tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post8975011116238815955..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: LIBERTARIAN SUS: Missing the PointPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-5155878620843438692009-04-01T21:54:00.000+13:002009-04-01T21:54:00.000+13:00There is no justification for state interference a...There is no justification for state interference at all, unless force or fraud has been initiated. Who do you exist for? Yourself or the state? It really is that simple.<BR/><BR/>Brings me to one of my many favourite parts in Altas Shrugged. From memory when Mr Mowen is talking to Owen Kellog. Mr Mowen saying he cannot understand why everyone is moving to Colorado, as the government is lazy, and the worst governemnent anywhere. 'It doesn't do anything for the people, it only has police and law courts.'Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04903467016891607013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-29952892887657596032009-04-01T19:46:00.000+13:002009-04-01T19:46:00.000+13:00Thanks, people. Thanks, too, PC for your response...Thanks, people. Thanks, too, PC for your response. It was correct.<BR/><BR/>Tom: Your comment has been answered (ie the issue of property rights), but you've given me an idea for another piece. Thanks! :)<BR/><BR/>Dinther: It is, after all, only a column of 600 words - not 600 sentences, paragraphs or pages. It was just a short commentary on how people appear to miss the heart/point/core - call it what you like - of every issue time & time again.<BR/><BR/>But as for your last comment that questioning govt involvement in our lives, etc is a "difficult point to make", I totally disagree. It's dead easy ... because everything the state runs, it runs badly!<BR/><BR/>You've just got to keep making that point ... ;)Susnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-79113467758632789732009-04-01T09:40:00.000+13:002009-04-01T09:40:00.000+13:00"Well no, surely the justification for state inter...<I>"Well no, surely the justification for state interference in smoking is that there is an externality"</I><BR/><BR/>There is only an externality because the state chooses to subsidise health services for smokers. Gets a bit circular, really.Luke Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09929408708481681826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-80848535130207834412009-03-31T18:12:00.000+13:002009-03-31T18:12:00.000+13:00me, too.me, too.annanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-86273622938593938312009-03-31T17:00:00.000+13:002009-03-31T17:00:00.000+13:00I get the point.I get the point.MichaelFnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-22900093213853704622009-03-31T11:48:00.000+13:002009-03-31T11:48:00.000+13:00TOM: "Well no, surely the justification for state ...TOM: "<I>Well no, surely the justification for state interference in smoking is that there is an externality.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Well, no. The issue was only allowed to develop into arguments over so called "second-hand smoke" in bars because the fundamental issue was ignored, i.e., : "Whose bar is it?"<BR/><BR/>DINTHER: If I may say so, I think you're missing the point. ;^)<BR/><BR/>Susie isn't demonstrating <I>why</I> govt shouldn't get involved in these things (there's only so much you can say in one column); all she's pointing out is that most people assume that point before they start.<BR/><BR/><I><A HREF="http://www.solopassion.com/node/449" REL="nofollow">Perigo and Peikoff make the same point</A>, if you want to see if they do better:<BR/>"Somewhere in his prodigious output Leonard Peikoff tells a hypothetical story that is highly instructive. From memory, it goes like this: A group of men sit around and discuss whether it would be moral to rob a bank. <BR/><BR/>"The discussion rapidly degenerates into competing suggestions as to which bank might be the most practical to rob—which offers the most loot, the most lax security, the quickest escape route, etc.. The issue of whether they should or should not rob a bank becomes an issue of “Which bank are we talking about?” No one speaks up to say, “Wait a minute! We shouldn’t even be having this discussion. Robbing any bank would be wrong! It would represent the taking of other people’s property, without their permission, by force—force initiated by us. <BR/><BR/>"Initiating force is always wrong, if human life is our standard of right and wrong.” To say such a thing would require an ability to derive abstract principles from concrete life experiences and repair to those principles in evaluating possible future actions. It would require the identification of the same distinguishing characteristic in all the proposed robberies—initiated force—and their integration into the concept “wrong,” with a few narrower integrations along the way. Alas, people generally just don’t think that way any more. They don’t think in principles; they don’t integrate—the point of Peikoff’s story.</I>"Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-50321034125196303272009-03-31T11:16:00.000+13:002009-03-31T11:16:00.000+13:00Indeed my pet hate while listening to talkback has...Indeed my pet hate while listening to talkback has to be the moronic attitude of most callers that accept the status quo and then proceed to discuss the advantages and disadvantages on whatever the subject is. Never once will they stop and question why government gets involved in the issue in the first place. It is a difficult point to make Susan and I am afraid your piece doesn't to it well either.Dintherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09444894238003853527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-61608043317688900642009-03-31T11:15:00.000+13:002009-03-31T11:15:00.000+13:00Well no, surely the justification for state interf...Well no, surely the justification for state interference in smoking is that there is an externality. But whether there is or not is a question of science. So surely the science is at least relevant to the debate.TMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18414904167369049978noreply@blogger.com