tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post1399652973475358816..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: A message from Ayn Rand [updated]Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-5735724884774254892013-11-01T02:41:40.785+13:002013-11-01T02:41:40.785+13:00Holden
Quoting, "I've thought on it and ...Holden<br /><br />Quoting, "I've thought on it and I'm truely contrite."<br /><br />Two lies in one sentence! You've provided more proof that you are a liar.<br /><br />Amit<br /><br /><br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28582499384952886252013-10-31T22:04:52.668+13:002013-10-31T22:04:52.668+13:00Amit, I've thought on it and I'm truly con...Amit, I've thought on it and I'm truly contrite. You and you're views are obviously universally endorsed and respected, and there are in fact only two people (who knows, perhaps only one) who would not agree with your contention that proponents of publicly owned roads are akin to rapists and murderers. I realise the error of my ways. Sorry to have upset and confused you so. You are a mighty, mighty individual representing only yourself. Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-86510990005613353582013-10-31T19:51:31.749+13:002013-10-31T19:51:31.749+13:00Larry
There were certain similarities, hence I as...Larry<br /><br />There were certain similarities, hence I asked (examples included exaggerated emotionalism, faux outrage, blind belief in childish mythologies, lack of substance and so on).<br /><br />Something you ought to think about. You write, "...I can tell you there will be plenty more." Even expressing something as simple as that of dislike you need to conjure up imaginary supporters- not just one or two but plenty. Now there's an obvious tell. Seems you are too weak to back yourself, too frightened to stand for yourself- even behind a keyboard. You demonstrate a need to make yourself seem bigger and more important to yourself than you actually are. Remember this, little one, even if you happen to stumble across like minded febriles from time to time, you won't be able to rely on them for the sustenance or security you seek. In the end you represent no-one else. You speak only for yourself. Think on it.<br /><br />Amit Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-60400716424275123962013-10-30T10:44:10.565+13:002013-10-30T10:44:10.565+13:00No. Two separate people who think you're fucke...No. Two separate people who think you're fucked in the head. And I can tell you there will be plenty more.Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-75963157917496480092013-10-29T12:45:24.328+13:002013-10-29T12:45:24.328+13:00Larry
You and Holden wouldn't happen to be on...Larry<br /><br />You and Holden wouldn't happen to be one and the same person?<br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-5049720467451663042013-10-29T12:17:33.105+13:002013-10-29T12:17:33.105+13:00@ B Whitehead: It can be argued that any given roa...@ B Whitehead: It can be argued that any given road could be privatised in theory, but every road in the country? It would be an absolute nightmare. And ironically, bureaucrats would get the blame for allowing it to happen.<br /><br />@ Amit: Each response from you just makes you look more fucked in the head. A public road is like someone's daughter that everybody gets to rape!? The best thing you could do for the libertarian cause would be to STFU. <br /><br />@ Fentex: Don't hold your breath waiting for a libertarian to 'draw the line'. They are worried that doing this will contradict their principles such as 'regulation bad, private enterprise good'. Notice how a libertarian will never admit to regulations preventing incidents such as industrial disasters.Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-92224525365089356432013-10-29T07:01:52.648+13:002013-10-29T07:01:52.648+13:00God you're boring, Amit. You're so mental...God you're boring, Amit. You're so mentally deficient you've had to adopt this ridiculous boilerplate philosophy which gives you rote answers to complex issues in the vain hope of understanding the world. You then insist on ramming this down everyone's throats. It's so warped your view you're like the nutty Christian who sees the End of Dayz just around the corner.<br /><br />When it's pointed out the consequences of your ideology is needless and preventable death and maiming you fall back on abuse, calling people rapists, for instance.<br /><br />"if you wish to ride a motorcycle drunk without a helmet no-one other than the owner of the road you want to ride on has a right to stop you."<br /><br />The road is collectively owned, sucker.<br /><br /> <br />Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-88555951855174511782013-10-28T21:18:27.675+13:002013-10-28T21:18:27.675+13:00Readers
The answer to the questions put to Holden...Readers<br /><br />The answer to the questions put to Holden are clear. He ought to have been honest enough to have addmitted he wants his standards imposed, that when he measures "all right" and "unnecessary" it is according to his personal feelings. He didn't admit this because he is not an honest person. Fundamentally Holden is a creature of completely arbitrary whim and emotion. There is nothing of substance whatsoever. There is absolutely nothing of substance to the boy. Nevertheless Holden seeks compliance with his aesthetic and his values by all other people. The trouble with this is encountered as soon as other people do not agree with him and do not prefer to do as he demands. For example, many many people prefer not to use seatbelts when driving,while many many more prefer to drive quicker than the speed limit sign says. At that point he likes to see force imposed and see those people coerced, hurt even, but since he is far too weak and inferior to do that himself (he'd soon learn the benefits of not interfering in other people's business were he to personally make attempt to force them to do things) he prefers a third party, an institution, do the wet work. Then he kids himself that he shares in its authority. He is in the right, those other people were wrong and the institution acts in support of his ideal, so he pretends. The boy sure is in for a surprise! <br /><br />All over the world, everywhere I have travelled in the west and elsewhere the nation state and its governments and financial systems are in full collapse. There are some terrible risks during these times of instability. All sorts of previously suppressed issues are coming to prominence to tear collectivist institutions asunder. There is real risk of dangerous widespread violence and war. This is where the worthlessness of Holden's loyalty to conventional political mythology is going to come unstuck. As stated, he is in for a big surprise. When he demands (and really needs) support from the institutions in which he places his belief and when it really counts that he receive it, he'll get nawt! Watch and see.<br /><br />Meanwhile the best means of avoiding violence in your life (or at least minimising it) is to recognise individual rights consistently. That means the negative obligations of not initiating violence on others (even ones you do not agree with) and that means not trying to control or take over their property or person even if their standards, aesthetics and politics differ from yours. In the case of Larry's wealthy Russian road owner, it means that if he does not want to let you use his road you must not. It means that if his daughter does not want to have sex with you, you cannot force her to. It means that if you wish to ride a motorcycle drunk without a helmet no-one other than the owner of the road you want to ride on has a right to stop you. It means minding your business, not trying to control other people's lives, not collectivising them. Leave other people alone. Perfect your own life.<br /><br />Amit <br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-51941258225422635142013-10-28T20:45:04.199+13:002013-10-28T20:45:04.199+13:00Yep I have, smear merchant. Again, not my fault y...Yep I have, smear merchant. Again, not my fault your seriously mediocre intellect won't allow you to process the response. This has gotten boring. You should get a life. Why don't you have a few beers and go out driving as fast as you can without your seatbelt on to prove how free you are?Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-53616310583831824402013-10-28T20:16:09.733+13:002013-10-28T20:16:09.733+13:00Holden, you have not answered the questions. Inste...Holden, you have not answered the questions. Instead you demonstrate that you are a liar. Oh well. <br /> <br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-84875913241822030442013-10-28T17:18:16.119+13:002013-10-28T17:18:16.119+13:00I've answered your silly questions repeatedly,...I've answered your silly questions repeatedly, Amit. Not my fault you have serious issues with comprehension in addition to being a hideous smear merchant.Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-56111767644342668152013-10-28T12:28:40.155+13:002013-10-28T12:28:40.155+13:00Holden
Here is some homework for you. Try and con...Holden<br /><br />Here is some homework for you. Try and concentrate read hard now. You may be able to make some progress (perhaps). <br /><br />First, learn to mind your own business. The question regarding the problem of sovereignty is addressed to Fentex and not to Holden. Fentex mentioned an issue related to sovereignty and he is a thoughful contributor (possibly a legal practitioner even) so I am interested in what he has to say about the problem. On the evidence you have provided in this thread thus far, the topic is above your sparse intellectual abilties (as demonstrated by your total failure to respond to a rather basic enquiry previously submitted to you), hence the sovereignty question is not addressed to you. It is for someone else. That post is written to Fentex. You can tell this is the case as I address him at the start of it. <br /><br />Second, posts for you to respond to are addressed to you, to "Holden". You can see there are posts which I have addressed to you. They have questions for you to try to answer. So far there has been no honest attempt by you. <br /><br />Third, it seems you have a habit of responding to posts addressed to other contributors (such as those to Larry and Fentex) while you fail to provide an honest attempt to answer that which is addressed to you. That is quite revealing about your nature. It is a habit you ought to avoid.<br /><br />Cease your empty bluster and answer the questions I first put to you on 23 Oct and repeaetd several times since. What's the matter- can't you do it? Don't be scared. If you can't answer, just say so. That'd be honest. We could all do with some honesty from you.<br /><br />Here is the enquiry for you to answer yet one more time:<br /> <br />All right" according to whom exactly? By whose standard is "unnecessarily" determined? <br /><br />Amit<br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-36406731923534438542013-10-28T08:34:46.886+13:002013-10-28T08:34:46.886+13:00It can be justified frequently in order to protect...It can be justified frequently in order to protect people from death and injury, for example in the imposition of drink-driving laws. If you don't like it you're free to move somewhere else to preserve your precious "sovereignty". Somalia has nice weather. As for your silly questions, all right according to you, unnecessary according to almost everybody else (ie sane people).Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-59892388063347242302013-10-28T06:44:21.813+13:002013-10-28T06:44:21.813+13:00Fentex
There is something troubling about the deb...Fentex<br /><br />There is something troubling about the debate about where to "draw the line". In order to draw it one must assume sovereignty over other people's lives. <br /><br />What is the derivation of sovereignty over other people? How can that be justified?<br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-43671279381212009682013-10-28T06:26:28.659+13:002013-10-28T06:26:28.659+13:00Holden
Your overwrought puffery has never been a ...Holden<br /><br />Your overwrought puffery has never been a substitute for anything of substance. Why are you unable to exert an honest attempt to address what was asked of you? <br /><br />Repeating the enquiry yet again. <br /><br />"All right" according to whom exactly? By whose standard is "unnecessarily" determined? <br /><br />Amit<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28562087226121607722013-10-27T08:24:30.885+13:002013-10-27T08:24:30.885+13:00I've come across offensive libertarians in the...I've come across offensive libertarians in the past, but none so vile as you, Amit. Saying people who point out the massive flaws in your "arguments" are akin to rapists and murderers is a hideous smear. This is about how your desire to privatise public spaces is nuts, FFS. You've lost the case, so you hit the abuse.Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-19991096127401406392013-10-27T08:20:17.437+13:002013-10-27T08:20:17.437+13:00Holden
Please answer the questions I put to you p...Holden<br /><br />Please answer the questions I put to you previously. They are important to your case.<br /><br />Amit Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-84740607568121259372013-10-27T08:14:00.988+13:002013-10-27T08:14:00.988+13:00Larry
Your fear and bigotry are more than a litt...Larry <br /><br />Your fear and bigotry are more than a little obvious in your writing. You are fearful. Those sentiments don't defend or justify your prejudice though. <br /><br />Quoting you,'...in other words someone has to sacrifice their land so that people can get to their houses. When there is a perfectly good but privately owned road available. A costly nightmare. This is why we have public roads.'<br /><br />You emote that someone may have to sacrifice their land. Consider, the wealthy Russian own his road so why should he have to sacrifice his private property to your demand? According to your sentiments he must do this since he has a "perfectly good" road and the reality is you want to use it for yourself (face it in your scenario you use the neighbours and locals as proxy for yourself). Here you have revealed the mentality of a thief and rapist. It is, ultimately, the mentality of the violent murderer. You disgrace yourself. <br /><br />Applying your unprincipled reasoning with consistency- what else does the Russian possess that is "perfectly good" that you can demand. He has a perfectly good daughter and your loins are itchy. Why should you have to seek an alternative when you could go rape her? After all, she is "perfectly good" and you ought not to have to sacrifice time going to the effort of courting an alternative. <br /><br />What you are trying to justify is the idea that if someone else posesses something, and it would be more convenient to you to take to your own use, then you ought to be allowed to. Why should the wealthy Russian be forced to make sacrifice to your convenience? <br /><br />' "alternative modes" like a helicopter?'<br /><br />I did give you a short list of possibilities in a previous post. I recommended that you look them up. Clearly you prefer to roiling in self-indulgent ignorance. There are alternatives (including other roads). That you are unaware or refuse to consider any of them is a demonstration of your shortcomings, no-one else's. That you are ignorant is not a justification of infringements against other people's property.<br /><br />'Made his fortune in the oil industry'<br /><br />......by trading with other people. He'd be well aware that you can't make money for oil without trading it. To retain his business interests and wealth he must trade (even if he cashes it all up and invests the money he must enter trade). He'd be well aware of how he needs to behave in order to preserve his financial position and how he needs to deal with others (no govenment intervention in the economy remember). <br /><br />Quoting you again, 'He doesn't have to 'trade' with his neighbours. They could make access for him difficult but then he would take them to court and inevitably a billionaire will win any lawsuit.'<br /><br />You are making disparaging comment about the state of the public owned court system and laws in New Zealand. The inefficiencies and injustices of that public system system do not expunge individual property rights. They are not a valid justification of your denial of private property rights (including for wealthy Russian immigrants). <br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-62122599531101473232013-10-26T20:38:04.377+13:002013-10-26T20:38:04.377+13:00And all these expensive complex legal arrangements...And all these expensive complex legal arrangements, the hassle and inefficiency is better than publicly owned roads and guaranteed access how exactly, my swivel-eyed ideologues?Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-40470367217927759822013-10-26T18:03:52.785+13:002013-10-26T18:03:52.785+13:00So some Russian Billionaire could buy a piece of l...So some Russian Billionaire could buy a piece of land or Queen st for that matter & buy up all the neighbouring roads etc, & ramp up the prices etc. <br />In the case of the Russian neighbours, one of them can simply make a deal with the others to provide land access, ie contribute towards maintenance etc. Incidentally a relative of mine had a house on maori land with a private road & that is what they did collectively.<br />All that means in the case of queen st is that the cost of buying anything there is expensive because of the road tolls, parking etc. Why would you want to go there?, just go shopping somewhere else...<br /><br />B WhiteheadAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-87049770943174546132013-10-26T11:23:38.200+13:002013-10-26T11:23:38.200+13:00Amit, you are an idiot. You still haven't got ...Amit, you are an idiot. You still haven't got my point even though I made it clear enough for a child to understand. Though I suspect it will be futile, I'm going to try one last time.<br /><br />My example with the Russian billionaire was to show what can potentially happen with privatised roads. If all you saw was xenophobia, envy etc then you are a moron.<br /><br /> "alternative accessways" in other words someone has to sacrifice their land so that people can get to their houses. When there is a perfectly good but privately owned road available. A costly nightmare. This is why we have public roads.<br /><br />"alternative modes" like a helicopter? yeah I can't see any problems with that solution.<br /><br />"he can only get rich by supplying people what they will voluntarily trade for" He is already rich you idiot! Made his fortune in the oil industry. He doesn't have to 'trade' with his neighbours. They could make access for him difficult but then he would take them to court and inevitably a billionaire will win any lawsuit.<br /><br />This kind of mess doesn't happen today because we have public roads. Thank fuck for that! Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-11273393470535997222013-10-26T02:49:35.206+13:002013-10-26T02:49:35.206+13:00if your standard is "personal safety" (o...<i>if your standard is "personal safety" (or whatever it was you posited). Are these regulations not the logical consequence of your standard?</i><br /><br />Protection from other people is merely a base I think every one would agree with - I think we all agree others freedom to swing their arms stops at our noses. It is however not a standard from which I think all regulation is, or ought be, derived.<br /><br />Being able to list any number of examples of over-broad or what I may agree are silly regulations does not answer questions about where the line lies between acceptable regulation that does not infringe on personal liberty (which I suspect is a impossible concept if one thinks individual liberty includes all non-violent acts) and unacceptable regulations that infringes on personal liberty.<br /><br />It can't be that one simply doesn't accept regulation that restricts one self while being happy when others are constrained.<br /><br />And I presume few reading here think it's acceptable that anything imagined by authority is appropriate by dint of their election.<br /><br />I suspect an admirer of Ayn Rand on reflection would reconsider supporting the idea that there is any acceptable regulation beyond restricting violence towards others.But if they did, I continue to wonder what standard they would draw the line by.Fentexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-24157422517552314102013-10-25T11:38:27.456+13:002013-10-25T11:38:27.456+13:00Larry
Why are you so frightened of some rich Russ...Larry<br /><br />Why are you so frightened of some rich Russian? Is it xenophobia? Or racism? Or is it just plain envy? Just because a guy is a rich person that does not make him necessarily evil. Just because he isn't a Kiwi man does not necessarily mean he is a malevolent person. <br /><br />Let's say the Russian man, he did buy the roads around his property. So what? The property owners on the other side of the road and all the locals have the option to seek an arrangement with him or, if that fails to eventuate, developing alternative accessways to their properties, alternative routes or alternative modes. Then there is also the issue of what a clever entrepreneur might provide in the circumstances. Of course, should our Russian man prove to be unreasonable in his dealings with his neighbours and the locals, then he could not expect them to prove reasonable or co-operative with him. He'd find access to his piece of road difficult as others refused to co-operate or even deal with him. He'd not be able to drive in or out himself.<br /><br />I remember a situation in the Far North of New Zealand where the local town superette refused to do business with several people due to their unreasonable behaviour and rude treatment of other people in the town. For months these rude people had to drive some 40kms (one way) in order to get their household supplies. Eventually they came to their senses and stopped trying to anger the rest of the residents of the community. They ended up apologising and altering their mode of behaviour. The lesson applies to a rich road owner. Remember, he can only get rich by supplying what people will voluntarily trade value for. If they do not want to trade with him, for whatever reason, then he won't be in a good position for very long.<br /><br />AmitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-30624661267123581422013-10-25T06:47:37.207+13:002013-10-25T06:47:37.207+13:00So where do you stand on drink-driving, motorcycle...So where do you stand on drink-driving, motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws, Mark? What about vehicle safety standards? What you're espousing leads to unnecessary (although Amit thinks it's important) and preventable death. That's a proven fact, regardless of the sophistry of a toxic cougar.Judge Holdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-1441005961292376092013-10-24T23:58:15.089+13:002013-10-24T23:58:15.089+13:00Fentex - It shouldn't surprise me that someone...Fentex - It shouldn't surprise me that someone so enamoured with splitting airs over minor details has difficult in seeing real and substantial differences between things that do matter - such as laws that protect versus those that violate liberty. After all, the person who never takes his eyes of individual trees will never see the forest.<br /><br />If your enquiry is genuine, I sense nothing I can say in this comments section is going to answer the question in your eyes - so all I can suggest is go read some Ayn Rand.<br /><br />If you agree that the examples I gave do take regulation too far - ask yourself how one stops these sort of intrusions if your standard is "personal safety" (or whatever it was you posited). Are these regulations not the logical consequence of your standard? And if you can see that, doesn't this at least tell you on some level you're on the wrong track? Can you see that to "draw the line" at an acceptable point is going to require a fundamental difference in principle, rather than one of degrees?<br /><br />MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.com