- Joined
- Jan 8, 2017
- Messages
- 19,012
- Reaction score
- 5,286
- Location
- new zealand.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I can't figure out what she said even I quoted it? :lamo You're full of nonsense, you know.
You gave a weak explanation that has more to do with giving people birthday presents than anything rand had to say. Then you give rands words which effectively is her own opinion without any sources to back up her interpretation of the word. In other words an echo box dialogue. She feeds on her own thoughts in that rather uninspired quote you gave.
If that really is your best shot then it is quite clear that you read rand like many christians read a bible. Without concern for any understanding just the ability to parrot the words back.
Nope. I asked two questions to cut through the **** and then provided a quote to prove myself correct. The first question you answered in exactly the same way Ayn Rand would and the second you avoided. The quote you basically did the same thing you did with the second question. Anything else?
Also, I don't care if she is correct or not since I'm not here to defend her.
A quote in which she creates a meaning for altruism backed by nothing but her opinion. Or is it a case of religious worship with you. Just because she sai d it it must be true rather than do something intelligent like actually question why she defined altruism as she did.
The first question i answered was nothing more than an example of if we should give people birthday presents. Why would i not agree? The second remains irrelevant without first answering the first.
No of course you are not here to defend her. You are here to make claims about her perfection that you cannot even back or explain in your own words. Parroting her words only demonstrated you could not even find a link that made any real sense. Just some one making stuff up about altruism without any means of showing how she came about that meaning.
Basically she calls altruism a bunch of bad names and that apparently is classed as thinking by you.
No need for you to go on. I understand that you do not understand altruism let alone rand. And the lack of any libertarians ready to defend her is good to see. She is dead, let us leave her to rot in her grave in peace.
Perhaps you should think before opening your mouth and claiming her perfection which you do not seem to be able to give an example of or support in your own words.I don't give a crap if it's true or not. What part of "I'm not a supporter of Ayn Rand" do you not understand? Maybe you should be having this discussion with a follower of her ideology instead of me.
.
I agreed only to giving birthday presents which is what you described.Which of course you agreed with her on the first question and the second question you avoided entirely. I imagine you avoided it because you knew at that point you would be caught agreeing with her on the subject. lol
Why? As i said rands altruism is basic 101 rand. If you cannot even handle that i would hate to what kind of mess you might make of the rest.I said that what I agreed with her on she said perfectly. That doesn't mean I agree with her on everything or that you can just pick something at random to get me. Maybe you should have started by asking me what I agree with her on instead of just picking something at random.
No, you just claimed she said it perfectly, yet the snippet you gave has more in common with someone making stuff up to suite themselves.I didn't say I agree or disagree with anything she said on the subject. :shrug:
Defend her?? I ask no one to attempt the impossible. I asked someone to explain why she is no longer the patron saint of libertarianism.We have no need to defend her nor does it matter even slightly if you think she was accurate on the matter
Perhaps you should think before opening your mouth and claiming her perfection which you do not seem to be able to give an example of or support in your own words.
I agreed only to giving birthday presents which is what you described.
Why? As i said rands altruism is basic 101 rand. If you cannot even handle that i would hate to what kind of mess you might make of the rest.
No, you just claimed she said it perfectly, yet the snippet you gave has more in common with someone making stuff up to suite themselves.
Defend her?? I ask no one to attempt the impossible. I asked someone to explain why she is no longer the patron saint of libertarianism.
Ace300 said:The social contract does not meet the elements of a contract, as such it is not a contract.
The social contract has never been argued in court and therefore never been sustained in court either.
If you are going to make legal arguments, it would help if you had some evidence.
I guess you never heard of FDR. :roll:
When Franklin Roosevelt Clashed with the Supreme Court ? and Lost | History | Smithsonian
Ace300 said:So pick a tax, and tell me who the injured party is.
This link sums it up.
Ace300 said:Please reference the court case.
Geoist said:For what?
Not directly, no. The argument on the pro-regulation side is that regulation limits/prevents injured parties.
ace300 said:So you don't know of any court cases then where the claim was made that not paying taxes is an injury to the public and it was upheld by the courts?
It is by default.
Well, if you can figure out how to do it without the IRS breathing down your neck, no one.
Ace300 said:I am not sure why you think I am laughably wrong. I never claimed the government thugs would listen to reason. Politicians are people that are good at one thing, and that is winning a popularity contest. Lawyers and judges are just people that went to school and passed an exam. It doesn't mean they understand law or reason.
It means they know more about it than you.
You didn't answer the question.
Well, since U.S. courts can only hear cases, and since there is no injured party for not paying taxes, we could get rid of the welfare system if a large portion of the population would stop paying taxes and fight it based on the grounds of no jurisdiction. The United States government did fine with no income taxes up until 1861.
The state becomes the injured party in criminal offenses. As California claims "The People of California" or however they phrase it. The state (government) claims to be "the people", the injured party. I agree it is a bit of sentimental sophistry, but that's what they do.
Using a drug offense as an example, the government claims to be the injured party, if nothing else by implication, if a person charged possesses a forbidden drug. I do agree it's nonsense, but they do it.
Using murder as an example, the state claims to be representing the dead person or his family. In a real crime such as murder or assault or thievery, that is a reasonable and fair representation. Unfortunately, our criminal codes these days have more specious crimes than real ones.
Thus in a murder case the state has standing for it represents the injured party.
I did you just do not understand legal or political science concepts.
And yet it has never been argued and upheld that I know of that the state has been injured.
And yet it has never been argued and upheld that I know of that the state has been injured.
Your link does not reference a court case where the argument was made and upheld that there was an injured party for not paying a tax.
Please, pick a tax, and provide a case where the argument was made that by not paying the tax, there was an injured party.
It doesn't matter what the pro-regulation side thinks.
regulations are not enforceable by U.S. courts (i.e. by law).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?