Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Jonny » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:44 pm

D'Souza despite being an immigrant from the 3rd world is one of the sharpest people in taking down the stupid arguments of the left. He exposes the big lie of party switch in the south of racist Democrat politicians allegedly becoming Republicans. The leftist posters suffering with Ostrich syndrome should pay attention to this man on that one point and see if they have any counterpoints.

The law enforced on his actions is a stupid law to begin with, there should no limits on how much someone can donate to a campaign. One has to be full of conceit and contempt of the rest of society to assume he has the right to dictate how much a person can or cannot donate for a cause they believe in. Even if you consider it an offense, putting someone in jail for a non-violent crime is ridiculous.

Like the above poster points out, D'Souza was made an example out of for breaking a stupid law that most find ways to break and it likely has to do with Obama.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:49 pm

Jonny returns to remind us all he has no idea what he's talking about.

In one post he managed to justify and call for the proliferation of corruption while also saying I can steal his car and not go to jail for it so long as I did it without violence.

What else do you have for us, Mr Oracle?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13817
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:53 pm

Stealing a car is a crime of aggression against your property.



Though I don’t believe with everything Jonny says, he clearly has one of the most principled, consistent political platforms of anyone on this site.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6476
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 330 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:57 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Stealing a car is a crime of aggression against your property.



Though I don’t believe with everything Jonny says, he clearly has one of the most principled, consistent political platforms of anyone on this site.

I know how how you view the NAP on thievery. But your buddy doesn't want nonviolent people or people who commit bribery to see the inside of a jail cell.

I guess he'll have to clarify his well thought out position.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13817
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby deltbucs » Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:58 pm

Jonny wrote:D'Souza despite being an immigrant from the 3rd world is one of the sharpest people in taking down the stupid arguments of the left. He exposes the big lie of party switch in the south of racist Democrat politicians allegedly becoming Republicans. The leftist posters suffering with Ostrich syndrome should pay attention to this man on that one point and see if they have any counterpoints.

The law enforced on his actions is a stupid law to begin with, there should no limits on how much someone can donate to a campaign. One has to be full of conceit and contempt of the rest of society to assume he has the right to dictate how much a person can or cannot donate for a cause they believe in. Even if you consider it an offense, putting someone in jail for a non-violent crime is ridiculous.

Like the above poster points out, D'Souza was made an example out of for breaking a stupid law that most find ways to break and it likely has to do with Obama.

Corruption for everyone!!
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:00 pm

It's only corruption if Soros does it.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13817
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Ken Carson » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:24 pm

I mean, ‘enforce every law’ is never anyone’s mantra.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Zarniwoop » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:44 pm

Ken Carson wrote:I mean, ‘enforce every law’ is never anyone’s mantra.



It’s mine. We have plenty of stupid laws on the books that should be overturned. I hate the idea that laws are only enforced when a gov’t agency feels like it. Talk about the possibility of corruption. I’m one of the few that take the unpopular position that even though I think marijuana laws are stupid, I think they should be enforced until they are overturned. And I fully support over turning them. I absolutely hate pick and choose. I know I’ve said this a million times, but I parent the same way. I have far fewer rules then any other parent I know. But the rules I have are steadfastly applied


Mind you, I’m not saying everyone should follow every law. I certainly don’t. I break laws where I think the benefit outweighs the potential costs.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6476
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 330 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby The Outsider » Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:56 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I mean, ‘enforce every law’ is never anyone’s mantra.



It’s mine. We have plenty of stupid laws on the books that should be overturned. I hate the idea that laws are only enforced when a gov’t agency feels like it. Talk about the possibility of corruption. I’m one of the few that take the unpopular position that even though I think marijuana laws are stupid, I think they should be enforced until they are overturned. And I fully support over turning them. I absolutely hate pick and choose. I know I’ve said this a million times, but I parent the same way. I have far fewer rules then any other parent I know. But the rules I have are steadfastly applied


Mind you, I’m not saying everyone should follow every law. I certainly don’t. I break laws where I think the benefit outweighs the potential costs.


I agree with you as well. If a law is on the books the only way to fairly and justly enforce it is to either always enforce it or in the case of an unjust law get it off the books.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby deltbucs » Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:50 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

It’s mine. We have plenty of stupid laws on the books that should be overturned. I hate the idea that laws are only enforced when a gov’t agency feels like it. Talk about the possibility of corruption. I’m one of the few that take the unpopular position that even though I think marijuana laws are stupid, I think they should be enforced until they are overturned. And I fully support over turning them. I absolutely hate pick and choose. I know I’ve said this a million times, but I parent the same way. I have far fewer rules then any other parent I know. But the rules I have are steadfastly applied


Mind you, I’m not saying everyone should follow every law. I certainly don’t. I break laws where I think the benefit outweighs the potential costs.


I agree with you as well. If a law is on the books the only way to fairly and justly enforce it is to either always enforce it or in the case of an unjust law get it off the books.

I don't necessarily disagree. If laws applied to everyone, the laws would probably be less ridiculous.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5137
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 217 times
Been thanked: 303 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Jonny » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:27 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:Jonny returns to remind us all he has no idea what he's talking about.

In one post he managed to justify and call for the proliferation of corruption while also saying I can steal his car and not go to jail for it so long as I did it without violence.

What else do you have for us, Mr Oracle?


Oh MB, my brother from another mother!

Zarni already pointed out the flaw in your argument. Property rights are an integral part of your right to live free without coercion from other individuals. Classical liberalism (libertarianism) as a philosophy has its flaws, but compared to what ever shitty philosophy you lean on that makes you unaware of your inconsistencies, it is iron clad.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby MJW » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:40 am

deltbucs wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
I agree with you as well. If a law is on the books the only way to fairly and justly enforce it is to either always enforce it or in the case of an unjust law get it off the books.

I don't necessarily disagree. If laws applied to everyone, the laws would probably be less ridiculous.


This is a great point. If the powerful in society were ACTUALLY subject to the same consequences as everyone else for their misdeeds, law books would be thinner than Highlights magazines and you'd be able to pass the Bar after twelve credits at community college.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8842
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 385 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Jun 04, 2018 6:52 am

Jonny wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Jonny returns to remind us all he has no idea what he's talking about.

In one post he managed to justify and call for the proliferation of corruption while also saying I can steal his car and not go to jail for it so long as I did it without violence.

What else do you have for us, Mr Oracle?


Oh MB, my brother from another mother!

Zarni already pointed out the flaw in your argument. Property rights are an integral part of your right to live free without coercion from other individuals. Classical liberalism (libertarianism) as a philosophy has its flaws, but compared to what ever shitty philosophy you lean on that makes you unaware of your inconsistencies, it is iron clad.

Yeah, your superior intellect and ironclad philosophy called for the proliferation of legalized corruption.

If only I understood the finer nuances of property rights, then I too could make the same conclusions.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13817
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:48 am

Seems like a petty move just to annoy his critics and give them some low hanging fruit to complain about.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13170
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 541 times
Been thanked: 570 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Stuart » Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:48 am

per breitbart, the most trusted name in news.

D’Souza said, “You have to look at the context of this. Let’s remember, just weeks before all of this went down I released a movie in the theater, 2,000 theaters about Obama and it wasn’t just a critique of his policies. I was in Kenya at his family homestead. I interviewed his brother in a slum in Nairobi. It was an emotionally damaging movie to Obama, and the president was very upset by it. I’m not just speculating. I know this because he was regularly denouncing me on his website Barackobama.com. So when that happens and a few later the FBI comes banging on your door.”

He continued, “Now look, I admit that I broke the law, and I demand that I receive the same penalties as everybody else who did what I did. But the point here is no American in this country’s history has been prosecuted, let alone locked up, for doing what I did. Typically these cases are prosecuted when there is a quid pro quo, or somebody commits a repeat offense, they do it all the time. So for these reasons, I became suspicious that part of the reason I was prosecuted is I did something very upsetting to a narcissistic president.”
Stuart
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 12:10 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Jonny » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:25 pm

deltbucs wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
I agree with you as well. If a law is on the books the only way to fairly and justly enforce it is to either always enforce it or in the case of an unjust law get it off the books.

I don't necessarily disagree. If laws applied to everyone, the laws would probably be less ridiculous.


There should be a moral case for justification of any legislation. But what we actually have is many laws that are justified by the fear of bad consequences.

For example weed should be legal because people should have the right to fully own their body, including the responsibilities associated with bad decisions.

Lawmakers and general populace however always go with the consequentialist justification for any law they propose, because they are driven by psychology of fear. Weed should be legal because studies show....Tobacco needs to be taxed high because studies show.... Guns should be confiscated because Australia...

It takes an extra bit of effort in terms of reading works of philosophers like Immanuel Kant, John Locke and even Thomas Jefferson to realize that a society formed on basis of avoidance of risk is bound to eventually deny you of some basic liberties. Also avoidance of risk is essentially defined by a collective, in the form of consensus. But it is the individual who is denied of his liberties. The modern Western civilization was built on the backbone of individual's rights being paramount.

In this situation, if the Government did not have that much power to begin with, the amount of money donated by any tycoon towards any campaign would make little to no difference.

To me this offense committed by D'Souza would not be an offense even if Rosie O'Donnell committed it, which she did. There are always bad laws in place, and we must oppose them not by throwing data, but by making a moral case against them.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby The Outsider » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:31 pm

Jonny wrote:Tobacco needs to be taxed high because studies show....


I took particular exception to this because using tobacco most certainly leads to an increased risk of cancer which in many cases leads to a burden on society when someone who cannot afford the health care gets sick because of it. Alcohol, and hell even pot fit this category. Smoking weed leads to increased risk of mouth and throat cancers as well as chronic issues like COPD and emphysema. Activities that harm ones self should not be illegal, but if that harm causes a burden on society in this way it needs to be mitigated. An increased sales tax is a very, very good way to do this because it directly impacts only the people who use said product and not the people who end up paying for the former's vices.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 05, 2018 9:48 pm

Jonny wrote:
deltbucs wrote:I don't necessarily disagree. If laws applied to everyone, the laws would probably be less ridiculous.


There should be a moral case for justification of any legislation. But what we actually have is many laws that are justified by the fear of bad consequences.

For example weed should be legal because people should have the right to fully own their body, including the responsibilities associated with bad decisions.

Lawmakers and general populace however always go with the consequentialist justification for any law they propose, because they are driven by psychology of fear. Weed should be legal because studies show....Tobacco needs to be taxed high because studies show.... Guns should be confiscated because Australia...

It takes an extra bit of effort in terms of reading works of philosophers like Immanuel Kant, John Locke and even Thomas Jefferson to realize that a society formed on basis of avoidance of risk is bound to eventually deny you of some basic liberties. Also avoidance of risk is essentially defined by a collective, in the form of consensus. But it is the individual who is denied of his liberties. The modern Western civilization was built on the backbone of individual's rights being paramount.

In this situation, if the Government did not have that much power to begin with, the amount of money donated by any tycoon towards any campaign would make little to no difference.

To me this offense committed by D'Souza would not be an offense even if Rosie O'Donnell committed it, which she did. There are always bad laws in place, and we must oppose them not by throwing data, but by making a moral case against them.

Let's break this one down by paragraph because there's a lot to unpack here...

1. Ambiguous statement about morality and consequences.

2. Appeal to popular opinion.

3. Whines about majorities having majority opinions...like corruption being illegal.

4. I am very smart and have many leather books. Makes statement that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

5. Backwards-ass view of political corruption that suggests the way to stop corruption is to give the corruptors everything they could want so there's no need to corrupt anyone.

6. Attempt at moral equivalency, suggests the law is morally wrong without citing moral case for legalized corruption. The end.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13817
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Jonny » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:25 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Jonny wrote:Tobacco needs to be taxed high because studies show....


I took particular exception to this because using tobacco most certainly leads to an increased risk of cancer which in many cases leads to a burden on society when someone who cannot afford the health care gets sick because of it. Alcohol, and hell even pot fit this category. Smoking weed leads to increased risk of mouth and throat cancers as well as chronic issues like COPD and emphysema. Activities that harm ones self should not be illegal, but if that harm causes a burden on society in this way it needs to be mitigated. An increased sales tax is a very, very good way to do this because it directly impacts only the people who use said product and not the people who end up paying for the former's vices.


You make a pragmatic argument which I respect, but cannot agree with. There is only a burden on society if the society has taxpayer backed programs in place to make those situations a burden. Charity driven healthcare programs that treat such patients are not a burden, because the benevolent always buy happiness with their donations. Now the benevolent are likely very few and these programs may not be able to support well enough in terms of quality of healthcare or quantity of patients. And that is the price an individual with poor choices pays. While the word liberty may have a very positive connotation, it also comes with a mother lode of chaos. It is the responsibility of the free individual to mitigate chaos.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby The Outsider » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:31 pm

Jonny wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
I took particular exception to this because using tobacco most certainly leads to an increased risk of cancer which in many cases leads to a burden on society when someone who cannot afford the health care gets sick because of it. Alcohol, and hell even pot fit this category. Smoking weed leads to increased risk of mouth and throat cancers as well as chronic issues like COPD and emphysema. Activities that harm ones self should not be illegal, but if that harm causes a burden on society in this way it needs to be mitigated. An increased sales tax is a very, very good way to do this because it directly impacts only the people who use said product and not the people who end up paying for the former's vices.


You make a pragmatic argument which I respect, but cannot agree with. There is only a burden on society if the society has taxpayer backed programs in place to make those situations a burden. Charity driven healthcare programs that treat such patients are not a burden, because the benevolent always buy happiness with their donations. Now the benevolent are likely very few and these programs may not be able to support well enough in terms of quality of healthcare or quantity of patients. And that is the price an individual with poor choices pays. While the word liberty may have a very positive connotation, it also comes with a mother lode of chaos. It is the responsibility of the free individual to mitigate chaos.



Your second sentence showed me that you're completely ignorant to the realities of the issue. We don't have social health care in this country, but doctors and hospitals still can't withhold at the very least quality of life or 'comfort' treatment which is still extremely expensive. They, any other business, pass these losses on to the rest of us in terms of health care costs.

Seriously ask any hospital billing administrator how much in potential revenue they write off simply because it is impossible to get paid. Then ask yourself honestly if you think our astronomical health care costs aren't impacted by ethically and legally imposed standards.

Frankly, there are a very few industries that should flout some of the core tenets of libertarian capitalism and health care is one of them, if you want to live in a civilized society anyway.

You're talking about doing away with one of the most historically established professional ethics essentially because "muh taxes".

That is an incredibly naive and short sighted outlook on the issue. Even if it were a real issue. Which it isn't.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:37 pm

I'm beginning to believe that being naive and short sighted are core tenants of anarco-capitalism.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13817
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 644 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jun 05, 2018 10:53 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm beginning to believe that being naive and short sighted are core tenants of anarco-capitalism.


I’m certain that’s the same exact criticism they would levy on you
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6476
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 330 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby The Outsider » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:02 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm beginning to believe that being naive and short sighted are core tenants of anarco-capitalism.


I’m certain that’s the same exact criticism they would levy on you


And to a degree both MB and the anarcho-capitalists are right.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Jonny » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:04 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Jonny wrote:
There should be a moral case for justification of any legislation. But what we actually have is many laws that are justified by the fear of bad consequences.

For example weed should be legal because people should have the right to fully own their body, including the responsibilities associated with bad decisions.

Lawmakers and general populace however always go with the consequentialist justification for any law they propose, because they are driven by psychology of fear. Weed should be legal because studies show....Tobacco needs to be taxed high because studies show.... Guns should be confiscated because Australia...

It takes an extra bit of effort in terms of reading works of philosophers like Immanuel Kant, John Locke and even Thomas Jefferson to realize that a society formed on basis of avoidance of risk is bound to eventually deny you of some basic liberties. Also avoidance of risk is essentially defined by a collective, in the form of consensus. But it is the individual who is denied of his liberties. The modern Western civilization was built on the backbone of individual's rights being paramount.

In this situation, if the Government did not have that much power to begin with, the amount of money donated by any tycoon towards any campaign would make little to no difference.

To me this offense committed by D'Souza would not be an offense even if Rosie O'Donnell committed it, which she did. There are always bad laws in place, and we must oppose them not by throwing data, but by making a moral case against them.

Let's break this one down by paragraph because there's a lot to unpack here...

1. Ambiguous statement about morality and consequences.

2. Appeal to popular opinion.

3. Whines about majorities having majority opinions...like corruption being illegal.

4. I am very smart and have many leather books. Makes statement that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

5. Backwards-ass view of political corruption that suggests the way to stop corruption is to give the corruptors everything they could want so there's no need to corrupt anyone.

6. Attempt at moral equivalency, suggests the law is morally wrong without citing moral case for legalized corruption. The end.


(1) There is nothing ambiguous about morality and consequences unless you simply did not understand that point in the first place.

Here is a challenge for you. Try to make a moral case for putting controls on how much an individual can donate to a campaign WITHOUT any mention of consequences. Also bear in mind, any case you make that denies others of their liberty is immoral.

Here is my moral case against the law on campaign contributions: I do not possess any authority over another individual's property and the way he wants to spend it, unless it results in coercion of my freedom. (Eg: Person B spending money to hire assassins to kill me). I am sure there probably are some exceptional cases that may deem my moral case contradicting, and I would love to know what those are since I am genuinely interested in subjecting my value system to rigorous critique.

(2) Appeals to popular opinion? Dude, it takes a ton of patience for me to make my points in a way that other posters read it in totality without getting bored. I am sorry for using the example of weed, something both liberals and libertarians agree on, as a means to convey my message. You have serious hate towards me to call me out on a point like that.

(3) Majority's opinions are irrelevant, they seriously are. Pardon me for using other popular and extreme examples to make my case. Many atrocities against minorities were committed all throughout history because of the opinions of majority. Atrocities involving race, religion, thought etc (Holocaust, Holodomor, Salem witch trials, murder of Hypatia). That is the very reason the age of enlightenment is regarded as the turnaround for humanity, since it deemed majority opinion as irrelevant and fabricated a new lens of empowering society by empowering individual liberty.

(4) LOL, I actually have some of them as PDFs. Especially Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" is freely available, translated into modern English. My intent on mentioning them is so that someone curious on where I am coming from would look into their works. But of course, I will also admit to me boasting on being well read on the libertarian philosophy at the very least. I celebrate my guys just like you celebrate Karl Marx.

(5) You keep using the term corruption. Why don't you start by actually saying how donating money to a campaign is corruption. Actually D'Souza did commit corruption, and that was by trying to channel the excess money through third parties. I wish he actually donated it all on his name and took the fall like a man. But according to you, even donating beyond a specific amount of dollars is corruption. Please justify why it is. If you make the moral case as response to my point #1, you would have satisfied this request of mine since they are one and the same.

(6) "legalized corruption". Corruption as defined by you? See points #1 and #5.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby The Outsider » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:15 pm

Jonny wrote:(3) Majority's opinions are irrelevant, they seriously are. Pardon me for using other popular and extreme examples to make my case. Many atrocities against minorities were committed all throughout history because of the opinions of majority. Atrocities involving race, religion, thought etc (Holocaust, Holodomor, Salem witch trials, murder of Hypatia). That is the very reason the age of enlightenment is regarded as the turnaround for humanity, since it deemed majority opinion as irrelevant and fabricated a new lens of empowering society by empowering individual liberty.


Frankly, the age of enlightenment did not deem majority opinion as irrelevant. It recognized that majority opinion can be flawed and worked to change it. Majority opinion is as real as the numbers, unless you're living in a fantasy world made of magical self-determinist philosophies the majority will always be a major factor. Because they're the majority. They are intuitively greater in number than you, by a significant margin as minorities tend to be fractured and lack cohesiveness among themselves.

It's one of the hard, simple truths of the world. Whether it's palatable or not.

Edit: Oh and as for point six? It's corruption as defined by codified U.S. law and I'd see Rosie O'Donnell prosecuted for it too (if the allegations are true) unless said laws are amended by the legislature or found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Jonny » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:39 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Jonny wrote:
You make a pragmatic argument which I respect, but cannot agree with. There is only a burden on society if the society has taxpayer backed programs in place to make those situations a burden. Charity driven healthcare programs that treat such patients are not a burden, because the benevolent always buy happiness with their donations. Now the benevolent are likely very few and these programs may not be able to support well enough in terms of quality of healthcare or quantity of patients. And that is the price an individual with poor choices pays. While the word liberty may have a very positive connotation, it also comes with a mother lode of chaos. It is the responsibility of the free individual to mitigate chaos.



Your second sentence showed me that you're completely ignorant to the realities of the issue. We don't have social health care in this country, but doctors and hospitals still can't withhold at the very least quality of life or 'comfort' treatment which is still extremely expensive. They, any other business, pass these losses on to the rest of us in terms of health care costs.

Seriously ask any hospital billing administrator how much in potential revenue they write off simply because it is impossible to get paid. Then ask yourself honestly if you think our astronomical health care costs aren't impacted by ethically and legally imposed standards.

Frankly, there are a very few industries that should flout some of the core tenets of libertarian capitalism and health care is one of them, if you want to live in a civilized society anyway.

You're talking about doing away with one of the most historically established professional ethics essentially because "muh taxes".

That is an incredibly naive and short sighted outlook on the issue. Even if it were a real issue. Which it isn't.


I am ignorant on specifics of healthcare apparatus on how the costs are passed etc, but I am aware of the overall picture and message your are conveying.

As things are currently the costs get passed to us and thus they become a burden.

Healthcare at the end of the day is a commodity and the healthcare industry consists of people driven by self interest.

But think about this. Where are the ethics if those involved in healthcare (doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, medical device manufacturers etc) are not willing bear these costs on themselves, but rather pass it on to the rest of society because of existence of a guaranteed reimbursement? Nobody is exactly a martyr here, because the cost of an individual's destructive behavior is split as a penalty on rest of the society that had nothing to do with it. There are however ethics and virtues in a situation where there is no guaranteed reimbursement and the service still happens. As the healthcare system is set currently, I don't see the opportunity for anyone involved to be benevolent. It is on autopilot, from the patient all the way up to taxpayers.

Now before you call me heartless, or naive or psychopath, please realize this. I am simply critiquing the way things are currently. I find it incredibly rewarding to debate philosophically and I am not afraid of entertaining extremities of my philosophy to generate some discussion. Very much like the rest of you, I myself am nervous of any big changes. I recognize that what we define as a society is not simply a collective, but also a set of compromises. I am simply saying that we must recognize these burdens on taxpayers as compromises. We should never for one moment mistake these compromises to be virtues.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Jonny » Tue Jun 05, 2018 11:58 pm

The Outsider wrote:
Jonny wrote:(3) Majority's opinions are irrelevant, they seriously are. Pardon me for using other popular and extreme examples to make my case. Many atrocities against minorities were committed all throughout history because of the opinions of majority. Atrocities involving race, religion, thought etc (Holocaust, Holodomor, Salem witch trials, murder of Hypatia). That is the very reason the age of enlightenment is regarded as the turnaround for humanity, since it deemed majority opinion as irrelevant and fabricated a new lens of empowering society by empowering individual liberty.


Frankly, the age of enlightenment did not deem majority opinion as irrelevant. It recognized that majority opinion can be flawed and worked to change it. Majority opinion is as real as the numbers, unless you're living in a fantasy world made of magical self-determinist philosophies the majority will always be a major factor. Because they're the majority. They are intuitively greater in number than you, by a significant margin as minorities tend to be fractured and lack cohesiveness among themselves.

It's one of the hard, simple truths of the world. Whether it's palatable or not.

Edit: Oh and as for point six? It's corruption as defined by codified U.S. law and I'd see Rosie O'Donnell prosecuted for it too (if the allegations are true) unless said laws are amended by the legislature or found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.


I actually do not consider the first part of your response as a rebuttal. The majority opinion CAN be flawed, and that is why it is irrelevant. I should have expanded it this way. Majority opinion is irrelevant if it comes at the cost of an individual's freedom. Hobbes and Locke are considered as one of the first, one of the most prominent figures of enlightenment. They went into deep details in defining negative rights and positive rights and importance of building a society around the former, not latter. Their emphasis on negative rights is essentially an indirect justification of individual's right to be free from any decisions of the majority. The right to bear arms in particular, which is highly contested, is actually championed passionately by Locke, the father of Liberalism as a tool to defend oneself against tyrannical majorities.

Yes the majority opinion matters a lot today and it should not. But just because it does, does not mean every majority decision is moral by default.

Also I do not accept your definition of corruption. So breaking any law is corruption or deserving of some penalty then? Your answer has to be a resounding yes for your point to be valid.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby The Outsider » Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:06 am

Jonny wrote:
The Outsider wrote:
Frankly, the age of enlightenment did not deem majority opinion as irrelevant. It recognized that majority opinion can be flawed and worked to change it. Majority opinion is as real as the numbers, unless you're living in a fantasy world made of magical self-determinist philosophies the majority will always be a major factor. Because they're the majority. They are intuitively greater in number than you, by a significant margin as minorities tend to be fractured and lack cohesiveness among themselves.

It's one of the hard, simple truths of the world. Whether it's palatable or not.

Edit: Oh and as for point six? It's corruption as defined by codified U.S. law and I'd see Rosie O'Donnell prosecuted for it too (if the allegations are true) unless said laws are amended by the legislature or found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States.


I actually do not consider the first part of your response as a rebuttal. The majority opinion CAN be flawed, and that is why it is irrelevant. I should have expanded it this way. Majority opinion is irrelevant if it comes at the cost of an individual's freedom. Hobbes and Locke are considered as one of the first, one of the most prominent figures of enlightenment. They went into deep details in defining negative rights and positive rights and importance of building a society around the former, not latter. Their emphasis on negative rights is essentially an indirect justification of individual's right to be free from any decisions of the majority. The right to bear arms in particular, which is highly contested, is actually championed passionately by Locke, the father of Liberalism as a tool to defend oneself against tyrannical majorities.

Yes the majority opinion matters a lot today and it should not. But just because it does, does not mean every majority decision is moral by default.

Also I do not accept your definition of corruption. So breaking any law is corruption or deserving of some penalty then? Your answer has to be a resounding yes for your point to be valid.



The minority opinion can also be flawed and therefore is irrelevant. So I guess now every opinion is irrelevant. Look, you want to play that game every opinion is equally irrelevant and we're all a bunch of discordant intelligent monkeys forming pseudo-societies based on limited, crude ideals lacking nuance. The only thing stopping me from riding down to your village, splitting your head open and taking your resources is if you have more dudes than me. Because I might have principles, but watch how fast those are abandoned when hard times hit and my people start starving.

And please, don't spout the damned NAP and libertarian social policing crap to me. I get enough of it at work from one of my employees. The fact of the matter is that we have thousands of years of history of human beings be absolute cocksuckers to each other unless there is some sort of framework in place, or at the very least credible threat of harm, to discourage such behavior. I don't know what's happened recently to make some believe that this is behavior that is somehow past us as a species.
Image
User avatar
The Outsider
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:02 pm
Location: Gettin' all up in ya
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby Jonny » Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:28 am

The Outsider wrote:
Jonny wrote:
I actually do not consider the first part of your response as a rebuttal. The majority opinion CAN be flawed, and that is why it is irrelevant. I should have expanded it this way. Majority opinion is irrelevant if it comes at the cost of an individual's freedom. Hobbes and Locke are considered as one of the first, one of the most prominent figures of enlightenment. They went into deep details in defining negative rights and positive rights and importance of building a society around the former, not latter. Their emphasis on negative rights is essentially an indirect justification of individual's right to be free from any decisions of the majority. The right to bear arms in particular, which is highly contested, is actually championed passionately by Locke, the father of Liberalism as a tool to defend oneself against tyrannical majorities.

Yes the majority opinion matters a lot today and it should not. But just because it does, does not mean every majority decision is moral by default.

Also I do not accept your definition of corruption. So breaking any law is corruption or deserving of some penalty then? Your answer has to be a resounding yes for your point to be valid.



The minority opinion can also be flawed and therefore is irrelevant. So I guess now every opinion is irrelevant. Look, you want to play that game every opinion is equally irrelevant and we're all a bunch of discordant intelligent monkeys forming pseudo-societies based on limited, crude ideals lacking nuance. The only thing stopping me from riding down to your village, splitting your head open and taking your resources is if you have more dudes than me. Because I might have principles, but watch how fast those are abandoned when hard times hit and my people start starving.

And please, don't spout the damned NAP and libertarian social policing crap to me. I get enough of it at work from one of my employees. The fact of the matter is that we have thousands of years of history of human beings be absolute cocksuckers to each other unless there is some sort of framework in place, or at the very least credible threat of harm, to discourage such behavior. I don't know what's happened recently to make some believe that this is behavior that is somehow past us as a species.




Yes, every opinion is irrelevant if it comes at the expense of others freedom. Also I am a libertarian, not an an cap. I recognize the need for taxpayer funded policing to protect against destruction of property and life. Like I said in my previous message I posted at 10:39 PM, I consider it a compromise. A necessary evil, but evil nonetheless.
Image
User avatar
Jonny
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 6:01 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Trump to pardon Dinesh D'Souza

Postby MJW » Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:47 am

The Outsider wrote: The fact of the matter is that we have thousands of years of history of human beings be absolute cocksuckers to each other unless there is some sort of framework in place, or at the very least credible threat of harm, to discourage such behavior. I don't know what's happened recently to make some believe that this is behavior that is somehow past us as a species.


The people acting within the framework, as licensed agents of the framers, murdered 100 million plus in the last century alone - that was just within one particular framework. Tens (hundreds?) of millions starved to death after agents of the framers collectivized the fruits of their labor and left them with nothing. Tens of millions more died at the behest of the framers in wars fought on the framers' behalves while the framers stayed home. Every one of those people we're talking about didn't want to get on the wrong side of your "credible threat to harm" agents when they died. As it turned out, "humans are ****, but let's give some of the **** humans sanctioned power to hurt other humans - for security!" was the philosophy of a particularly dense toddler.. Could be a factor in people distrusting frameworks and framers. Dunno.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 8842
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 385 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests