[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] "I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."Laihendi

That only makes him a logical person lai.

Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.

You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Mithrandir50"]"mhm" "smh"-dave

"man" "bro"-kk

"........"-LJS

"something pretentious and douchy"-worlockLaihendi

do me

That only makes him a logical person lai.

Having read Atlas Shrugged, I don't think there's anything wrong with the quote in the OP. I p. much came to the realization that I was no longer a libertarian upon finishing it.

coolbeans90

You should read Platos "The Republic". Maybe you will realise you're a technocrat.

Lai is probably the most educated poster on OT, yet he constantly gets treated like dirt. smh, I expect better from you OT.heeweesRus

[QUOTE="LordQuorthon"]

Laihendi is living proof that 15 year old libertarians are the best thing about the Internet. They always, ALWAYS deliver the lulz.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] John Galt is impressive because the morality he upholds is impressive. James Taggart is detestable because the morality he upholds is detestable. The notion that a protagonist actually being a good man is a bad thing is a psychological confession made by all who expression such a notion. It demonstrates that they crave depravity. It demonstrates that they crave the abhorrent and detestable. They condemn the best of humanity and exalt the worst.Laihendi

Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.

Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]You are reading a definition and taking it at face value without considering its unwritten implications. Please tell me how a government can control social/economics policy or anything else without violence, or the threat of violence. And if you want a definition of "statist" that is not politically biased in favour of statism, then here is a good place to start.Laihendi

These series of posts was not made for that question but it should suffice.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

If you have a specific question my proposed form of government i will answer in more detail.If you want to know what a proper technocratic government will do in a scenario just ask.

coolbeans90

For the virtual entirety of recorded human history, from the inception of agrarian civilizations until the dawn of democracy, the potential for a Utopian technocracy has existed within the hands of those in power of authoritarian regimes. Not only did no technocratic Utopias occur, or even really semi-technocratic civilizations headed by a king, the living conditions endured by the proles at the hands of kings and queens left quite a bit to be desired, to put it lightly. A similar trend remains in China. Under democratic rule, people tend to live much better lives, and living conditions have generally improved more quickly because of the influence people have historically exerted on their own behalf. Despite some conflicts at times between experts and populist movements, it would be nothing short of an untruth to say that the government currently outright disregards experts (they are still pivotal to public policy) or that scientific advancement doesn't happen. Modern democracies have done more to support science than any other form of government by a pretty substantial margin. Now, the question I have for you is:

Given the complete lack of inherent interest by authoritarian regimes for anything other than selfish endeavors (an inherent incentive in such a system, mind you), their tendency to disregard human well-being for those aforementioned personal gains, and no particular interest in the long-term advancement of science, why exactly do you think that such a system implemented now, even if founded by well-meaning individuals, wouldn't degrade into yet another dystopian clusterfvck?

Ah, there is the rub is it not? Well in a Proper technate those in power would not benefit from a dystopia. So the question is how do we do that. well the the answer lies in the modern price system. since the the dawn of man economy has been scarcity based and thus oligarchies have flourished. oligarchies by nature abuse the "common man" (for lack of a better word) and so to combat this democracies were formed. however the nature of the "common man" caused the failures of democracies, the unorganized group is to easily manipulated and duped, and thus democracies are plagued by corruption and incompetence just like the oligarchies they fought to eliminate. So historically you see a cycle of tyrannies being overthrown and popular governments replacing them and then failing only to be replaced by another tyrant. However we of the modern age are in a unique position to break this cycle. For we have ability to move away from scarcity economics and thus away from oligarchies and democracies. We have machines that can eliminate human labour and produce limitless goods with near zero human labour.

Now, you may ask "doesn't that empower the oligarchy even more? for machines and automated production hurts the working man, taking their lively hood and worth and empowering the elite and the rich." Well you would be correct in asking this...under the price system at least. If we (I'm talking about the US now for ease of example) utilized the resources of the north American Continent we could provide an infinite amount of consumer goods with zero human labour. The oligarchy would become powerless for what could they offer to placate the "common man"?

Now you may ask yet another question "why would the oligarchy let this happen?". Well I in no way suggest they would just give up their power, but they don't have any choice in the matter. For the price system as we know it is unstable and bound to fail, when it will fail is the question. And when the price system does collapse the Technocrats will be there to pick up the ashes, hopefully by that time having educated enough of the populace about the merits of technocracy. Now its safe to say this can't happen anywhere most states will likely not survive the collapse and the inevitable warfare and economic destruction that will ensue. At the moment it seems only three countries could possibly make the transition: the USA, Israel and China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

I don't see any of the words that Lai used for statist.

jimkabrhel

Your telling me.

As an authoritarian i find that Lai is a hell of a lot of work to deal with.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical exposition in the form of a novel. If you think it is just another science-fiction book then you completely missed the point of it. Perhaps you should reread Galt's speech, or study Rand's nonfictional essays if the presentation of the philosophical content in Galt's speech is too subtle for you to perceive. Zappa - Plato was a mystic and a statist. He was not a serious thinker by any means. I have read many of his works (including passages from his Republic, though I have not read the entire thing) and they are absurd. He makes up ludicrous premises with no basis of facts or evidence and then he uses them to create a convoluted system of philosophical circles. He made assumptions and guesses without even attempting to substantiate them and proceeded to treat them as irrefutable facts. He was ignorant.Laihendi

I fail to see how being a ststist is a bad thing. Everything else you said describes Rand not Plato.

About rand being a mystic. i don't know what else to call her as she never talked about the real world or facts.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] What you are saying is ignorant, as I only defend the constitution to the extent that it is compatible with Objectivism. If you want to see my philosophy of life written paper then look to Atlas Shrugged - not the constitution. And warlock you are once again making it clear that you do not understand my position on natural rights. As I have told you many times, the question of whether someone deserves rights is irrelevant. It is not a matter of whether someone should have rights, but a matter of whether they do. A person either does or does not have a right to live. If that right is violated by anyone - including the government - then the violator is a criminal, regardless of whether his actions were condoned by the law. A moral crime and a legal crime are two fundamentally different concepts, and you consistently fail to understand that. The law is irrelevant to morality. The law is irrelevant to ethics. The law is irrelevant to questions of what is right and wrong. Rights are not granted by anyone but are inherent to the existence of those who have them, so the question of whether anyone deserves rights is a meaningless question. Of course in about 2 weeks you will once again ignorantly claim that "Objectivists believe ________ don't deserve rights", but perhaps some day you will actually read the Objectivist literature and acquire an understanding of what you are attempting to talk about.Laihendi

I fail to see how being a ststist is a bad thing. Everything else you said describes Rand not Plato.