Goverment forms/systems - [from single payer healthcare thread]

[Uzra]

Ownership is a concept that applies to property. To say that people own themselves is to say that they are property. I have asked several Randians whether it was OK for people to sell themselves. They replied that if you can't sell yourself, you don't really own yourself. I asked if slavery was OK when it was the result of people selling themselves. They said, yes, that was OK.

Slavery is not OK with me. People do sell themselves, out of desperation. People sell their children. They wouldn't do these things if they were prosperous. The answer is to reject the notion that people are property that can be owned.

Slavery only happens when ownership of another's liberty is acquired through force.  But when ownership of another's liberty is acquired through voluntary means it's not slavery; it's a job.

When you ask 'is slavery was OK when it is the result of people [voluntarily]selling themselves?' it's a lot like asking 'is 5 ok when it's the result of 2+2'.  It's fine because it's nonsense -or- Yes, but it never is.

[Uzra]

Ownership is a concept that applies to property. To say that people own themselves is to say that they are property. I have asked several Randians whether it was OK for people to sell themselves. They replied that if you can't sell yourself, you don't really own yourself. I asked if slavery was OK when it was the result of people selling themselves. They said, yes, that was OK.

Slavery is not OK with me. People do sell themselves, out of desperation. People sell their children. They wouldn't do these things if they were prosperous. The answer is to reject the notion that people are property that can be owned.

Slavery only happens when ownership of another's liberty is acquired through force.  But when ownership of another's liberty is acquired through voluntary means it's not slavery; it's a job.

When you ask 'is slavery was OK when it is the result of people [voluntarily]selling themselves?' it's a lot like asking 'is 5 ok when it's the result of 2+2'.  It's fine because it's nonsense -or- Yes, but it never is.

If you crawled out of a desert onto my oasis, I might be able to get you to sign a very harsh contract in exchange for the necessities. Or maybe you wouldn't sign and would die of thirst or hunger or exposure. Negotiations between very unequal parties results in exploitation.

Exploitation is an entirely different thing.  I'll see if I can think of a counter, thanks for the monkey wrench.

[various-guises]

evil hamster: No worries. What would you prefer? If i may ask?


Belthus: True, But why not aim for perfection and have a small chance of getting there? Also not only the best and brightest have those falts, the rest of us are just as guilty.

Of course if you are the best and brightest, history might take more note, and what is a small mistake to you might effect many more people than a small mistake by someone else. Everyone loves a victim. Easy to victimise someone who says x deaths ect was a small mistake.

[various-guises]

Excellent post.

on your second point leader/s or heads of office must be able to look at every decision with the best for the people in mind, and also make a decision within a timelimit. The head must also be able to say times up were taking X decision.

As to your first comment. That is a problem at first. Once up and running, whoever is best at it lol. At first, well setting up anyone in power is always a risk, it may sound silly, but if i was changing the goverment, me. If you did so, you would. To the best of your ablity of course.

There is no way anyone could really set up a new goverment on their own island and matter any longer, so it would need to be a power change. That requires that whoever wants to change it gets the power. So they get to choose.

I may have to rewrite part of this as im rushing it as im about to go out, sorry if some of it makes no sense.

[various-guises]

note: Feel free to discuss any goverment form/system issues/ideas ect.



Quote from: various-guises
No. No person who can decide anything without reasonable evidence (or with the best they can get, depending on circumstances) could ever be described as intelligent. Smart maybe, but not intelligent. There is a subtle difference there. Smart people can spell, do maths or memorise ect (to give the most obvious examples), Intelligent people can collate data, see all sides of an argument and can go into any debate from any side without prejudice to come to a decision that appears to be correct from what they know after all the evidence is presented. Also most importantly can UNDERSTAND. A lot of smart people just know, they dont understand what they know.

I dont believe in perfection, Noone can always be right. All we can hope for is to get as close as we can to picking people who will choose the path they think is best not for them, but for all.

What i have wrote doesnt do what i think justice really but it conveys the point, i hope reasonably well. There is a lot missing, but i think we would need a full forum to debate such political ideas well, with all the small points to pull over Tongue


quote from: hamster

Maybe you should start a thread for this- could be an interesting debate Smiley

After all- an intelligent person could decide that children should be taken away from parents and raised by the state. I can think of a dozen arguments in favor of that. An intelligent person could decide every human should only be allowed to live 30 years- as long as it applies to everybody then it would be good for society. An intelligent person could set up a scheme based on genetics to determine who gets to mate with who for the benefit of the species.

(Logans Run anybody!)

Ok lets take your points one at a time.


1.an intelligent person could decide that children should be taken away from parents and raised by the state: A conclusion that has been presented as ideal by a number of high profile philosophers including plato and socrates (see The Republic). Not one i hold to. It is a short sighted view in my belief. It does allow better "schooling" from a young age, But it stifles creativity and individuality, i like individuality. And if it is better, where would the issue be?


2.An intelligent person could decide every human should only be allowed to live 30 years- as long as it applies to everybody then it would be good for society: Rubbish. It might be better if that person does hard larbour only, maybe. But you would loose too much, theres a reason employers like older people. Plus it could insight riots down the years ect. Too volitile.


3.An intelligent person could set up a scheme based on genetics to determine who gets to mate with who for the benefit of the species: I deal with genetics, i breed reptiles, and believe me what we know about their genetics isnt enough to do this forever and get away with it. They are much simpler than us, It would implode unless we got really! really! lucky. Requires a lesson or two in genetics, but leave it too the films. You do that, you would breed out too much. Plus i like individuality. But again if it was best, wheres the problem?