So much bad news today. First the MA GOP affadavit against Ron Paul delegates, then DC is making a well known superhero gay, now this...
"Of note, Illinois beekeepers are going underground after Ingram’s experience and refuse to register their hives, in case the state tries to steal their private property on phony claims."
The author thinks Monsanto is behind this...are there any people on here that think corporations are sacrosanct?
Also, did Rothbard ever concede that corporations only exist because of a contract signed with the State? Basically, no state, no corporation?
In 1906 Frederick Howe wrote a book, Confessions of a Monopolist, now largely forgotten. He detailed how, at the close of the XIX century, the leading figures of Wall Street (J.P. Morgan, J.D. Rockefeller etc) understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to "go political" and make the State go to work for the monopolists under the the pretense of the public good and public interest. To quote Howe himself "Get a monopoly; let Society work for you: and remember that the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberly or Comstock lode, since it does not require any labor, either mental or physical, for its exploitation" (p. 157)
Rothbard had read this book and recommended it to anyone who wished to understand the corporate mentality. So did Gabriel Kolko, who chronicled (in Railroads and Regulation 1877-1916) how the railroad monopolists were really behind the pressures for government control and the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
I've always made the "no state, no corporations as legal people" argument to statist leftists, with mixed results.
God, I hate Monsanto so much. They are the worst. Billions will die because of them.
Jackson LaRose:Billions will die because of them.
Do you intend this to be a statement of belief or a statement of truth?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Auto,
What's the difference?
You're kidding me, right?
No. Any statement of "knowledge" can easily be reduced back to a statement of "belief".
The word "reduced" implies that they aren't the same thing.
OK, so what's the difference?
Why don't you tell me, since apparently you already think there is one (in spite of implying that there isn't)?
I don't think they are any different.
Then why did you say "Any statement of 'knowledge' can easily be reduced back to a statement of 'belief' [emphasis added]" earlier?
Autolykos: Then why did you say "Any statement of 'knowledge' can easily be reduced back to a statement of 'belief' [emphasis added]" earlier?
Sloppy is as sloppy does.
Because knowledge is based upon a belief in the validity of some qualifier or another (divine revelation, scientific method, etc.). If you question the premises enough, you'll discover there is no difference.
If you claim a statement of belief, your will to believe becomes the qualifier. So, no there is no difference, just semantics.
It's like the difference between a cat and a gato.
Yes, sloppy, sloppy. That's how I like it
Well, that's a new record. 3 posts before a gibbering descent into grammar school snobbery. I can sense the loins of liberty throbbing with this new achievement. The statists are quaking in their boots. Reductively, of course.
re·duce (r-ds, -dys)
v.tr.
7. Mathematics To simplify the form of (an expression, such as a fraction) without changing the value.
Hmmmm... The real question is do you pronounce the 'y' sound?
LOL, we do have fun, don't we?
Hey look, I can play the "cherry-pick a definition" game too:
1. (transitive) To bring down the size, quantity, quality, value or intensity of something; to diminish, to lower, to impair.
And no, I personally don't consider this "fun".
Jackson LaRose:Because knowledge is based upon a belief in the validity of some qualifier or another (divine revelation, scientific method, etc.).
Is it? Or do you just believe it is?
Jackson LaRose:If you question the premises enough, you'll discover there is no difference.
If you question the premises enough, you'll die.
Jackson, as I think you well know, I was asking whether your statement that "billions will die [because of Monsanto" has any proof and/or evidence behind it.
Yes, quite. I always thought that UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE thing was a bunch of BS anyway...
Wow, Auto, you retreat preatty quick when you see more than one opponent at a time. I like it.
Yes, by definition that is the difference between "knowledge" and "belief".
Autolykos:If you question the premises enough, you'll die.
LOL, you know I just posted a link to Absurdism in our other combat thread (to the viewer at home: Autolykos is butt-hurt about a thread I started, so has now begun stalking me acrss the forums, looking for ways to exact his revenge).
But no, that isn't true. There's no point to playing games, but we do it anyways. There's no point to living, but you can do it anyways.
Autolykos:Jackson, as I think you well know, I was asking whether your statement that "billions will die [because of Monsanto" has any proof and/or evidence behind it.
Well, that isn't what you said, now is it? Whay didn't you just come out and say it? Sounds a bit dishonest to me. Or maybe you just didn't realize that's what you wanted to say? You were being vague out of either ignorance or malice.
Of course I'M the bad guy because I "well knew" what he meant. What's good for the goose ain't good for the gander, eh Autolykos, LOL!
Proof or evidence? I'd like to give some examples, but I'm sure you would just cross them off and accuse me of being vague. Sorry, try again.
Jackson LaRose:Wow, Auto, you retreat preatty quick when you see more than one opponent at a time. I like it.
And just how do you think I retreated ("preatty [sic] quick" or not)? I haven't retreated in the slightest.
Don't worry, I plan on responding to the rest of your post soon enough.
Meh, don't bother.
Jackson LaRose:LOL, you know I just posted a link to Absurdism in our other combat thread (to the viewer at home: Autolykos is butt-hurt [sic] about a thread I started, so has now begun stalking me [sic] acrss the forums, looking for ways to exact his revenge [sic]). But no, that isn't true. There's no point to playing games, but we do it anyways. There's no point to living, but you can do it anyways.
I recommend that the "viewer at home" make up his own mind.
Now then, there may be no point to things objectively speaking, but that in no way means we can't impute points (which are necessarily subjective) to things. I consider it fallacious in the extreme to believe otherwise.
Jackson LaRose:Well, that isn't what you said, now is it? Whay didn't you just come out and say it? Sounds a bit dishonest to me. Or maybe you just didn't realize that's what you wanted to say? You were being vague out of either ignorance or malice. Of course I'M the bad guy because I "well knew" what he meant. What's good for the goose ain't good for the gander, eh Autolykos, LOL!
To be honest, I assumed that you would know what I meant. And I think you did know, so your attempt to "turn the tables around on me" is entirely moot.
Jackson LaRose:Proof or evidence? I'd like to give some examples, but I'm sure you would just cross them off and accuse me of being vague. Sorry, try again.
Providing examples with no explanation behind them as to how they support your point (which includes how they connect together) is vague IMHO. In other words, I consider it bad form to expect your opponent to connect the dots, especially when the dots appear miles apart to him, and especially when he asks for more clarification/explanation.
Jackson LaRose:Meh, don't bother.
Too late.
A bit of a derail but since it was mentioned in the OP, why is DC making one of their superhero characters gay "bad news"?
Obviously gay people are un-American.
Autolykos:Now then, there may be no point to things objectively speaking, but that in no way means we can't impute points (which are necessarily subjective) to things. I consider it fallacious in the extreme to believe otherwise.
Me too. How else would we be able to pick out clothes in the morning?
Autolykos:I consider it bad form to expect your opponent to connect the dots, especially when the dots appear miles apart to him, and especially when he asks for more clarification/explanation.
Well, sorry you feel that way, but I always find I'm able to integrate and understand better when I "figure out" stuff. Spoon-feeding is too easy.
Jackson LaRose:Me too. How else would we be able to pick out clothes in the morning?
It sounded to me like you were saying that, since there's no point to things objectively speaking, we therefore can't impute points to them subjectively speaking. Is that what you were saying or not?
Jackson LaRose:Well, sorry you feel that way, but I always find I'm able to integrate and understand better when I "figure out" stuff. Spoon-feeding is too easy.
I consider this to be a complete cop-out.
Autolykos:It sounded to me like you were saying that, since there's no point to things objectively speaking, we therefore can't impute points to them subjectively speaking. Is that what you were saying or not?
The punctuation in this quote is really messing with me.
We determine value all of the time. As many here are fond of pointing out, that value is subjective. I don't know of any external, objective metrics for determining some sort of "standard of value" against which the correctness of our individual, subjective valuations can be measured.
Autolykos:I consider this to be a complete cop-out.
OK, so? It's true. Why do you think I employ Socratic questioning?
Jackson LaRose:We determine value all of the time. As many here are fond of pointing out, that value is subjective. I don't know of any external, objective metrics for determining some sort of "standard of value" against which the correctness of our individual, subjective valuations can be measured.
So you weren't arguing that, since value doesn't exist objectively (i.e. outside of the mind), it can't exist subjectively (i.e. inside of the mind)?
Jackson LaRose:OK, so? It's true. Why do you think I employ Socratic questioning?
If that's what you want to call it. I'm not at all sure that it actually is Socratic questioning.
Autolykos:So you weren't arguing that, since value doesn't exist objectively (i.e. outside of the mind), it can't exist subjectively (i.e. inside of the mind)?
No. We make subjective valuations all of the time.
Autolykos:I'm not at all sure that it actually is Socratic questioning.
"Socratic questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don't know, to follow out logical implications of thought, or to control the discussion. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems."
- Wikipedia
That's what I'm trying to do, anyways. I'll let the public decide how well I'm executing.
Jackson LaRose:No. We make subjective valuations all of the time.
Then you'd agree that the term "subjective valuations" is a pleonasm?
Jackson LaRose:"Socratic questioning is disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we don't know, to follow out logical implications of thought, or to control the discussion. The key to distinguishing Socratic questioning from questioning per se is that Socratic questioning is systematic, disciplined, and deep, and usually focuses on fundamental concepts, principles, theories, issues, or problems." - Wikipedia That's what I'm trying to do, anyways. I'll let the public decide how well I'm executing.
Right, as I said, I'm not sure that what you're doing actually is Socratic questioning. In other words, as a member of the public, I've decided so far that you aren't executing very well. But that's just me.
Autolykos:Then you'd agree that the term "subjective valuations" is a pleonasm?
Mmm, not really. Subjective experience is much more broad than just ranking (valuing).
If all valuations are subjective, then modifying "valuations" with "subjective" is redundant.
Autolykos:If all valuations are subjective, then modifying "valuations" with "subjective" is redundant.
You are dumb. Is saying,
"The number seven."
Redundant?
In at least some contexts, I'd say it is. My point is that, if you agree that all valuations are subjective by definition, then there's no need to specify those valuations which are subjective - because, by definition, they all are.
Autolykos:In at least some contexts, I'd say it is. My point is that, if you agree that all valuations are subjective by definition, then there's no need to specify those valuations which are subjective - because, by definition, they all are.
To some. Although there are many who consider value to be an objective measure of worth external to the individual. Utilitarians, Kantians, Christians, NAP folks, Hoppe-bots, etc.
It may be fine and good if two subjectivists are talking, but I feel it necessary to include when dealing with people who's stance is unknown.
Jackson LaRose:To some. Although there are many who consider value to be an objective measure of worth external to the individual. Utilitarians, Kantians, Christians, NAP folks, Hoppe-bots, etc.
Yes, and I say they're all wrong. Not just using different definitions, but factually incorrect. There can be no objective measure of worth, for worth requires an imputing mind. (That last part may in fact be redundant.)
Jackson LaRose:It may be fine and good if two subjectivists are talking, but I feel it necessary to include when dealing with people who's stance is unknown.
I understand your point, but I see no reason to humor them in their delusions - at least not when it comes to this.
Autolykos:Yes, and I say they're all wrong. Not just using different definitions, but factually incorrect. There can be no objective measure of worth, for worth requires an imputing mind. (That last part may in fact be redundant.)
LOL, well if you want to be the one giving me logic lessons, I sure hope you are aware of the irony in this statement!
Autolykos:I understand your point, but I see no reason to humor them in their delusions - at least not when it comes to this.
LOL, fair enough! Hey presto, we agree on something!