Poptech: Actually Somalia exists yet none of the anarchist want to move there, which I find fascinating. You would think that they would jump at the chance to fulfill their fantasies!
Actually Somalia exists yet none of the anarchist want to move there, which I find fascinating. You would think that they would jump at the chance to fulfill their fantasies!
It seems that, whenever you encounter an argument which, at your first glance, seems to conform to or confirm your biases, you, immediately, without any further inquiry, incorporate it into your perspective. To discover the superficiality and consequent fallaciousness of your charge, (a) watch, to receive a quick overview, the video in first link and (b) listen to, to receive a more detailed and elaborated discussion, the audio in the second link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNroxDWDP8w
http://fee.org/media/audio/self-governance/
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Only because you're a troll. And you're only still here because someone forgot to re-set your ban to permanent.
So you have rejected anarchy and now adopted fascism?
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
bloomj31:But you have no way of enforcing your judgment. Law requires an arbiter and an enforcer. Where is your arbiter and enforcer?
Im not really sure what this is in response to. We were talking about rent-seeking.
bloomj31:I do not follow an ethical or moral code based on right and wrong but instead a consequential one
Great so you will concede the point that ethics has nothing to do with God.
bloomj31:I do not worry about whether they're right or wrong
But you are. Otherwise you wouldn't even bothering arguing here. Your actions contradict your meaning.
bloomj31:but instead whether they're allowed or not and what the consequences will be for taking actions that are not allowed.
And in this way you construct a system which creates right and wrong.
bloomj31:Thus I am able to abide by a legal code without worrying about whether my actions are morally right or wrong.
Because the legal code becomes your morality. Up untill this point none of this has anything to do with God.
bloomj31:I do this because I have very little faith in God, the supposed final arbiter and enforcer of morality.
This sentence is non-sequitur with the above good points you've made. All of the criteria you've outlined above has nothing to do with believing or not believing in god. IT has to do with believing Might makes right. I'm not disputing what you believe. I'm pointing out that God has nothing to do with morals and ethics per se.
Lets move past this. You've dwelled on this much in several posts.
Poptech:So you have rejected anarchy and now adopted fascism?
so you have stopped beating your wife long enough to post here?
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
Poptech: Knight_of_BAAWA:Only because you're a troll. And you're only still here because someone forgot to re-set your ban to permanent. So you have rejected anarchy and now adopted fascism?
Apparently, it is fascist to ban someone from private property.
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."
Ok, Fil, let's talk about something else.
What shall we talk about?
This doesn't make sense Poptech. I'm not defending Bawaa but how is he advocating Fascism?
bloomj31:Would 1+1=2 be true if there were no one to understand it? No one to observe that "fact?" What if I say 1+1 =3? How do we settle our disagreement?
But in that case people would understand 3 in place of 2. It becomes a semantical difference, it's logical understanding is identicle. The facts are the same, the only difference is the language used. The word two could have been any word. Like three, or pie, or cheese, or fart. But the logical understanding and the facts remain the same. Two single units create two.
So in other words, facts are facts.
filc: bloomj31:Would 1+1=2 be true if there were no one to understand it? No one to observe that "fact?" What if I say 1+1 =3? How do we settle our disagreement? But in that case people would understand 3 in place of 2. It becomes a semantical difference, it's logical understanding is identicle. The facts are the same, the only difference is the language used. The word two could have been any word. Like three, or pie, or cheese, or fart. But the logical understanding and the facts remain the same. Two single units create two. So in other words, facts are facts.
Ok, so 1+1 = 2 can be demonstrably shown right?
bloomj31:Ok, so 1+1 = 2 can be demonstrably shown right?
bloomj31: 1. You say I'm wrong. But how can you enforce that judgment?
1. You say I'm wrong. But how can you enforce that judgment?
You fit the might makes right mentality to a tee, and don' try to deny it. You'll have to deny truth as well, which you think can only be made possible by might. Are your cherish profits and calculations not right as well?
How many lights do you see, Bloom?
Esuric: No, you're wrong. You openly admit that you are a rent-seeker who endorses violence and theft. There's nothing more to discuss.
No, you're wrong. You openly admit that you are a rent-seeker who endorses violence and theft. There's nothing more to discuss.
Esuric: I guess I would charge them penalties, and if they didn't pay, I would close them down.
I guess I would charge them penalties, and if they didn't pay, I would close them down.
There's nothing more to discuss. You get da capo his dough or there's gonna be trouble. Capoiche?
Esuric:How many people are interested in buying tanks
I am! : )
Capital Pumper: Are your cherish profits and calculations not right as well?
Are your cherish profits and calculations not right as well?
They're right for me. Maybe not for someone else. It's all a matter of opinion. Although, consequences are measurable.
So I can demonstrably show you that if someone kills someone, and they are caught and convicted that they will be punished. This should convince you that murder is a risky activity.
yes and reading up on totalitarian gov'ts to find the best way to wield the ring for ones own self-interest is to not throw it into Mt. Doom.
there's got to be more than a handful of people that have figured it out that trying to fill a bucket full of water with a hole in it might not get the water home:
WIlderness, aren't you now making a consequentialist argument?
You're saying I can't get what I want here. Not that what I want is wrong. Or are you saying that morality can be deduced by what works and what doesn't?
Capital Pumper: Esuric: No, you're wrong. You openly admit that you are a rent-seeker who endorses violence and theft. There's nothing more to discuss. Esuric: I guess I would charge them penalties, and if they didn't pay, I would close them down. There's nothing more to discuss. You get da capo his dough or there's gonna be trouble. Capoiche?
Here's Rothbard:" and (d) to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks." Shut up now, okay?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:Here's Rothbard:" and (d) to enforce theives to return the property they stole
let us understand that enforcing justice and enforcing legal positivism via a monopoly institution are two different kettles of fish. enforcement fish. tasty.
bloomj31: They're right for me. Maybe not for someone else.
They're right for me. Maybe not for someone else.
I figured as much, and yet you said you don't think in terms of right and wrong.
bloomj31:Poptech, I was thinking about this a lot today and I've realized that the sky isn't going to fall if anarchists call us "statists" and "socialists." Let them. Everyone here knows that they'd rather deal with us than hardcore statists and socialists because at least we understand and accept many of their logical premises, their moral and ethical concepts and look to Austrian Economics for answers and guidance. I actually think that's why they tend to get more mad at us because we see a lot of what they see, we just don't come to the same conclusions. If I'm correct in this assertion then I can totally understand anarchist frustration with minarchists because I'd be frustrated too.
I have to disagree because it is a misuse of the word and being used for "shock" effect. This is a common bullying tactic, just like the use of the word troll on me. They know why they use it and so do I. I am just pointing it out for those who may actually be intimidated by it. It is also a distraction.
For the record I have seen this tactic used on conservative and liberal forums and all it did was get the person banned and anything they had to say removed from the conversation. Thus they are left in the echo chamber, banning all that disagree with them.
Capital Pumper: I figured as much, and yet you said you don't think in terms of right and wrong.
I should've said "they're desirable to me."
Esuric: Here's Rothbard:" and (d) to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks." Shut up now, okay?
You contradicted yourself, and no amount of Appeal to Rothbards will change that. Shut up now and kiss me, okay?
Poptech: I have to disagree because it is a misuse of the word and being used for "shock" effect. This is a common bullying tactic, just like the use of the word troll on me. They know why they use it and so do I. I am just pointing it out for those who may actually be intimidated by it. It is also a distraction. For the record I have seen this tactic used on conservative and liberal forums and all it did was get the person banned and anything they had to say removed from the conversation. Thus they are left in the echo chamber, banning all that disagree with them.
Fair enough, I just don't want you to think I don't back you up here. I do.
Capital Pumper:You contradicted yourself, and no amount of Appeal to Rothbards will change that. Shut up now and kiss me, okay?
Here's Rothbard:
"and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks"
"While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced"
Mystery of Banking, pp. 261.
So Rothbard is in the same boat as me, right? Me and Rothbard are both evil coercers right?
you are going to double post the same thing into two threads now? we can double post our responses if you like?
From Christopher Wellman's Is There a Duty to Obey the Law?, p.6 n.4:
I understand “statism” to be merely the denial of anarchism. Thus, all statists believe that political states can be justified, and many believe that (at least some) existing states are in fact legitimate.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Poptech:I have to disagree because it is a misuse of the word and being used for "shock" effect. This is a common bullying tactic, just like the use of the word troll on me. They know why they use it and so do I. I am just pointing it out for those who may actually be intimidated by it. It is also a distraction.
Would it have made a difference if LS had called you "pro-state," "anti-100% liberty," or "pro a little bit of theft"?
bloomj31:Would 1+1=2 be true if there were no one to understand it?
bloomj31: What if I say 1+1 =3? How do we settle our disagreement?
Daniel Muffinburg:Would it have made a difference if LS had called you "pro-state," "anti-100% liberty," or "pro a little bit of theft"?
Why is it impossible to call me a minarchist?
Run along now.
Poptech: Daniel Muffinburg:Would it have made a difference if LS had called you "pro-state," "anti-100% liberty," or "pro a little bit of theft"? Why is it impossible to call me a minarchist?
Who said it was?
Knight_of_BAAWA: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Not to me it doesn't.
Knight_of_BAAWA: With math.
With math.
Is morality like math?
Knight_of_BAAWA:If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
bloomj31:Not to me it doesn't.
Knight_of_BAAWA:With math.
bloomj31:Is morality like math?
Poptech:I have to disagree because it is a misuse of the word and being used for "shock" effect.
Poptech:This is a common bullying tactic, just like the use of the word troll on me.
Knight_of_BAAWA: What sort of tree would you be?
What sort of tree would you be?
I dunno, maybe an oak.
Knight_of_BAAWA: In some respects.
In some respects.
Can we prove that something is morally right or wrong in the same way we can prove 1+1 = 2?
You know whats ironic about this thread, wasn't it the term "anarchist" which was historically used in a derogatory sense? At any rate please consider this....
The zebra tells the lion, don't hate procreate! Wait what?
bloomj31:Can we prove that something is morally right or wrong in the same way we can prove 1+1 = 2?
Wow. What an epic battle that isn't going anywhere.
Esuric: Capital Pumper:You contradicted yourself, and no amount of Appeal to Rothbards will change that. Shut up now and kiss me, okay? Here's Rothbard: "and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks" "While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced" Mystery of Banking, pp. 261. So Rothbard is in the same boat as me, right? Me and Rothbard are both evil coercers right?
Absolutely. There will be no recourse against force or fraud in Rothbardia. In fact, any unauthorized use of self-defense will be tolerated and met with apathy. By the power vested in me by the Book of Bloom, you are now exonerated of any special pleading.