If you like things the way they are now and it is essentially functioning perfectly, and that is your point of being here - that's fine, it's an unassailable position because there is no argument made.
the beer-can patriots wont be happy until we start using nukes again.
Vive: Are you saying that so long as you are extant and not in prision your position would be "agree with the system in place, up to a certain perctage of tax money"? It's a respectable position, but if that's what it is - no one can argue with it.
Well yeah. I think that's how a lot of people feel. I'm sure I'd be mad if I were in prison for something that I thought was a silly crime but that wouldn't necessarily mean I'd want to abolish the state. I guess it would depend on the facts of my case.
What I'm trying to figure out is why some people are so mad about paying taxes that they'd want to abolish the whole system. Taxes are no fun but I pay mine. I feel like I get my money's worth on a lot of things. Some things make me angry but that doesn't mean I want to start a new society. It's not perfect but I haven't found a better alternative.
What I'm trying to figure out is why some people are so mad about paying taxes that they'd want to abolish the whole system.
That is in the realm of psychology, not praxeology
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
My guess is that people are speaking categorically past each other.
You are probably talking aesthetics and /or psychology, others may be talking "morals"(whatever that means), others are looking at theories of justice and the science of action
If you are bringing up a theory, based off this (as this seems to represent your position): you may be trying to talk about efficiency.
I can't, it's a consequence of all people acting. Not just those who participate cooperatively. That's why I think you're using wishful thinking when you think it's all based on cooperative behavior. It's not. It's based on the sum of human action not all of which is cooperative. The question is: how do we deal with the uncooperative side?
The paradoxical answer the state embodies is that to deal with the uncooperative side it must itself become uncooperative to some degree.
I reject property rights and the NAP because I cannot find any good reason to believe in them. Markets are scientifically understandable. I don't have to believe in them for them to work.
Libertarians think they can derive ought from is by looking at market behavior and figuring that what works must be also be right.
The statutory law system is different. It represents the prevailing social norms of any given place and time. The law, in this sense, is an evolving human code, pitting past norms against present norms to decide which ones, for whatever period of time, will be codified.
I'm just surprised that you picked these two because while the facts of the cases present a picture of an abrogation of duty, the decisions themselves are an exercise in judicial restraint. If you'll look at the grounds on which the petitioner's claims were based and think about the logical implications of them, I would imagine a libertarian would actually agree with the rulings.
I am fine with that, we have nothing more to discuss.
bloomj31: There are some social norms which are so widely held that they need not be codified to be understood. They're just understood. They're intuitive. They reflect an understanding of your "golden rule" which I believe is itself a reflection of an evolved universal human understanding. You think of these intuitive social norms when you consider private law because that's what you know.
There are some social norms which are so widely held that they need not be codified to be understood. They're just understood. They're intuitive. They reflect an understanding of your "golden rule" which I believe is itself a reflection of an evolved universal human understanding. You think of these intuitive social norms when you consider private law because that's what you know.
This is not true. Social norms are not necessarily intuitive. I note that you used the qualifier "some", but even that is still false. They are called social norms because they require society. Norms change over time and do not always apply to every part of society. Even the golden rule is not entirely intuitive to each and every person. It happens to be intuitive to the vast majority of people, which is why the human race has been as successful as it has been.
bloomj31: But I know you don't actually study the law. You seem to have no idea how diverse and complicated some issues are.
But I know you don't actually study the law. You seem to have no idea how diverse and complicated some issues are.
This is a pointless statement. I do not formally study US law, that much is true. But obviously I do study law and certain laws specifically and the nature of law. That is also true. I also am fully aware as to how complicated and diverse issues can be, which is one of the reasons I support decentralized law. Monopoly law does not allow for people to react to these diverse and complicated issues. So it seems that it is in fact you who does not understand how diverse and complicated some issues are. See what I did there? Maybe you can try being constructive in the future.
bloomj31: Now I know that in a free society many of these concerns would no longer be concerns because they'd be incompatible with the NAP. That's part of the reason I rejected the NAP. I realized force could no longer be used to achieve certain ends. But that's not even the point. I don't imagine that a free society would have wide discrepancies or uncertainties about murder. But not every legal issue raised in this system regards murder. They're not even all criminal issues.
Now I know that in a free society many of these concerns would no longer be concerns because they'd be incompatible with the NAP. That's part of the reason I rejected the NAP. I realized force could no longer be used to achieve certain ends. But that's not even the point. I don't imagine that a free society would have wide discrepancies or uncertainties about murder. But not every legal issue raised in this system regards murder. They're not even all criminal issues.
As Vive pointed out, you are making claims that really have no argument to them.
bloomj31: If you were to actually sit down and start to study our current common and statutory law system you would realize it is incredibly complicated because it contains the aftermath of millions of cases and their decisions and layer upon layer of statutes, all reflecting a disembodied collective wisdom that's been developed over time. If a private society chose to retain none of this out of principle, they'd be left in the dark about how to solve certain issues and then they'd leave it to theconsumers! No thanks.
If you were to actually sit down and start to study our current common and statutory law system you would realize it is incredibly complicated because it contains the aftermath of millions of cases and their decisions and layer upon layer of statutes, all reflecting a disembodied collective wisdom that's been developed over time. If a private society chose to retain none of this out of principle, they'd be left in the dark about how to solve certain issues and then they'd leave it to theconsumers! No thanks.
No. It is not much of a collective wisdom. Statutory law is centrally planned law. The more centrally planned, the less "disembodied collective wisdom" is being developed. Common law is better than statutory law in my opinion because it is more decentralized. It is not my ideal system of law, but it is better than statutory law. Now, why you say a private society would just reject all laws out of principle is beyond me. It is true that the vast majority of laws would be eradicated, but many laws would remain the same. Regardless, it is highly likely that a private law society would emerge from a statist system slowly decentralizing. And your point does not address this case. It is possible for there to be a civil war leading to a private law society, but at that point people would have already demonstrated that they do not respect the statutory law and have already begun to resort to other means. In other words, there would have already begun the process of decentralization regarding law.
bloomj31: You don't know what you're talking about. The Constitution provides the basis for the legal analyzation of every single case I've ever looked at. Statutes are measured against the constitution. Case law is measured against the Constitution. The problem is that not every justice agrees on what the Constitution means or the degree to which the federal government has power over the state governments etc. This is an ongoing issue.
You don't know what you're talking about. The Constitution provides the basis for the legal analyzation of every single case I've ever looked at. Statutes are measured against the constitution. Case law is measured against the Constitution. The problem is that not every justice agrees on what the Constitution means or the degree to which the federal government has power over the state governments etc. This is an ongoing issue.
Watch what I do next. You don't know what you are talking about. The fact that the constitution can mean anything to anyone demonstrates that law is not "measured by one standard". Do you know what a standard is? An inch is an agreed upon standard regarding distance. A minute is an agreed upon standard regarding time (or distance, depending upon the subject). But there are no agreed upon standards in the constitution. It means whatever people want it to mean. The constitution cannot be a standard, no matter how many people cite it.
bloomj31: Uh...yeah.
Uh...yeah.
Uh...no. You have previously stated how complex the law is. Your response to me was to say that I do not recognize that it is complex, which implies that I want simply solutions. Now you are saying that you obviously want simple solutions. Look, I recognize that it is highly likely that you are not trolling and that you truly believe the words you type, but I hope you can recognize the gross inconsistencies in what you type.
bloomj31: Ofcourse. That's partly because they don't even think about the trust issue, it's a built in resolution from the state. It's also partly because human beings have a social/cooperative nature. But they still require trust to deal with others, particularly strangers. Reciprocal altruism is an evolved system of social cooperation. It means that people give moral consideration to others as much as they do to themselves or those they already are familiar with. But they still need to know that they're dealing fairly with someone and the state provides that backbone. Could it be provided by a free society? Absolutely. But it wouldn't be a backbone of force per se it would be a backbone of reputation. But then you can't even own your reputation in a free society (slander/libel suits would be considered unjust.)
Ofcourse. That's partly because they don't even think about the trust issue, it's a built in resolution from the state. It's also partly because human beings have a social/cooperative nature. But they still require trust to deal with others, particularly strangers. Reciprocal altruism is an evolved system of social cooperation. It means that people give moral consideration to others as much as they do to themselves or those they already are familiar with. But they still need to know that they're dealing fairly with someone and the state provides that backbone. Could it be provided by a free society? Absolutely. But it wouldn't be a backbone of force per se it would be a backbone of reputation. But then you can't even own your reputation in a free society (slander/libel suits would be considered unjust.)
As Vive has pointed out, action precedes the state. The state does not provide trust. People must already desire it. Furthermore, most people could probably get away with crime if they wanted to. Look at the city versus the suburbs. There are far more police in the city than in the suburbs. Which has the higher crime rate? Do people in the suburbs require the police in order to trust their neighbors? No. They are comfortable in their community. Regarding slander and libel, one of the problems today is that people don't have the money lying around or they just don't care to spend the money to sue when someone slanders or libels them. A result of this is that people assume that things are true. It is actually far more likely in a private law society that people would probably ignore slander and libel because they would have no way of knowing if it were true or not, whereas today they can just say to themselves, "Well, since Mr. X didn't sue Mr. Y, Mr. Y must have been telling the truth about Mr. X, or else he would have sued."
bloomj31: Sure they're armchair moralists who don't study psychology, history or the law. They've mentally neutered themselves because they're pacifistic. I'm not. That doesn't make me psychopathic, it just makes me human and all humans are capable of violence, even the ones who think they aren't.
Sure they're armchair moralists who don't study psychology, history or the law. They've mentally neutered themselves because they're pacifistic. I'm not. That doesn't make me psychopathic, it just makes me human and all humans are capable of violence, even the ones who think they aren't.
Just no. Firstly, all talk of morals must necessarily be talked about from the armchair. You cannot derive morality from psychology, history, law, math, physics, biology, whatever. So your statement is pointless. It offers nothing of use to the discussion. Furthermore, I do not believe there are many pacifists on this board, unless you are defining pacifists as people who reject the iniation of violence. But that's one hell of useless definition for pacifist. It seems that you do not understand why there have been people calling you a psychopath. You'll like the definition of psychopath (though it has changed a bit over time) by the way:
wikipedia: Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is described by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.
Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is described by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV-TR), as an Axis II personality disorder characterized by "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.
You know what stands out to me here? You, bloomj31, have stated on numerous occasions that you have no regard for the rights of others. You also call for the violation of the rights of others.
bloomj31: O ye of little faith. I recognize that you don't think states have the power to correct their mistakes. Part of that is borne of ignorance and part of it does reflect history to some degree but not entirely. What has happened in the past does not necessarily tell us what will happen in the future. People can obviously change.
O ye of little faith. I recognize that you don't think states have the power to correct their mistakes. Part of that is borne of ignorance and part of it does reflect history to some degree but not entirely. What has happened in the past does not necessarily tell us what will happen in the future. People can obviously change.
States technically have the power to correct certain mistakes. The problem is that states are not subject to the price system. In other words, states have no way of knowing what to correct. How can states correct their mistakes if they do not know what to correct? This is a rhetorical question. Obviously, they can not.
bloomj31: You mentioned slavery and jim crow laws. Did you know that slavery was mostly in the states that ultimately seceded from the Union? Did you know that after the Confederacy lost the Civil War and slavery was formally abolished in 1865 by theThirteenth Amendment that many of these states re-elected southerners and immediately started passing Jim Crow laws, a form of codified racism? How could people be so hungry for freedom from the union and yet so callous towards black people? Because those were the prevailing views at the time. Even 40 years later, the doctrine of "separate but equal" won out inPlessy v Ferguson. It was another 58 years after that that the ruling in Brown v Board was announced and there was still opposition to desegregation at the time. 12 years later came the Civil Rights Act which codified rules against discrimination in public, within private industry and in the workplace. It took 100 years for the prevailing moral views to change and it's not like the issue of racial discrimination ended there. This process reflects the changing attitudes of the people over time. So it could be with anarchism but I highly doubt it. I think that instead people might come to realize that Medicare is unsustainable. But perhaps my faith will not be rewarded we will see.
You mentioned slavery and jim crow laws. Did you know that slavery was mostly in the states that ultimately seceded from the Union? Did you know that after the Confederacy lost the Civil War and slavery was formally abolished in 1865 by theThirteenth Amendment that many of these states re-elected southerners and immediately started passing Jim Crow laws, a form of codified racism? How could people be so hungry for freedom from the union and yet so callous towards black people? Because those were the prevailing views at the time. Even 40 years later, the doctrine of "separate but equal" won out inPlessy v Ferguson. It was another 58 years after that that the ruling in Brown v Board was announced and there was still opposition to desegregation at the time. 12 years later came the Civil Rights Act which codified rules against discrimination in public, within private industry and in the workplace. It took 100 years for the prevailing moral views to change and it's not like the issue of racial discrimination ended there. This process reflects the changing attitudes of the people over time. So it could be with anarchism but I highly doubt it. I think that instead people might come to realize that Medicare is unsustainable. But perhaps my faith will not be rewarded we will see.
Look, by defition, statutory law does not reflect "the changing attitudes of the people over time." It may or may not line up with their attitudes. Customary law is the only system that actually reflects the attitudes of the people. By definition.
Gotlucky: They are called social norms because they require society. Norms change over time and do not always apply to every part of society. Even the golden rule is not entirely intuitive to each and every person. It happens to be intuitive to the vast majority of people, which is why the human race has been as successful as it has been.
I think evolutionary psychology (Clayton got me turned onto this stuff, I think it's brilliant) provides a strong argument for the existence of universal human traits. I think human norms change over time in large part because the human capacity for abstract reasoning often leads people to apply the golden rule (which they believe to be a strongly innate trait) in ever widening circles. I think humans come prepackaged with the capability for empathy and the tendency to cooperate socially and to engage in reciprocity. But evolutionary psychology says we come here with a lot more than that and that not all of it is based on cooperation.
Gotlucky: Monopoly law does not allow for people to react to these diverse and complicated issues.
Yes it does.
Gotlucky: Now, why you say a private society would just reject all laws out of principle is beyond me. It is true that the vast majority of laws would be eradicated, but many laws would remain the same. Regardless, it is highly likely that a private law society would emerge from a statist system slowly decentralizing.
The goal would be to get to a completely decentralized society. Which means that to be consistent, that society would have to purge every vestige of the centralized society. Why would a decentralized society retain the laws of a system it felt was unjust? Isn't both common law and statutory law considered unjust to libertarians?
gotlucky: The fact that the constitution can mean anything to anyone demonstrates that law is not "measured by one standard". Do you know what a standard is? An inch is an agreed upon standard regarding distance. A minute is an agreed upon standard regarding time (or distance, depending upon the subject). But there are no agreed upon standards in the constitution. It means whatever people want it to mean. The constitution cannot be a standard, no matter how many people cite it.
People don't just interpret the Constitution to mean anything. The Constitution is the basic legal standard by which all constitutional questions are measured. The difference between measuring time or distance is that there's not an objective frame of reference by which to measure.
Gotlucky: You have previously stated how complex the law is. Your response to me was to say that I do not recognize that it is complex, which implies that I want simply solutions. Now you are saying that you obviously want simple solutions.
I said I want simple systems for solving complex problems. I think our system is rather simple but I have nothing to compare it to.
Gotlucky: The state does not provide trust. People must already desire it.
Ofcourse people desire trust first, it's the necessary component for reciprocal altruism and reciprocal altruism outdates the state. I'm not saying that the state came first or that it's necessary to insure trust. I'm saying that it does insure trust in a way that I believe to be desirable.
Gotlucky: Furthermore, most people could probably get away with crime if they wanted to. Look at the city versus the suburbs. There are far more police in the city than in the suburbs. Which has the higher crime rate? Do people in the suburbs require the police in order to trust their neighbors? No. They are comfortable in their community.
Ok first of all which areas are we talking about? Second of all, how are you determining exactly how many cops patrol in those areas? How do you know that all people living in suburbs trust their neighbors? How are you measuring the relative levels of comfort in these communities? What crime statistics are you looking at?
Gotlucky: one of the problems today is that people don't have the money lying around or they just don't care to spend the money to sue when someone slanders or libels them.
Where are you getting this from?
Gotlucky: You, bloomj31, have stated on numerous occasions that you have no regard for the rights of others. You also call for the violation of the rights of others.
You really think that whoever wrote this was basing their concept of the rights of others on the libertarian premise of individual property rights? How do you know they weren't left wing psychologists? I don't respect the libertarian concept of rights but neither do most people and there's good odds that the people who wrote this don't either.
This is the whole passage btw:
"A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest (2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure (3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead (4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults (5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others (6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations (7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another."
I've never been arrested and I'm actually very conscientious about not breaking the law. I don't practice deceitfulness (if anything I'm too honest) I don't use aliases (this tag is actually my real name) I don't con people for profit. I'm deliberate rather than impulsive. I'm not irritable and I'm not aggressive (at least not in the way I think they mean.) I don't know what they mean by reckless disregard for the safety of others that's vague. I've had no trouble finding work and/or honoring financial obligations (though I have disputed some which I thought were ridiculous.) When they talk about stealing I don't think they mean advocating taxation. Besides taxation is a prevailing social norm, they might consider advocating the abolition of taxes to be a disregard for social norms. I do not fit the description at all.
Gotlucky: States technically have the power to correct certain mistakes. The problem is that states are not subject to the price system. In other words, states have no way of knowing what to correct.
I think it's pretty widely known that our main fiscal problems are the entitlement programs particularly Medicare but also Social Security.
Gotlucky: Look, by defition, statutory law does not reflect "the changing attitudes of the people over time." It may or may not line up with their attitudes. Customary law is the only system that actually reflects the attitudes of the people.
Statutory law reflects the attitudes of the majority in the legislature. Those people are elected to their posts by a majority vote. So I guess it's better to say that statutory law must at least represent the views of the majority but not necessarily all the people within a given area, whether it be national state or local.
A customary law system can only reflect the attitudes of those who have actually settled a dispute within that particular system. The rest of the people within the community may or may not agree with those attitudes.
bloomj31: I think evolutionary psychology (Clayton got me turned onto this stuff, I think it's brilliant) provides a strong argument for the existence of universal human traits. I think human norms change over time in large part because the human capacity for abstract reasoning often leads people to apply the golden rule (which they believe to be a strongly innate trait) in ever widening circles. I think humans come prepackaged with the capability for empathy and the tendency to cooperate socially and to engage in reciprocity. But evolutionary psychology says we come here with a lot more than that and that not all of it is based on cooperation.
The NAP is a legal realization of the golden rule. As you well know, the NAP logically results in anarchy. That people can arrive at different conclusions just shows that many people do not understand logic. Norms change over time not because of abstract reasoning of the golden rule, but because people are not fixed objects that all behave a certain way. The etiquette in an upscale restaurant is not the same etiquette at Burger King. This is not because the people in fancy restaurants are applying logic and the golden rule differently than people who go to BK. All situations are not identical. All humans are not identical. This means that there can be various outcomes to even similar situations. The prevailing outcomes are the norms.
bloomj31: Yes it does.
With gems like these, it's a wonder you even bother posting at all. Look, a state monopoly on oranges would not allow for people to react to the diverse and complicated situations that give rise to the price of oranges. The price of oranges in any given place is because of "diverse and complicated issues". Likewise, a monopoly on law does not allow for people to react to the diverse and complicated situations that give rise to law. It's merely whatever the group with the most power says it is, just as a state monopoly on oranges would mean that whatever group holds the most power gets to say what the price of oranges should be.
bloomj31: The goal would be to get to a completely decentralized society. Which means that to be consistent, that society would have to purge every vestige of the centralized society. Why would a decentralized society retain the laws of a system it felt was unjust? Isn't both common law and statutory law considered unjust to libertarians?
Firstly, your second statement is a non sequitur. It does not follow that for there to be a completely decentralized society, it must completely purge every vestige of the centralized society. Secondly, I am in the minority in my support for customary law as a libertarian. So, I find common law to be unjust, but that in no way means that all libertarians find it to be unjust..
bloomj31: People don't just interpret the Constitution to mean anything. The Constitution is the basic legal standard by which all constitutional questions are measured. The difference between measuring time or distance is that there's not an objective frame of reference by which to measure.
You clearly have no idea what a standard is. If people cannot agree to the meaning of the constitution, it cannot be a standard. In addition, your claim that the constitution is the standard is false even if everyone could agree to the meaning of the constitution. Even the SCOTUS has not always used the constitution as their measure. You may try to show that in this instance, the SCOTUS will actually limit the use of international law in place of the constitution. But that is not my point. My point is that the constitution is not the standard, and that it isn't even a standard anyway.
bloomj31: I said I want simple systems for solving complex problems. I think our system is rather simple but I have nothing to compare it to.
I think customary law is simple. So there. Let's continue to make pointless statements that do not further any meaningful discussion.
bloomj31: Ofcourse people desire trust first, it's the necessary component for reciprocal altruism and reciprocal altruism outdates the state. I'm not saying that the state came first or that it's necessary to insure trust. I'm saying that it does insure trust in a way that I believe to be desirable.
This is just a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There is trust, and there was the state. Therefore the state causes that trust. Just no. I trust family and friends and coworkers and acquaintances (most of them). This is not because of the state. My neighbors trust me not because of the state. I trust the cashier at a store not because of the state. It is the same for other people. Perhaps you don't trust other people without knowing that you could have violence inflicted upon them. But don't forget, I think you just might be a psychopath. So I have my explanation for your reasons.
bloomj31: Ok first of all which areas are we talking about? Second of all, how are you determining exactly how many cops patrol in those areas? How do you know that all people living in suburbs trust their neighbors? How are you measuring the relative levels of comfort in these communities? What crime statistics are you looking at?
Really? Are you saying that there are more cops in the suburbs than in the city? I live in a town of roughly 26,000 people, and there are about 50 cops for the whole population. There are universities that have just as many cops.
bloomj31: Where are you getting this from?
Upon a quick search I found this. I'm sure someone has done a formal study somewhere, but Rothbard's logic is sound.
bloomj31: You really think that whoever wrote this was basing their concept of the rights of others on the libertarian premise of individual property rights? How do you know they weren't left wing psychologists? I don't respect the libertarian concept of rights but neither do most people and there's good odds that the people who wrote this don't either.
It doesn't matter what their opinion of rights are. It matters what you think. And you have stated that you don't care for other people's rights.
bloomj31: I've never been arrested and I'm actually very conscientious about not breaking the law. I don't practice deceitfulness (if anything I'm too honest) I don't use aliases (this tag is actually my real name) I don't con people for profit. I'm deliberate rather than impulsive. I'm not irritable and I'm not aggressive (at least not in the way I think they mean.) I don't know what they mean by reckless disregard for the safety of others that's vague. I've had no trouble finding work and/or honoring financial obligations (though I have disputed some which I thought were ridiculous.) When they talk about stealing I don't think they mean advocating taxation. Besides taxation is a prevailing social norm, they might consider advocating the abolition of taxes to be a disregard for social norms. I do not fit the description at all.
Well, you actually have a serious problem with consistency, which would actually indicate that you are not honest, or that you are ignorant. I don't think you are stupid, so I think you are not honest. Anyway, I cannot prove that you have or have not done these things, and without you revealing yourself, you cannot either. But you may note that the passage uses those metrics as a way to observe. The number 3 is an arbitrary number. It could have been 4 things from that list. But you have made it clear that you have no respect for the rights of others. That list is just indicators. What's the point of the list if you just go ahead and state that you don't respect the rights of others?
bloomj31: I think it's pretty widely known that our main fiscal problems are the entitlement programs particularly Medicare but also Social Security.
Please use an argument to refute what I said. Or agree with it. I don't care. But don't waste my time with statements that attempt neither.
bloomj31: Statutory law reflects the attitudes of the majority in the legislature. Those people are elected to their posts by a majority vote. So I guess it's better to say that statutory law must at least represent the views of the majority but not necessarily all the people within a given area, whether it be national state or local. A customary law system can only reflect the attitudes of those who have actually settled a dispute within that particular system. The rest of the people within the community may or may not agree with those attitudes.
Are you saying that North Korean law reflects the attitudes of the population? What about Cuban law? Really? Furthermore, American law does not reflect the attitudes of the population in a great many cases. Your logic is seriously flawed here.
Customary law is the only system that reflects the attitudes of the population. By definition. It does not reflect each and every person's attitude. It reflects the attitudes of the population in general. You know what norms are? Customs? Traditions? Not all people follow them, but there are norms, customs, and traditions because most people do. You are really struggling here with logic.
Gotlucky: The NAP is a legal realization of the golden rule. As you well know, the NAP logically results in anarchy.
The NAP logically results in anarchy if it's rigorously applied to every single person within the community by every other person within the community. In this case we could be talking about the global community. This sort of application is simply not natural. You may work to apply it to every human on the planet but that hardly forces me or anyone else to. I'm not in any way obligated to observe your "property rights" anymore than I am an ant's. I could choose to with the assumption that you would reciprocate. And maybe you would. But then maybe you wouldn't. Perhaps you're a wolf in sheep's clothing. Because I know I cannot trust you I have reason to seek alternative means of assuring that you will do as you say you will.
Gotlucky: but because people are not fixed objects that all behave a certain way.
Actually a lot of the science says that all human beings do behave in exactly the same ways to a certain degree and that it has nothing to do with reason or logic it has to do with the universal characteristics of the human brain which is the ultimate source of human action, not reason or logic and it did most of its evolving thousands of years ago in a bygone era. The question is: "to what degree are we actually different rather than to what degree are we all exactly the same?"
Gotlucky: The etiquette in an upscale restaurant is not the same etiquette at Burger King.
But how different is it really? Isn't it based on basically the same rules?
Gotlucky: All situations are not identical. All humans are not identical.
I think the science indicates that humans are not all exactly identical but still all incredibly similar, particularly when it concerns the function of the brain. There is a remarkable amount of variation in the genetic code but these scientists identify huge numbers of common behaviors and traits that span the globe. Situations contain far more variation than people.
Gotlucky: Likewise, a monopoly on law does not allow for people to react to the diverse and complicated situations that give rise to law. It's merely whatever the group with the most power says it is, just as a state monopoly on oranges would mean that whatever group holds the most power gets to say what the price of oranges should be.
It's amazing that someone as familiar with economics would compare oranges with law without thinking about how they might be different. You consume an orange and the cost of that orange is presumably internalized by you. Maybe you throw the orange rind on the ground and it becomes a public issue but nevermind that. It begins with you eating the orange and ends in you eating the orange. But let's say you go to court and get a ruling about whatever. Well now I'm bound to that ruling as well whether I like it or not unless I then go to court and get it changed. But perhaps I can't afford to go to court to get it changed or perhaps nothing has yet happened to me that would cause me to be effected by the precedent your case's ruling has set. Courts are passive institutions after all. Yet I can reasonably expect to be bound to that ruling unless I violate it and find myself having to try to change the law in court. I need to have some active means for changing the rules if the rules don't suit me without having to initially suffer the consequences of them myself or to actually go to court myself. That's why I need an active institution that allows for the politicization of the law. Now I can alter your ruling without ever having gone to court in the first place. My ruling may not reflect the exact preferences of everyone in a given area but then if it doesn't, someone else can change the law again. Our monopoly law may not calculate the preferences of the people exactly, but it does give a way for the people to change the rules if they don't like them. Thus it gives people a good way to deal with the diverse and complicated issues we face as a society.
Gotlucky: It does not follow that for there to be a completely decentralized society, it must completely purge every vestige of the centralized society.
It would if they thought like you. But then perhaps they don't all think like you and I have less to worry about.
Gotlucky: You clearly have no idea what a standard is. If people cannot agree to the meaning of the constitution, it cannot be a standard.
Now we're just arguing over what constitutes a standard. What you have done is compared a unit of measurement with a legal standard and found that one is different from the other. You're right. Units of measurement are more precise than legal standards but that's because units of measurement aren't up for debate constantly. Legal standards cannot enforce themselves, they have to be enforced by people and people make mistakes.
Gotlucky: In addition, your claim that the constitution is the standard is false even if everyone could agree to the meaning of the constitution. Even the SCOTUS has not always used the constitution as their measure.
Or perhaps Justice Kennedy just erred when deciding that case. The Constitution isn't self-enforcing.
Gotlucky: There is trust, and there was the state. Therefore the state causes that trust. Just no.
No I'm saying that trust comes to exist in small communities with limited numbers of people. There may be no desire for a central agency to insure trust because everyone knows they can use social pressures against those who violate the society's trust. They can use shame or ostracism or whatever to punish those who do wrong. Communities grow larger and larger and eventually social pressures cannot be used anymore to guarantee fair play. Shame ceases to be as effective a way of punishing people. People still want trust but they feel they cannot have it without something new put into play. The state is one means people have developed to that end. It is not the only conceivable means.
Gotlucky: I trust family and friends and coworkers and acquaintances (most of them). This is not because of the state. My neighbors trust me not because of the state. I trust the cashier at a store not because of the state. It is the same for other people.
You presume to be able to understand the forces working in your own brain simply through introspection. You think reason is the guiding force for your trust in your coworkers. This is because you are a rationalist and therefore all human action must be dictated by reason instead of brain chemistry and the interplay between inherent genetic tendencies and the environment. You think you and the people around you trust each other (presumably based on reason and logic) because that is what your reason tells you. But you are not in control of yourself the way you think you are and they are not in control of themselves the way they might think they are. We are all vehicles for own genes and our behaviors were adapted to encourage the survival of the individual in an environment that no longer exists. Many of your brain's functions occur regardless of what "you" would call "you" is thinking. In fact, there's strong evidence that what you call "you" is thinking because of what occurs in the parts of your brain you have no control over. Until you understand that man is not driven simply by reason and logic (fabrications of the human brain themselves) but instead by the outdated inherent programming of the human brain interacting with the environment then you will no more understand the motives of others and/or their actions than you will understand your own. Evolutionary psychology is going to turn rationalist philosophy on its head, you watch. Rothbard didn't have access to the information we have now when he wrote his stuff. It's outdated.
Gotlucky: Perhaps you don't trust other people without knowing that you could have violence inflicted upon them. But don't forget, I think you just might be a psychopath.
Ofcourse I don't, but that's because I understand how humans actually work. I'm no psychopath you're just a fool.
Gotlucky: Really? Are you saying that there are more cops in the suburbs than in the city? I live in a town of roughly 26,000 people, and there are about 50 cops for the whole population. There are universities that have just as many cops.
I'm asking you so substantiate your claim. Can you do it?
Gotlucky: Upon a quick search I found this. I'm sure someone has done a formal study somewhere, but Rothbard's logic is sound.
Can you point to the relevant section? Reading Rothbard talk about rights gives me a headache.
Gotlucky: It doesn't matter what their opinion of rights are. It matters what you think. And you have stated that you don't care for other people's rights.
If there is no medical standard definition for the rights people actually have then the list becomes meaningless. How can I be a psychopath for showing blatant disregard for rights that I don't believe exist?
Gotlucky: What's the point of the list if you just go ahead and state that you don't respect the rights of others?
I can't respect something that doesn't exist.
Gotlucky: Please use an argument to refute what I said.
I just gave an example which refutes your argument.
Gotlucky: Are you saying that North Korean law reflects the attitudes of the population? What about Cuban law? Really?
North Korea and Cuba are dictatorships. They do not have democratic systems for generating statutory law.
Gotlucky: American law does not reflect the attitudes of the population in a great many cases.
I would say it generally reflects the attitudes of the majority.
Gotlucky: Customary law is the only system that reflects the attitudes of the population. By definition. It does not reflect each and every person's attitude. It reflects the attitudes of the population in general. You know what norms are? Customs? Traditions? Not all people follow them, but there are norms, customs, and traditions because most people do. You are really struggling here with logic.
If it doesn't reflect the attitudes of each and every person how can it be said to reflect the attitudes of the people?
Just because something is a custom or a tradition doesn't mean people agree with it.
I think it is you who are struggling to understand the logical flaws in your wonderful customary system.
Bloom, have you read either of FA Hayek, The Fatal Conceit or Anthony de Jasay, Against Politics? Both are available online and I highly recommend them to you.
No but I'd already put The Fatal Conceit on my list so I'll add Against Politics as well and try to get around to both of them soon. I have a lot of books to get through right now.
bloomj31: The NAP logically results in anarchy if it's rigorously applied to every single person within the community by every other person within the community. In this case we could be talking about the global community. This sort of application is simply not natural.
The NAP logically results in anarchy if it's rigorously applied to every single person within the community by every other person within the community. In this case we could be talking about the global community. This sort of application is simply not natural.
Your attempt at verbal slight of hand has failed. The NAP is the “non-aggression principle”. The point is that it applies to everyone. That is what makes it a principle. Your statements here are meant to make the reader infer that the NAP does not have to apply to everyone and therefore does not necessarily lead to anarchy. But that is not true. If a community has law based on the NAP, then that means that the NAP applies to everyone.
We could talk about the global community, and I hope that someday we could actually be talking about the global community adopting the NAP. But it is neither natural nor artificial to talk about the global community and the NAP. It is a pointless statement for you to have made.
bloomj31: You may work to apply it to every human on the planet but that hardly forces me or anyone else to. I'm not in any way obligated to observe your "property rights" anymore than I am an ant's.
You may work to apply it to every human on the planet but that hardly forces me or anyone else to. I'm not in any way obligated to observe your "property rights" anymore than I am an ant's.
What is the point of statements such as these? Obviously, you don't have to adopt anything that I might desire, but the same is true of the reverse. You may wish to see statutory law throughout the world, but that hardly forces me to want it too. So I ask, what is the point of a statement such as this?
Regarding ants, I do not recall ever stating that ants have property rights in human society. Perhaps someone could make the argument that ants have property rights relative to other ants, but I doubt someone could make that case. Furthermore, you seem to not really understand what rights are. Rights are a social construct. Human rights only make sense relative to other humans. And certainly, there is no obligation for you to respect my rights, but if you violate my rights, you should certainly expect me to retaliate in some way. Furthermore, that you consider violating my rights to be equivalent to an ant's “rights” tells me that you are a psychopath.
bloomj31: I could choose to with the assumption that you would reciprocate. And maybe you would. But then maybe you wouldn't. Perhaps you're a wolf in sheep's clothing. Because I know I cannot trust you I have reason to seek alternative means of assuring that you will do as you say you will.
I could choose to with the assumption that you would reciprocate. And maybe you would. But then maybe you wouldn't. Perhaps you're a wolf in sheep's clothing. Because I know I cannot trust you I have reason to seek alternative means of assuring that you will do as you say you will.
Well, at this point, I think you need to reread Clayton's posts What Law Is and A Praxeological Account of Law. I know you have read them, but you clearly have not yet understood them.
bloomj31: Actually a lot of the science says that all human beings do behave in exactly the same ways to a certain degree and that it has nothing to do with reason or logic it has to do with the universal characteristics of the human brain which is the ultimate source of human action, not reason or logic and it did most of its evolving thousands of years ago in a bygone era. The question is: "to what degree are we actually different rather than to what degree are we all exactly the same?"
This post tells me that you do not know what you are talking about. Reason and logic are tools. All humans use reason and logic to some extent. The most common type that people use is inductive logic. But people are fully capable of deductive logic, and people do use it, though they do not have to. Furthermore, you are clearly one of the people who do not wish to employ deductive logic. You stated “that all human beings do behave in exactly the same ways to a certain degree”. Oh. My. Fucking. God. Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself there? People either behave exactly the same or they do not. If they behave in different degrees, then they are not behaving exactly the same. Then you make a categorical statement that human behavior has nothing to do with reason or logic. What? Reason and logic do have something to do with human behavior. So you probably mean something else. But here is the thing, your arguments are often sloppy. Not occasionally sloppy. Often. You should probably spend more time studying logic, even informally.
bloomj31: But how different is it really? Isn't it based on basically the same rules?
Well, I suppose you could be honest and quote my statement that immediately followed:
gotlucky: This is not because the people in fancy restaurants are applying logic and the golden rule differently than people who go to BK.
This is not because the people in fancy restaurants are applying logic and the golden rule differently than people who go to BK.
Is there a reason you decided to ignore this statement? Do you know what norms and etiquette are? Do you know what the point of norms and etiquette are? The point is to resolve conflicts and hopefully prevent them by providing rules to situations. So, as I already said, BK and the Ritz-Carlton have different norms and etiquette.
bloomj31: I think the science indicates that humans are not all exactly identical but still all incredibly similar, particularly when it concerns the function of the brain. There is a remarkable amount of variation in the genetic code but these scientists identify huge numbers of common behaviors and traits that span the globe. Situations contain far more variation than people.
Yes, there is remarkable similarity, but there is great variation too. The rest of your post is just unsubstantiated assertion.
bloomj31: It's amazing that someone as familiar with economics would compare oranges with law without thinking about how they might be different. You consume an orange and the cost of that orange is presumably internalized by you. Maybe you throw the orange rind on the ground and it becomes a public issue but nevermind that. It begins with you eating the orange and ends in you eating the orange.
It's amazing that someone as familiar with economics would compare oranges with law without thinking about how they might be different. You consume an orange and the cost of that orange is presumably internalized by you. Maybe you throw the orange rind on the ground and it becomes a public issue but nevermind that. It begins with you eating the orange and ends in you eating the orange.
Law is part of the market the same way oranges are. You cannot escape this fact.
bloomj31: But let's say you go to court and get a ruling about whatever. Well now I'm bound to that ruling as well whether I like it or not unless I then go to court and get it changed. But perhaps I can't afford to go to court to get it changed or perhaps nothing has yet happened to me that would cause me to be effected by the precedent your case's ruling has set. Courts are passive institutions after all. Yet I can reasonably expect to be bound to that ruling unless I violate it and find myself having to try to change the law in court. I need to have some active means for changing the rules if the rules don't suit me without having to initially suffer the consequences of them myself or to actually go to court myself. That's why I need an active institution that allows for the politicization of the law. Now I can alter your ruling without ever having gone to court in the first place. My ruling may not reflect the exact preferences of everyone in a given area but then if it doesn't, someone else can change the law again. Our monopoly law may not calculate the preferences of the people exactly, but it does give a way for the people to change the rules if they don't like them. Thus it gives people a good way to deal with the diverse and complicated issues we face as a society.
But let's say you go to court and get a ruling about whatever. Well now I'm bound to that ruling as well whether I like it or not unless I then go to court and get it changed. But perhaps I can't afford to go to court to get it changed or perhaps nothing has yet happened to me that would cause me to be effected by the precedent your case's ruling has set. Courts are passive institutions after all. Yet I can reasonably expect to be bound to that ruling unless I violate it and find myself having to try to change the law in court. I need to have some active means for changing the rules if the rules don't suit me without having to initially suffer the consequences of them myself or to actually go to court myself. That's why I need an active institution that allows for the politicization of the law. Now I can alter your ruling without ever having gone to court in the first place. My ruling may not reflect the exact preferences of everyone in a given area but then if it doesn't, someone else can change the law again. Our monopoly law may not calculate the preferences of the people exactly, but it does give a way for the people to change the rules if they don't like them. Thus it gives people a good way to deal with the diverse and complicated issues we face as a society.
Your skill at logic is weak. You should really clean it up. Monopoly law cannot calculate the preferences of people at all. It is not a question of precision. It cannot do it at all. It might be right, and it might be wrong. But the government cannot know because it has removed itself from the price system. Furthermore, statutory law does not necessarily allow for people to change the law if they don't like it. It often doesn't.
I'd also like to paraphrase one of Vive's favorite responses: Your last sentence is incomprehensible gibberish. You are applying a value that cannot be compared to anything, and it does not even follow from the flawed argument preceding it. Why not just socialize oranges. After all, a state monopoly on oranges would “give people a good way to deal with the diverse and complicated issues we face as a society” regarding oranges.
bloomj31: It would if they thought like you. But then perhaps they don't all think like you and I have less to worry about.
But I do not think this. So why are you straw manning my argument? Do you feel better creating straw men? Is it orgasmic for you? There are many social norms in place today that exist without relation to state interference. It is not my belief that we must necessarily purge those. Furthermore, not all statutory laws as off the mark. Laws prohibiting murder would most definitely carry into a decentralized society, as would laws prohibiting theft. Again, you seem to have very weak skills regarding logic.
bloomj31: Now we're just arguing over what constitutes a standard. What you have done is compared a unit of measurement with a legal standard and found that one is different from the other. You're right. Units of measurement are more precise than legal standards but that's because units of measurement aren't up for debate constantly. Legal standards cannot enforce themselves, they have to be enforced by people and people make mistakes.
Yes. We are arguing over what constitutes a standard. This is important because the constitution cannot be a standard. Standards are measurements that are used to compare things. Are you aware of when scientists talk about something being accurate to X number of decimal places? They are aware that they are not perfectly precise, but they provide a reference for other people so that they know what they are talking about. You cannot do this regarding the constitution. You cannot say, “I refer you to the second amendment regarding the right to bear arms” because there is no single understanding of what that amendment means. The constitution cannot be used to compare anything in a meaningful way. Thus, it is not a standard, even if people refer to it constantly.
bloomj31: Or perhaps Justice Kennedy just erred when deciding that case. The Constitution isn't self-enforcing.
LMAO. You are a dolt. No two ways about it. I will quote exactly what you said:
bloomj31: The Constitution is the basic legal standard by which all constitutional questions are measured.
The Constitution is the basic legal standard by which all constitutional questions are measured.
So when I point out a counterexample to your categorical claim, you basically use the No True Scotsman fallacy - “Oh, gotlucky, Justice Kennedy is wrong when he does that, he's not correct when he doesn't use the constitution. He's no true judge.”
Give me a fucking break.
bloomj31: No I'm saying that trust comes to exist in small communities with limited numbers of people. There may be no desire for a central agency to insure trust because everyone knows they can use social pressures against those who violate the society's trust. They can use shame or ostracism or whatever to punish those who do wrong. Communities grow larger and larger and eventually social pressures cannot be used anymore to guarantee fair play. Shame ceases to be as effective a way of punishing people. People still want trust but they feel they cannot have it without something new put into play. The state is one means people have developed to that end. It is not the only conceivable means.
All you are doing is showing that you are a psychopath. You can't trust people without the threat of violence in the air, therefore all other people must be the same way. There's not really much I can do to help you here. You believe everyone to be a psychopath as you are. There is not much I can do to show you otherwise.
bloomj31: You presume to be able to understand the forces working in your own brain simply through introspection. You think reason is the guiding force for your trust in your coworkers. This is because you are a rationalist and therefore all human action must be dictated by reason instead of brain chemistry and the interplay between inherent genetic tendencies and the environment. You think you and the people around you trust each other (presumably based on reason and logic) because that is what your reason tells you.
You presume to be able to understand the forces working in your own brain simply through introspection. You think reason is the guiding force for your trust in your coworkers. This is because you are a rationalist and therefore all human action must be dictated by reason instead of brain chemistry and the interplay between inherent genetic tendencies and the environment. You think you and the people around you trust each other (presumably based on reason and logic) because that is what your reason tells you.
No. I do not believe that all human action is dictated by reason and logic. I also do not presume to be able to understand the forces working in my brain simply through introspection. You have a serious problem with creating straw men.
bloomj31: But you are not in control of yourself the way you think you are and they are not in control of themselves the way they might think they are. We are all vehicles for own genes and our behaviors were adapted to encourage the survival of the individual in an environment that no longer exists. Many of your brain's functions occur regardless of what "you" would call "you" is thinking. In fact, there's strong evidence that what you call "you" is thinking because of what occurs in the parts of your brain you have no control over. Until you understand that man is not driven simply by reason and logic (fabrications of the human brain themselves) but instead by the outdated inherent programming of the human brain interacting with the environment then you will no more understand the motives of others and/or their actions than you will understand your own. Evolutionary psychology is going to turn rationalist philosophy on its head, you watch. Rothbard didn't have access to the information we have now when he wrote his stuff. It's outdated.
But you are not in control of yourself the way you think you are and they are not in control of themselves the way they might think they are. We are all vehicles for own genes and our behaviors were adapted to encourage the survival of the individual in an environment that no longer exists. Many of your brain's functions occur regardless of what "you" would call "you" is thinking. In fact, there's strong evidence that what you call "you" is thinking because of what occurs in the parts of your brain you have no control over. Until you understand that man is not driven simply by reason and logic (fabrications of the human brain themselves) but instead by the outdated inherent programming of the human brain interacting with the environment then you will no more understand the motives of others and/or their actions than you will understand your own. Evolutionary psychology is going to turn rationalist philosophy on its head, you watch. Rothbard didn't have access to the information we have now when he wrote his stuff. It's outdated.
Keep up the straw men. You are going to have to point to things I said and demonstrate how those things mean what you are saying. I pity you.
bloomj31: Ofcourse I don't, but that's because I understand how humans actually work. I'm no psychopath you're just a fool.
LMAO.
bloomj31: I'm asking you so substantiate your claim. Can you do it?
This is a diversion. I will quote your questions.
bloomj31: Ok first of all which areas are we talking about?
Ok first of all which areas are we talking about?
Cities and suburbs in general. This was evident in my statement. Diversion.
bloomj31: Second of all, how are you determining exactly how many cops patrol in those areas?
Second of all, how are you determining exactly how many cops patrol in those areas?
I made no assertion regarding cops patrolling anywhere. Diversion.
bloomj31: How do you know that all people living in suburbs trust their neighbors?
How do you know that all people living in suburbs trust their neighbors?
I did not make an assertion that all people living in suburbs trust their neighbors. Diversion.
bloomj31: How are you measuring the relative levels of comfort in these communities?
How are you measuring the relative levels of comfort in these communities?
I did not make an assertion regarding the relative levels of comfort in these communities. Diversion.
bloomj31: What crime statistics are you looking at?
What crime statistics are you looking at?
Look, Detroit and Washington DC are cities with some of the highest crime rates in country. In the Boston area, places like Roxbury and Dorchester have higher crime rates than surrounding towns such as Lexington and Waltham. Use wikipedia if you would like. I don't care. Diversion.
You are just creating straw men and asking me to substantiate them. I don't care to play that game.
bloomj31: Can you point to the relevant section? Reading Rothbard talk about rights gives me a headache.
It's the second to last paragraph. Rothbard did not cite anything. He used deductive logic. So, if you take issue with what he concludes, you will have to point out which premises are false and/or how his argument is invalid.
bloomj31: If there is no medical standard definition for the rights people actually have then the list becomes meaningless. How can I be a psychopath for showing blatant disregard for rights that I don't believe exist?
There does not need to be a medical standard definition of rights. You already stated you do not respect the rights of others. Pretty simple. Furthermore, rights are a social construct. They exist in the abstract. That you still disregard them only continues to demonstrate that you are a psychopath.
bloomj31: I can't respect something that doesn't exist.
See above, psychopath.
bloomj31: I just gave an example which refutes your argument.
Hahahahaha, oh that is rich. You most certainly did not refute what I said. I go ahead and state that the government cannot know what to fix or how to fix it because of removing itself from the price system, and you proceed to say that people are aware of problems existing in general. You have no fucking clue as to the information problem and the role prices play in the market. Your response did not address these things. At all.
I noticed that Aristippus suggested you read some Hayek. I hope you take him up on that soon.
bloomj31: North Korea and Cuba are dictatorships. They do not have democratic systems for generating statutory law.
Democracies have been moving towards more tyranny. Ever hear of the “tyranny of the majority”? Furthermore, perhaps you aren't aware of this, but did you know that Bush was not elected by the majority in 2000? Did you know that states ignore referendums? Did you know that about half of the US does not vote? How can the democratic system reflect the attitudes of the general population if half of the population doesn't even vote? And then the half that does vote doesn't fully agree anyway....
bloomj31: If it doesn't reflect the attitudes of each and every person how can it be said to reflect the attitudes of the people?
As I stated, it “reflects the attitudes of the population in general”. I even said “in general”. Interesting how you ignore that qualifier. Is there any particular reason you felt that this was an intellectually honest method of debate? Purposely ignoring my own qualifiers to my statements? I would say that I expect better of you, except that most of this post has been me pointing out all the straw men and distortions of my arguments you have made. We are long past giving you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if you did this on occasion. But seriously, this much is entering into troll territory.
bloomj31: Just because something is a custom or a tradition doesn't mean people agree with it.
Sure, not everyone agrees to a custom, but it is a custom because most people agree to it. So, what is the point of your statement?
bloomj31: I think it is you who are struggling to understand the logical flaws in your wonderful customary system.
You are adorable. You straw man my arguments and then insist it is I who does not understand my arguments. You are a piece of work.
Gotlucky: All you are doing is showing that you are a psychopath. You can't trust people without the threat of violence in the air, therefore all other people must be the same way.
Alright this conversation is really boring me now. You present the only part of the definition for psychopath that could conceivably support your case, I show that I don't fit the actual definition and that there's no way any actual psychologist (what is it that you even do?) would even consider placing that label on me, you keep going with it because you've got nothing to lose, it's boring. I'm tired of writing up walls of stuff simply to have you repeat the same trite nonsense over and over, and you always fall back on this when all else fails. "You're a psychopath blah blah blah you don't respect my rights blah blah blah." I don't recognize the rights you've claimed because I don't think the claims make any sense at all.
We could go back and forth ad infinitum but I think it will be a waste of time for both of us. I'm tired of talking to you. I've said what I have to say about this, I'm pretty sure I've made my position clear for anyone who wants to read it.
You get the last word.
Well, since it seems I have hurt your feelings, we could just ignore the parts about you being a psychopath and just deal with the rest of it...you know, the parts where you completely straw man arguments and display a total lack of intellectual honesty.
Sure, if you want me to have the last word, that's fine. I don't care. You can have it if you want. But don't think for a minute that because you don't like that you are a psychopath that I am going to drop the rest of the bullshit that you spew.
Grow tired if you want, but you did not represent my arguments accurately at all. And the majority of my post delt with pointing out and explaining all the times you pulled that bs. As I said, you cannot point out that I called you a psychopath as a means to ignoring the rest of my post. Well, technically you can as you just did it. But I will point out that kind of bs.
Good day, sir.