Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well technically I don't think there is any dishonesty.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachaelmarie)
    Well technically I don't think there is any dishonesty.
    ???
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Theft is "dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachaelmarie)
    Theft is "dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive".


    Wrong .'Theft is, in general, the wrongful taking of someone else's property without that person's willful consent.

    Your definintion comes from the 1968 Theft Act. Thus your source is the thief - the government! That is a circular argument - X is right because X says so. It has no logic to it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How is your definition of theft any better than the one I gave.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachaelmarie)
    How is your definition of theft any better than the one I gave.

    Thats what all my arguements on this thread have been concerned with. Theft is taking without consent = reduces chance to preserve onself and life is my criteria. My argument is better as it is based on morality not what a bill says is right. I have already shown why i believe theft to be immoral. Your argument that it is concerned with dishonesty is absurd - if a mugger says your money is going to an orphanage and gives it to an orphanage he has been honest but under your argument this would not be theft. Do you think a mugger doing that is not a mugger at all as he is being honest?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    1) Many would be funded by charties for the reasons ive suggested in my thread, thus even those few who choose not to insure would still be covered in practice.
    2) If someone's house or flat is on fire and its spreading to houses/flats with insurance than the fire will be put out for all even thouse without insurance.
    3) People will get insurance. Its just common sense. If the dont thats their fault and i cant be held responsible for their stupidity. Why does their lack of reason legitimise theft?

    You should put your future points into the thread 'is taxation theft?'
    Firstly bear in mind I would say that I'm libertarian in nature, and I am quite interested in what happens at the extreme. That possibly makes me a hippy of the right in your eyes, but the principles I'm asking about are shared.

    I agree that most would get insurance. And with everything else you pointed out. But I think you have to consider the hypothetical situation that a house is burning down, it isn't attached to anything, there's somebody trapped inside (unconscious, so you can't propose a loan to them!) There is no charity funding the nearby fire services, and there is of course no public money going to them. Would the rescue take place, and if so who would fund it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What would happen to disabled people with no family? (So disabled they can't earn a living) Bearing in mind I think you can't assume that charity will increase so much it won't be a problem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    Firstly bear in mind I would say that I'm libertarian in nature, and I am quite interested in what happens at the extreme. That possibly makes me a hippy of the right in your eyes, but the principles I'm asking about are shared.

    I agree that most would get insurance. And with everything else you pointed out. But I think you have to consider the hypothetical situation that a house is burning down, it isn't attached to anything, there's somebody trapped inside (unconscious, so you can't propose a loan to them!) There is no charity funding the nearby fire services, and there is of course no public money going to them. Would the rescue take place, and if so who would fund it?

    Why would they not insure their home? People would after all have more money since they would not be taxed and businesses would be able to pay more as they do not suffer from tax and red tape and so will also be able to grow.

    Also why would there not be a chairty funding the fire service? If you look in my past posts i show why more will give to charity.

    I think your case is one of those cases where it just does not actually happen. It plays on emotions, but when looked at rationally it would not occur. BUT suppose it did happen, even though it would not, neighbours could phone the local fire brigade and fund the rescue for the neighbour of they wished. Though if they did not wish to, i would not force them, compulsory taxation does.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    What would happen to disabled people with no family? (So disabled they can't earn a living) Bearing in mind I think you can't assume that charity will increase so much it won't be a problem.
    I think chairty would increase.

    1) People have more income
    2) Jobs pay better
    3) More businesses emerge
    4) Empircal evidence as provided by Murray which showed that in post war USA chairty increased as the government sent out the message that it was cutting back and vice versa
    5) When did a sad situation legitimise taken the money of others to give to another?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    excessive taxation, especially that used to relieve women of their dependence upon bread winning men and thus causing family fragmentation and the subsequent vile increase in single motherhood, is unquestionably theft. It is the use of hard-earned cash to finance reprehensible schemes which produce young criminals who simply buttress the theft already being carried out by our noble government. The same applies to the use of heavy taxation in order to subsidise asylum seekers IN ANY WAY. if they want to come, they can make their own financial arrangements or piss off back home. I would not consider taxation to help genuinely disabled people or the elderly to be theft, nor a small amount used to cover services regarded as 'public property' such as the police, army etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Why would they not insure their home? People would after all have more money since they would not be taxed and businesses would be able to pay more as they do not suffer from tax and red tape and so will also be able to grow.
    Sometimes, people don't act rationally, maybe they're mentally ill, but you're really riding a lot resting on the hope that people will do the sensible thing.
    Also why would there not be a chairty funding the fire service? If you look in my past posts i show why more will give to charity.
    Maybe people's empathies lie elsewhere, maybe there's been a huge human disaster and people don't care about their fire service.

    I think your case is one of those cases where it just does not actually happen. It plays on emotions, but when looked at rationally it would not occur. BUT suppose it did happen, even though it would not, neighbours could phone the local fire brigade and fund the rescue for the neighbour of they wished. Though if they did not wish to, i would not force them, compulsory taxation does.
    I think this proves that extreme libertarianism will never happen because most people cannot cope with the idea that it's possible somebody might burn to death in a preventable fire because nobody is willing to fund their rescue. If I'm a libertarian, I'm one who believes in minimising the state, not getting rid of it entirely, because I want a safety net before people die of poverty.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    5) When did a sad situation legitimise taken the money of others to give to another?
    Hm yes, I guess you can only say "If people supported the redistribution of wealth to that person they'd give to charity."

    I don't think you can say the same with the burning house though, because there's no way to behave rationally when you're unconscious in a burning home.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sometimes, people don't act rationally, maybe they're mentally ill, but you're really riding a lot resting on the hope that people will do the sensible thing.
    I've addressed this before. If compulsory taxation was abolished it would only be done if people were rational, otherwise a revolution may occur. We make people rational by education.


    Maybe people's empathies lie elsewhere, maybe there's been a huge human disaster and people don't care about their fire service.
    A human disaster can only last so long. Fires occur all the time. People give to charities everday, eventhough there are regular appeals to massive disasters such as the tsunami disaster.

    I think this proves that extreme libertarianism will never happen because most people cannot cope with the idea that it's possible somebody might burn to death in a preventable fire because nobody is willing to fund their rescue.
    That is because they allow emotions to rule reason. Also im not an extreme libertarian.


    If I'm a libertarian, I'm one who believes in minimising the state, not getting rid of it entirely, because I want a safety net before people die of poverty.
    I do not want to abolish the state, im not an anarchist. I want the state to have a monoply on law, order and defence. Under what have suggested people wont die of poverty because of the massive economic injection that would occur in a zero tax economy. People would have jobs with higher salaries, able to start their own businesses and be able to afford to give more to chairty.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think you can say the same with the burning house though, because there's no way to behave rationally when you're unconscious in a burning home.
    But you can behave rationally before, by having your house insured.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    That is because they allow emotions to rule reason.
    Where do you get reason from at that level? What is reason? Reason is how we choose what to do, but I can't think of any other way to choose at that level than your emotions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    But you can behave rationally before, by having your house insured.
    not if you're mentally ill.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    Where do you get reason from at that level? What is reason? Reason is how we choose what to do, but I can't think of any other way to choose at that level than your emotions.
    What a question!!! Massive issue but this may be of use:

    Reason is the faculty which… identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
    —Ayn Rand "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," in Philosophy, Who Needs It? p. 62.
    Objectivism holds that all human knowledge is reached through reason, the human mental faculty of understanding the world abstractly and logically. Aristotle called man "the rational animal" because it is the faculty of reason that most distinguishes humans from other creatures. But we do not reason automatically. We are beings of free will and we are fallible. This is why we need the science of knowledge—epistemology—to teach us what knowledge is and how to achieve it.

    The basis of our knowledge is the awareness we have through our physical senses. We see reality, hear it, taste it, smell it, feel it through touch. As babies, we discover the world through our senses. As our mental abilities develop, we become able to recall memories and we can form images in our minds.

    Other animals are also capable of perception and memory. What most obviously sets humans apart is our bountiful use of language. The difference is more fundamental, though: at root, language is a means of formulating and expressing abstract thoughts. Abstractions are ideas that correspond to an unlimited number of things at once. When you say or think "horse," for example, your mind focuses on an idea—a concept— that refers to all the horses that ever have been or will be. Concepts allow us to consider the past and the future, things that are, things that might be, and even things that can't be. Using concepts together, we can formulate general principles, like the laws of nature, that apply to many situations.

    The ability to grasp reality in the form of abstract concepts and principles is the essence of reason as a human capacity. But thinking abstractly is often a difficult process and each person must undertake it for himself in the solitude of his own mind. Because abstract thinking is not automatic, people can easily make mistakes and end up believing in false ideas. The only way to ensure the objectivity of one's thinking is to use a deliberate logical method.

    "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification," wrote Ayn Rand. Because there are no contradictions in reality, two ideas that contradict each other cannot both be true; and any idea that contradicts the facts we can observe through our senses is necessarily false. Logic gives us standards we can use to easily judge whether an argument makes sense. The scientific method is an advanced form of logical reasoning. Through it, reason has unlocked the secrets of nature and made our industrial civilization, with all its wealth and comforts, possible.

    Objectivists defend the efficacy of reason against all critics. Skeptics say that because we are fallible, we must doubt all our beliefs. But this claim is a self-contradiction: the skeptic is claiming certainty at least for his belief in our fallibility. Religious mystics often claim that God or the supernatural is so different from everything we know that it is beyond reason's ability to understand. But since whatever exists has identity, i.e. definite and delimited properties, it is always possible to contrast it with other things, conceptualize it, establish standards of measurement, and thereby begin to reason about it. At a time when mathematicians explore the properties that even infinite spaces and processes must have, it underestimates the human mind to think it incapable of plumbing deep or complex phenomena.

    Anyone who claims insights that do not derive from sensory evidence and logical reasoning is, in effect, asking you to abuse your mind. Someone who claims, skeptically, that no real knowledge is possible is asking you to abandon your mind entirely. Objectivism holds that it is possible to be certain of a conclusion, and that there is such a thing as truth. But being certain depends on scrupulously following a logical, objective process of reasoning, because it is only that kind of thinking that allows us to formulate true ideas. To be objective, people must know how to define the terms they use (so they know what they mean), base their conclusions on observable facts (so their beliefs are anchored in reality) and employ the principles of logic (so that they can reliably reach sound conclusions).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    not if you're mentally ill.

    But shoud i be held responsible for that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    What a question!!! Massive issue but this may be of use:

    Reason is the faculty which… identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason integrates man's perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man's knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.
    —Ayn Rand "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," in Philosophy, Who Needs It? p. 62.
    Objectivism holds that all human knowledge is reached through reason, the human mental faculty of understanding the world abstractly and logically. Aristotle called man "the rational animal" because it is the faculty of reason that most distinguishes humans from other creatures. But we do not reason automatically. We are beings of free will and we are fallible. This is why we need the science of knowledge—epistemology—to teach us what knowledge is and how to achieve it.

    The basis of our knowledge is the awareness we have through our physical senses. We see reality, hear it, taste it, smell it, feel it through touch. As babies, we discover the world through our senses. As our mental abilities develop, we become able to recall memories and we can form images in our minds.

    Other animals are also capable of perception and memory. What most obviously sets humans apart is our bountiful use of language. The difference is more fundamental, though: at root, language is a means of formulating and expressing abstract thoughts. Abstractions are ideas that correspond to an unlimited number of things at once. When you say or think "horse," for example, your mind focuses on an idea—a concept— that refers to all the horses that ever have been or will be. Concepts allow us to consider the past and the future, things that are, things that might be, and even things that can't be. Using concepts together, we can formulate general principles, like the laws of nature, that apply to many situations.

    The ability to grasp reality in the form of abstract concepts and principles is the essence of reason as a human capacity. But thinking abstractly is often a difficult process and each person must undertake it for himself in the solitude of his own mind. Because abstract thinking is not automatic, people can easily make mistakes and end up believing in false ideas. The only way to ensure the objectivity of one's thinking is to use a deliberate logical method.

    "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification," wrote Ayn Rand. Because there are no contradictions in reality, two ideas that contradict each other cannot both be true; and any idea that contradicts the facts we can observe through our senses is necessarily false. Logic gives us standards we can use to easily judge whether an argument makes sense. The scientific method is an advanced form of logical reasoning. Through it, reason has unlocked the secrets of nature and made our industrial civilization, with all its wealth and comforts, possible.

    Objectivists defend the efficacy of reason against all critics. Skeptics say that because we are fallible, we must doubt all our beliefs. But this claim is a self-contradiction: the skeptic is claiming certainty at least for his belief in our fallibility. Religious mystics often claim that God or the supernatural is so different from everything we know that it is beyond reason's ability to understand. But since whatever exists has identity, i.e. definite and delimited properties, it is always possible to contrast it with other things, conceptualize it, establish standards of measurement, and thereby begin to reason about it. At a time when mathematicians explore the properties that even infinite spaces and processes must have, it underestimates the human mind to think it incapable of plumbing deep or complex phenomena.

    Anyone who claims insights that do not derive from sensory evidence and logical reasoning is, in effect, asking you to abuse your mind. Someone who claims, skeptically, that no real knowledge is possible is asking you to abandon your mind entirely. Objectivism holds that it is possible to be certain of a conclusion, and that there is such a thing as truth. But being certain depends on scrupulously following a logical, objective process of reasoning, because it is only that kind of thinking that allows us to formulate true ideas. To be objective, people must know how to define the terms they use (so they know what they mean), base their conclusions on observable facts (so their beliefs are anchored in reality) and employ the principles of logic (so that they can reliably reach sound conclusions).
    Once again, a nice copy and paste job there big o... :rolleyes:
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

982

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.