Voluntary Sex & Voluntary Contribution

Posted by $ Thoritsu 11 months ago to Philosophy
28 comments | Share | Flag

This is a great piece, and indicative of what needs to be communicated to support our message.

We need more of this sort of message...
...or we need a real Gulch.


For those who prefer Listerine, no, it does not contain a three page, unintelligible diatribe. It just gets the point across.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4I9M120UmoVahZnaRYe-IQ

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by exceller 11 months ago
    That describes California to a T.

    I am sick of the "give back" movement. Obama decreed that "you did not build that" and all the efforts someone put into building a business was done by everyone else but not the person who actually labored 24/7.

    That sick logic suited Obama to a T (sick as he was in everything he has done, even in retracting these words, nevertheless it'll be his "legacy")

    Give back for what?

    We all do our share in society: we work, pay taxes, raise our families and trust government to help those in need. Paying taxes is a contract between citizens and the government. The government is obligated to protect citizens in exchange for the citizens providing the monetary means.

    Incompetence is not factored in when the gov fails to meet that requirement.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 11 months ago
      Give back- may have validity for helping parents. Other than that,
      give back = give
      or you are a racist/far right/selfish/xophobe.

      Ok, I am softy, I agree with helping those in need, but I do have a rather strict opinion of what need is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 11 months ago
        No voluntary request should be shunned. This is charity. I give to charity, and recommend that others do as well.

        It is the involuntary, forced versions that are the problem.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by JohnJMulhall 11 months ago
        "Give back" - I heard this first from someone seeking elected office, and I asked myself "What did he steal that he needs to give back?"
        "Giving" as noted is 'charity', and I applaud those who give charitibly (as in: from the heart).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 11 months ago
        There is no such thing as "giving back" when it comes to taxpayer funds. They should have never been taken in the first place.

        In private matters, give back infers an obligation incurred by someone else's giving to you. If the giving isn't voluntary with no expectation of recompense, it isn't charity, but a business transaction.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Commander 11 months ago
    Good find.
    I think this is a great tool for teaching kids.
    The only objective moral taxation is voluntary. The only moral method of taxation is sales tax.....flat rate, tiered for needs then desires.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 months ago
      Very simple. So disappointed it is such a narrow message. Why is that?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Commander 11 months ago
        Perhaps this individual has only been "pushed" in one or two critical facets of awareness. All learning is hierarchical. All of us are what we learn...it's the Human thing. And humans, for the most part, live by assumption....belief. These are two powerful motivators to join the "congregation" for comfort and survival. To go against the congregation can be dangerous...Anthem,
        This guy could begin the process to educate the newly formed Commission On Unalienable Rights! I've requested audience twice and had no response.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ArtIficiarius 11 months ago
          Thomas Paine dealt with this in Common Sense and in The Rights of Man 1 & 2.
          Commission On Unalienable Rights?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Commander 11 months ago
            The Chair of The Commission is Mary Ann Glendon: Former Ambassodor to Vatican and Holy See.

            [And yet, Glendon is no libertarian when it comes to human rights. Her best-known book, “Rights Talk,” from 1991, laments the absence in America’s founding documents of discussion of duties and responsibilities for the common good. As she writes, “The relative inconspicuousness, in American law, of individual and collective duties to come to the aid of others, cannot be said to be without consequences for the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, and those who … are at especially high risk.”]
            A subjective leader for an ambiguous council.
            And, as I understand, "they" may be using The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted by the UN as a base of reference.

            George out to cry.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 11 months ago
    The "give back" notion is akin to demanding reparations for acts and events one had nothing to do with. That generations of individuals built the world in which one is to survive and function does not impose a debt. We all pay our share with the productive work we do in our own lifetimes. Nothing extra is due. Future generations would otherwise have a financial debt, not just a metaphysical one, to our existence and what we built as a foundation for their existence. To whom should they "give back"?

    We all "pay forward". Obama's merit denial and the socialists' expropriation demands are both perversions of reality and should be resisted as such. We are all parts of the investment for the continuing survival of human society. "Society", by the way, is not a collective entity; it is only the vehicle or container in which each individual achieves individual actualization through voluntary interactions. Unfortunately, that is not how most people see it. Their hive mentality views each member as common property, from whom they can demand giveback for being allowed to live.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 10 months, 3 weeks ago
      The pseudo-philosophy behind these demands is "intersectionality," which denies individual responsibility for anything but instead groups people by color, sex, and so forth, and declares that white men in particular are "oppressors" and responsible for all the ills of the world, including bad luck, regardless of personal behavior history. I call it pseudo-philosophy because even the idiots who preach that tripe cannot possibly honestly believe it. There can be no peace with them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 11 months ago
    This young man produces very good work at describing the use of violence by the state and its results. The 'demand' of the poor does not entitle them to use violence to take care of their needs or wants. The choice to help others can never be 'enforced' without destroying the freedom of all those in contact with the state. The end result is that the poor always suffer even more when they depend on the cruel state to help them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by STEVEDUNN46 11 months ago
    interesting guy. i applaud him for espousing his views. but he is begging for money to make his videos. how much does he keep for his own purposes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 months ago
      There is an accounting below the video. Not very luxurious.

      We have so many begging for money, or worse, begging to vote to force others to pay money.

      He is asking for volunteers to send a message for less force and freedom. I will support at some point, and hope he has a nice dinner and bottle of wine as part of his compensation if he finishes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by STEVEDUNN46 11 months ago
    i have always tried to figure out what it is that i should "give back". i dont ever remember getting anything from anyone the needs to be "given back. with the exception of my parents. and i gave back taking care of them as they had taken care of me in my childhood. would some one please tell me what was given to me that i need to give back?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 11 months ago
    Well, I don't agree that they have a right to threaten George to force him to contribute. But I am uncom-
    fortable with the idea that eliminating the initiation of force would result in "statelessness". A free society could be established without that (if enough people were first converted to the right philosophy.) We could have something like the present sales tax (voluntary--and once the government were cut down to its proper functions). And whichever store owner refused to contribute would not be able to get the police to come if somebody held up his store. Also, if he came to the store in the morning and found it had been burglarized during the night. But people would be more willing to contribute, as a form of insurance against crime, if they were confident that their money was actually going for their protection, and not for studying the mating habits of the fruit fly, or submerging a crucifix in a bottle of urine and calling it "art". (As to the Federal government's proper functions, such as the military and the Supreme Court, there could be a certain percentage of whatever was in each state's coffers, maybe 25%, sent to the Federal government for that purpose, and a citizen would know that when he was paying for local law enforcement, he was also paying for national defense). Naturally, this would not pay for all the things the government does now. But one of my points is that the government shouldn't be doing those things in the first place.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 months ago
      A good argument for later. We are about 180 degrees from a fully state-funded Federal Government, quite the opposite. Then there is the state budget "force" question.

      I would love to have this argument someday, but doubt even my historically, long-lived genes will let that happen in a manner other than hypothetical.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 11 months ago
    Cross this over to Beto's idea of a government funded gun "Buy Back". Answer two questions first.
    How can the government "Buy Back" something it did not give or sell to you? Where does the government get the money it plans to use to "Buy Back" the guns it never owned to begin with and of course with money it first had to take from you?
    When did the word "Charity" become obsolete? If Oliver has hit some hard times and can't afford to send his kids to college I will make two suggestions. He can seek some "Charitable Help" which is up to the people he asks or better yet his kids can get a damn job and pay their own way just like so many of us did in the past. BTW Beto, my guns are Not For Sale at any price so stuff that entire idea where the sun never shines.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 months ago
      Definitely with you there, but he can have my Marlin Model 60 or older Marlin 25 for $1,000 each (they both jam a lot), IF all the money comes from Social Programs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ brightwriter 11 months ago
    Give to the needy? It looks at first like a good altruistic idea. But what constitutes the standard to which the needy should be raised? No one who favors transfers of assets from rich to poor ever identifies a minimum standard for which we the people are responsible, after which we can enjoy whatever wealth remains, after we provide such transfers of assets, with a clear conscience and freedom from harassment by leftists and no controversy.

    Remember the 1950s? We oldsters know that many people then were happy with no household electronics except one black-and-white TV set, one car per family, and hands-on toys such as trucks and dolls for the children instead of battery-powered gadgets. If we promise to underwrite the purchase of such things and insist on stopping there, then leftists will be caught silent. We should also legalize boarding houses with shared bathrooms and kitchens instead of full households, reducing housing expense, and allow for light industry and multi-family residences to be located in the same region, so that transportation between home and work is by foot (cheap!).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ puzzlelady 10 months, 4 weeks ago
      "No one who favors transfers of assets from rich to poor ever identifies a minimum standard for which we the people are responsible..." The old haves vs. have-nots scenario--redistribute to the lowest common denominator, and if you're not willing, you can be forced. The envy involved eventually finds a way to justify looting and war to gain control of resources, since resources are recognized as necessities for survival.

      An interim measure is to obtain compliance by indoctrination of obligation, acceptance of a burden of debt (for unspecified benefits) and the associated guilt about having allegedly unearned wealth. Imposing a sense of "duty" and then meting out the amount due that the dutiful individual should willingly provide is an open-ended device for serfdom.

      And who are those in charge of imposing these sanctimonious "memes"? There are always rulers and subjects, without the protection of the principle of unalienable rights and individual equality. It took humanity tens of thousands of years to arrive at the U.S. Constitution. No wonder movements arise to undo it. Among the unalienable rights is the right to property one has created or earned. The desire to obtain the unearned is an ancient modus operandi we inherited from our predatory animal ancestors.

      The more complex our brains have become, the more devious and convoluted are the methods by which we disguise our rapacious inclinations. It is the rare individual who understands the principle of rational self-interest, of voluntary exchange with others for mutual benefit, in honor and integrity. Ayn Rand has produced the clearest exposition of these principles. Too bad so few people as yet understand or practice them.

      Voluntary donation without expectation of return has a different selfish benefit: it is investment in the improvement of someone else’s efficacy and independence. Caring for parents in their declining years is also appropriate; it is investment in the happiness and comfort (“quality of life”) of individuals who invested many years of their own lives in raising their children.

      So beware of accepting unearned guilt and arbitrary duties.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo