The single most important political principle ever

[The Grand World Order]

6 / 0 = OH SHIT DIVIDE BY ZERO

[Gauthier]

So nice to be able to assume what we are going to prove isn't it?

We assume authority has a value of 0 thus we get to prove that authority has a value of 0.

It's also funny how Randroids who claim Government Authority is 0 can't logically explain why at the exact same time, Corporate Authority isn't 0 in the exact same spot.

[Buffett and Colbert]

What? Unless I've been failing math all this time...

You've just been assimilated bythe Collective, Buffy. It's okay, don't worry, so has almost everyone else, except John Galt and the other "men of the mind" like him.

Buffy will take your word for it.

[Seculartopia]

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

O*a=o

No matter what.

[Natapoc]

What? Unless I've been failing math all this time...

You've just been assimilated bythe Collective, Buffy. It's okay, don't worry, so has almost everyone else, except John Galt and the other "men of the mind" like him.

Buffy will take your word for it.

This thread needs some "borg" music/threats playing in the background. You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile! We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us!

Or as the Borg queen said in unimatrix zero part 2 "Assimilation turns us all into friends." Don't you like having friends?

[Iniika]

Where can I buy one authority? Do I get a discount if I buy 10?

[Tekania]

So nice to be able to assume what we are going to prove isn't it?

We assume authority has a value of 0 thus we get to prove that authority has a value of 0.

It's also funny how Randroids who claim Government Authority is 0 can't logically explain why at the exact same time, Corporate Authority isn't 0 in the exact same spot.

Oh oho hohohohohoh ohohh [jumps up and down raising his hand]

I know the answer to that...

It's because their logic and reason contains neither logic nor reason... (1+1)/(0+0) = 2 / 0 =

[The Naked Ape]

What? Unless I've been failing math all this time...

You've just been assimilated bythe Collective, Buffy. It's okay, don't worry, so has almost everyone else, except John Galt and the other "men of the mind" like him.

Buffy will take your word for it.

This thread needs some "borg" music/threats playing in the background. You will be assimilated! Resistance is futile! We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us!

Or as the Borg queen said in unimatrix zero part 2 "Assimilation turns us all into friends." Don't you like having friends?

We are the Rand. You will be 'integrated'. Resistance is irrational. We will add your philosophical and psychological distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service John Galt.

[Natapoc]

So nice to be able to assume what we are going to prove isn't it?

We assume authority has a value of 0 thus we get to prove that authority has a value of 0.

It's also funny how Randroids who claim Government Authority is 0 can't logically explain why at the exact same time, Corporate Authority isn't 0 in the exact same spot.

Oh oho hohohohohoh ohohh [jumps up and down raising his hand]

I know the answer to that...

It's because their logic and reason contains neither logic nor reason... (1+1)/(0+0) = 2 / 0 =

Who is to say that so called "reason" or "logic" is any more valid then love or anger or any other human construct which can be used to understand the world? Just because his ideas are not founded on "logic" does not make them "wrong."

Why has the "collective" decided to enforce "reason" on the individual? What right or authority do the masses have to judge an individual who rejects reason?

[Pevisopolis]

Since when did the zero property of multiplication become a "political principle," let alone "the single most important ever?"

I was waiting for somebody to ask this question.

I cannot delegate to the state authority I do not have. If I have zero authority to do a particular act on my own, and everyone else does as well, then altogether we have zero authority to do it, which means the state cannot ever have the authority to do it either.

And you expected us to understand that relation with a series of X*0 Problems?

You're high.

[FreeAgency]

So nice to be able to assume what we are going to prove isn't it?

We assume authority has a value of 0 thus we get to prove that authority has a value of 0.

It's also funny how Randroids who claim Government Authority is 0 can't logically explain why at the exact same time, Corporate Authority isn't 0 in the exact same spot.

Oh oho hohohohohoh ohohh [jumps up and down raising his hand]

I know the answer to that...

It's because their logic and reason contains neither logic nor reason... (1+1)/(0+0) = 2 / 0 =

Who is to say that so called "reason" or "logic" is any more valid then love or anger or any other human construct which can be used to understand the world? Just because his ideas are not founded on "logic" does not make them "wrong."

Why has the "collective" decided to enforce "reason" on the individual? What right or authority do the masses have to judge an individual who rejects reason?

Because societies that employ liberal use of reason are more successful then those who reject it. Irrationality doesn't build computers, missiles, cars, or nukes. Thus natural selection dictates that irrationality is a liability.

Also, strictly speaking, while an idea not founded on logic is not morally wrong, and may not even be factually wrong, it has a very low probability of being verifiably true.

[Natapoc]

So nice to be able to assume what we are going to prove isn't it?

We assume authority has a value of 0 thus we get to prove that authority has a value of 0.

It's also funny how Randroids who claim Government Authority is 0 can't logically explain why at the exact same time, Corporate Authority isn't 0 in the exact same spot.

Oh oho hohohohohoh ohohh [jumps up and down raising his hand]

I know the answer to that...

It's because their logic and reason contains neither logic nor reason... (1+1)/(0+0) = 2 / 0 =

Who is to say that so called "reason" or "logic" is any more valid then love or anger or any other human construct which can be used to understand the world? Just because his ideas are not founded on "logic" does not make them "wrong."

Why has the "collective" decided to enforce "reason" on the individual? What right or authority do the masses have to judge an individual who rejects reason?

Because societies that employ liberal use of reason are more successful then those who reject it. Irrationality doesn't build computers, missiles, cars, or nukes. Thus natural selection dictates that irrationality is a liability.

Also, strictly speaking, while an idea not founded on logic is not morally wrong, and may not even be factually wrong, it has a very low probability of being verifiably true.

more "successful?" What does that even mean? The reasons you give for supporting "reason" sound like good reasons to reject it to me: Missiles and nukes? Is that what reason gives us? And who cares if an idea is "verifiably true"? Why would that even matter if you don't assume logic as the most important?

If being an "objectivist" makes a person feel happy then why should the collective insist on making them think rationally?

[New Kereptica]

People have authority over themselves, do they not (If you say they don't, you completely fuck with every personal/property right ever)? Thus, these people can delegate some of this authority over themselves to another. In this case, that "other" is the government.

Also: e^i*pi=-1

OMG NEGATIVE AUTHORITY

[Grave_n_idle]

People have authority over themselves, do they not (If you say they don't, you completely fuck with every personal/property right ever)? Thus, these people can delegate some of this authority over themselves to another. In this case, that "other" is the government.

Well, yeah, but then:

0 * 1 = 0
0 * 2 = 0
0 * 299,999,999 = 0
0 * 300,000,000 = 0
0 * 6,000,000,000 = 0

...becomes:

1 * 1 = 1
1 * 2 = 2
1 * 299,999,999 = 299,999,999
1 * 300,000,000 = 300,000,000
1 * 6,000,000,000 = 6,000,000,000

...and then the ideology that Bluth was trying to present as a logical extension... is shown to be mere tampering with the figures to promote a lie.


Obviously, the right thing to do, is fake the numbers, for the greater good. (Except that sounds a bit commie... for 'the good of one', maybe?)

[Tekania]

Why has the "collective" decided to enforce "reason" on the individual? What right or authority do the masses have to judge an individual who rejects reason?

Your point would make sense, if it didn't ignore the fact that I had used his own premise against him...

[Conserative Morality]

If being an "objectivist" makes a person feel happy then why should the collective insist on making them think rationally?

Because they have a vote, and thus can influence the way others live with their politics. Therefore, it is in the interest of those who are opposed to his politics to try to change his opinion.

[Natapoc]

If being an "objectivist" makes a person feel happy then why should the collective insist on making them think rationally?

Because they have a vote, and thus can influence the way others live with their politics. Therefore, it is in the interest of those who are opposed to his politics to try to change his opinion.

Oh. Good point. But this only shows how democracy is slavery.

[Conserative Morality]

Oh. Good point. But this only shows how democracy is slavery.

Of course. I keep forgetting that having the opinions of the people represented is so horrible.

[Exilia and Colonies]

What if government is a natural logarithm? Then the less authority you give it the more it ends up with. Now you're screwed

[Rhodmhire]

6 / 0 = OH SHIT DIVIDE BY ZERO

Way to go.

[FreeAgency]

more "successful?" What does that even mean? The reasons you give for supporting "reason" sound like good reasons to reject it to me: Missiles and nukes? Is that what reason gives us? And who cares if an idea is "verifiably true"? Why would that even matter if you don't assume logic as the most important?

If being an "objectivist" makes a person feel happy then why should the collective insist on making them think rationally?

Forgive me, I had assumed by the origonal phrasing of your arguement that your were being amoralistic. Accordingly I provided an amoral answer, that of natural selection.

And you are correct, admittedly success is something of a subjective criterion. To what extent are humans more successful than ants? After all, their total biomass far exceeds our own.

However, using most criteria that people tend to use when measuring the success of a nation, reason tends to prove advantageous.

For instance, yes, missiles and nukes. More scientific (and thus more reasoned) nations tend to be superior to others in war. Although nations that engage in blind irrational fervor can be formidable as well. In either case, it is not that the militarily superior society is "better" then another, simply that it is more competitive; accordingly its ideals will tend to become dominant.

Similarly more scientific (and thus more reasoned) nations tend to have higher life expectancy, and higher quality of life. They tend to be more stable, also. Thus making them more appealing, and thus competitive via peaceful means.

In either case I am not arguing that rationality is "better" then irrationality, mearly more successful and thus more popular. Much as a virulent virus is more successful then an reproductively-inept strain. Or as a type of rat may be successful whereas the dodo was not. Is the rat "better" then the dodo?

If you truely desire me to use moralistic arguements, however, I can provide one:

You ask, "Why has the "collective" decided to enforce "reason" on the individual? What right or authority do the masses have to judge an individual who rejects reason?"

The simple answer being that we live in a society, in which your actions (whatever they may be) have an effect on others. And if you choose to reject rationality and drive on the wrong side of the road, ignoring red lights, and shooting any other driver that irritates you, then you may very well end up killing myself or someone I love. So naturally I would do my utmost to impress upon you that your irrational driving style is unacceptable to me.

That is an extreme example. A more moderate one might be to say that, "by irrationally resisting 'Obamacare'* because he "isn't a real American" you endanger the lives of many uninsured Americans," or, "by refusing to get treatment for x pathogen because you irrationally belive that all disease is caused by demonic possession you endanger the lives of all who come into contact with you."

The point here is that the collectives right to enforce reason is generated by its desire for self-preservation, and that the masses have the right to judge an individual who rejects reason as they pose a very real threat.

For historical referance, look to the so-called "dark ages" for an era in which irrationality was gennerally the norm, and the "enlightenment" for an era in which rationality was popularized.

*Note: I am not saying that there cannot be a rational arguement against 'Obamacare,' only that this one is irrational.

[Natapoc]

Why has the "collective" decided to enforce "reason" on the individual? What right or authority do the masses have to judge an individual who rejects reason?

Your point would make sense, if it didn't ignore the fact that I had used his own premise against him...

And you did such a great job at doing that too I loved it.

Ok, so let's handle this logically...

1. 0 represents the ammount of authority of an invidual
2. 0 * x = 0 represents the authority of a group of people defined by "x"
3. Since the groups authority does not exceed the individuals authority, it is always 0
4. But the individuals authority is 0

Therefore:
1. The individuals authority is always 0 as is the groups
2. No individual possesses authority, and therefore there is no authority under this system to do anything.
3. Since there is no authority to do anything, this includes any authority over property, money, etc.

So Objectivism = 0... which I've always known ZERO

I win...

/thread

[Conserative Morality]

And you did such a great job at doing that too I loved it.

You loved that they 'insisted' on trying to make him think 'rationally'?

[Natapoc]

And you did such a great job at doing that too I loved it.

You loved that they 'insisted' on trying to make him think 'rationally'?

Well yes I do. I think the argument was great with a perfect mix of humor and rationality.

I'm just trying to point out that there are reasons why the OP could reject the rational and that indeed his most "logical" choice would be to make an emotional argument since emotional arguments are less easy to "disprove" using pesky "logic"

Just because I point out the existence of such reasons does not mean that I personally advocate them for myself or others. Why does it matter what I think anyway?

Is this some sort of divide and conqueror strategy to make me stop extending solidarity with the OP?

[Conserative Morality]

Well yes I do. I think the argument was great with a perfect mix of humor and rationality.

But you're supporting the destruction of the ideal that makes him happy.

And like you said, what makes rationality so great?

I'm just trying to point out that there are reasons why the OP could reject the rational and that indeed his most "logical" choice would be to make an emotional argument since emotional arguments are less easy to "disprove" using pesky "logic"

Instead, many people choose to outright reject emotional arguments, because they have no place in a logical debate.

Just because I point out the existence of such reasons does not mean that I personally advocate them for myself or others. Why does it matter what I think anyway?

Because you are a member of society, and therefore have an influence on the State. The State dictates laws, which define how we all live. If your opinions conflict with mine, it's in my best interest to try to get you to change your opinions.

Is this some sort of divide and conqueror strategy to make me stop extending solidarity with the OP?

Hardly. You place too much importance on yourself.