humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Feb 22, 7:11 pm, Charles Bell wrote:
>nybody wishing to disestablish altruist spending should look to cut the
>trillion dollars annually from the budget that
> is spent in transferring wealth from one group of people to another --
> the kind of spending which is clearly immoral.

Not everyone is an Oist and a great many people would disagree with
your outlook (and some probably view your anti-altruism assertion as
outright evil). There is some truth to their worldview that we have an
impact on one another. For instance If Rupert Murdock had been born to
savages on a deserted island five thousand years ago, would he have
been a billionaire? Clearly what society men are born to makes a
difference.

Having said that..... nothing gets built or a achieved without
individual effort either (which requires incentive to happen).... nor
does having government red tape in our hair every two seconds always
known to improve productivity.

As for my own current stance, I think the truth is somewhere
inbetween the far left and far right worldview. The Oists world of no
taxes at best remains a very very sketchy theory with few details in
how it would work.. so it is hard to take it too seriously until those
finer details get told. Saying an existing system is "bad" without
explaining EXACTLY how what replaces will be better to the "pursuit of
happiness" of "we the people" (not "we the rich" alone right?) is a
recipe for disaster.

Calling the 95% of the population that is gainfully employed a
derogatory "parasites" for seeking their interests (ust as you wish to
seek your own) is a asking for class warfare. That rude narrative can
easily be flipped and you viewed as the parasite sucking on their
efforts. Also if all taxation is theft (as Oist's claim)...can't
someone later on argue it is theft for someone to force them to pay
for "protection" in an Oist universe? Sounds a great deal like the
mafia under that context.

I try to remain open minded about it though, Theory and realities
are known to be two different things on "occasion". It is best to run
experiences to see how they work out before making up out minds about
things. However I am wary of political scientists that appear overly
fond of violence. The well meaning commies were also sure about their
THEORIES but still managed to be quite at ease with maiming and
slaughtering people. They remind me in more than one way of a few
Oists that are "against coercion".

> An intellectually honest person claiming interest in reducing the
> national debt (not just the annual deficit) knows that the only
> effective way to do that is to reduce government spending drastically,

An intellectually honest person would say there are TWO ways to
reducing government debt.... reducing spending OR Increasing taxes. I
personally don't understand why rightwing politicians always complain
about cutting social spending then rarely do anything. They should be
man enough to stand up for their principles or just admit they are
really liberals.

Ron Paul's voting record actually reflects a "less government"
policy....unfortunately he doesn't support the war...which appears to
be far far more important to some Oists than actually balancing the
books one way or another.