|
On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession.
what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule.
yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state?
|
On April 29 2010 00:59 blazinggpassion wrote:
I think this is the most epic troll i've ever seen.
not a troll
|
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
|
On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge,
I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
|
On April 29 2010 01:00 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession. what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule. yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state?
No, since a completely autonomous country would not recognize a source of "right" which is higher than its own definitions. No nation can impose the view on other nations that she has a "right" to anything.
And yet nations of the world do generally choose to consecrate some form of mutually-binding international law, since many of them recognize the same natural legal principles. Similarly organic society at its onset is organized into tribes, clans and states.
|
On April 29 2010 01:02 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge, I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead
what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak.
your what i call a life troll.
|
On April 29 2010 01:07 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:00 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession. what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule. yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state? No, since a completely autonomous country would not recognize a source of "right" which is higher than its own definitions. No nation can impose the view on other nations that she has a "right" to anything.
first, dont fret about rights, when I say right, I actually mean the claim of a right, or otherwise the perceived and respected exclusivity of others.
but that is sad to hear. so you mean, you see that a nation has no grounds to stay sovereign, when its neighbors decide that it's time for it to be subjugated to a global order?
On April 29 2010 01:07 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And yet nations of the world do generally choose to consecrate some form of mutually-binding international law, since many of them recognize the same natural legal principles. Similarly organic society at its onset is organized into tribes, clans and states.
if by nations you mean the state (thugs) and not the people, hell yeah they do, the more "order", the more control they have over their pawns.
|
On April 29 2010 01:13 uiCk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge, I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak. your what i call a life troll.
you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them.
they're in the OP, take a shot
saying they are don't make them to be
too much barking, too little bitting
|
I know.
they will act in my interest because they want my money No, they'd kill you for that. Because then they wouldn't just have stolen your shit, they'd have everything of yours. They'd also rape your wife, eat your food and live on your land.
They will act in your interest by establishing a covenant with you to no take your shit in exchange for you not doing the same. The mutual renunciation of your right to complete liberty is the foundation of both the identity of a collective (in that people who have not renunciated with you are not part of said collective) and the content of the collective (the scope of the renunciation defines the terms of civil society).
But how do you establish that covenant and make it more than airy aspirations? You can't without enforcement, and the moment you have enforcement, someone has a coercive power over you. Ultimate coercive power needs to rest somewhere.
Cool, so it comes down to the lesser evil then? Violence and coercion aren't evil. In fact in most deistic conceptions of morality, an objective truth coupled with ultimate coercion is the ultimate good. Even in pre-judeo christian conceptions of mortality, both aristotle and plato would argue that coercion is not simply required, but a good in and of itself for making people align with the virtues or to agathon respectively.
Cruelty and unreasonable application of force, by contrast, do not serve an end in either the consequentialist or deontelogical forms of justice.
Be very careful about using a term like evil without knowing what it means.
not unless they demand tribute regardless of service like a state today does... Completely irrelevant. If taxes allow the government to outcompete other options with regard to holding a monopoly of force, then taxes will eventually be levied in a stable system.
free association does no harm to anyone... There is no such thing as a free association according to your axioms. You can't have it both ways.
If someone freely associates as an individual, he does so out of his own interest. Similarly it follows that if he can benefit from damaging the free association, he will. Given that a free association without a central coercive power cannot even enforce the existence of its own membership, i don't see how even the simplest of agreements could be entered into with certainty that they would be performed.
I bash the involuntary ones. They're all voluntary. If you want to get out of one, maybe they'll come after you, but you have the entire liberty to go into the forest and eat leaves for the rest of your life.
Granted that you aren't doing that, I see that you've wisely voluntarily decided to enjoy all of the amenities of civil society. When you want to exercise the maximum in unrestricted freedom, go to somalia, because their government sure doesn't do very much.
Feel free to see the difference that civil society makes.
I've seen rebuttals for every other service too, would you care to mention so i can ramble about them too...? Easy example? Health care. Every single numerical indicator says you're wrong on privatization being more efficient. Insurance. Any form of monopoly busting. And so on.
Then again, maybe you'd prefer that Standard Oil was still around. That pesky government had to stop them from using the teamsters (lol private companies using private armies!) because they cornered the market on steel, oil and transport.
But don't take my word for it. Read some mises.org and ignore real world outcomes!
I don't consider homesteaded or traded property to be violence Property is inherently violent unless no one wants it. The act of unilaterally expropriating everyone else's ability to interact with the object of your property in its purest form is entirely reliant on coercive measures.
Think about the difference between public and private property to flesh that idea out more. Why is one private? Is public property fully public? Why not?
|
On April 29 2010 01:17 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:07 MoltkeWarding wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession. what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule. yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state? No, since a completely autonomous country would not recognize a source of "right" which is higher than its own definitions. No nation can impose the view on other nations that she has a "right" to anything. first, dont fret about rights, when I say right, I actually mean the claim of a right, or otherwise the perceived and respected exclusivity of others. but that is sad to hear. so you mean, you see that a nation has no grounds to stay sovereign, when its neighbors decide that it's time for it to be subjugated to a global order?
Of course she has grounds; but she cannot appeal in favour of her sovereignty on the basis of some supranational "right." That would require all nations to admit the principle of international law.
|
I will share some ideas here on the topic that I've been thinking about recently.
The world can be experienced with the senses causing you to interpret the objects that you see. A tree, a rock, a car. There is no way to relate to them, therefor they are objects. However, when you are in the presence of another human being and interact, it creates a dialog between the two of you that is unique to the human race. There can be conversation between people that isn't dialog, polite conversation or asking for directions etc. But if you truly engage in discussion and both people are honest, it creates a relationship called I-Thou, a term coined by German philosopher Martin Buber. It is here that we become human. This has nothing to do with your confidence, inner monologue, plans for the future, outlook on humanity. Just a decision from both people to be real with one another. Afterwards you feel a whole new energy that drives you forward.
What is individualism compared to this? My guess is the time spent between relationships where you do work (study, earn money). Collectivism is the absence of I-Thou relationships that are instead replaced with a collective goal, ignoring any needs that the individual might have.
For more on the I-Thou relationship,Martin Bubers book "I and Thou"
|
On April 29 2010 01:18 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:13 uiCk wrote:On April 29 2010 01:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge, I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak. your what i call a life troll. you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be too much barking, too little bitting
Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread:
On April 27 2010 14:40 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head.
You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below).
And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness.
You seem to have a hard time accepting this, so I'll use the rest of his example, which is more xplanative, really.
On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed.
You see, the individual tree's conditions i altered by the ecosystem maintained only in the cluster of trees. A tree in a forest is qualitatively different than a lone tree on a field, and not only as a result of it's own merits.
The group alters the conditions of the individual, heck the group alters the individual.
You may say "trees don't have minds" and believe that you refuted this because you only ment to say that people can't know other people's mind, but that makes no difference. I only set out to show your premise was wrong.
One more time: A whole is more than the sum of its parts. If you need other references than this pretty common knowledge, try reading about "emergenece".
If this doesn't sink in you are either extremely stubborn or ignorant.
...or trolling me, but I don't think so.
|
a group of marines is a hell lot better than the sum of each individual marine
|
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote: No, they'd kill you for that. Because then they wouldn't just have stolen your shit, they'd have everything of yours. They'd also rape your wife, eat your food and live on your land. They will act in your interest by establishing a covenant with you to no take your shit in exchange for you not doing the same. The mutual renunciation of your right to complete liberty is the foundation of both the identity of a collective (in that people who have not renunciated with you are not part of said collective) and the content of the collective (the scope of the renunciation defines the terms of civil society). But how do you establish that covenant and make it more than airy aspirations? You can't without enforcement, and the moment you have enforcement, someone has a coercive power over you. Ultimate coercive power needs to rest somewhere.
does walmart rob you everytime you enter their establishment just because they can?
That is ridiculous, only lowly criminals think short-term like that. The smart thugs know how to rob you just enough so you keep going, and enough so they have a good life. I mean, look at government, thats what they do, and they're the best at it.
Can't the enforcement take place after the fact? like, innocent till proven guilty type of deal?
Covenants can be interchanged without force you know. you can have a third party to arbitrate the deal, and call on you if you break it. people who break contracts are ostracized and lose profit, so its on their interest to not break it...
More rigid contracts w\ more insurance and deposits are made if the risks are greater
and if something is so risky that it cant be done
then it's not done, too bad.
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote: Violence and coercion aren't evil. In fact in most deistic conceptions of morality, an objective truth coupled with ultimate coercion is the ultimate good. Even in pre-judeo christian conceptions of mortality, both aristotle and plato would argue that coercion is not simply required, but a good in and of itself for making people align with the virtues or to agathon respectively. Cruelty and unreasonable application of force, by contrast, do not serve an end in either the consequentialist or deontelogical forms of justice. Be very careful about using a term like evil without knowing what it means.
obviously I don't mean objectively evil...
I don't often mean objectively anything unless I'm speaking on tautologies
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:Show nested quote +not unless they demand tribute regardless of service like a state today does... Completely irrelevant. If taxes allow the government to outcompete other options with regard to holding a monopoly of force, then taxes will eventually be levied in a stable system.
they can't have a de-facto monopoly of a service if they don't arrest everyone that tries to provide that service.
only government can institute a de-facto monopoly...
otherwise, it's not a monopoly imo. a monopoly in a market of free entry is not really a monopoly but an organization that outperforms everyone so good, that no entrepreneur thinks they can undercut them, so they don't even try. Those monopolies ain't bad, and if they do start raising prices, then guess what, then it's possible to undercut and new companies will seek that profit margin.
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote: There is no such thing as a free association according to your axioms. You can't have it both ways. If someone freely associates as an individual, he does so out of his own interest. Similarly it follows that if he can benefit from damaging the free association, he will. Given that a free association without a central coercive power cannot even enforce the existence of its own membership, i don't see how even the simplest of agreements could be entered into with certainty that they would be performed. what? how do you "damage" free association?
you're gonna be a thug on the streets and shoot whoever tries to talk to one another?
how are you gonna profit from not allowing people to talk and assemble?
give me a hypothetical pls, I don't follow.
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote: They're all voluntary. If you want to get out of one, maybe they'll come after you, but you have the entire liberty to go into the forest and eat leaves for the rest of your life.
wow, bravo L. so if I steal your car, you'll say that you gave it to me?
seriously?
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:
Granted that you aren't doing that, I see that you've wisely voluntarily decided to enjoy all of the amenities of civil society. When you want to exercise the maximum in unrestricted freedom, go to somalia, because their government sure doesn't do very much.
Feel free to see the difference that civil society makes.
Somalia is hardly an anarcho-capitalist place right now. It just doesn't have a conventional modern state. it still has thugish families that take care of the law functions of society and you can only secede from if you have another one to go.
I don't have a family nor contacts in Somalia, if I go there on my free will I couldn't do shit even if I knew their language.
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:Show nested quote +I've seen rebuttals for every other service too, would you care to mention so i can ramble about them too...? Easy example? Health care. Every single numerical indicator says you're wrong on privatization being more efficient. Insurance. Any form of monopoly busting. And so on.
wow ok.
since you conceded that the free market is generally more efficient than bureaucrats writing doodles on papers, tell me
what is in healthcare that is so overly complex that can't be solved by entrepreneurs alone?
nothing, and we hardly have a free healthcare system today, not limited to the U.S.
that is a nice statement you got there, privatization being inefficient.
tell me, what is privatization? is it the turning of government property into private property?
well by definition, yes, but that is hardly what happens. You know what happens really, is the government leases the establishment to a company in the condition that it follows its regulations.
government never ever ever gets out of a market once it's in, unless there's a bloody revolution to take the leeches off or they've screwed up everything so hard that they can't even print more money any longer.
privatization is a bad bad joke.
Insurance. what's so hard about insurance that free competing entrepreneurs can't give a good, cheap performing service? Does it require an insane amount of work? By itself, I don't think so really, just some actuaries, people on finance, lawyers... idk. Thats the price of the service, you pay those people at the very least. Then there's overhead of administration and investment. Ok. What else can make it more expensive? Massive government regulation perhaps? Raising the barriers of entry and not allowing entrepreneurs to go in and out of the market when profit windows marginally open? Yea, I guess. So what does government does? Regulates some more, restrict some more, and it gets so shitty to the point that they take it over. Oh how sad. I guess the government will have to boss around this place too, thats unfortunate. But people will have to understand that they're dumb and can't do things right, yes.
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly? Has monopoly gotten out from under your bed and spanked you?
What is bad about a monopoly that whenever that word gets thrown around people shiver in fear?
I don't get it.
If a monopoly is being abusive on its prices, then open your own goddamn company and undercut them. You don't think there's people looking for a profit? Don't you understand that's exactly how the economy works? It's people overbidding and undercutting that creates the equilibrium of supply and demand. If a monopoly ever arises non-violently, it's because he has succeeded in being a hell more efficient than anyone else. Why the fuck would it throw its name and brand away by taking people "hostage" (oh noes, he has raised the price on the products he's voluntarily produce! what an outrage!), he would only lose profit then and risk being undercut. You know how he can avoid that however? He can ask papa government to make a bunch of regulations so other entrepreneurs can't come in and invest to undercut, or even mandate that prices be fixed "so that the consumer is protected". Bullshit. Whenever you see government "protecting" the consumer, be 100% sure, it's the opposite. They have no incentive to "protect", and even if they did, it would be by doing absolutely nothing. When a price ceiling is set, every time, it affects the equilibrium price, else it would be pointless. Same deal with a price floor. It's government fixing the prices so there can't be innovation and the now REAL monopoly can be laid back and not have it's margins undercut.
tl;dr;
-monopoly is not violence as it's not forcing anyone to do anything
-unless it has the government to do that job for them
-then it's obviously bad since it's violent
-but it can only be done w\ the state (edit: disregard)
whenever you hear about the government breaking monopolies, be sure it's the government creating a monopoly (cuz that's what they do, duh)
and whenever you hear about privatization, be very very skeptic about the government's ability on lay off their hands over anything (can't do that, nuh-uh)
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:
Then again, maybe you'd prefer that Standard Oil was still around. That pesky government had to stop them from using the teamsters (lol private companies using private armies!) because they cornered the market on steel, oil and transport.
cornered by being extremely efficient? what crime has been committed?
is offering a service a crime? I guess it is when the government wants to enter a market and control it right...
so, now the oil tycoons use government armies instead? how nice of the government, using taxpayer money and lives to stifle competition and create artificial scarcity.
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:
But don't take my word for it. Read some mises.org and ignore real world outcomes!
ignore the violent, statist paradigm imo
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote: Property is inherently violent unless no one wants it. The act of unilaterally expropriating everyone else's ability to interact with the object of your property in its purest form is entirely reliant on coercive measures.
yeah man, and me claiming to own my body is also violent because I'm depriving rapists and murderers from raping me, correct?
I see what you doing L, you're just mudding the water on violence so you can call the state legitimate from usurping homesteaded or traded property from others...
well not just the state at that rate, even the mafia, thieves, murderers aren't wrong w\ those principles
classic statist...
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:
Think about the difference between public and private property to flesh that idea out more. Why is one private? Is public property fully public? Why not?
public property is a joke. it's state property.
there is only unowned property, unownable property (just made that up imo), and owned property
public property is property owned by the thugs.
|
On April 29 2010 01:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:17 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:07 MoltkeWarding wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 00:52 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The distinction is irrelevant. As long as people live in a commonwealth of laws, there is a state. You cannot secede from a state, and then continue to live in the same neighbourhood under an entirely different system of laws than your neighbours- unless of course, there is collective secession. what distinction? I'm not making a distinction, you are. you're making the distinction between an individual v. state and a state v. world. I'm the one being more general and saying it's all the same involuntary thing. A smaller group (all the way down to an individual) v. some larger group than itself subjugating the smaller one to its rule. yes or no please, do the nations of the world have the right to not be part of an overarching global state? No, since a completely autonomous country would not recognize a source of "right" which is higher than its own definitions. No nation can impose the view on other nations that she has a "right" to anything. first, dont fret about rights, when I say right, I actually mean the claim of a right, or otherwise the perceived and respected exclusivity of others. but that is sad to hear. so you mean, you see that a nation has no grounds to stay sovereign, when its neighbors decide that it's time for it to be subjugated to a global order? Of course she has grounds; but she cannot appeal in favour of her sovereignty on the basis of some supranational "right." That would require all nations to admit the principle of international law.
so then, I have grounds to say I'm sovereign and wish not to be coerced, correct?
I didn't say nothing of objective rights, god damnit, I explicitly said I wasn't in that very quote.
|
On April 29 2010 01:49 Emon_ wrote:I will share some ideas here on the topic that I've been thinking about recently. The world can be experienced with the senses causing you to interpret the objects that you see. A tree, a rock, a car. There is no way to relate to them, therefor they are objects. However, when you are in the presence of another human being and interact, it creates a dialog between the two of you that is unique to the human race. There can be conversation between people that isn't dialog, polite conversation or asking for directions etc. But if you truly engage in discussion and both people are honest, it creates a relationship called I-Thou, a term coined by German philosopher Martin Buber. It is here that we become human. This has nothing to do with your confidence, inner monologue, plans for the future, outlook on humanity. Just a decision from both people to be real with one another. Afterwards you feel a whole new energy that drives you forward. What is individualism compared to this? My guess is the time spent between relationships where you do work (study, earn money). Collectivism is the absence of I-Thou relationships that are instead replaced with a collective goal, ignoring any needs that the individual might have. For more on the I-Thou relationship, Martin Bubers book "I and Thou"
thats cool
but individualism does include voluntary interaction
my definition of collectivism in contrast includes involuntary interactions
where what the individual wants is secondary to what "the greater good" needs
ITT I call that bs
|
oh L, you so smart 
|
On April 29 2010 02:08 Yurebis wrote:
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly? Has monopoly gotten out from under your bed and spanked you?
What is bad about a monopoly that whenever that word gets thrown around people shiver in fear?
I don't get it.
If a monopoly is being abusive on its prices, then open your own goddamn company and undercut them. You don't think there's people looking for a profit? Don't you understand that's exactly how the economy works? It's people overbidding and undercutting that creates the equilibrium of supply and demand. If a monopoly ever arises non-violently, it's because he has succeeded in being a hell more efficient than anyone else. Why the fuck would it throw its name and brand away by taking people "hostage" (oh noes, he has raised the price on the products he's voluntarily produce! what an outrage!), he would only lose profit then and risk being undercut. You know how he can avoid that however? He can ask papa government to make a bunch of regulations so other entrepreneurs can't come in and invest to undercut, or even mandate that prices be fixed "so that the consumer is protected". Bullshit. Whenever you see government "protecting" the consumer, be 100% sure, it's the opposite. They have no incentive to "protect", and even if they did, it would be by doing absolutely nothing. When a price ceiling is set, every time, it affects the equilibrium price, else it would be pointless. Same deal with a price floor. It's government fixing the prices so there can't be innovation and the now REAL monopoly can be laid back and not have it's margins undercut.
tl;dr;
-monopoly is not violence as it's not forcing anyone to do anything
-unless it has the government to do that job for them
-then it's obviously bad since it's violent
-but it can only be done w\ the state
whenever you hear about the government breaking monopolies, be sure it's the government creating a monopoly (cuz that's what they do, duh)
and whenever you hear about privatization, be very very skeptic about the government's ability on lay off their hands over anything (can't do that, nuh-uh)
.
LOLOLOLOLZ
did you know guys, monopolies are super awsome! LOLZ . so much epic lulz in your desperate 48h of writting nonsense on TL (have you slept yet?)
GLENN BECK IZ THIZ YOU? lols
|
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:18 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:13 uiCk wrote:On April 29 2010 01:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge, I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak. your what i call a life troll. you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be too much barking, too little bitting Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread:
quote and I answer then.
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:40 Yurebis wrote:On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head. You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below). And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness. it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness.
Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:You seem to have a hard time accepting this, so I'll use the rest of his example, which is more xplanative, really. Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. The same phenomena is explained with the large group of trees you spoke of earlier. A lone tree is unable to provide much of an ecosystem, but put a whole lot of them in one area and a diverse ecosystem can be sustained. Hence we must agree that the collective is not only a group of individuals, but much more indeed. You see, the individual tree's conditions i altered by the ecosystem maintained only in the cluster of trees. A tree in a forest is qualitatively different than a lone tree on a field, and not only as a result of it's own merits. The group alters the conditions of the individual, heck the group alters the individual.
still only the individual has changed.
no new creature has been formed out of the group of trees, much less a common entity overarching all of them.
unless you mean bushes and shit
but then I'd have to include bushes in the definition of a forest also.
so, just picture a forest with only trees.
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:
You may say "trees don't have minds" and believe that you refuted this because you only ment to say that people can't know other people's mind, but that makes no difference. I only set out to show your premise was wrong.
no, the analogy is just relative to the group being made up of single elements and nothing else...
theres probably a better analogy out there.
but really, why is it so hard?
whats wrong about the premise? have you found something that exists besides the trees in a forest?
or an external conscience out of the individuals and among them all?
do tell, would be a first.
or maybe second.
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:
One more time: A whole is more than the sum of its parts. If you need other references than this pretty common knowledge, try reading about "emergenece".
what's "more" about it?
On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:
If this doesn't sink in you are either extremely stubborn or ignorant.
...or trolling me, but I don't think so.
I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees
or anything in a society but people and their individual goals
their characteristics may be alike
but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe.
|
On April 29 2010 02:16 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:oh L, you so smart
L so thug
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
