Labour List MP Charles Chauvel (pictured top right) has resigned from Parliament (effective 11 March). He’s going to a job at the United Nations where he’ll join his former boss, former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark (pictured bottom left).
The United Nations is a common penultimate destination for Labour’s troughed-out ex-MPs. (When they die, they go to the great trough in the sky.)
Former Labour List MP Carol Beaumont (pictured top left) is set to return to Parliament as Chauvel’s replacement. We’ll be up a trade unionist abortionist and down a gay lawyer. This minor opposition reshuffle is interesting (to me) for two reasons.
Firstly, Chauvel sponsored a Member’s bill, the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill, which would have dealt to scum-of-the-earth usurers.
Ever since I became an MP, an issue that I have supported is the regulation of so called “loan sharks”. Loan sharks prey on the vulnerable with unscrupulous rates of interest and this includes many of our Pacific people. They are the scourge of our community and instead of lending a helping hand keep borrowers in poverty. It is common for payday lenders to charge interest at rates between “only” 8% and 15% per week, compounding well into four figures at a time when mainstream rates have declined.
Chauvel’s Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill was drawn from the ballot in 2009. In early 2010 Beaumont took over responsibility for Chauvel’s bill, which was subsequently defeated at its first reading in July 2010. So, a common interest there, and with Beaumont back in Parliament perhaps we’ll still see some action on loan sharks.
Secondly, three elections in a row Chauvel failed to unseat United Future MP Peter Dunne (pictured bottom right) in the Ōhariu electorate. Dunne gloated tweeted from Dubai airport
Ready to board Melb/Auck flight. After what’s been happening in NZ today certainly seems time to come home and join the fun.
Chauvel did succeed in reducing Dunne’s majority from 12,534 (in 2002) to 7,702 (in 2005) and 1006 (in 2008) but 1392 (in 2011) was a miss as good as a mile. I hope Labour puts up a strong candidate to contest the Ōhariu electorate in 2014. It’s way way wayyyy past time to flush the Dunney!
43 thoughts on “Unionists 1, Lawyers 0”
What is your Rationale to justify regulation of Interest on loans Richard?
Surely that is against the principles of Libertarianism?
Are not Poor Polynesians Adult enough to make their own decisions?
Do they require Nannying?
Loan sharks may indeed be self interested scum, yet how is that a crime when the contracts they offer are voluntarily accepted.
Is it not the duty of government to see such contracts are honored?
What Evils precedents are you willing to set for the sake of inflicting legal sanctions against those whom use legitimate liberty in away you despise?
And what will be the next Nanny-ism you will support?
Remember what Herbert Spencer said… “to protect people from themselves is to people the world with fools.”
What you really need to ask is how many of these chumps who are the prey of ‘loan sharks are actually on welfare… and thus have been rendered childish via excessive socialist nannyism already?
What if instead of more nannyism we get rid of their benefits and they have to work for their cash… so as to get a real appreciation for money?
Tim, indeed it is!
If you re-read my post carefully, you’ll see that I have NOT stated that I support anti-usury legislation.
Did I give you the impression that I did? Then perhaps I have a future in politics! 😉
(The fact remains that loan sharks are bottom-dwellers.)
NZ needs pro-usury legislation, not anti-usury.
It’s called Freedom. It’s called Capitalism. Get with the programme starve in the gutter – your choice!
Loan sharks are ‘Objectivist’s’ Richard… They Reason their own self interest ought never to be subordinated fr the sake of Altruism.
And inspite of Rand’s/ Terry’s abitrary dictates…. They are exercising ‘Rational selfishness’…. their predatory practices falling within the bounds of ‘legitimate liberty’… as far as Libertarian Free Market capitalism is concerned. Indeed they use the Libertarian ‘duty of Government’ to insure they get paid.
The Fool has Legally enslaved themselves to the loan shark.
I already know that Terry will argue that the Loan sharks are exercising ‘irrational selfishness’… to which I say Poppy cock!
Objectivism has no real arguement against this predatory practice.
The Objectivist delusion that ‘Faithfulness to reality’ as being the only moral imperitive’ from which they may then distingush such un-altruistic selfishness as being ‘morally wrong’ is laughable!
I dont dispute that they can rationalise that such practices are repugnant, yet that is actually an arguement for the virtue of voluntary altruism in a free society!
And even then cannot be deemed *an objective moral duty*.
The Loan sharks will be able to argue they are within the moral limits of a free society. It is only the Christian who has a Real objective moral arguement against such ‘filthy lucre’ and can condemn the practice baced upon Divine revelation… an absolute standard of morality… rather than merely their own rationale.
Thus the Christian may not be able to ban such practice, yet they can still condemn it in the strongest moral grounds as truly immoral, truly sinful, and warn Christians never to accept such Selfish anti Altruism as being acceptible for the chrisian to practice… even though it is legal. (like so many other things which are legal in a free society)
Loan sharks are no worse than prostitutes or drug dealers.
Reed, do you think that loan sharks are no worse than supermarkets?
Loan shark is an emotionally loaded term for someone who provides loans at a higher rate to people who otherwise could not get a loan.
They may be no worse than supermarkets (what have you got against supermarkets?) but they are more like a dairy – or a dairy in a remote area.
The allegation made against loan sharks is that they take advantage of the vulnerable but that is no different than prostitutes, drug dealers or lawyers.
Supermarkets are drug dealers (they sell alcohol and tobacco). Do supermarkets take advantage of the vulnerable?
No. Loan sharks are no worse than supermarkets.
‘Drug dealer’ is an emotionally loaded term for someone who supplies drugs to people who like taking drugs.
So you don’t think that loan sharks take advantage of the vulnerable?
No more than a drug dealer or prostitute.
The thing is, Reed, that the customers of drug dealers and supermarkets are a representative sample of the general public. The customers of loan sharks are not a representative sample of the general public. They are “people who otherwise could not get a loan.” I submit that such people are more vulnerable on average than members of the general public.
I submit that people who want heroin or could not otherwise get sex are more vulnerable on average than members of the general public.
“Drug dealers” was for you, Richard, and “prostitutes” was for Tim; I’m looking forward to Tim’s defense of prostitution.
It’s the very same as i have listed for Loan sharks Reed.
It cant be banned.
Do you agree with me that loan sharks are no worse than prostitutes?
“I already know that Terry will argue that the Loan sharks are exercising ‘irrational selfishness’… to which I say Poppy cock! Objectivism has no real arguement against this predatory practice.”
Thanks for putting words into my mouth Tim!
I cannot speak for Objectivism, only for myself, since this is primarily an area of applied ethics and law.
I hold, like you, that in a free society there should be no legal restrictions on loan providers charging interest, and, that fraud (including but not limited to intentionally misleading advertising) is a crime.
The practice of usury (providing interest bearing loans of all kinds) enables people without money and people with money to mutually benefit from the wealth of the latter. How is that irrationally selfish? Not only do both interested parties benefit from such an exchange; countless people who are not involved in the trade often benefit too—by means of access to the goods and services made possible by the exchange.
As for the unconscionable conduct of *some* high interest lenders (those who deserve the title ‘loan shark’), I submit that if objective law were to be applied, one would be able to arrive at the conclusion the contracts are often voidable. A list of voidable contract features include:
An agreement made by incompetent parties (Minor/Incapacitated Person) is void.
Any agreement with a bilateral mistake is void.
Agreements which have unlawful consideration is void.
Agreement with a unlawful object is void.
Agreements made without consideration is void.
Agreement in restraint of marriage of any major person is void (absolute restriction).
Agreement in restraint of trade is void (reasonable reason)
Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings is void.
An agreement the terms of which are uncertain is void.
An agreement by way of wager (betting/gambling) is void.
An agreement contingent upon the happening of an impossible event is void.
Agreement to do impossible acts is void.
As for the morality of one making it their ‘business’ to provide others with extortion-like high interest rate loans, the moral man, according to Objectivism, derives his self-esteem from his rationality which includes his pursuing a *productive* career, in any line of *rational* endeavor. Any line of endeavor where one profits from another human’s bad choices is NOT a rational endeavor!
Sure enough …
… to which I say poppycock! Objectivism has no real argument against such predatory practices!
>>”… poppycock! Objectivism has no real argument against such predatory practices!”
“The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving VALUE FOR VALUE. [ Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,”The Virtue of Selfishness, 31] (emphasis mine)
“It is only with (other men’s) mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest COINCIDES WITH THEIRS. WHEN THEY DON’T, I ENTER NO RELATIONSHIP” [Galt’s speech, Atlas Shrugged] (emphasis mine)
How much more explicitly could Miss Rand state the case?
The above supports without contradiction the fact that a rational man who identifies that it is not in his customer’s interests to deal with him (regardless of his customer’s protestations to the contrary), he will not deal with him. Why? Because it is not rational to accept a value from another man without giving a value in return.
It seems there is an obvious distinction here which people apart from Richard are missing, that is the difference between what is immoral and what should be a crime. Richard strikes me as suggesting loan sharing is immoral, others seem to think this is unlibertarian, but it’s not, it might be unlibertarian to have laws against loan sharks, but that’s a different issue.
“It’s not rational to accept a value from another without giving a value in return” why not, on standard means ends accounts of rationality that’s perfectly rational, some argument for this conclusion is needed.
Terry has added an ethic… He says “Men ought not to desire the unearned”… that is not derivable from his original claim that the only moral was ‘faithfulness to reality’. Ie ‘Reality does not forbid someone from desiring the unearned.
Thus proving Objectivists pull their *real ethics* subjectively out of thin air.
He has added many extra ethics… *not sacrificing your own interests* is actually an endorsement of Loansharking! and it cancells out his next assertion… and “Not accepting the sacrifice of others”…. How Noble! Again pulled out of the sky… and I would say that is also irrational, because if your house burns down you wont accept a bed in someone elses house if it means the people must top and tail?
That would be in your self interest… just like extorting loot is if you get the State to be your enforcer!
Terry’s entire list of legitimate ways to viod a contract is also one great big list of ethics which are not derivable from ‘faithfulness to reality’!
*Libertarianism is not derivable from the single axiom of ‘faithfulness to reality’!*
Objectivism is not even an system of Ideals. It is purely pragmatic. “Whatever is in a persons own self interest is Moral” It is a Kin to Utilitarian pragmatism in that Mill was able to argue Individual rights are in fact conducive to achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number!
Ie Objectivism is a member of the Family of ‘the end justifies the means’.
Of course The Objectivist definition of ‘Sacrifice’ is a rediculous preloaded anti-concept… the selling out of a higher value for a lesser one! What a joke! Sacrifice simply means you are prepared to bear a cost for the sake of someone else.
Thus Objectivism is utterly absurd and is a sophist fabrication.
I have expressed exactly that point Matt. That Christians have an objective morality which we volunterily embrace, and can appeal to in vocal condemnation, inspite of the fact that many immoral practices fall withing the legitimate sphere of liberty and ought not to be legislated.
I am Head hunting Terry’s Objectivist claims that ‘Loansharking’ is objectively irrational and therefore immoral.
P.S I’m Glad you picked up on that one Richard (Re Terry’s ad hominem attack of me “putting words in his mouth”… and then proceeding to vindicate my assertion!)
I have been waiting for some back up!
P.S Reed. If we are defining Loan sharks as merely money lenders whom offset risk via higher interest then I agree they are no worse than prostitutes. They are both selling a service without malice. yet The term Loan shark more properly refers to a more ruthless predatory practice seeking to fleese chumps…. thus they are low lives…. like Kerby salesmen 🙂 Aye Terry! Ha ha ( I could not resist that one!
I wrote above that “there should be no legal restrictions on loan providers charging interest”. I pointed out that fraud is a crime. How am I therefore being ‘un-libertarian’ by stating that loan-sharking in the predatory sense is immoral?
>>”“It’s not rational to accept a value from another without giving a value in return” why not, on standard means ends accounts of rationality that’s perfectly rational, some argument for this conclusion is needed.”
A rational man does not seek the un-earned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Nature provides man with nothing required by his life for free (except air and sunlight). Everything (else) that is required for his life to be fruitful must be earned somehow through his effort or the effort of someone else. To seek the unearned is to require other men to become one’s serfs or slaves in support of one’s life. If all men were to operate in this fashion, everyone would perish. Therefore, the only moral and fair approach is for each man to provide for himself and then trade with others voluntarily for mutual gain. The efficiencies inherent in a division of labor society makes every other productive man one’s benefactor, even if one does not directly trade with them. It is therefore in each and every productive man’s interests never to short-change his fellow productive man. To do so is to short-change himself, albeit indirectly.
Terry, I added some extra stuff to my last two comments. you may want to reveiw my accusations.
I can’t understand the logic of your attack. Hopefully my reply to Matt will clarify why by properly applied Objectivist standards it is irrational to act predatorily (even if force is not involved) against your fellow man.
>>”The Objectivist definition of ‘Sacrifice’ is …the selling out of a higher value for a lesser one! … Sacrifice simply means you are prepared to bear a cost for the sake of someone else.”
What you miss Tim his that before one can engage in ‘sacrifice’ (as Objectivism defines it – which, by the way, is the surrender, not ‘selling-out’, of higher values for the sake of lower values or a non-value) one must first possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible. Very few people have such a defined hierarchy of rational values. I submit *that* is why you find the Objectivist definition of sacrifice so absurd, namely, because it does not apply to 95-99% of the population, i.e. they do not even know the value of what it is they are giving up for others, it is all done through feelings. The vast majority of people “bear a cost for the sake of someone else” in exchange for ‘some’ value, not knowing what that value should be to them.
>>”Terry’s ad hominem attack”
That was not an ad hominem, it was made in good humor. I came to this thread and already I had apparently been saying things.
>>”The term Loan shark more properly refers to a more ruthless predatory practice seeking to fleese chumps…. thus they are low lives…. like Kerby salesmen Aye Terry! Ha ha ( I could not resist that one!)”
Tim, that was uncalled for, and a proper example of what an ad hominem is.
FYI I sold every one of my Kirby’s in good conscience and never refused to refund an unhappy customer (other than for a small handful of times where I knew for certain the customers were acting in bad faith). I still stand by the product and company today, despite being out of it many years. It is just a shame that a few bad apples were attracted and allowed to sell the product in a predatory way, spoiling the reputation for those of us distributors who sold in a non-predatory way.
Hahaha! Terry! Just pulling your leg re: The Kirby thing! 🙂
The basic argument that you have put forward as an Objectivist is that it is in your own self interest to live in a society of Individual rights, honestly, by your own effort, rendering unto others fairly as you seek to be likewise treated.
You claim this to be rationally arrived at, and thus argue that being dishonest or oppressive, etc must therefore be irrational…and as it is by your reckoning ‘irrational’… it is therefore Immoral Because you say it is a divorcement from ‘reality’.
Yet that is a false dichotomy, because though it may indeed be beneficial to you to have certain rights which protect you from the criminal predations of others, it does not of necessity follow that if you had superior rights to others or that if you were lawfully predatory yourself that this modus opperandi cant be to your own benefit/ self interest.
Thus you have no moral arguement against the vilest types of Loansharking.
And even if it is true and valid reasoning that you personally are better off with equality and honest non predatory wealth creation (lets say because of the Providence of ‘an invisible hand’), … that this rationale simply means you are supporting rights and honesty for pragmatic reasons…. your own self interest… rather than because rights are objectively ‘Holy’… ie because of Objective duty and morality!
And that is why Objectivism is the individualist equivalent of Collectivist Utilitarianism… merely a pragmatic means to an end.
(whereas we Christians can claim our ethics to be both pragmatically Rational…In the best interest of both society and the individual without contradiction… and also most essentially Truly morally objective because they are not solely derived from being merely means to a desired ends, but are intrinsically moral in their own right irrespective of any ends… they are how God tells us we ought to behave… like Christ/ St Paul… motivated by Love of humanity and respect for the Almighty)
And if we examine your multitude of assertions like ‘Never accepting the sacrifice of others’ we find that this is not derived from ‘faithfulness to reality’ at all! But is merely a pragmatic and subjective assertion.
It may in reality be contradictory to your primary objective of self interest because clearly accepting the sacrifice of others can very well be in your self interest!
That you recoil from this shows an inconsistency in your system.
Your Non- self sacrifice position contradicts your pragmatic idea (not ideal) of never accepting the sacrifice of others…. because you must ‘sacrifice’ your own self-interest in which you would benefit from accepting the sacrifices of others… for the sake of being able to cliam ‘never to accept the sacrifice of others.
We have already argued about the Objectivists re-definition of the word sacrifice.
It also exposes just how full of ‘cherry picked’ Moral imperatives your pragmatism insists upon.
Christians on the otherhand do have an objective basis for morals which are higher than pragmatic self-interest… or pragmatic greatest happiness. We have God to answer to. He is higher than the Libertarian State. He sets rules for Christians way over and above the sactions of a free society… yet we still volunteerily choose to subordinate ourselves to what he deems to be our duties and responciblities. He is our God… in whom we trust.
>>”it does not of necessity follow that if you had superior rights to others or that if you were lawfully predatory yourself that this modus opperandi cant be to your own benefit/ self interest. Thus you have no moral arguement against the vilest types of Loansharking.”
You have simply asserted this without any reasons. If you want to refute my argument, address the reasoning I used.
>>”And even if it is true and valid reasoning that you personally are better off with equality and honest non predatory wealth creation (lets say because of the Providence of ‘an invisible hand’), ”
An invisible hand has nothing to do with it – the Law of Identity does. A rational man operates on principle, which means that he ignores short term gains in favor of long term ones. The rational man plays the odds in his favor; he knows that to cheat and swindle and exploit unfairly will be of detriment to his fellow productive man, and since his fellow productive men are his benefactors by virtue of the efficiencies inherent in a division of labor society, it is unsustainable and self-defeating in the long term to act in a way that will hurt his fellow man. As an example watch an episode of Dragon’s Den – the dragons will invariably refuse to take too high of a stake in a business since they are rational enough to know that to do so would hurt the owner, removing incentive and motivation, and in turn hurting the dragon’s prospects. There are no conflicts between rational men!
>>”that this rationale simply means you are supporting rights and honesty for pragmatic reasons…. your own self interest… rather than because rights are objectively ‘Holy’… ie because of Objective duty and morality!
If one is rational, the practical/pragmatic and the moral are the same thing. You are creating a false dichotomy that does not exist if one is able to correctly identify the facts. ‘Objective duty’ is an oxymoron for this reason.
>>”rather than because rights are objectively ‘Holy’”
Religion does not have a monopoly on what is moral any more than it has a monopoly on what is beautiful. One must choose one’s standard of morality just as one must choose one’s standard of beauty before an assessment can be made. One then judges accordingly. Religion uses “Gods word” as the standard of morality – (whatever that happens to be, according to the respective religion), whereas Objectivism chooses what is good for a rational man’s life – a standard that is derived directly from reality (i.e. his own identity).
>>” intrinsically moral in their own right irrespective of any ends”
To divorce moral actor from moral beneficiary is to subjugate the actor to being a serf or slave.
>>”It may in reality be contradictory to your primary objective of self interest because clearly accepting the sacrifice of others can very well be in your self interest!”
Eh? I have demonstrated above that it is logically impossible for the sacrifices of others to be in one’s self interest. If you can provide a concrete example (I.e. From real life) let’s discuss that.
>>”We have already argued about the Objectivists re-definition of the word sacrifice.”
I suspect nobody has ever pointed out what I pointed out above about the Objectivist position on sacrifice and that you had a misconception. If I am correct, man up and admit it. I am not here to argue for argument’s sake, but going by your approach it seems that you are. I am here to learn and teach, with each person wearing the appropriate hat at the appropriate time.
In summary, the moral – *if* identified objectively with reason – *is* the pragmatic. A principled man is the practical man, provided his principles align with reality.
Can either Richard, or Matt see the blind alley Terry has lumbered down?
If so please step in and explain why his system is not an objective moral code, and that the rights basis he advocates is not at all ‘inalienable’, but mere relativism and subjectivism… wholly dependent upon his own opinions… and not binding upon those whom believe Statism and is a better means to the same end, and that objectivism is merely another form of utilitarianism.
>>”that the rights basis he advocates is not at all ‘inalienable’, but mere relativism and subjectivism”
Where have I stated that rights are “inalienable”? That’s you putting words in my mouth again before I have said anything.
I would have you know that while I agree with all of Objectivism’s fundamentals, I do not agree with everything Ayn Rand ever wrote.
I submit that rights are *objectively identifiable*, not ‘inalienable’. By that I mean that in order for rights to exist in reality, certain conditions must first be met, including a society being formed with the men in that society identifying the rights they share equally with their fellow men by virtue of their shared identities, and those men proceeding to act to uphold and enforce those rights by establishing objective laws.
Without these prerequisites, rights do not exist.
But when rights exist, they *do* exist in reality; they exist not as a feature of reality “intrinsic” to each and every individual regardless of his circumstance, rather, they exist existentially, i.e. in the minds of all those men who have identified their own identities as rational men possessing free-will and their metaphysical need to be left free to act on their own judgment unimpeded by coercion by other men.
The hardest thing for non-Objectivists, especially theists, to get their head around, is that in reality everything is connected to everything else. There is only existence, nothing else, and included in that existence is men’s consciousnesses. The mental contents of those consciousnesses (which is existential, not metaphysical in nature) are just as ‘real’ as anything else, but what one must not do is conflate the existential with the metaphysical, which would be to drop context.
As to your claim of my relativism and subjectivism, I would point out that Wikipedia defines relativism as “the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration”, and defines subjectivism as “the philosophical tenet that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience”. To label me as a relativist or subjectivist and show that you are at least being honest about it, please quote something I have written that would fit one of these definitions.
Terry says (1)…
“I submit that rights are *objectively identifiable*, not ‘inalienable’. By that I mean that in order for rights to exist in reality, certain conditions must first be met, including a society being formed with the men in that society identifying the rights they share equally with their fellow men by virtue of their shared identities, and those men proceeding to act to uphold and enforce those rights by establishing objective laws.
Without these prerequisites, rights do not exist.”
Terry continues (2)… “As to your claim of my relativism and subjectivism, I would point out that Wikipedia defines relativism as “the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration”, and defines subjectivism as “the philosophical tenet that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience”.
Then (3) very strangely Terry asks me …
“To label me as a relativist or subjectivist and show that you are at least being honest about it, please quote something I have written that would fit one of these definitions.”
^^^^ Terry! Read your own claim about rights only existing in the minds of people like yourself. Re:(1)
Grap how precisely your own words in (1) mesh with the descriptions of relitivism and subjectivism you yourself has provided Re: (2) !!!!
And there you have answered your own question! Re(3) !!!!
Thus I rest my case!
You have validated what the Atheist George Carlin said….
The Late George Carlin… Rabid atheist and Iconoclast tells you honestly what Atheism really means… The end of all value and morality. He would laugh in Ayn Rands face! He exposes Rand as a Fraud and second-hander …. whom plagiarizes the values of Christianity and foolishly attempts to ground them in the vacuum of atheist materialism! Calling her Philosophy ‘Objectivism’ no more makes it truly Objective than calling a party ‘Labour’ actually makes it truly benevolent towards the working class! Rand actually abandoned a tyrannical atheist country (Russia) for the safety and liberty of a Christian Nation (America), and then proceeded to undermine the very foundations of Freedom! Enlightened Protestant Christianity. Russia embraced the ideas of the Karl Marx, whom based his Collectivist Totalitarian State upon ‘Scientism’ (Atheist Materialism) and the denial of God given inalienable rights. Lenin further argued that ‘Whatever actions benefited the cause of ‘the Party’ (the State) and its ambitions for World socialist Revolution *was moral*. Murder etc are all acceptible means being justified by the ends (Utilitarianism). The Socialists believe the Individual has no rights but exists for the sake of the state. Under Atheism there are no objective values or ethics. Ethics are superstitions… illusory. Scientifically speaking all that really exists to the Materialist way of thinking are the cold and indifferent Laws of physics and chemistry.
Materialism renders Man Nought. Meaning-less, Value-less, Right-less
The Late Great Libertarian Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer explains why The philosophy of Libertarian Inalienable rights is the historic fruit of the Judeo-Christian world view, and that Atheist Materialism is the Death of all morality, and human value, and has no basis for objective Law. This explains why with the growth of Atheism, Democratic Nations like America and New Zealand have become exposed to unchecked Mobocracy, having removed belief in God given inalienable rights and objective morality. What remains is the arbitrary whim of the masses. In the atheist reality there is no Higher authority. Any ‘Rights’ we now possess may be removed at any moment. They are no longer Inalienable but dependent upon the whims of Parliament. To restore true Libertarian rights *As sacred* is my Mission. I preach the Gospel Of the Grace of God, so that sinners might be saved, and also to restore faith in the Judeo-Christian cosmology which underpins human value, objective morality, esp The Rights of the individual. Many modern Christians have forsaken the Political Enlightenment that followed in the wake of the Reformation, and have been led down the garden path into tyranny and subjection by the ‘Humanist’ worldview. I seek to recover them from the snare of Devil, and restore faith in the trustworthiness of the Bible and the foundations of Liberty and equality. It has taken strong delusions to blind Christianity to the truths which I hold to be self-evident: That God created Man equal and endowed him with certain inalienable rights… Tim Wikiriwhi.
>>”Thus I rest my case!”
Quoting me is not an argument.
You leave me to only guess where you may be misinterpreting what I have written.
I suspect you can’t grasp the objectivity of a contextual “good” (mistaking it for being relative or subjective) because you limit yourself to only visualizing a reality with men’s minds separated from it (and then introduce God as the arbeiter), and cannot see the fact of the matter which is that one’s mind is in fact a part of reality – the one and only reality there is, i.e existence, and that when certain conditions exist in that reality, a relationship among existents if formed. Identifying that relationship with one’s mind using a rational premise and a logical method is called being *objective*. The truth thus identified is arrived at OBJECTIVELY.
Hang on Terry, you specifically asked me to show you an example of where *You* made subjective claims…. And I did exactly that!
You are *inventing* what You want to call ‘Good’.
It is so ‘Only in *your mind*.
You have already said that unless you, and your fellow man ‘Agree’ about what ‘form’ rights ‘ought’ to be that they dont exist!
Ie according to your definition They only exist subjectively… not Objectiviely!
For them to be Objective means they exist *in Reality*…. ‘Even when there is no consensus! Ie they are not dependant upon the opinion of anyone.
Thus The fact that God created Man Equal and endowed us with certain inalienable rights *Is a fact of reality*…. even if *You* or Helen Clark dont believe it Terry.
I dont have to convince you of this *Natural fact* for it to be true.
It *is* Objectively true irrespective of your opinion.
And it is morally binding upon you…. even if you dont want to admit your duty.
It has nothing to do with a ‘pragmatic’ convention designed to aid human cohabitation… or ‘human flourishing’… it is not merely a means to an end.
It is a Divine Law, Higher than your opinion, higher than the Mandate of the majority, higher than the verdict’s of Dawkins or Darwin.
‘Human Flourishing’ was what was behind Hitler’s bid for German Global Domination!
The final solution was His subjective modus opperandi… and you have no way of saying your imaginations are any more ‘Good’ than his.
I know that this will piss you off…. Yet it’s 100% true!
You have no Higher Law than your own opinion.
>>”Hang on Terry, you specifically asked me to show you an example of where *You* made subjective claims…. And I did exactly that!”
No you didn’t, Tim. What you did was to confuse the contextual nature of objective certainty with being subjective, and then as a result of your error misinterpret what I wrote as me being subjective.
Here is a question for you that may prove the point:
a) You exist;
b) I exist;
c) This conversation exists;
d) A relationship that exists between you and what I am reading of what you wrote above.
So. Do you hold that all four statements are true?
If you accept that all 4 are true, then you are agreeing that a “relationship” is a real and not “invented” (i.e. subjective) thing. That being the case, I would like for you to please explain to me where exactly does the relationship described in 4) above exist? Is it:
a) In your mind only;
b) In reality only;
c) In your mind and in reality
Correction: d) should read: “A relationship exists between you and what I am reading of what you wrote above”.
Terry I accept that this conversation is an objective reality because of it’s factual existence irrespective of whether or not either of us believe it.
It’s reality is not a matter of Opinion.
The validity of it’s existence does not rely on anyone’s rationale.
Yet still there are no value judgments to be derived from this admission.
It is merely a cold and indifferent fact.
Yet this is very different to what you claimed about rights…. according to you they only exist in the mind.
They are an invention… according to you.
Without agreement, they dont even exist… according to you.
And indeed the only reason you say they are valid is because in your mind they are necessary to achieve all your various Ends. That is not Objectivity but subjectivity.
You ‘will’ them into being.
Hitler willed them out of being.
Your will is no more valid than his.
You subjectively say ‘individual rights are ‘Good’.
He reasons thus…. if Man is nothing more than a random accident then rights as you call them are nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
Ie Because they are not written in stone by the finger of God… they are nothing more than fantasy.
What more… if atheism is true…. Then Hitler is the Objectivist! Not You!
Hitler is the cold realist …in an atheistic cosmos!
Yet if Man is not an accident.
If Man was Created by God and given his life by God, then he has his Life by Divine right! And by denying Jews of their Rights, Hitler is in transgression of Objective reality.
This has nothing to do with pragmatic subjective rationale.
Even if Hitler does not believe We have rights and that He is subject to a higher Law, the objective truth stands in judgment of Him.
Thus Libertarianism is founded upon inalienable rights.
It is of no consequence if these rights interfere with anyone’s social program… no matter how eloquent the desired end might be.
It is only upon these Ideals that a Constitution can be so constructed so as to outlaw the politics of socialists, and protect the individual.
Our rights are not means to an end but ends in themselves… God’s determinations.
You and I are simply commanded to respect them.
And This is not my clever argument.
This is objective History.
The American declaration of Independence is a monument of history which testifies to the veracity of what I have said and no about of whim, or bleating on your part can undo these Objective facts.
I stand upon the Rock.
You… upon the sand.
“Terry I accept that this conversation is an objective reality”
If you refer back to my question, this was not all what I was asked. What I was asked was whether a relationship existed between what you write and what I am reading. We can point to you, I and our conversation. They leave tangible *metaphysical* evidence. Our relationship to what the other person writes however is quite a different thing, and has no tangible real time evidence you can point to. So I want to know if you think there is a real relationship or not, and if so, why you do.
If an identifiable relationship exists between you and what you are reading of what I am writing, then this is directly relevant to establishing the reality of other relationships that are also identifiable in reality, such as rights.
Terry, If I understand you correctly… that is a puerile question.
Of course there must be some relation between what I write and what you read.
The only thing ‘metaphysical’ about it is the content.
The only tangible/ ‘real’ evidence is that we have to some degree successfully used symbols to communicate information and ideas.
Yet the information can be wrong, and the ideas may be absolute fantasy.
Thus the fact that we have had a conversation does not make *the content* an objective reality or truth.
Only if the content has a correlation to a Reality which is not contingent upon our conversation or rationalisations/opinions, or consensus, may it be deemed to represent some form of Objective truth. Ie It’s propositions have independent validity and correlate to actual realities . Eg Rights are not simply Good ideas because they are conducive to human flourishing. They are innate facts which define our relationships to one other… even when they are not conducive to human flourishing eg A genius may make a discovery which could cure cancer… yet he cannot be forced to devulge his method…against his will, nor can a man be rightfully prevented from Drinking a Bottle of whiskey every day… though it may kill him. Rights are not means to any end. We have Rights. End of story.
Rights as you define them are Human inventions… objectively speaking.
By your own admission they don’t exist as ‘inalienable’ realities.
By your account they are contingent upon worshipping the vain imaginations of Ayn Rand… as the word of God.
Ie You seek to elevate her Rationale out of the domain of mere human imagination into the stratosphere of Absolute truth.
Yet this is a farcical conjurers trick.
It seeks to claim Man’s God given Rights without having a God!
It is an absurdity.
George Carlin knew it.
Bertrand Russell knew it.
Even Helen Clark knows it.
Most Teenagers understand that Atheism Materialism leaves is in a nihilistic hopeless dead reality.
It is only deluded whackos like Rand, Dawkins, and their sheepish groupies whom attempt to hide the ultimate implications of their Godless and sterile cosmology.
Please don’t think that I am saying these things out of Malice.
I assure you that I speak out of Good will towards you Terry.
I know just how ‘unbelievable’ the Idea of God appears to the atheist mind.
I was once equally as blind.
All my arguments are a testimony of an amazing Revelation that God is really there.
It is my hearts desire to stand before you and bear witness to this truth, in the hope that the scales might fall from your eyes and that you behold a most wonderful and Awesome reality that has been before your eyes the whole time, yet you were unable to realize it because your mind has been systematically darkened.
>>”By your own admission they don’t exist as ‘inalienable’ realities.
By your account they are contingent upon worshipping the vain imaginations of Ayn Rand… as the word of God.”
You do realize that Miss Rand held that rights are ‘inalienable’ and that I disagree with her on that count?
I hold that rights are *objectively identifiable*, not ‘inalienable’ – that they come into existence in the form of a *relationship* between two or more of a specific type of entity (i.e. rational beings possessing volition), NOT as a characteristic that is intrinsic to those entities under all circumstances (which is what ‘inalienable’ by definition means). For example, if a man was on a desert island by himself, he cannot be said to have any rights whilst living solitary in nature.
The relationship I speak of is where two or more men identify the fact that to live *as men* they require freedom from each other to act according to their own volitional judgments, and the agreement to give each other just such a freedom protected by law, and where all laws are to be based on this protection. Laws based on rights thus described are objective and therefore legitimate.
By not identifying, agreeing with and respecting rights, men who do not adhere to legitimate law cannot themselves claim to have rights, which is why they may be imprisoned.
>>”Of course there must be some relation between what I write and what you read.”
By your agreeing that relationships are real things, you are agreeing that to identify a relationship such as that which gives rise to rights, is as objective as identifying an attribute of an entity, like a man’s height. Both are equally ‘real’, and thus using reason, one may identify both equally ‘objectively’.
I hope you can see now (although I do not expect you to given your belief that rights can only come from God) that I am not being subjective by categorizing rights as being objectively identifiable and not inalienable.