I think I misunderstood you, you are indeed making a theoretical argument, but I don't find it compelling because the terms you are using are too vague and could mean "the happiness of a few individuals" or "the happiness of the individual". Furthermore, I don't know what the "collective" is now.

I thought it was obvious I wasn’t speaking of some “general individual happiness”, which sounds to me incoherent. Sorry, I should have been more clear. By “individual happiness”, I mean the happiness as determined by each individual. A collective, to me, is simply the sum total of individuals.

So yes, the arrangement, if one is required, should allow individuals to pursuit their own happiness instead of providing happiness to whichever group of individuals hold a majority. But this is an individualist, laissez faire system, such as the one theorized by the founders, but betrayed by everyone henceforth. Could such a system find a home in the left-wing, as it had once done?

I guess I agree with some of that. But why not model our government after what we know works and results in the most happiness (social democracy)? — ToothyMaw

Most happiness with social democracy?

Actually, I think the best policies are those when the opposite side of the political aisle takes on the agenda of the other. Also this is the perfect way to go through with some smart policies: the majority of the supporters of a party are just happy that their party is in power and don't actually notice that the actual politicies are quite in line with what the opposition wanted. Take example of Republicans with George Dubya Bush with Medicare (or was it Medicaid) or the economic policies of the UK Labour party after Thatcher (Tony Blair and Gordon Brown).

This is the way things become to be "a norm". I think the UK Conservative Party has understood this and this is why they got in the last elections a lot of previously labor-voters to vote for them (and smartly Johnson understood this and was humble about it). The GOP on the other hand... Well, it's in crazy Trump-land.

Quit playing identity politics. It is just as superstitious and divisive as when the right uses it, and for the same reasons. — NOS4A2

Wishful thinking from you, NOS.

Both sides just looove identity politics. Oh they won't let go of the issue they so dearly love. It's like Germans and Hitler (Germany allways has these Hitler-Welle things happening in their public debate). Remember, the objective is to keep the tribes separate, you know. Best thing is to have the voters be angry at each other, that they don't notice they have much common in their resentment about those who rule them. What better way to refer to the color of skin or whatever difference they come up with, you privileged white cis-gender male living in Canada (or something like that).

Ready-made identities suit us perfectly. We don’t need to consider a person on his own when we need only apply an identity and be done with it. Of course, this is to misidentify rather than identify, but who cares at this point?

I thought it was obvious I wasn’t speaking of some “general individual happiness”, which sounds to me incoherent. Sorry, I should have been more clear. By “individual happiness”, I mean the happiness as determined by each individual. — NOS4A2

I understand you now; I was searching for those words when I said "general" individual happiness. I admit I could have said it better.

the arrangement, if one is required, — NOS4A2

lmao, "if one is required". I think one is required, NOS. Even libertarians think we need a few arrangements, if only to protect our individual rights from being infringed upon.

the arrangement, if one is required, should allow individuals to pursuit their own happiness instead of providing happiness to whichever group of individuals hold a majority. — NOS4A2

I think some sacrifices for the greater good are okay, such as taxes. We get a very large utility margin from taxing the super-rich, for instance, something that I believe is necessary because they won't willingly give enough on their own. They don't even suffer for it, really.

If you want to talk about a bad arrangement, how about being exploited by corporations, which are fundamentally amoral, for the maximum gain of a few who couldn't care less about your aspirations and desires. We have genuine wage-slaves that have no time to pursue anything other than their next paycheck, let alone meaningful happiness. That's a genuinely shitty arrangement, not the rich and super-rich being taxed.

And if you want to make it about rights: everyone should have a right to a decent minimum standard of living, full-stop. If people can't support themselves or their families or their spouses working multiple jobs, it's time to supplement their income.

Ready-made identities suit us perfectly. We don’t need to consider a person on his own when we need only apply an identity and be done with it. Of course, this is to misidentify rather than identify, but who cares at this point? — NOS4A2

I think we can find a happy middle-ground between understanding power dynamics and the fact that, ideally, everyone should be considered as an individual with their own merits, when all other things are adjusted for.

Ready-made identities suit us perfectly. We don’t need to consider a person on his own when we need only apply an identity and be done with it. Of course, this is to misidentify rather than identify, but who cares at this point? — NOS4A2

Yep. That's the name of the game.

You wouldn't people interact as citizens, would you?

Now that there is a collective identity some seem to hate.

Perhaps that’s where we differ. I don’t see how being payed a wage for one’s voluntary labor constitutes slavery while having a monopoly on violence appropriating one’s payments for labor constitutes a sacrifice for the greater good. Taxes are forced labor and slavery. To feel the force of this, try evade taxes on the one hand, and not showing up to work on the other. Only one may land you in prison, where slavery is still constitutionally protected.

Everyone does have the right to a decent standard of living, should they attain it. But if you believe everyone has a right to be provided with a minimum standard of living, why won’t you provide it to them?

But if you believe everyone has a right to be provided with a minimum standard of living, why won’t you provide it to them? — NOS4A2

I 100% would if I could. But I'm not super rich or a politician. But there are those who could that refuse to do so. So we tax them.

Look, NOS, this makes sense to just about everybody; I've met children that understand this. You take care of the people who can't take care of themselves because fundamentally human nature is a mixed bag.

We know that without regulations or laws power structures and disparities form that harm the average person. The rich don't usually care about those at the bottom or near the bottom, except to exploit them for labor, and they have a disproportionate amount of influence over the power structures in place. This is a well-documented trend. Ideally, we could just use democratic means to empower the average person, but the super-rich have already rigged it, and even have people like you, NOS, explaining away the suffering they are complicit to as a function of their rights.

I completely agree that we should care for those who cannot take care of themselves, so long as they want our help. But I believe stealing people’s money or demanding others care for those who cannot care for themselves does not amount to any kind of care I that I can believe in. In fact I believe that is the opposite of care.

The worry for me is, if you limit caring to paying taxes, why should anyone care for those who cannot take care of themselves if they’ve already done it? Why should I give a man a quarter if I’ve already given that quarter to the institutions I’ve delegated to care for others?

Make a new thread if you want to keep talking about this, please. It is far from the intended discussion topic.

Unless you can relate it to the growing noise about supposed wokeness in our military. I feel like these people are testing the waters to see if it will *float. Hopefully it won't.

But this is an individualist, laissez faire system, such as the one theorized by the founders, but betrayed by everyone henceforth. — NOS4A2

What founders "theorized" about this? Certainly not Madison.

Worth remembering that the "founders" were also slave-owning, generally wealthy individuals -- many planters. The Constitution reflects their interests rather well.

Has nothing to do with libertarian revisionism.

The worry for me is, if you limit caring to paying taxes, why should anyone care for those who cannot take care of themselves if they’ve already done it? — NOS4A2

Indeed a "worry for you."

People care about one another. They want their government, the people they elect and the institution they pay taxes to, to give services they cannot individually provide. Just as sensible as infrastructure or a corporation. This is no way negates individuals caring. I don't look at someone on broken down on the road and say "Eh, I pay taxes -- let the government help."

I'm sure people do think this way. It's the same sociopaths who want to generalize their sociopathy to everyone -- attributing it all to "human nature."

Fair enough; my apologies. I’ll just say the American left used to uphold freedom as a guiding principle, and the void has been filled with statism, collectivism, and authoritarianism.

I don't look at someone on broken down on the road and say "Eh, I pay taxes -- let the government help."

Then what do you do?

I think some sacrifices for the greater good are okay, such as taxes. We get a very large utility margin from taxing the super-rich, for instance, something that I believe is necessary because they won't willingly give enough on their own. They don't even suffer for it, really. — ToothyMaw

The problem here is, because taxation is forced. and the entity that governs that collection has the monopoly on violence, there isn't a single amount good done by taxation that isn't immediately negated by an equal harm, primarly in the form of individuals having less money to take care of themselves with, hundreds of thousands of bodies wasted in war, and an endless stream of government benefits that lead to greater government dependency, and thereby growth of the state beyond anything we've ever dreamed of. There's nothing about taxation that increases utility.

how about being exploited by corporations, which are fundamentally amoral, for the maximum gain of a few who couldn't care less about your aspirations and desires. We have genuine wage-slaves that have no time to pursue anything other than their next paycheck, let alone meaningful happiness. That's a genuinely shitty arrangement, not the rich and super-rich being taxed. — ToothyMaw

It is specifically the organization doing the taxaing that has created the possibility for corporations to even exist as they do in their current form. Again, when you give the monopoly on force the power to steal your money in the name of the greater good, which isn't a thing, they immediately put stolen funds to use protecting their interest and creating economic entities that are exstensively protected from competition that would have led to better quality jobs over time. Instead, you get a century of Walmart, and congress keeps deciding how to spend your money.

And if you want to make it about rights: everyone should have a right to a decent minimum standard of living, full-stop. If people can't support themselves or their families or their spouses working multiple jobs, it's time to supplement their income. — ToothyMaw

Absolutely not. There is nothing about your conditions, or anyone else's, that will ever create a warrant on me to provide you with any sustenance. The idea that you would turn first to random strangers who have nothing to do with your life, not to ask, but to demand provisions that require individual labor to accrue, before placing the responsibility on the people that created you (that's mom and dad), or extended relatives that have an immediate fixture in your purview , is beyond anything I can understand. The labor of other individuals is NEVER something that you get to regard as your right. A good way to remember this is to ask yourself if this is something I have to force somebody to do if I can't convince them of doing so of their own free volition. That's your first sign that you have exited the ethical domain.

L'elephant is a person who is within more of the far right culture, so he's probably heard something similar to what you were stating. — Philosophim

You assume too much. My post was gathered 100% from ToothyMaw's OP. I was wondering why no one could get what he was saying.

This is the reason why I avoid political topics -- you get accused of carrying a baggage. Let me assure you that I don't even vote. I don't know what's going on in any government -- except the covid. I never got sick in the year 2019, 2020, and 2021. Maybe because I followed what the medical experts said?

I didn't miss a day of work during those times. Even going to the empty office building to finish some paperwork (this was the time when everyone was working from home). It was fucking scary because all the floors were empty, so motion lighting wasn't being activated. Have you ever stepped out of an elevator to an empty, dark floor? It was holy fuck paranormal-ridden adrenalin to walk around and there was not enough motion to trigger the lights. (Before covid, the building was very busy, elevators took forever to come to you). This is as close as I've gotten to a horror movie.

Sorry to go off on a tangent. Carry on.

Then what do you do? — NOS4A2

I stop and help them. If that’s too hard for you, perhaps a lost child is an easier example. Maybe you struggle with leaving it to the government because you pay taxes— but I don’t.

I wonder what Donald Trump would do.

There is nothing about your conditions, or anyone else's, that will ever create a warrant on me to provide you with any sustenance. — Garrett Travers

Awesome — so first and foremost let’s abolish private property, which is created and protected by state power. There’s nothing about your condition — or anyone else’s — that will ever create a warrant on me to provide you with these protections.

If having enough to eat and live isn’t a right, neither are property rights.

Sociopaths — I mean so called libertarians —usually miss this point, of course.

Government’s purpose: protect private property. Protect private property from foreign and domestic threat. Provide law courts to settle distributes for property owners. The Ayn Rand wet dream.

Awesome — so first and foremost let’s abolish private property, which is created and protected by state power. — Xtrix

No, private property is almost exclusively protected by individual owners, via priavet security, electronic security systems, on hand weapons and defensive means, and regular monitoring of premises that either hold, or serve as property. Here's an article that can put that into perspective: https://www.securitymagazine.com/blogs/14-security-blog/post/96189-law-enforcement-versus-private-security-in-the-united-states#:~:text=According%20to%20U.S.%20labor%20statistics,compared%20to%20666%2C000%20police%20officers . The "private property requires a state," argument is little more than a Marxist misreading of history. In other words, I don't want those imaginary protections. The state has quite literally NEVER protected any peice of my property. States protect their own property, and violate the property rights of individual citizens through taxation, civil asset forfeiture, eminent domain, enclosure, and the authorization of corps that cannot be competed with, or out of business. Again, to abolish private property, you would have to monitor individual behavior and force people not to allocate property and means by which they can produce for their own benefit.

If having enough to eat and live isn’t a right, neither are property rights. — Xtrix

This is where you're having serious trouble. You have a right to live, you do not have a right to my labor so that you may live. It is not your right to dictate that my body to be used as your giver of sustenance, that's called slavery. And, you just contradicted yourself. If you have a right to eat, that means you have a right to property. You canot have your right to property recognized, without also recognizing my right to property, which ensures that you don't get to eat my food, which I accrued through my labor, without my permission. .

Unless you can relate it to the growing noise about supposed wokeness in our military. I feel like these people are testing the waters to see if it will *float. Hopefully it won't. — ToothyMaw

One is an idiot, if someone thinks the below argument will float:

Perino’s Fox News colleague Tucker Carlson brought the issue of wokeness in the military to the forefront when he mocked President Joe Biden for prioritizing things like maternity flight suits and hairstyle regulations for female service members while China was focusing on developing masculinity, building new islands and developing hypersonic missile technology.

But then again, the senile Fox viewers... :roll:

And then there is the reality:

(CNN, Jan 29th, 2022) The Pentagon is preparing to push the CEOs of America's largest defense companies to accelerate hypersonic weapons development by hosting a high-level meeting next week with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The purpose is to "light a fire underneath the entire hypersonic industry" and "encourage industry to pick up the pace," according to two executives at two defense companies who've been invited to attend the meeting which is scheduled for Thursday.

The United States has "a lot of catching up to do very quickly," according to US Space Force Gen. David Thompson, after recent hypersonic weapons tests by China and Russia surprised US national security officials and indicated the US is falling behind their main geopolitical rivals.

Yes. A lot of tax payer money (and new debt) going to the military-industrial establishment. Nothing is more lucrative than government demands for acceleration of a weapons program. Or establish an entire new industry.

We were talking about the poor, just to be sure. But it appears you’re talking someone broken down on the side of the road. Would you extend the same kindness to the homeless in your community, as you would someone who cannot fix their car?

We were talking about the poor, just to be sure. But it appears you’re talking someone broken down on the side of the road. Would you extend the same kindness to the homeless in your community, as you would someone who cannot fix their car? — NOS4A2

No, it would be entirely dependent on the nature of the cause of such pecuniary straits. And I would never help someone on the side of the road as if it were some duty, but only to be kind.

I confess to nostalgia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAHJCPoWCC8

No, private property is almost exclusively protected by individual owners — Garrett Travers

It is not. The rights of private property are gifts from the state. Those rights are also protected by the state. If a bum is on your property, you can call the police. Most people wouldn’t open fire. If a group with greater numbers or greater weaponry wants your land — the state, with their law enforcement and military and technology, will protect you — because the law says you’re the owner.

You’re living in a fantasy.

The "private property requires a state," argument — Garrett Travers

It doesn’t require a state. I never once said that private property is exclusively a product of the state. But I’m not talking about Rome — I’m talking about the world we currently live.

The state has quite literally NEVER protected any peice of my property. — Garrett Travers

But they would if you needed it. As would the courts.

The state has never protected my property from raccoons either— so what?

If having enough to eat and live isn’t a right, neither are property rights.
— Xtrix

This is where you're having serious trouble. You have a right to live, you do not have a right to my labor so that you may live. It is not your right to dictate that my body to be used as your giver of sustenance, that's called slavery. — Garrett Travers

The right to eat and live is just as much a right as property rights — which also requires taxes to support. If we support one, we should support another.

I’d prefer my money go to a starving child, yes. That’s the greater good, in my view. The government, which I fund through taxes, should do this. Not in agreement? Fine — then give up property rights as well, which is also a state supported gift.

What’s slavery is being essentially forced to work for wages. It’s called wage slavery. I have a little say in government — I have zero say when it comes to the profits I generate for the owners I work for. Sociopaths usually have little to say about this dynamic, oddly. I guess it’s really “freedom.” Government is also the real problem, in this fantasy.

You canot have your right to property recognized, without also recognizing my right to property, which ensures that you don't get to eat my food, which I accrued through my labor, without my permission. . — Garrett Travers

I don’t consider food or water “property”.

No one is asking anything from you. If you want to live in a cave, go do it. If you want to be part of society, and contribute to it through taxes — then those resources should go to more than protecting property rights. They should also go to helping children who are starving. Especially in a country of abundance. Most people don’t own property anyway.

Would you extend the same kindness to the homeless in your community, as you would someone who cannot fix their car? — NOS4A2

Yes, and often do. But I’m one person. I know others who do far more than me — and shouldn’t have to, in a country of such enormous wealth and resources. Which is why we should call on our government — and our tax dollars — to help our fellow citizens. I think if we can spend trillions on defense contracts and bank bailouts, we can spread some around to the millions in poverty.

But maybe that’s because I’m not well versed in sociopathic philosophy.

And I would never help someone on the side of the road as if it were some duty, but only to be kind. — Garrett Travers

More Ayn Rand bullshit, as always.

“I feed my kids because I want to — not because it’s the law!”

Yeah, no shit.

I don’t help people because it’s a “duty.” It’s because I’m not a sociopath who thinks everything can be reduced to “trade.”

It is not. The rights of private property are gifts from the state. Those rights are also protected by the state. If a bum is on your property, you can call the police. Most people wouldn’t open fire. If a group with greater numbers or greater weaponry wants your land — the state, with their law enforcement and military and technology, will protect you — because the law says you’re the owner. — Xtrix

This is objectively false and I have provided you a small article on it. Private property is not a gift from the state, it is a demand from the people that, although you can enlist the state to aid you in protecting, is predominantly ensured by private owners. Here is another report on the subject:https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247182.pdf

The right to eat and live is just as much a right as property rights — which also requires taxes to support. If we support one, we should support another. — Xtrix

You have the right to eat and live, you do not have the right to my labor to ensure that you do. And no, taxation is never required for any of this. In fact taxes most of the time ensure people have less money to eat on and fund wars that kill hundreds of thousands, I'll pass.

I’d prefer my money go to a starving child, yes. That’s the greater good, in my view. The government, which I fund through taxes, should do this. Not in agreement? Fine — then give up property rights as well, which is also a state supported gift. — Xtrix

You can give your money to whomever. The government purports to fund this, while also sending billions to foreign countries and funding, again, murderous wars all over the world for decades. And no, my property rights don't vanish because the state stops stealing my money. Come to my home and attempt to steal my property, I'll show you how property rights are ensured.

What’s slavery is being essentially forced to work for wages. It’s called wage slavery. I have a little say in government — I have zero say when it comes to the profits I generate for the owners I work for. Sociopaths usually have little to say about this dynamic, oddly. I guess it’s really “freedom.” Government is also the real problem, in this fantasy. — Xtrix

You aren't forced by any other entity than the state which encloses the entirey of this section of the continent, thereby guaranteeing people of your philosophical leanings cannot erect commons on which you can escape the Free Market and private property. It is not employers forcing you into the market, it is the state.

No one is asking anything from you. If you want to live in a cave, go do it. If you want to be part of society, and contribute to it through taxes — then those resources should go to more than protecting property rights. They should also go to helping children who are starving. Especially in a country of abundance. Most people don’t own property anyway. — Xtrix

No, I'll just do as I please irrespective of whether or not the state is stealing my labor through taxation. Again, private property is not by and large protected by the state, it is predominantly, and it isn't close, protected by individual property owners. As far as children are concerned, yes, if you are going to be stealing money, that is certainly a good place to send it. But, let's not be naive and pretend that is what the state is doing in any comparable way to its spending on military and other mindless fiscal irresponsibilities.

And yes, food is property. If I have possession of an item which I have authority to protect, that constitutes property. Doesn't matter if you view at as such.

“I feed my kids because I want to — not because it’s the law!” — Xtrix

It's like you've never heard of the strawman fallacy. Mind you, that shit doesn't work on me. Feeding one's children is their duty, they created that human against their will and humans are an altricial species, which we know before conceiving child. That isn't even remotely comparable to helping people on the side of the road, or the homeless. And I'll wager to say that you've not read even the first chapter of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, or you wouldn't have said something as radically anti-objectivist as that.

I don’t help people because it’s a “duty.” It’s because I’m not a sociopath who thinks everything can be reduced to “trade.” — Xtrix

Only a sociopath would use objectively true statements as a means to describe someone as a sociopath, in the hopes of having an audience regard you as noble by lionizing the idea of aiding people indiscriminantly, irrespective of whether or not that person were a sociopath themselves. Which is exactly the kind of assessment that is entailed when I say " it will depend on the nature of the cause of such pecuniary straits." I don't have a duty to help anyone, and you are a slave driver if you intend on abusing me into agreeing with your zero-sum philosophy. What you are is a sociopath who thinks that you can help people by being their crutch and preying on their weaknesses for your own self-congratulation. I'd wager to say you haven't given anything like the help you purport to stand for.

I know I repeat myself, but what the hell, that's what we all do, especially here.

There are no rights but legal rights, e.g. rights having the sanction of law, recognized as such, and which may be enforced through the mechanism of the law. It's sad but true, sorry. What we call "rights" if they're not legal rights are what we think should be legal rights, but are not; which we think should be honored, regardless of whether they are. But what we want, what we think we're entitled to, is simply that and no more, absent incorporation into the law--wanabee legal rights. Why speak of them at all, except in the context of seeking their inclusion in the law? As well declare yourself master of the universe (or sovereign citizen, for that matter).

There are no rights but legal rights, e.g. rights having the sanction of law, recognized as such, and which may be enforced through the mechanism of the law. It's sad but true, sorry. What we call "rights" if they're not legal rights are what we think should be legal rights, but are not; which we think should be honored, regardless of whether they are. But what we want, what we think we're entitled to, is simply that and no more, absent incorporation into the law--wanabee legal rights. Why speak of them at all, except in the context of seeking their inclusion in the law? As well declare yourself master of the universe (or sovereign citizen, for that matter). — Ciceronianus

Although you are correct, in the exact same way you'd be correct by saying numbers don't exist, this isn't the proper way of looking at rights. As both rights, as well as numbers are incredibly useful to human flourishing, essential even. Either rights are a commonly understood recognition of the sovereignty of individual boundaries, or, simply put, anything goes. In a world of no rights, one has no business ever arguing for or against any action undertake by a human, as they have no right to do so. That being said, irrespective of such a recognition, I will be ensuring those around me recognize MY sovereign boundaries, as I am not the property of other individuals and will assert my own sovereign boundaries, while respecting the boundaries of those before me. Furthermore, rights are a conceptual framework for which we as rational agents give reasons for upholding, derived by logical consistency, values, and rational justifications. In the world of ethics, rights do not require law for their justification (see appeal to law fallacy). If you have to force your views on people, that's your clue that you are violating everything apropos ethics.