bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you? Highly unlikely.
Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you?
Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you?
Highly unlikely.
Then, according to your logic, you support being beaten. Which leads to this:
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so. Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful.
Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so.
Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so.
Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I see no real need to continue debating. Bloom has defamed himself enough as is.
For some reason I mis-took Bloom as having a bit more reason.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Yet, you've failed to do so. No, I've been ruined more often than not for having integrity.
Daniel Muffinburg: Yet, you've failed to do so.
Yet, you've failed to do so.
No, I've been ruined more often than not for having integrity.
No. What I mean is that your non-integrity has failed to ruin our integrity.
Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you? Highly unlikely. Then, according to your logic, you support being beaten. Which leads to this: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so. Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful. If a gang in jail began to beat you, and it is highly unlikely that you will win, then, according to you logic, you would support being beaten. Btw, does the same apply to you being gang raped in jail?
Just because I won't fight something doesn't mean I support it. It just means I know I'll lose if I fight.
bloomj31: filc: Before the abolition of slaves there were those who argued as you did. "We can't win, slaves will always be. We cannot win in abolishing slaves". You are those men. Well, abolish the state and then I'll support you.
filc: Before the abolition of slaves there were those who argued as you did. "We can't win, slaves will always be. We cannot win in abolishing slaves". You are those men.
Before the abolition of slaves there were those who argued as you did. "We can't win, slaves will always be. We cannot win in abolishing slaves". You are those men.
Well, abolish the state and then I'll support you.
"Yes, I am one of those men"
Talk about integrity.
Daniel Muffinburg: No. What I mean is that your non-integrity has failed to ruin our integrity.
Good for you.
filc: I see no real need to continue debating. Bloom has defamed himself enough as is. For some reason I mis-took Bloom as having a bit more reason.
I think this thread is heading down the rocky road of moral nihilism, as it did last summer.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you? Highly unlikely. Then, according to your logic, you support being beaten. Which leads to this: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so. Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful. If a gang in jail began to beat you, and it is highly unlikely that you will win, then, according to you logic, you would support being beaten. Btw, does the same apply to you being gang raped in jail? Just because I won't fight something doesn't mean I support it. It just means I know I'll lose if I fight.
Then, on the same grounds, do you support the state or not?
Guys, your integrity is good. But look at what the Senate is doing. None of those men have integrity. AND YET, they're making negotiations will all our money. Nelson sold out. Where is his punishment? How does he lose now? By losing an election?
Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you? Highly unlikely. Then, according to your logic, you support being beaten. Which leads to this: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so. Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful. If a gang in jail began to beat you, and it is highly unlikely that you will win, then, according to you logic, you would support being beaten. Btw, does the same apply to you being gang raped in jail? Just because I won't fight something doesn't mean I support it. It just means I know I'll lose if I fight. Then, on the same grounds, do you support the state or not?
In its current incarnation? No. But if it were more restrained, I would.
Capital Pumper:I think this thread is going to head down the rock road of moral nihilism, as it did last summer.
Sure, you guys win from a philosophical point of view. But I win from a political point of view. Rothbard once asked "why do people see one part of our agenda they don't agree with and quit?" Because to accept one part is to accept all in philosophy. But in politics, not so much.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you? Highly unlikely. Then, according to your logic, you support being beaten. Which leads to this: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so. Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful. If a gang in jail began to beat you, and it is highly unlikely that you will win, then, according to you logic, you would support being beaten. Btw, does the same apply to you being gang raped in jail? Just because I won't fight something doesn't mean I support it. It just means I know I'll lose if I fight. Then, on the same grounds, do you support the state or not? In its current incarnation? No. But if it were more restrained, I would.
Would you support anarcho-capitalist over a restrained state?
Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you? Highly unlikely. Then, according to your logic, you support being beaten. Which leads to this: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so. Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful. If a gang in jail began to beat you, and it is highly unlikely that you will win, then, according to you logic, you would support being beaten. Btw, does the same apply to you being gang raped in jail? Just because I won't fight something doesn't mean I support it. It just means I know I'll lose if I fight. Then, on the same grounds, do you support the state or not? In its current incarnation? No. But if it were more restrained, I would. Would you support anarcho-capitalist over a restrained state?
Not in the form it's been presented.
bloomj31: Sure, you guys win from a philosophical point of view. But I win from a political point of view. Rothbard once asked "why do people see one part of our agenda they don't agree with and quit?" Because to accept one part is to accept all in philosophy. But in politics, not so much.
Does the same not apply to the state? If you accept one aspect of the state, is it not to accept all in philosophy?
bloomj31: Guys, your integrity is good. But look at what the Senate is doing. None of those men have integrity. AND YET, they're making negotiations will all our money. Nelson sold out. Where is his punishment? How does he lose now? By losing an election?
Duh. They work for a system thats fundamentally designed to violate rights. What did you expect?
How can you complain about that system than defend it? I'm so confused!
Democracy is flawed by design. No one on this forum expects politician's to do whats in our best interest(accept you maybe). We know thats a Utopian joke.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Can you win against the gang of people who are about to beat you? Highly unlikely. Then, according to your logic, you support being beaten. Which leads to this: bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then all it is settled. Btw, would you rob someone if it meant that you got you what you wanted, in this case, property? After all, it's not like their is some abstract principal that you would apply that would prohibit you from doing so. Conceivable. What are the odds I'll get caught? I don't wanna get caught. Jail looks awful. If a gang in jail began to beat you, and it is highly unlikely that you will win, then, according to you logic, you would support being beaten. Btw, does the same apply to you being gang raped in jail? Just because I won't fight something doesn't mean I support it. It just means I know I'll lose if I fight. Then, on the same grounds, do you support the state or not? In its current incarnation? No. But if it were more restrained, I would. Would you support anarcho-capitalist over a restrained state? Not in the form it's been presented.
Why not?
Daniel Muffinburg: Does the same not apply to the state? If you accept one aspect of the state, is it not to accept all in philosophy?
Only if you view the state as a philosophical concept. Rather than what it really is. A political form. Politics is not necessarily about making philosophies consistent. I mean neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a consistent platform. But they have power. Politics is about power. My main concern is with power, not being morally right or wrong. Power will always manifest itself. One way or another. There is no way to beat the state. It can only be molded. I want to mold it.
Knight_of_BAAWA: ama gi:I'd take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it's a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes--and what could possibly go wrong?What could possibly go wrong with letting people vote on rights! It's not like they could pass a law stating that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. Oh wait--they could. It's not like they could pass a law stating that jews could not own property. Oh wait--they could.
ama gi:I'd take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it's a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes--and what could possibly go wrong?
Not true.
Those laws were not passed by popular referendum. They were passed by legislatures. Legislatures that are filled entirely by army generals, merecantilists, and their wealthy heirs. Not very democratic, in my opinion.
Also, in those two cases you mentioned, Jews could not vote, and blacks could not vote. Coincidence?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
filc: Duh. They work for a system thats fundamentally designed to violate rights. What did you expect? How can you complain about that system than defend it? I'm so confused! Democracy is flawed by design. No one on this forum expects politician's to do whats in our best interest(accept you maybe). We know thats a Utopian joke.
The flaw is not the system. It's humans. We're the problem.
bloomj31: No, I've been ruined more often than not for having integrity.
No. You are ruined because you have NO integrity. No-integrity=ruined. I can have everything stolen from me, raped, and near murdered and walk away focused on what is important in life which is enjoying a good meal with my family, etc... Will I have nightmares after that? undoubtedly, but they would not be what I would want. I would be asking why me, why me, because of what I DO want which is to be left alone in peace.
E. R. Olovetto:When I need a plumber, I am at least going to call someone from the plumber section of the yellow pages, not thumb through the white pages indiscriminately.
You don't get it, do you? Whoever picks the judges and jurors gets to rig the game. That is why jurors should be picked at random (by lottery, or something).
ama gi:You don't get it, do you? Whoever picks the judges and jurors gets to rig the game. That is why jurors should be picked at random (by lottery, or something).
What makes you think consumers would continue to subscribe to a rigged game?
filc: I see no real need to continue debating. Bloom...
I see no real need to continue debating. Bloom...
i second that, if it hasn't already been seconded. I know what is important in life and it's not being around somebody that is soiled/corrupt.
wilderness: No. You are ruined because you have NO integrity. No-integrity=ruined. I can have everything stolen from me, raped, and near murdered and walk away focused on what is important in life which is enjoying a good meal with my family, etc... Will I have nightmares after that? undoubtedly, but they would not be what I would want. I would be asking why me, why me, because of what I DO want which is to be left alone in peace.
Well, Job Wilderness, your integrity is noble. And I wouldn't say that you should ever throw it away. What I'm saying is that anarcho-capitalism will never happen because the people who espouse it aren't willing to play dirty. Your integrity becomes your undoing.
Ama Gi, How well would you appraise your own understanding of economics, in particular the Misesian notion of Consumer Sovereignty?
Should Jurors be picked at random for the same reason that owners of capital should be picked at random and that farmers should be picked at random?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
bloomj31: filc: Duh. They work for a system thats fundamentally designed to violate rights. What did you expect? How can you complain about that system than defend it? I'm so confused! Democracy is flawed by design. No one on this forum expects politician's to do whats in our best interest(accept you maybe). We know thats a Utopian joke. The flaw is not the system. It's humans. We're the problem.
All the more reason to remove human dictatorship and allow the invisible hand. Perhaps you should think about some of the things you stated.
bloomj31:The flaw is not the system. It's humans. We're the problem.
The less power to people the better then.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Paid by whom? And wouldn't the whom look a lot like a PDA? If not--how not?
Jurors would need to be paid by court costs, not some monthly or annual "subscription fee". The costs should be split evenly between both sides. If somebody cannot afford to pay, they could set up a legal fund and have sympathetic individuals donate.
bloomj31: It's humans. We're the problem.
It's humans. We're the problem.
obviously, it's not most here in this thread that is the problem. those advocating peace and justice. it is you bloom that is the problem. that's not hard to figure out.
nirgrahamUK:Ama Gi, How well would you appraise your own understanding of economics, in particular the Misesian notion of Consumer Sovereignty?
Of course I understand consumer sovereignty. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Which is exactly why I ***DON'T*** want everything to be judged by professional private arbiters.
The more jurors are on a case, and the more unpredictably they are assigned, the more difficult it is for money to influence the outcome.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Does the same not apply to the state? If you accept one aspect of the state, is it not to accept all in philosophy? Only if you view the state as a philosophical concept. Rather than what it really is. A political form. Politics is not necessarily about making philosophies consistent. I mean neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a consistent platform. But they have power. Politics is about power. My main concern is with power, not being morally right or wrong. Power will always manifest itself. One way or another. There is no way to beat the state. It can only be molded. I want to mold it.
Non sequitur after non sequitur.
filc: All the more reason to remove human dictatorship and allow the invisible hand. Perhaps you should think about some of the things you stated.
Don't you understand? Human dictatorship, to some degree, is unremovable. It has been around forever and will continue to be around until humans are gone from this planet. The question is: can we mold that dictatorship into something that can benefit the many or can't we?
From the ashes of one government, the seeds of the next will be born. Unless you can take humans out of the game, there will always be governments. And they will always be corrupt at some level. I know none of the people on this forum will ever accept that. But this isn't something you have to accept, it simply is.
wilderness: obviously, it's not most here in this thread that is the problem. those advocating peace and justice. it is you bloom that is the problem. that's not hard to figure out.
But there are more of people like me. They usually just don't think they're like me.
ama gi:Of course I understand consumer sovereignty. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Which is exactly why I ***DON'T*** want everything to be judged by professional private arbiters.
There isn't any anarcho-capitalist commandment saying you need have such a thing. The plaintiff and defendant could just as easily take the case to the barber down the street.
bloomj31: But there are more of people like me. They usually just don't think they're like me.
I was simply pointing out that the "we", the all humans, are NOT the problem. You are one of the problems. It doesn't matter if I'm the last one standing. Why would I want to live in a world that is totally corrupt with immoral people running around stark raving mad? Either way I hold dear what is good and savor the good feeling of love and peace til the last moment. I will know how it feels - to feel good. What else is there?
bloomj31:Don't you understand?
No I don't understand. Neither did the slave abolitionists. Try posting something that makes sense and isn't logically fallacious.
JB:Look, I know there's no way in hell you guys are ever going to have your minds changed by talking on a forum.
Sure, you guys win from a philosophical point of view. But I win from a political point of view.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
but not everything would be judged by professional private arbiters. customers do some judging too don't they? do I have to spell it out? or in light of consumer sovereignty do you may be know where this is headed already?
bloomj31:But there are more of people like me. They usually just don't think they're like me.
Negative. Most people are not like you. If that were true we'd have many more politicians!
Pretending to know what 'most people are like' is utter lunacy.