Sid,

You attack me, but expect me to not defend myself. Who is the the corrupted?

C-dore,

I have not stated anything of the such. A rational person would recognize that they do not have the right to other people’s property, so they would not initiate force against someone else. The pirates do not recognize the right’s of other people so they are acting irrational by stealing from them. Our government, and others, are acting irrational when we do not hunt them down and annihilate them.

You are the one in another thread, and here, that has called me barbaric

You have a real issue with this all about you thing…

But thats ok, because that makes you an imperfect human like the rest of us.

And you totally misconstrued what I said. What I sad was: that a military force composed of a band of individuals, motivated purely by self interest, would quickly devolve into a murderous rabble.

This rabble would be particularly dangerous if they consider themselves superior to those around them.

And that rabble -in a rational way- would find no problem whatsoever in engaging in the various forms of genocide.

History has provided examples of such rabbles cloaked in military garb in action…1937 Nanking. 1939 Krakow. 1945 Berlin.

Thats what I said. Never was about you.

Finally, getting back to this discussion, I also say that the socio/economic picture in Somalia is a magnificent portrait of a capitalist society with the fewest regulatory impediments on the planet peopled by a population that is motivated by self-interest.

Magnificently horrific portrait it is.

Again. I am not talking about you.

Ray:

You have a real gift for dead pan humor.

I can almost see one eyebrow go up, like Raymond Massey used to do, as he asks archly “So you think ‘people should go and hang-out with their enemies?’.”

That was a real kneeslapper. Anybody would think you never heard of market research, or that you thought everyone who held a different opinion was an enemy, rather than someone who hasn’t seen the wisdom of your cause, you know, someone you want to convince.

“I will not be self-deprecating which is just stupid.” Subtle, and ironic. And I thought you couldn’t kid a kidder.

With talent like that, have you considered running for office in someplace like, say, Missouri?

UltimaRatioReg:

You should write a blog concerning that topic because it is directly related to this topic. It should highlight the legalized plunder of the wealth producers by the government that is supposed to protect them.

Have Sid find John Alison’s speech concerning this issue for you it will add value to your post.

Alison and BB&T did not want or need a government bailout for their bank it was forced on them. BB&T recently announced to its shareholders that it was lowering its dividends, for the short term, so that it can pay back the government’s forced bailout.

The rationally self-interested reason for doing this is to get the government out of the business of running banks.

Keeping watching that 401k because as long as the government has its fingers in it, it will take everything of value from it. Unless, of course, some of your 401k is BB&T stock

Sid,

Loving of one’s life and becoming angry when someone attempts to discredit my good character through the mis-stating my thoughts and ideas does not prove that I am “imperfect,” it only means that I am human. And being human is what you seem to fail to understand as man is not evil nor disgusting nor does man making incorrect decissions make him imperfect, as I have stated before making epistemological/knowledge mistatkes does not make one imperfect. Knowing that one makes mistakes and ethically choosing to do nothing to correct them is an example of being imperfect or evil.

If a group of men did not consider themselves to be superior to those that are trying to enslave them, then they deserve the enslavement they get from those other men. Some men, like some governments are superior to others, that is reality. The government and men that recognize individual rights are superior and worthy of praise or defending while the one’s that do not deserve the opposite.

Your examples from history (…1937 Nanking. 1939 Krakow. 1945 Berlin.) only demonstrate what happens when religious or irrational people act without long-term thought. Which has been defined many times and you still evade those definitions.

Once again, I am on subject, the subject that you keep stating your hatred of man and that he is evil by his nature and cannot live without someone or some supposed super natural entity regulating and scaring him into doing what is right. I have totally disagreed with you and demonstrated that man can live a moral live without any of the items that you mention, the problem is you irrationally keep evading those facts.

Grampa Bluewater,

The next time you decide to quote me how about keeping the full context of the quote. Someone that thought of themselves or their ideas in a disapproving way would not have the self-esteem nor the courage to stand up and speak.

Sid, do you agree with the following answer to the question below.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/pirate-economics-101-a-qa-with-invisible-hook-author-peter-leeson/

The Invisible Hook is more than just a clever title. How is it different from Adam Smith’s invisible hand?

In Adam Smith, the idea is that each individual pursuing his own self-interest is led, as if by an invisible hand, to promote the interest of society. The idea of the invisible hook is that pirates, though they’re criminals, are still driven by their self-interest. So they were driven to build systems of government and social structures that allowed them to better pursue their criminal ends. They’re connected, but the big difference is that, for Adam Smith, self-interest results in cooperation that generates wealth and makes other people better off. For pirates, self-interest results in cooperation that destroys wealth by allowing pirates to plunder more effectively.

For those that care to think or rethink their premise,

Let us attempt a this problem from a different angle.

Rationality and ethics are for the individual and to demonstrate that let me use a hypothetical situation. If a person is stranded on an island by themselves they would be responsible for their own survival and happiness. If that person decided to evade the fact that there is no one else on the island then it would not be long before they started to starve or feel the negative effects of different types of weather. When no one else is around to carry the irrational person they cannot evade the facts of reality and get what they deserve. In other words, when no one else is around to carry or provide for the irrational person their irrational choices are not rewarded.

Each man would have to recognize the nature of reality, the nature of his situation and the nature of man if he is going to survive and possibly achieve happiness. The man stranded on the island would have to think of ways to get food, provide for protection from the weather and possibly provide for his defense, whether against animals or at sometime in the future other men. If man fails to use his most essential attribute, reason, he will not survive long on this island alone. In othe words man must choose to apply reason, act in his rational self-interest, in accordance to the nature of reality or he will die. On a stranded island man does not need to ask to take the rational actions needed to maintain his life or enhance his life as he just does what is needed.

This does not change when man chooses to live in society as man must be left free to apply reason in accordance to the nature of reality and his own nature. Choosing to live in a society does not give anyone rights over another person’s choices or property. Living in a society does have benefits if the society is rational and hence moral. It is only in an irrational and immoral society that being irrational and immoral brings rewards. Only in a society that rewards people who do not use their most essential attribute, reason, does it seem that people are acting in a self-interested way. When people in society choose that they have the right to others property, to other people’s efforts, and are rewarded by their non-actions with the effort of other people will it seem like they are acting in a self-interested way. And only when the men that are allowing others to rule them, take advantage of them, agree to be enslaved by other men, or do not stand up and defend their right to their own life, will it mistakenly seem like those that are getting the reward from other people’s efforts seem like they are acting in a self-interested way. But, as Aristotle stated more than 2,400 years ago, “there are no contradictions in reality, only in man’s mind.” So, when one comes to contradiction they should recognize that they have made a mistake in their thoughts and they need to check their premise and start searching for the correct ansswer.

Good day, good premises.

Let us attempt a this problem from a different angle.

Ray, I’m so happy you have it all figured out.

URR, I don’t disagree with you. The Somalis will have to “fix” themselves. Although I will say that the HoA, back into Chad, is a festering boil that deserves more effective international focus than what exists now.

Looks like someone lost their mind, their temper, and who knows what else.

You are a class act, Sid.

URR:

Don’t blame me because you were having too much fun pulling the wings off Ray.

And stay stay away from the legs, you claim jumper.