Taking the pledge...
How many people out there are wiling to join in? If so, type it out (preferrably not Cut-n-paste)... Somehow, as fast as this thing (meaning society in general) is starting to unravel, I'm starting to think... seriously... time is approaching...
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another person, nor ask another to live their life for mine."
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another person, nor ask another to live their life for mine."
It's long past time for the Galt party, defenders of the common man, the future of a nation.
And I will add, they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead fingers. :)
From a taxing perspective, probably every day I've worked so far this year has been worked for the sake of another!
.http://www.nontaxpayer.us/
De Oppresso Libre!!
Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/govern...
Good to hear from you XenokRoy.
Have you read any good Sowell articles lately?
Regards,
O.A.
yesterday was the first time I had even come out to the gulch in a few weeks, or done much of any reading other than going through job listings on web sites and talking with people from companies around the area.
maybe you could be John Galt in the movie?!
you'd have to join a union....
I also think you can't really take a pledge not to live your life for another when the very act of trying to live requires work and that work will be taxed and given to another.
The pledge expresses a noble thought, but the fact of the matter is we are forced to act against it.
You are quite right in pointing out how impossible it is to live up to the ideal, but like so many things it is a matter of degrees. You do not alone posses the power to make them stop.
I quite agree that we are forced to act in some ways contrary to the pledge. For me the essence of the pledge is not whether you can comply with the ideal but rather if you comply to the degree within your power. It is a matter of intent; not ability to comply. You are not responsible for deviance “Forced” upon you. As far as how much you should take. Certainly you are entitled to what you have put in. The next question is if you are to receive more than you put in, how much is appropriate. You must decide. For me there are also some questions in this regard. One question keeps occurring to me. How much money would or could you have earned with the money they took? You must weigh this objectively and morally.
Because the government takes from you or gives to you “without your sanction” does not mean you have broken the pledge since the pledge is about your dedication to live for yourself and lack of demand on your fellow man. It is more about your ideals than the circumstances beyond your control. You would be in contradiction to the pledge if you intentionally, personally decided to give up your needs for another (altruism) or demanded altruism on the part of another in order for you to live.
Ask yourself if YOU have determined to forgo your own desires and live for another’s sake, or if YOU have asked another to live for you. The answer is likely no because someone other than you has made these demands you live under.
The long and short of it is your intent and desire, not your circumstances which you are forced to live under and your actions, not those beyond your control. You can hardly blame the guy run over by a bus that runs a light while he was crossing the street appropriately. It would be nice to live in a world where the pledge could be absolute, but I see no harm in trying to live up to it as far as one is able.
Regards,
O.A.
However, I want everyone to consider that this pledge is passive. I won't force you to live for me. I won't force myself to live for you. But that passivity is being met by people applying force. "We WILL force you to live for us." Who do you think wins that battle?
I know people like to wrap themselves in the fictional world of Atlas Shrugged and imagine they are getting there by committing themselves to this pledge. But practically, we need an attitude that is not nearly as passive. We need to change the laws. We need to meet force with force.
"Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."
Francisco D’Anconia Ayn Rand “Atlas Shrugged
Many books don't include children in their stories because they do not advance the plot. it is important< of course< to have strong families
but the mafia or cartels have strong families< so it is not sufficient in itself> you will have strong famililes as long as you protect property rights
when we created a welfare state< we paid people to not be married
(excuse my unhappy keyboard)
When you say "principle must apply to society" we must reason from that point and quickly you will be hitting your head against the wall. This is something Rand talked about: anti-concept. A concept created to obliterate a rational concept. Arguing for the merits of a society to the detriment of the individual, in this case. It is the same argument you made about family, or the solidarity of any group against another. The principles can ONLY apply to the individual. A society is made up of individuals. Individuals acting in best self interest will live, for the most part, peacefully. Whenever we take the argument to a group, the self interest implies sacrifice.
Of course, I overlooking the pragmatic issues of being a citizen. But if the change starts by altering or redirecting a group, you will not get the society you hope for. Voting for and influencing others to vote for removal of welfare state rules and subsidies will change the choices an individual faces. ex: if I no longer get a larger check if I am unwed and a mother-or heaven forbid! no check at all! very quickly the number of unwed mothers in a society will no longer be an institution. If choosing to keep one's baby and unwed with no income, the family unit strengthens over time. More babies born out of wedlock will be adopted. But the desired result is not due to focus on the group, unwed mothers. The focus remains with the individual.
It is impossible in society today to live without (accidentally) asking another to live their life for mine.
- I cannot eat food that is completely free of gov't subsidies in its production line
- I cannot drive on a road that has not, in some way, been funded by having had money taken from other people against their will
The examples are numerous. I don't *want* society to work that way, but I have no way of asking for, say, a loaf of bread completely free of any gov't subsidies. Because there is not yet a Gulch that is isolated from such.
And I'm not willing to swear the pledge, until I know I can *actually* live it, every minute of every day.
Thoughts?
The pledge does not require you to abstain from using products that may have been produced by such means as you describe, only that you do not ask/demand it. You pay those taxes also. The workers that made those roads and the farmers that grew the food were compensated and you contributed. The subsidies are indicative of the government demands for you and all others who contribute to live for the sake of others. They are the common foe and they alone have the power to exercise force unchecked.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Those workers who built the roads were compensated, but they were compensated with money that was taken from other people against their will. By using those things, aren't I -- in effect -- asking for those taxpayers to pay for my use of their roads? (especially true if I'm driving in, say, a different state where none of "my" taxes were collected for the construction of that road).
I think it's a fine line, and that by "partaking" of the benefit of those subsidies, even a couple "steps removed" from the actual subsidy, I feel like I *am* in fact, "asking" for that, even if I don't WANT to be asking for it.
As far as the price of corn or any other commodity that is subsidized goes, it is also the government that regulates and drives up those prices. Yes, without subsidies you would perhaps pay more for a few items, but other products, perhaps even cheaper would perhaps be available if it were not for the unfair advantage given by subsidies. Market forces should set prices. Subsidies and all other interference in the market only serve special interests and generally increase overall costs to the consumer while limiting innovation, competition, and alternatives.
On the other hand... look at Italy. It has a public highway system, and a 100% private toll highway (Autostrada) system. I tell you what - the roads that Benetton (the owner of Autostrada) builds and maintains are by far and away STELLAR compared to their state run counterparts... and if you ever watch them being maintained, you would be amazed at the beauty and efficiency of it. And knowing they have to return a profit - to themselves and their shareholders) you bet they're doing it and making money at it.
I've taken cars over the 200 mark (which is what, about 125 or so) going north toward Firenzie (luckily, not getting caught by the Carbinieri!! ;) ) and it felt far more solid and secure than traveling 1/3 of that on a US interstate.
Viva autostrade privati d'Italia!! Andiamo!
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130...
I think a key argument would be, I am not complicit even though a gun is pointed at my head. However, I am compliant
Here is something to start your day off right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByQlozBT4...
O.A.
This one's for you, if you can listen to the same song again by another artist. One of your favorites...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWcUJxrih...
O.A.
The second half, I worked (still do, actually) for the state DOT out here. One of my WORST moments was being told by my field supervisor, about a week into my new job (25 years back), I had to "pace myself" else others would look bad. I told him (and his boss) "I am pacing myself - I'm working at the pace that I'm used to, and that lets me know I'm earning my pay, and if that's not how we do business, then I'll need to work elsewhere." I have had superiors actually try to fire me later on for that dynamo mentality over the years; fortunately, I now work for real jewels who understand, endorse, and promote objectivism rather than collectivism. I may get my primary paycheck *from* the state treasury, but I damn well guarantee they get their moneys worth... Also... when you use the roads, etc., you *are* paying for your use of them, (through various taxes) to keep them well and properly maintained and operational. I know - I watch our dovgov politicos cut our budget, and tell us to get more done... Most of the looters whine, snivel, and naysay about it... the producers see the BUSINESS logic of it (While I've ALWAYS lamented we can't run this ship like a for profit business, we do so anyway - at least in our purveyance), and grit our teeth, buckle down, and earn our pay.
BTW - We don't give - nor get - subsidies. We may have looter-laws that have language that require us to consider the entitlement-class category businesses (minority, "disadvantaged", women owned, etc...), but nothing says we have to give them the business unless they are the best qualified, lowest bid, capable company. My favorite, actually, was a woman owned and operated company that successfully bid on a number of contracts... tho ono one knew they were "woman owned" because they refused to classify themselves as one. Why? Because, as Doris, the owner, told me, "We're not going to be the best "woman-owned" company out there... we ARE the BEST damned company out there, and we don't NEED some government stooge to give us some unfair advantage to do our job, do it right, and do it tight."
Why does the government have to take tax money from folks to build infrastructure that the taxpayer doesn't even necessarily want?
Je jure, sur ma vie et l'amour que j'ai pour elle, de ne jamais vivre pour les autres ni demander aux autres de vivre pour moi.