed by mediocrity and micro-managed to death. It doesn't matter if they are working on stem cells or petunias, nothing much can come of it.

That's a very ungenerous assertion Robert D. The big irony is, you posted it through the internet.

There's room for scientific research funded by government, even from a minarchist perspective. Having a military, police, and courts would guarantee that it is prudent for government to fund research that makes its necessary functions more efficient. Hard sciences and applied mathematics are very obvious candidates. On stem cell research, how many soldiers' and policemen's debilitating injuries can be potentially treated by this technology? The benefits are too high to be ignored, and in this case, will certainly accrue to civilians.

A thoughtful and well-balanced treatment of the subject of government funded research can be found in the Hoover Institute's Science Funding in a Free Society, edited by Dr. Machan (he also wrote the introduction). Scroll down to the table of contents, the page numbers link to separate PDF files you can peruse or download.

Post 72

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 3:48pm

Link

Edit

Scott DeSalvo said: �For example, you say that by even discussing the relative morality of use of tax dollars�

I don�t deal in �relative morality.� My morals are absolutes (e.g., stealing is stealing).

Scott DeSalvo said: �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?�

Actually, that�s not what I said. You obviously haven�t done the research I suggested. I said I pay taxes for which I am LIABLE. However, unlike most individuals, I don�t VOLUNTEER any taxes. If you do the research I suggested, you�ll understand. If you�re not willing to do the research for yourself, then there�s no point in me explaining it to you, as I�m not going to do the work for you. For me, criticism and complaining is utterly useless � only direct action makes any difference. (I don�t get the sense from this forum that most of you are direct-action type of people.)

Scott DeSalvo said: �My response is any superstit ion!!! 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.�

Candidly, I haven�t read most of the posts of this thread as I fail to see the value of the socialistic dribble and the rationalizing of theft. The posts I typically respond to are the ones where I see some glimmer of hope in someone� someone who appears to be making an error in knowledge vs. a breach of morality. If you�re a socialist, it�s almost always immediately apparent to me and, therefore, it�s a breach of morality. I have no interest in wasting my time with that. However, for someone who appears to be towing the party-line in order to feel accepted, I can usually pick that out. That�s when I likely will jump-in to see if they�re courageous enough to take the steps to learn the truth to build their own self-esteem. However, I only show the doors to individuals. It�s up to them to do the work to open the doors, look inside, and take the �journey.� I don�t �carry� anyone.

Scott DeSalvo said: �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.�

I�ll make you a $1,000 bet that our �actions and beliefs� as to this issue are completely opposite. If you take the bet, then I will prove it to you. Otherwise, you�ll have to do the work for yourself to learn it (which, I will suggest is a much cheaper way to learn the same facts). I�ve given you all the direction you need to do so.

Scott DeSalvo said: �Now, it is true that you essentially have borrowed an argument�

I �borrow� no arguments. Any logic I use is my own. Any facts I use I prove to myself. I might read something somewhere that seems logical, but I always prove it to myself by doing my own work.

Scott DeSalvo said: �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).�

Contradictions don�t exist. If you believe a contradiction exists, check your premises� one of them is wrong. If you choose to do the research I�ve pointed you toward, or if you take the bet, you will learn which premise it is.

Scott DeSalvo said: �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 u nConstitutional. Big difference, and depending on which part of your post, you seem to be arguing for both, and neither.�

Taxation is not immoral as long as it is done within the confines of the Constitution (like it�s supposed to be). As most people don�t know (or incorrectly learned from socialist/non-thinking teachers), the Constitution defines exactly what the federal government can do (i.e., it does not grant rights to individuals, contrary to popular belief). I have a copy of it on my wall (as well as next to my chair) and, for some reason, I can�t find anything about stem-cell research. (Know why?) However, I do find phrases like �The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States�� Now, all socialists will say �provide for the� general welfare� means stem-cell research. For those of you who are interested in the truth, you need look no further than The Federalist Papers to learn what our Founding Fathers intended by that phrase (a simple search will provide you with all the data you need to confirm the truth). The Constitution talks about regulating commerce with foreign nations, establishing post offices and post roads, providing for patents, etc. Again, no stem-cell research. (Figured it out yet?)

Again, for those of you who are interested in learning the facts about the taxing clauses of the Constitution, as well as why they are defined as they are, all of the information is readily available to you. For those of you who don�t want to do that work, John Galt�s words are right on point: �But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of the knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul.�

Scott DeSalvo said: �I know you must not be an Objectivist�

You think? After all, I did come right out and SAY it. (Rarely do I ever get personal, but you earned that slam.)

Scott DeSalvo said: �I already took a peek at your profile, and your fight in family court is admirable. Good luck with that.�

I don�t believe in luck � chance favors the prepared mind.

- B.

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

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

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

Post 73

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 3:49pm

Link

Edit

Thomas L. Knapp said: �By way of analogy, let's suppose that you were drafted, did not believe that you could successfully resist being drafted, and therefore reported for induction.�

I�d never �report� � I�d go to jail (if they found me). My morals are not negotiable. Have you forgotten what John Galt did when they found him?

- B.

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

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

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

Post 74

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 3:54pm

Link

Edit

Michael Stuart Kelly said: �Well I got older. I made much less music in my life. The world didn't give a fuck. And I didn't prove anything to anyone.�

What don�t you understand about that? You claim to take a �moral stand� (which, by definition, is based on individual values), but then recoil when no one cares. Do you not see that taking a moral stand and caring what others think are contradictions? And, as we all know (or should know), contradictions don�t exist. Which premise is wrong? It�s pretty obvious.

Michael Stuart Kelly said: �People with money do things. People without money do not and their voice gets lost. You (and I) may not like it, but that is the reality of our existence.�

You likely would benefit from doing a little research into American history. Allow me to give you a few pointers: research Martin Luther King Jr. and Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Then try to fake reality again.

Michael Stuart Kelly said: �So this area is much more than just concern about how a thief spends his loot. (I have problems with that metaphor anyway, as it is so incomplete and derogatory to a one-sided degree.)�

No surprise that you would have problems with that metaphor. If that�s not a poor attempt at rationalizing socialism, I don�t know what is.

Michael Stuart Kelly said: �As I mentioned before, a better way to attack this is to discredit the quality of federally funded scientific research - if poor quality is absolutely true.�

I see. So, by your looter moral code, if it�s high quality, that makes it ok. Robin Hood would be so pleased to hear you say that. (We all remember what Rand thought of Robin Hood, right?)

Michael Stuart Kelly said: �(Even Ayn Rand felt good enough about the federally funded moon landing to write a whole essay about the glory of it, as opposed to the disgrace of a rock festival funded by the capitalistic free-market.)�

She did think highly of the moon landing, and I don�t discount it. However, reading Apollo and Dionysus leads me to think that she was using the moon landing in a VERY different context. Further support of this is what she touches on in The Cashing-In: The Student �Rebellion.� When she is discussing her point #4 (talking about Berkeley being owned by the state), she states that whether state universities should exist is a different question from the point she is making about the reality of the situation.

- B.

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

www.loveisearned.com

Instant Messenger:

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

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

Post 75

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 4:02pm

Link

Edit

Dayaammm Brian - you sure are full of piss and vinegar today. I think its time for your nap.

Post 76

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 4:09pm

Link

Edit

Brian,

LOLOLOL... You asked:

Michael Stuart Kelly said: �Well I got older. I made much less music in my life. The world didn't give a fuck. And I didn't prove anything to anyone.�

What don�t you understand about that?

What didn't I understand, not don't. Before I didn't understand how so very precious the minutes and hours and days of my life are. Way too precious to waste on boneheaded drivel like yours.

Cheers,

Michael

Post 77

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 7:15pm

Link

Edit

LOL!

Man o man, was Michael correct! What a collosal waste of time even TRYING to come to a common understanding with Brian!

Brian, I DID do the 'research' you suggested. I also looked at your website in further detail.

I know everthing I need to know about you. The least insulting and most relevant is that I don't really ever have to take anything you write seriously again, Don Quixote!

Post 78

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 8:44pm

Link

Edit

Ancient history for this thread, but:

Scott-

"Do you ~really~ believe that the Federal governemnt is going to shrink by the amount they refuse to spend on stem cell research?"

*laugh* I don't think the federal government has actually shrunk in something like eighty years. We could eliminate stem cell research - or foodstamps or whatever other single pet example people have tossed around - and I'm sure 2006 spending would still manage to be higher than 2005. I'm jaded enough to know that the best we likely realistically achieve by eliminating such things is slowing government growth, not really reducing its current size.

It sounds from later posts that you see the stem cell issue as being purely an allocation decision within a suborganization (NSF? NIH?) that already gets a fixed budget from higher up. If that's the case - and if it doesn't tend to lobby for higher funding - then I see where you're coming from with the stem cell issue being a true zero-sum allocation question instead of necessarily an increased budget one.

I do agree with what I think the point of Anthony's Iraq tangent was, ie. given taxation being immoral theft, the whole question of public stem cell funding is worrying about chump change compared to far bigger expenditures like war. However, I've also enjoyed many of your (and Tom's) later interesting points about the other concerns of Bush's application of religion, and especially government strong-arming private 'voluntary' adherence without having to put laws on the books.

Post 79

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 12:23am

Link

Edit

Brian,

You wrote:

-----
Thomas L. Knapp said: �By way of analogy, let's suppose that you were drafted, did not believe that you could successfully resist being drafted, and therefore reported for induction.�

I�d never �report� � I�d go to jail (if they found me). My morals are not negotiable. Have you forgotten what John Galt did when they found him?
-----

I certainly don't disagree with the course of action that you state you'd take. Hell, I'm somewhat in that same boat already.

On the other hand, Rand drew a distinction between reluctantly acquiescing, especially under direct coercion, to something one opposes and actually sanctioning that thing. I believe it was in a "Q and A" that was printed in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and it concerned exactly this question of whether or not morality required one to actively resist induction if drafted.

This being an Objectivist forum, I can hardly find fault with members of it for taking a position that seems to be at least arguably in line with Objectivist ideas when it comes to "acquiescence" versus "sanction."

Tom Knapp