The single most important political principle ever

[Gift-of-god]

His own money, yes--but not someone else's, which means he cannot delegate authority over someone else's money to the state.

If I choose not to delegate to the state control over my finances, then the state does not get to decide at all what to do with my money, or to take it from me without my consent.

And I'm not implicitly delegating such authority by choosing to remain in a certain arbitrarily-defined geographic area, because I and not the state am sovereign over my property, and the state has no authority over the land I own except that which I choose to delegate to it--and I am entitled to choose to delegate zero authority over my land to the state if I so desire.

Actuallly, private cororations and individuals do have the authority to use one person's money to help someone else. My bank, for example, takes the money in my savings account and lends it out to people who need investment.

By opening an account, I tacitly consent to having the bank do this.

By becoming a citizen of Canada, I have tacitly consented to having part of my money go to help others.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Peter however has the ability to give money to pay Paul, as well as fund all manner of public works.

His own money, yes--but not someone else's, which means he cannot delegate authority over someone else's money to the state.

If I choose not to delegate to the state control over my finances, then the state does not get to decide at all what to do with my money, or to take it from me without my consent.

And I'm not implicitly delegating such authority by choosing to remain in a certain arbitrarily-defined geographic area, because I and not the state am sovereign over my property, and the state has no authority over the land I own except that which I choose to delegate to it--and I am entitled to choose to delegate zero authority over my land to the state if I so desire.[/quote]
Become self sufficient - if you don't buy anything, you have no sales tax, if you don't earn anything you have no income tax. You would have to purchase your own land, which would have some tax on the sale, but after that, tax free existence. So, you can go do a Galt if you were truely unable to survive in a taxed economy

[Bluth Corporation]

Yes, you are... You delegated authority in accordance with a contract with the state which bears the name "Title Deed"...

The state does not have the authority to unilaterally impose such terms. I did not buy my property from the state, but from its prior owner, so the state is not a party to the deal unless both of us agree to make it so.

[Gift-of-god]

Yes, you are... You delegated authority in accordance with a contract with the state which bears the name "Title Deed"...

The state does not have the authority to unilaterally impose such terms. I did not buy my property from the state, but from its prior owner, so the state is not a party to the deal unless both of us agree to make it so.

Since it is the state which cretaes the legal framework that allows you to own a piece of land, and enforces your right to own it, they are already involved in your ownership of your property. In fact, if you and the previous owner had not delegated some authority to the state, then your contract with the previous owner means nothing, from a legal perspective.

[Tekania]

The state does not have the authority to unilaterally impose such terms. I did not buy my property from the state, but from its prior owner, so the state is not a party to the deal unless both of us agree to make it so.

Actually, you did... Those "Title Deeds" go back and back and back and back and back and back, being divided and merged, through transfer after transfer after transfer to a document called a "Land Patent"... The Land Patent was the transfer of certain rights in conjunction with particular agreements between the State (Which, in the case of the US lands; could be the US Government, the United Kindom, France or Spain...), to the first private owner/claimant of that land, and those rights and agreements are transferred in whole or in part in later transfer of Deed... For example, merely having Deed to an acre of land, does not mean you necessarily own mineral rights on that land... Someone else may own the mineral rights to the land your house sits on...

The Land Patent can be sold or transferred in whole, or broken into Titles (Deeds), which only convey limited rights... For example if I had possession of a Land Patent on a piece of property, I could deed out the surface to one or more people in chunks, and still retain mineral rights, or sell the mineral rights separately to some corporation...

Methinks BC will come down with a case of buyers remorse soon...

[Bluth Corporation]

Actually, you did... Those "Title Deeds" go back and back and back and back and back and back, being divided and merged, through transfer after transfer after transfer to a document called a "Land Patent"... The Land Patent was the transfer of certain rights in conjunction with particular agreements between the State

Which never possessed the authority to dictate such terms or make such decisions or engage in such deals in the first place.

[Tekania]

Which never possessed the authority to dictate such terms or make such decisions or engage in such deals in the first place.

So, you're claiming a property owner does not have the authority over assigning terms to a transfer of said property?

[Gift-of-god]

Actually, you did... Those "Title Deeds" go back and back and back and back and back and back, being divided and merged, through transfer after transfer after transfer to a document called a "Land Patent"... The Land Patent was the transfer of certain rights in conjunction with particular agreements between the State

Which never possessed the authority to dictate such terms or make such decisions or engage in such deals in the first place.

If they had no authority, then they could not have transferred the land to anyone, thus making any subsequent transfers of property invalid, Accordingly, there could be no legal framework for selling or buying land. Is there a way that such a transfer could take place without the state?

[Bluth Corporation]

So, you're claiming a property owner does not have the authority over assigning terms to a transfer of said property?

There's a reason I cut off your post in my quote after the word "State"--to avoid exactly the confusion you seem to be manifesting regardless.

[Bluth Corporation]

Accordingly, there could be no legal framework for selling or buying land. Is there a way that such a transfer could take place without the state?

Yes--just as with any other property, the transfer is a private agreement between two individuals. No state is necessary to legitimize.

The state is not needed in order to make the transfer "valid" or "proper" or "legitimate," but only to help protect the claims of the legitimate owner after he acquires the property.

The absence of a state to help me protect my claims to my legitimately-held property in no way diminishes the legitimacy of my ownership of the property; it just means that it might be easier for others to get away with things they have no legitimate authority to do because they are not the legitimate owners of the property.

[Tekania]

So, you're claiming a property owner does not have the authority over assigning terms to a transfer of said property?

There's a reason I cut off your post in my quote after the word "State"--to avoid exactly the confusion you seem to be manifesting regardless.

No confusion on my part, I think property owners have the authority to dictate terms of a transaction... Regardless whether that property owner is a collective (state) or individual...

Your problem, is you start off with a false premise, that the state can never have any authority what-so-ever unless you give it such... Problem is, WE gave it such before you were around, and by you operating you are agreeing to our terms... And at any point you are absolutely free for you to leave, because we were already here...

See, your problem is a you problem, we are just fine...

[Gift-of-god]

Accordingly, there could be no legal framework for selling or buying land. Is there a way that such a transfer could take place without the state?

Yes--just as with any other property, the transfer is a private agreement between two individuals. No state is necessary to legitimize.

The state is not needed in order to make the transfer "valid" or "proper" or "legitimate," but only to help protect the claims of the legitimate owner after he acquires the property.

The absence of a state to help me protect my claims to my legitimately-held property in no way diminishes the legitimacy of my ownership of the property; it just means that it might be easier for others to get away with things they have no legitimate authority to do because they are not the legitimate owners of the property.

So, then how would it be done? How would you have any legitimacy if there is no state to recognise it? You could tell yourself that you have 'legitimacy', but unless you have a community of people recognising it, i.e the state or scoiety, your "legitimacy' is as valid as anyone else's claim to your land.

[Bluth Corporation]

Problem is, WE gave it such before you were around

But you never had any authority over me to delegate away in the first place, so it doesn't matter.

[Bluth Corporation]

So, then how would it be done? How would you have any legitimacy if there is no state to recognise it?

Objective moral principle, which is infinitely superior to any state created by men.

[Phenia]

So, then how would it be done? How would you have any legitimacy if there is no state to recognise it?

Objective moral principle, which is infinitely superior to any state created by men.

And there you have it. This entire thread was nothing more than a charade for BC to pump his usual A=A "objective moral principle" garbage.

There is no argument here. Not that I'll stop anyone from arguing with Bluth "Na uh" Corporation for the next hundred pages. Good luck with that.

[Gift-of-god]

So, then how would it be done? How would you have any legitimacy if there is no state to recognise it?

Objective moral principle, which is infinitely superior to any state created by men.

Objective moral principles do not really exist. Ayn Rand's attempt to create one based on reason has the flawed premise that reason is the only way we can acquire knowledge. This is obviously untrue as we all acquire the knowledge of how to walk and talk through experience and trial and error, not through our use of reason.

But let us ignore that for now and pretend that they do exist. What would ensure that the community would recognise and participate in this morality rather than one that lets them ignore your claims to legitimacy?

[Bluth Corporation]

Objective moral principles do not really exist. Ayn Rand's attempt to create one based on reason has the flawed premise that reason is the only way we can acquire knowledge.

Your attempt to discredit Objectivist ethics has the flawed premise that Ayn Rand held to the (indeed flawed) premise that reason is the only way we can acquire knowledge.

[Gift-of-god]

Objective moral principles do not really exist. Ayn Rand's attempt to create one based on reason has the flawed premise that reason is the only way we can acquire knowledge.

Your attempt to discredit Objectivist ethics has the flawed premise that Ayn Rand held to the (indeed flawed) premise that reason is the only way we can acquire knowledge.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues…
— Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

(Emphasis mine) That was the premise I gathered from her words.

[FreeAgency]

Objective moral principle, which is infinitely superior to any state created by men.

I was going to go into a detailed arguement dismantling your arguement - that authority over the invidual rests exclusively with the individual - on the grounds that clearly some indivduals do have authority over others. Does a baby have authority over itself, or do its parents? How about children? Should they be permited to do as they see fit? Stay up all night? Eat only candy? Not go to school? Or do their parents have authority over them, to (hopefully) make them do what is in their ultimate best interest? What of those with mental disorders? And if you were arguing on ethical grounds, then how could any any arugement that would result in the self-annihilation of an entire generation be called 'moral?' Etc.

But this thing that you now present is a far greater flaw. For the sake of expedience I'll just go ahead and say that Ayn Rand's inept attempt at creating objective morality is not worth your time. If you want a much sounder philosophy you should read the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant and go from there. You could even attempt, as I have, to derive some sort of objective moral code from human social instict; this too is doomed to failure as our social insticts seem to at best only provide a foundation upon which individual moral codes (subject to the whims of society) are constructed. With very few exceptions, you would only be able to make very generalized statements regarding what humans typically find socially acceptable or unacceptable, which isn't terribly useful for making concrete statements like yours.

One thing that you cannot do, however, is suggest that there exists an objective moral principle, and then go about making other points using this principle as though it were an obvious truth. Thousands of philosophers for thousands of years have struggled to disern an objective moral princial, and only a handful have even come close enough to make a fairly compelling arguement for one. Kant tried for ages and was only moderately successful, Rand was only successful in business circles because the enormous gaps in her reasoning prevent her from being taken seriously by most philosphers.

But go ahead, wow me. If you think your smarter then these two, demostrate to us your reasoning prowess. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; and thats what you need, because what your suggesting isn't just effectively the holy grail of philosophy, but would also fundamentally reshape our understanding of government, society, and humantiy.

I eagerly await your responce.

[Tekania]

Problem is, WE gave it such before you were around

But you never had any authority over me to delegate away in the first place, so it doesn't matter.

We never delegated your authority... You did by contractural agreements with the state. Seriously, if you don't want the states involvement with land, then go somewhere where they are not. We are under no obligation to change the entirety of society for one conceited prick.

[Tekania]

So, then how would it be done? How would you have any legitimacy if there is no state to recognise it?

Objective moral principle, which is infinitely superior to any state created by men.

"Objective moral principle" does not exist...


Its an artificial construct that you base your entire philosophy upon. We are under no obligation to recognize that which does not exist...

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy.

No, that's the problem - it does.

[Melkor Unchained]

I don't know if BC will point this out or not, but Objectivism != Anarchy.

No, that's the problem - it does.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing I've probably read 6-8 times more Objectivist literature than you have, as I was an adherent of the philosophy for some time. Objectivism is not anarchy, sorry. Do more research.

[Grave_n_idle]

No one is transferring the authority to "rob" someone...

I've noticed that Bluth constantly shifts the goalposts, and then just doesn't respond to anything that he can't answer.

So - pointing out that this argument is a strawman is reasonable, but ultimately fruitless.

[Melkor Unchained]

So - pointing out that this argument is a strawman is reasonable, but ultimately fruitless.

Just a note, 'Objectivism = Anarchy' is a straw man.