Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: suckmymuscle on May 10, 2012, 07:17:12 AM
-
Is that control of the individual can yield collective happiness. At the center of all authoritarian ideologies that have resulted in failures, it is the belief that there is some kind of utilitarian benefit for millions of people over the long run if the individual is curtailed in his freedoms, molded into some ideal and forced to work for some common goal that is not chosen by himself, but rather by an "enlightened" committee of government bureaucrats.
Fascism, communism and Nazi ideology all have as the common denominator between them this belief in an utilitarian overall maximization of value for all if the individual sacrifices his free-will for the common good. In fact, all collectivist ideologies have a stong religious underpinning. In common with religion, they promise happiness in exchange for a sort of moral rectitude. Christianity promises as reward Heaven if you behave morally towards others, whilst Communism promises a just and fair kind of Society if the right to own property is withhold from the individual and all property is made public.
But think about it: what is "Society" if not an amalgamation of individuals? And how can any collectivist ideology pretend to know how to maximize happiness for each and every single individual? Happiness can only be maximized at the individual level, and that is best accomplished at the individual level. Having a Society where there are no poor people and everyone has medical coverage can be seen as ideal, but if the money to achieve that comes from taking away, in the form of taxes, from the most affluent in the Society, then such a Society is making life less happy for those who produce more. And how is this benefitting the "common" good if those productive people who are paying for these social programs are part of the word "common" and you are decreasing their affluence by taking away from them? Then, there is the issue of motivation. Suppose you are gifted with extraordinary visuo-spatial skills and, if you worked as an engineer, you could create machines that could make the life of millions of people better, but you don't really care about engineering and what you really want to do is be a musician? Even if you made millions of people happier by pursuing engineering rather than music, you would be making yourself miserable. From the point of view of utilitarianism and maximization of utility, you pursuing engineering does yield more overall happiness, but you are making life miserable for yourself, and who is to say that some maximization of well-being for others is more overall valuable than your own happiness. Also, the overall increase in happiness that the machines created by you as an engineer would give to others, all added up, might not compare to the happiness you would have as an individual if your poursued your dreams.
This is the reason why libertarianism is the only political ideology that makes sense. An ideology that puts the individual above collectives of any sort, and tries to maximize happiness at the individual level. This also implies that happiness at the individual level is maximized by not only giving individuals the highest possible degree of freedom, but also giving them freedom to the highest degree possible up to the point where it starts to infringe upon other people's freedom and not one little bit more. If your freedom starts to somehow restrict the freedom of others, then your freedom stops at the point right where that starts happening.
In the American political lingo, Conservatives and Liberals both restrict freedom irrationally. The only difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are libertarian in the economic sphere but authoritarian in the social sphere; liberals, conversely, are libertarian in the social sphere and authoritarian in the economic sphere. They both seek to supress freedom, and they do it differently. When it is accepted that freedom is better maximized at the individual level, it is accepted that both economic freedom and social freedom are necessary, and that the only acceptable use of restrictions to individual action are those on individual actions that restrict the freedom of others. For instance, you have the freedom to own guns, but if you use those guns to steal money from others, then you are infringing on their individual rights to not be assaulted and also robbed of their money. The only kind of individual restrictionism that is acceptable to libertarianism is the restriction of individual action that limits others' individual actions.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Yo pedro, kindly fuck off, you are not wanted in this saloon anymore.
-
fuck off and leave getbig already.
-
Dead man talking.
-
kid has lost his marbles
-
The Greatest Fallacy In All Of Human History
IS
not allowing public torturing and killing of social deviants that boast of being attracted to children
>:(
-
Oh lookie, it's SMM the pedophile posting.
-
-
Great documentary, bro. I have actually watched all of it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Great documentary, bro. I have actually watched all of it.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Did you watch it in your $2 million dollar beach front condo.....oh wait....
-
Dennis McKenna is shockingly spot on here, very insightful and sad in many ways.
-
Did your master say it was ok to post?
<<Unapproved Slave Post reported>>
-
Is that control of the individual can yield collective happiness. At the center of all authoritarian ideologies that have resulted in failures, it is the belief that there is some kind of utilitarian benefit for millions of people over the long run if the individual is curtailed in his freedoms, molded into some ideal and forced to work for some common goal that is not chosen by himself, but rather by an "enlightened" committee of government bureaucrats.
Fascism, communism and Nazi ideology all have as the common denominator between them this belief in an utilitarian overall maximization of value for all if the individual sacrifices his free-will for the common good. In fact, all collectivist ideologies have a stong religious underpinning. In common with religion, they promise happiness in exchange for a sort of moral rectitude. Christianity promises as reward Heaven if you behave morally towards others, whilst Communism promises a just and fair kind of Society if the right to own property is withhold from the individual and all property is made public.
But think about it: what is "Society" if not an amalgamation of individuals? And how can any collectivist ideology pretend to know how to maximize happiness for each and every single individual? Happiness can only be maximized at the individual level, and that is best accomplished at the individual level. Having a Society where there are no poor people and everyone has medical coverage can be seen as ideal, but if the money to achieve that comes from taking away, in the form of taxes, from the most affluent in the Society, then such a Society is making life less happy for those who produce more. And how is this benefitting the "common" good if those productive people who are paying for these social programs are part of the word "common" and you are decreasing their affluence by taking away from them? Then, there is the issue of motivation. Suppose you are gifted with extraordinary visuo-spatial skills and, if you worked as an engineer, you could create machines that could make the life of millions of people better, but you don't really care about engineering and what you really want to do is be a musician? Even if you made millions of people happier by pursuing engineering rather than music, you would be making yourself miserable. From the point of view of utilitarianism and maximization of utility, you pursuing engineering does yield more overall happiness, but you are making life miserable for yourself, and who is to say that some maximization of well-being for others is more overall valuable than your own happiness. Also, the overall increase in happiness that the machines created by you as an engineer would give to others, all added up, might not compare to the happiness you would have as an individual if your poursued your dreams.
This is the reason why libertarianism is the only political ideology that makes sense. An ideology that puts the individual above collectives of any sort, and tries to maximize happiness at the individual level. This also implies that happiness at the individual level is maximized by not only giving individuals the highest possible degree of freedom, but also giving them freedom to the highest degree possible up to the point where it starts to infringe upon other people's freedom and not one little bit more. If your freedom starts to somehow restrict the freedom of others, then your freedom stops at the point right where that starts happening.
In the American political lingo, Conservatives and Liberals both restrict freedom irrationally. The only difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives are libertarian in the economic sphere but authoritarian in the social sphere; liberals, conversely, are libertarian in the social sphere and authoritarian in the economic sphere. They both seek to supress freedom, and they do it differently. When it is accepted that freedom is better maximized at the individual level, it is accepted that both economic freedom and social freedom are necessary, and that the only acceptable use of restrictions to individual action are those on individual actions that restrict the freedom of others. For instance, you have the freedom to own guns, but if you use those guns to steal money from others, then you are infringing on their individual rights to not be assaulted and also robbed of their money. The only kind of individual restrictionism that is acceptable to libertarianism is the restriction of individual action that limits others' individual actions.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Hey Pedro,
Care to give us your thoughts on Benjamin Franklin? ;D ;)
-
t
-
Dennis McKenna is shockingly spot on here, very insightful and sad in many ways.
Yeah, true. Since the 1960s, unfortunately, post-modernists have relativized everything, and this has resulted in many people to relativize even the value of human life. The sanctity of life is the cornerstone of jurisprudence.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Yeah, true. Since the 1960s, unfortunately, post-modernists have relativized everything, and this has resulted in many people to relativize even the value of human life. The sanctity of life is the cornerstone of jurisprudence.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Get the fuck out of here already man. No one can take your posts seriously anymore..if they ever did...
-
Holy fucking shit, it's not going to happen, every time you ever post something it will get derailed faster than your attempts to solicit underage school children for sex. It's hard to overpower minors when you are a 5'3 manlet named pedro, not with all of the bullshido in the world mother fucker.
-
Yeah, true. Since the 1960s, unfortunately, post-modernists have relativized everything, and this has resulted in many people to relativize even the value of human life. The sanctity of life is the cornerstone of jurisprudence.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
get out of here you pussy ass bitch, you dont know nothins about nothins
-
Don't you have to go spray air freshener on your dad, or masturbate with vaseline or something?
-
Don't you have to go spray air freshener on your dad, or masturbate with vaseline or something?
ROFLMAO
-
TL; DR. :D
-
So this is not a thread on the 1980 olympia?
-
The famous interview with Ayn Rand by Mike Wallace in 1959.
There is a great deal of confusion among people about those who are between libertarians, such as myself, and those who are followers of Ayn Rand.
True libertarianism is about individual freedom and the non-interference of government on others people's lives, with the caveat that individual freedom is allowed to the maximum degree except for coercitive action. All interactions between individuals should be based on the principle of vuluntary action.
But Ayn Rand put a spin on that. She expanded the rights of individuals to corporations and any business or commercial venture, for that matter, but without extending to them legal responsability that the individual human has. That is because only those possesed of sentience can be uphold to their actions.
There is another difference: libertarianism allows for the formation of voluntary associations between individuals, such as nations, and the right to people segregate themselves according to their preferences. Ayn Rand does not. She made the case that the nation-state and other such organizations are irrational atavisms that should be banned, Even if individuals voluntarilly choose to form nations, Rand's objectivism rejects it.
This is why Rand's philosophy causes such strong rejection on people, as it strikes them as selfish. In any way, Rand's ojectivism does share the basic tenents of libertarianism.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
>:(
-
The famous interview with Ayn Rand by Mike Wallace in 1959.
There is a great deal of confusion among people about those who are between libertarians, such as myself, and those who are followers of Ayn Rand.
True libertarianism is about individual freedom and the non-interference of government on others people's lives, with the caveat that individual freedom is allowed to the maximum degree except for coercitive action. All interactions between individuals should be based on the principle of vuluntary action.
But Ayn Rand put a spin on that. She expanded the rights of individuals to corporations and any business or commercial venture, for that matter, but without extending to them legal responsability that the individual human has. That is because only those possesed of sentience can be uphold to their actions.
There is another difference: libertarianism allows for the formation of voluntary associations between individuals, such as nations, and the right to people segregate themselves according to their preferences. Ayn Rand does not. She made the case that the nation-state and other such organizations are irrational atavisms that should be banned, Even if individuals voluntarilly choose to form nations, Rand's objectivism rejects it.
This is why Rand's philosophy causes such strong rejection on people, as it strikes them as selfish. In any way, Rand's ojectivism does share the basic tenents of libertarianism.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE OMRB!!! YOU SIR ARE A FUCKIN PEDOPHILE AND A BITCH!!
-
..and a beastophile(chicken fucker)
-
Didn't read.
Hey Lt. Colonel, can you elaborate more on your time in Operational Detatchment Delta?
-
Disagree.
-
Personally, I thought it was a well thought out, clear and concise post.
-
Personally, I thought it was a well thought out, clear and concise post.
taxation and the creation of social welfare programs such as the military, police, healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc does not impede on anyone's rights. it is only the progressive, mixed market, socialistic capitalism that can create a society where the ability of the rich and powerful to bankrupt the people is significantly effected and where the poor can attain unlimited wealth and are not bound by their poverty. it is public education and business regulations and our vast infrastructure that creates our modern economy. take any one of them away and the results will be damaging.
-
if allegations are true, this is truly a disgusting, depraved individual
-
if allegations are true, this is truly a disgusting, depraved individual
Allegations???? HE POSTED the shit himself....
-
Hi Captain Obvious.