Telegram Archive - week 18, 2025, page 3
- 10 minutes read - 2062 words
Ok, but your argument is an equivocation, so not convincing
Where would it be an equivocation?
On the world human, on the world alive, as I mention above
Then provide me with a definition
Here
I primarily support eudaimonia
You mean virtue ethics?
As long as sentient individuals aren’t harming each other without consent, and no one’s bothering me, I’ve got no problem
A human being is a fully formed individual Homo sapiens. .
Kids aren’t fully formed (they can’t even breed) so we may kill them, because they’re not human beings /s
Based.
That said, in my city — part of the meta-utopia — abortion without the father’s consent is not allowed
Kids are fully formed
Nope, unfortunately: they keep growing and they haven’t developed completely
That doesn’t matter
This is arbitrary. One should prove one’s claims
Now, back to the main issue: in Próspera ZEDE, most residents are foreigners or well-off individuals. If they need an abortion, they go abroad. The kind of people who live in Próspera — those who know how to organize their lives well — rarely have children by mistake
So no one really cares
My friend, if your Utopia has a government, it’s not a Utopia, it’s a Dystopia
The explanation is that they are growing as individuals, not part of another persons body
In fact, many are e-residents, meaning they’re not even physically present in the city
Mmh… Look, this is actually pretty solid, BUT there’s a problem: their efficient cause isn’t only the mother, also the father, so they aren’t technically growing as a mere “part” of an individual body
So they’re not even residents: being a resident of a city means living in that city
Ayn Rand said on the topic of why rights begin at birth: “nature gave a line.”
The thing is, in my native language, ‘governance’ is called ‘corporate government’ (governo aziendale)
Ayn Rand was pretty arbitrary when she didn’t have solid arguments for her claims. For instance, “taxes should be paid voluntarily”. My sister in Christ (/s), you said government is a monopoly, and by the definition no monopoly is voluntary
No way! Bro’s Italian! Me, too, man. Italian from Italy?
Anyway, a eudaimonic state is literally my ideology
Hey, if you’re from Italy and interested in Objectivism, check out “Oggettivismo 🇮🇹” on Telegram. @participant-3927, sorry if I advertise Objectivist groups, but basically there’s no Objectivists here in Italy
Because you are all ancaps
Ancaps? Magari
Minarchico?
No, I am an Ancap, but there are no Ancaps here
Gov is not an economic monopoly. It’s an organization entrusted by the citizens to hold a monopoly on force.
The voluntary part is about the funding of it.
P.S. This does not imply a value judgment in favor of hedonism or living in subhuman conditions; it’s just practical segregation
You should read about Rationalism , it’s your main logical / epistemological error.
Give us refs
Boris, many are Neo-Objectivists or sympathizers. I, for example, support limited monopolies on creative works, but in a way that differs from Rand and others
What if some citizens choose not to recognise it? There’s no such thing as a “voluntary monopoly”. Assigning specific meanings to words is not Rationalism.
What happens if people don’t recognize the NAP?
Something that is “voluntary” implies an alternative
Tbh, just big yikes: they either get shot or take over (just like in any human society)
You have the answer
No, you must accept the laws of the country, you can’t not follow them. This part is not voluntary. If you don’t want to delegate monopoly on force to a separate body, you must leave the country. The country is defined by the constitution decided by its founders. Then no one can change it (except by a revolution)
If it isn’t voluntary, then it’s against freedom, hence it isn’t fit for men, but for slaves
Unpopular opinion: ‘Monopoly on violence’ is a bullshit phrase
It’s actually a pretty solid definition of government, imho
Not on violence
Force*
Naw. “Dominion” is better.
Monopoly on retaliatory use of force. Initiatory force is forbidden, nobody has it
The government does have it in order to collect taxes
Dominion> monopoly
Not one has originally the right to do anything that pops into his head. For example, no one has the right to punch others. So you have to be careful about what you mean by freedom. You have to voluntary choice whether to follow or not the laws. The laws are there to give objectively the separation between domains of individuals , so that everyone has true freedom.
My definition of state:
a sovereign entity that holds dominion over the use of coercion to uphold a legal system—externally independent and internally supreme
a sovereign entity that holds dominion over the use of coercion to uphold a legal system—externally independent and internally supreme
The taxes are the way in which the delegation of force is implemented . This body needs to be financed by the delegators
It’s not supreme. It’s subject to constitution, and to political process. What you described is a monarchy
But the Constitution is part of the legal system
It’s not
It’s more basic than that
Freedom is the state in which everybody does what they want with their own property: there’s no such thing as freedom to punch others, just like there is no such freedom in having to pay for a service you didn’t require
It is
You do require it, you just don’t realize it
The legal system is internally supreme
He’s right, or else it wouldn’t be a monopoly
Every person requires that his protection is not done by him, but by independent body, so long as he lives in a society. Only a man on a deserted island doesn’t require it. Society requires peaceful coextence of people in it, with objective laws defining the lines between them.
Okay, but why do you say the legal system isn’t supreme internally?
I would agree if the government weren’t made by men who may fail and err and require other people’s goods to sustain the coercive system. But, because it is fallible and it requires taxes, it doesn’t protect freedom more than anarchy does
The legal system can’t make laws that are against the constitution. The public can influence the political process, including replacing the judges .
You can exit the society of laws and live in anarchy, after you are grown into an adult. But you cannot demand from the current society to abandon its system.
Is part of it
There’s a problem in your reasoning: who grants you the constitution will always be upheld? Remember that government is made by men and objective, natural laws are a thing that men may evade if they so wish
Not to mention that all governments violate property by imposing taxes
I agree that everyone must follow the laws. If that’s what you mean by supreme, I have no issue. I’m saying there are checks and balances
If the taxes are collected to support proper function of government, that’s not violation. But all governments do things they are not chosen to do, and so those funds collected are violations, yes.
So, governments cannot defend property but by violating it: they’re contradictions
The Constitution is part of the legal system. The legal system is internally supreme, which does not preclude the existence of the hierarchy of legal sources
Frederic Bastiat has a good book called “The Law” in which he shows how the law is the villain, because it’s used to justify evil legally.
Yeah
It’s independent (i.e., isn’t like Próspera)
Let’s say the proper function of govt requires 1billion per year to operate. In so far as it collects this 1 billion , it’s not a violation of property, but money received as per contract. Anything collected beyond is a violation.
Obviously, it’s a definition that excludes, as in international law, the federated state
On the Phil Donahue show , Ayn Rand said that small taxes would work, but large wouldn’t. She wasn’t against taxes in principle. She said that they should ideally be by donation in order to offer a check on the government.
It’s a neutral and generic definition because it must be applicable to all states, regardless of their form of state or government
Ok
(e.g. the People’s Republic of China, etc.)
All* except federated states that aren’t states in international law
I would define a state as a a society living in a geographic region capable to defend its borders.
If gov is funded by donation, instead of small (easy to pay) taxes, then it’s an effective way to prevent a government initiating an unjust war, or doing something else that’s expensive
I totally agree, but donation is voluntary, thus there can be no absolute supreme monopolistic government
Taxes takes now such an ominous nature in our lives, because they are so large. How people don’t realize they are being abused, I don’t get it.
Rather, different companies whose work is to protect property
You are mixing two separate things — finances and law-responsibly-setup.
The setup is that there is a monopoly on retaliatory use of force. The finances is to fund the setup (give it food, electricity)
(No funds→No setup) & voluntary funds→voluntary setup
Correct, but the setup is the axiom
You must begin thinking what’s the ideal setup, then think how to make it run
No, doesn’t follow
Then you must already have the funds