|
the criminal takes into account everything that he knows off, both that can go wrong and right.
in regards to punishment... it does matter, sorry for saying it does not.
but it's not just the punishment, it's punishment times the chance of being caught!
so even if everything else is equal, a private investigator in an unhindered society has much much more of an incentive doing his job than a monopolist thug sheriff, because he earns by each case, has his own reputation to build, and also has to compete w\ other unhindered investigators. He would in the long run, do the job better... Earns what? Who enforces the law? This isn't about investigation. Its about enforcement. Does he go around like a bounty hunter just locking people up in his van? If so, how isn't he a mercenary, and how isn't 'law' not just what the highest bidder pays said mercenaries?
and you really got to stop using violence in that sense. It's making me crazy.
can't you be like the good guys and call it self defense? So self defense isn't violence? Justified violence that's acceptable and unjustified violence that isn't acceptable are both VIOLENCE.
Its making you crazy because you can't deal with the fact that one of your major ideological reservations about government is that you don't think their application of coercion is justified, ergo you feel it correct to label it violence and thus evil. You're the one who's imported moralistic language and had it completely frame your perspective, and frankly until you get out of that method of thinking you're going to find plenty of problems with throwing around terms like evil and attempting to use terms like "violence" pejoratively.
once someone does that, word can go out, company loses credibility, some other entrepreneur can come and undercut him Word gets out how? Why do you assume people know? Would the rating agency want to tell people that their ratings are biased? No. Would the company want to tell people that their rating is a lie? Quid pro quo between the two and you're fine.
I read a bit more
sounds like bullshit
says it's voluntary
yeah right. It is, just like its voluntary if someone else puts a gun to your head and you give them your wallet. While the action itself was intentional, the circumstances indicate that it wasn't borne out of consent.
Voluntarity and consent are not the same thing. Consent means that two minds have met and agree. Voluntarity means you're doing something out of your own free will. I can voluntarily steal bread because I have no money, for instance. Let me give you an example:
If you're sitting in an electric chair and I give you two options. One is to kill a little girl. The other is to kill 5 little girls. If you refuse to choose one of the two options in a minute, I electrocute you, then I kill all 6 little girls. While I am applying duress which would vitiate your consent (ie, you would rather not have anyone die) and you wouldn't have the same MOTIVE as the person you're dealing with, nevertheless your act to pick the one little girl to die is voluntary. You may be picking the least evil possibility, but its still you picking.
Logically, it does not. There may be a white swan somewhere, but you missed it.
That is the flaw of induction, in a nutshell.
...and also why you can't use history to prove anything tbh. I don't see how this is relevant at all given that you already made the admission that coercive monopolies aren't your cup of tea (which is what standard oil was). You've already admitted what you're trying to disprove here and inductive logic doesn't mean that the conclusion found via induction is wrong.
shouldn't it be called... "private property that people can walk on, np"? Do you even remember why you're talking about malls at this point, or have you completely ignored the initial question? It is private property that is public in nature. Hence it is public private property. A person's house is private, private property. A government run park is public public property. A government armory is public private property. We're talking about the first public, as per my last post.
Feel free to examine the difference between THAT form of public compared with private in the context of what I asked you the first time.
|
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +the criminal takes into account everything that he knows off, both that can go wrong and right.
in regards to punishment... it does matter, sorry for saying it does not.
but it's not just the punishment, it's punishment times the chance of being caught!
so even if everything else is equal, a private investigator in an unhindered society has much much more of an incentive doing his job than a monopolist thug sheriff, because he earns by each case, has his own reputation to build, and also has to compete w\ other unhindered investigators. He would in the long run, do the job better... Earns what?
earns money directly from his clients, payment for his services
as opposed to earning a fixed bounty stolen from all taxpayers (the socialist way)
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: Who enforces the law?
the same way that morals only exist inside each person's head, the law is also just a formal manifestation of each person's head
people will adopt those codes that best facilitate peaceful human interaction, because no one likes to get hurt
those who do indeed not mind coercing others, will find no more ease doing so than in todays society
especially if he's a government thug. he'll be missing these days like it was heaven for him.
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: This isn't about investigation. Its about enforcement. Does he go around like a bounty hunter just locking people up in his van?
1-He will do what he's payed to do
2-I believe such coercive actions are not needed
3-he just has to collect evidence enough to prove the thief is a thief in court
4-the thief is blacklisted and has to repay the victim to get cleared
there is generally no need to "enforce" the law beyond self-defense, and if there is, then the code which people agree upon will account for those very specific situations.
...I can't think of any examples... can you?
self defense itself is broad enough for matters of... defense...
and you can call self defense a type of violent enforcement, I don't give a shit, you'd do the same, would you not?
unless you're jesus or something.
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: If so, how isn't he a mercenary, and how isn't 'law' not just what the highest bidder pays said mercenaries?
not so
and law can be said to be just that in today's society, when you only have to pay off key people in government to go unpunished or to twist law your way
you seem to come from a perspective where everything is perfect and I'm trying to destroy all that man built
the state hasn't built shit. the founding fathers failed. it's a shitty system of separation of powers that does not work. the people on top are not gods, they have the same monetary incentives than everyone below, and can be corrupted just as much.
its not a question whether "corruption is possible in ur system?", its a question of "which system has the best incentive mechanisms to deal with it?"
I haven't even fully explained how a court system could work (I'm no legal expert, I believe and have explained why I believe thousands of competing experts can do a much better job than some monopolist pigs) and you're so damn defensive rejecting it already.
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +and you really got to stop using violence in that sense. It's making me crazy.
can't you be like the good guys and call it self defense? So self defense isn't violence? Justified violence that's acceptable and unjustified violence that isn't acceptable are both VIOLENCE.
why make that separation
is a kiss to your lips violence because it's interfering with your ability to talk?
it's justified because (normally) it's consented
and that's all that matters
the way you're calling human interpersonal action violence, there's no discernment w\ anything.
talking to you could be violence
screaming at you certainly could be violence
just being in front of you, not allowing to move your body through the space where I occupy, could be violence
So me existing, by disallowing you to move through me, is violence?
better definitions please
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote:
Its making you crazy because you can't deal with the fact that one of your major ideological reservations about government is that you don't think their application of coercion is justified, ergo you feel it correct to label it violence and thus evil. You're the one who's imported moralistic language and had it completely frame your perspective,
yes
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: and frankly until you get out of that method of thinking you're going to find plenty of problems with throwing around terms like evil and attempting to use terms like "violence" pejoratively.
your definition sux, sry.
semantics.
you know what I mean by violence (perceived unjust interpersonal action)
and I know what you mean by violence (anything asgasfagahadshas hurrr)
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +once someone does that, word can go out, company loses credibility, some other entrepreneur can come and undercut him Word gets out how? Why do you assume people know? Would the rating agency want to tell people that their ratings are biased? No. Would the company want to tell people that their rating is a lie? Quid pro quo between the two and you're fine. those very problems apply to the status quo
and if you got an idea on how to solve them, guess what, yo can open your company and show people how much more trustworthy you are w\ your devices. you'll be leading in no time because you're such a genius.
no one is stuck w\ a one-size-fits-all system in a free market. whenever a new idea comes up, it can be implemented instantly, no need for bureaucrats
anyway
word gets out same way as it does today
people know roughly the same way
the private officials will prob. be better than the police or any federal agency for that matter
the agency would have an incentive to be as transparent as possible if its customers want it to, or else it can be undercut by a more trustworthy agency (no such thing happens in a monopolistic system where they do in fact never have an incentive to be transparent besides a little bit on reelection time)
quid pro quo between who?
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: It is, just like its voluntary if someone else puts a gun to your head and you give them your wallet. While the action itself was intentional, the circumstances indicate that it wasn't borne out of consent.
thats ridic. your definition of voluntary is just as twisted as that of violence.
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote:
Voluntarity and consent are not the same thing. Consent means that two minds have met and agree. Voluntarity means you're doing something out of your own free will. I can voluntarily steal bread because I have no money, for instance. Let me give you an example:
If you're sitting in an electric chair and I give you two options. One is to kill a little girl. The other is to kill 5 little girls. If you refuse to choose one of the two options in a minute, I electrocute you, then I kill all 6 little girls. While I am applying duress which would vitiate your consent (ie, you would rather not have anyone die) and you wouldn't have the same MOTIVE as the person you're dealing with, nevertheless your act to pick the one little girl to die is voluntary. You may be picking the least evil possibility, but its still you picking.
if you define free will to exist even under duress.. then I guess it's valid
but it's still a useless definition like that
I guess I'll have to use consent instead of voluntary 4 u? just so we're on the same page
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote:Show nested quote +Logically, it does not. There may be a white swan somewhere, but you missed it.
That is the flaw of induction, in a nutshell.
...and also why you can't use history to prove anything tbh. I don't see how this is relevant at all given that you already made the admission that coercive monopolies aren't your cup of tea (which is what standard oil was). You've already admitted what you're trying to disprove here and inductive logic doesn't mean that the conclusion found via induction is wrong.
I didn't want to disprove the case specifically. I'm saying, if standard oil didn't do anything w\o people's consent, then it did not deserve to be acted upon w\o consent.
I don't know the specifics and frankly I don't care what the statist perspective has to say about that ("we're always right and you should be glad we steal from u")
On April 29 2010 14:03 L wrote: Do you even remember why you're talking about malls at this point, or have you completely ignored the initial question? It is private property that is public in nature. Hence it is public private property. A person's house is private, private property. A government run park is public public property. A government armory is public private property. We're talking about the first public, as per my last post. Feel free to examine the difference between THAT form of public compared with private in the context of what I asked you the first time.
ok
the second word is what matters
and the second word makes the claim of property an exclusive right to the owner
the first word is just an authorization for use given by the owner to anyone who wants to use it a bit, or a prohibition of any use at all by the owner unless specified explicitly
good enough?
if your point is to say that private private property (or public public state property) is "violence" because it denies other people from the use of it, don't have to tell me, I know
|
the law is also just a formal manifestation of each person's head This makes no sense.
people will adopt those codes that best facilitate peaceful human interaction, because no one likes to get hurt Who adopts these codes? Who enforces them?
You're basically saying people are going to follow the rule of law even in situations in which its in their best interest not to, which simply doesn't happen without enforcement. If you were right, we wouldn't need police, people wouldn't steal, and communism would probably have worked out pretty well. Attempting to use the objectivist "stigma" as a deterrent is already disproven by gyges, so you're left with the need for your voluntary society to dole out legitimate violence.
Once you do that, you have a government and a collective. So you're back to square 1.
1-He will do what he's payed to do
2-I believe such coercive actions are not needed
3-he just has to collect evidence enough to prove the thief is a thief in court
4-the thief is blacklisted and has to repay the victim to get cleared 1- Okay, I pay him to lock up my competition.
2- They are.
3- WHAT COURT? THERE IS NO FUCKING COURT.
4- Already dealt with.
Jesus you keep stating the exact same 'solutions' without dealing with THE GLARING PROBLEMS WITH THEM.
not so
You admit it in section 1 of the prior post, so we're pretty much done with that entire section of your argument. You even go as far as to fall back on the "how is it different now?" argument, which essentially gives up your position.
There are arguments to be made that some of our checks and balances have not survived intact, but that's not the argument you're making. Instead that argument would be of the form "sure there's a collective, but it isn't representative when it comes to government, ergo there's a deficit of legitimacy". The prior argument does not follow from your original position, but its one I think most people would be far more sympathetic to.
I haven't even fully explained how a court system could work (I'm no legal expert, I believe and have explained why I believe thousands of competing experts can do a much better job than some monopolist pigs) and you're so damn defensive rejecting it already. No, you essentially told me how a lack of legal system would appear. You didn't do anything to solve enforcement or substantive law or certainty of law or certainty of arbiter, all of which I've pointed out.
Restating an argument does not make your point valid in the face of ignored criticisms. Since you've been doing that repeatedly, I'm going to stop being charitable and tell you to go back and try again.
Go back. Try again.
Make a legal system, a system designed around the application of coercive force work without a coercive force. Feel free to base it on something other than rational self interest, because rational self interest is exactly what most legal systems attempt to avoid in favor of objective collective interests.
your definition sux, sry. Actually, mine is the accurate definition of what violence is. Yours is a perverted moralistic version because you want to add pejorative force to your words. You do so because your argument does not do what you want it to do.
If you want to replace "perceived unjust xyz" for violence in future posts, feel free to go back and read your arguments. Especially if you force the requirement of subjective unjustness. Essentially your argument boils down to "nothing I disagree with should be done against me", but Kant has already completely demolished that position morally. Hobbes also deals with this statement under his argument regarding the explicit foole and with his need for a third party arbiter.
Who ultimately gets to decide if something is unjust? Do you get to say "microsoft, you are illegitimate" and burn down their offices? According to your argument, if you actually had that perception, you'd be entitled to do so. Better burn it completely because they'd be entitled to hang you from a tree afterwards using the exact same subjective viewpoint.
So, go back. Try again.
and if you got an idea on how to solve them, guess what, yo can open your company and show people how much more trustworthy you are w\ your devices. you'll be leading in no time because you're such a genius. Leading what? Why would I open a company that would make me an objective threat to the most armed individuals who currently have a huge incentive to keep their actions under wraps? If I had a private army to protect myself against them, I'd essentially end up becoming the new government because I would be the provider of defence, and as such everyone would be forced to pay me for services.
But not only would they be forced to pay me for services, I'd essentially be able to do whatever the fuck I wanted because anyone who opposed my monopoly of power would get killed. other PDAs would fight me in massive turf wars, with the winner forming a far more brutal government than the ones we have now.
Well, unless we assume that the corporate owners of the company hate profits and would instead rather act out of goodwill. But we can do that with any power structure and typically that doesn't work out.
The PDA argument has already been dealt with before. The best part is that it literally replaces the government with thugs, which is rhetorically the entire reason you're making the argument.
word gets out same way as it does today
people know roughly the same way So you admit that you assume things would be relatively the same? I already told you that you need to stop assuming you'll have the services that civil society provides after you've removed civil society.
Go back. Try again.
thats ridic. your definition of voluntary is just as twisted as that of violence. No it isn't. There's a difference between motive (why you're doing something) and intention (what you intend on doing). This distinction takes a while to accept if you don't know what the difference is, but I assure you they're different. For instance: I steal bread from a store. I intended on taking the bread which wasn't mine, but for what reason?
1) I am a klepto and I love stealin'.
2) I had hungry kids to feed.
Those two be on the level of motive, whereas my intention to take the bread was on the level of intent.
Another example: Say I'm sleepwalking and I stab your face in.
I didn't have the intent to stab your face in. I didn't have control over my own body. Because I had no intent, I had no motive either!
Motive and intent are very hard to distinguish and even appeal level judges make the mistake, but the distinction is important.
if you define free will to exist even under duress.. then I guess it's valid So are you saying that if you'd grant that free will exists at all, that you have no control over your ability to choose in such a circumstance? No. The choice is morally unambiguous and a single acceptable path is laid out in front of you, but that's because you've accepted that you should only do what is moral. If you, by contrast, believed that little girls go around spreading AIDS and bully little boys, you might choose to kill the group of 5 or sacrifice yourself to get rid of the rest.
Either way, the choice is there.
I'm saying, if standard oil didn't do anything w\o people's consent, then it did not deserve to be acted upon w\o consent.
I don't know the specifics Go back and try again. Learn something. This isn't a new debate. Natural monopolies are not the same as coercive monopolies. Coercive monopolies, however, form naturally despite outside coercion against their formation.
the second word is what matters No, it doesn't. Go back to my original question and look at your responses in context. It does indeed rely on a measure of coerciveness, but you don't seem to understand the scope.
|
Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
|
On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote:
Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
I disagree entirely. I'm a strong individualist in almost every sense, but I also believe strongly in the power of cooperation. In fact, both go hand in hand. The opposite of individual freedom is tyranny - that's not cooperation, it's subjugation. Cooperation is when people freely agree to work together towards a common goal . Proponents of individualism simply disagree with coercion - forcing people to do what you want of them rather than have them do so of their own volition. Most governments, as they stand, are coercive in nature. They, under the auspices of serving the "public good" (an ill-defined term at best), assume what they deem to be the only legitimate monopoly on the use of force - force they use to serve whatever ends are deemed to be "the public good". Hardly cooperation.
|
On April 30 2010 06:34 jgad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote:
Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted. I disagree entirely. In fact, both go hand in hand.
Well you clearly don't disagree entirely then.
|
On April 30 2010 06:37 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 06:34 jgad wrote:On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote:
Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted. I disagree entirely. In fact, both go hand in hand. Well you clearly don't disagree entirely then.
In the sense that being an individualist IS being a cooperator, and not that one is either one or the other. Collectivism really isn't about cooperation, it's more a headless form of tyranny - that was my only point.
|
I see what you're saying, but it's a semantic point. Either people are naturally individualist or they are naturally collectivist ok? Neither is right. Collectivism helps the weak, individualism helps the capable- both groups are worthy of help.
Also it depends which system you are from. American people probably find it easier to see the virtues of individualism, British and European probably the virtues of collectivism.
|
evolution seems to favour collectives. why is it people tend to move into big city... and think of the 6 billion people not wanting to live in collectives - the earth would be way to small (even if i dont count the gigantic egos of some individuals)
BUT (and the "but" is huge) - allmost every collective is controll by one or very few indiviuals and the ideas that helped forming those collectives get corrupted.
|
The problem I have with the OP's treatise is that he's claiming that collectivism "doesn't work", by which I take it to mean that individualism is always preferable- but that is demonstrably not true. It is sometimes possible to take collective action that will lead to a better outcome than would have been reached by every individual acting in their own best interest.
One classic example is the tragedy of the commons (google "tragedy of the commons" if you don't know what I'm talking about)- for example: A group of fishermen make their living fishing in a lake. If they all act in their own self-interest, the extraction rate of the fish will be greater than the natural reproduction rate of the fish. If everyone is allowed to fish to their hearts' content, all the fish in the lake will die out and everyone will be left without fish. If a mayor / council / president / whatever takes a collective action measure, in the form of fishing quotas, or parceling the lakes into fish farms or selling the rights to fishing in the lake to a single entity which will employ the fishermen and make responsible use of the resource, you get an outcome that is hands down better to the 'individualistic' approach for all involved.
Another example is public goods. Say you live in the wonderful country of Chile. Everyone is happy in Chile, except for the fact that there are roving bands of 'Chilean Lanzas', the local brand of thieves, who go about stealing from people. The individualistic approach would be to take justice into your own hands and protect your property from these groups of criminals. A collectivist approach would be to form a police force, which will handle criminal affairs fairly, more effectively and efficiently. You could say the same thing about the matters of national defense (forming an army is the collectivist approach and it is good), and of providing justice and therefore being able to protect property rights and allowing you to enforce contracts (forming courts of law is the collectivist approach and it is good).
So, yeah. Collectivist measures CAN be superior to just letting every man choose for himself. These are well-known and documented cases in economics (public goods and shared natural resources). Those cases aside, though, I generally prefer individualism over collectivism.
|
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote:
The problem I have with the OP's treatise is that he's claiming that collectivism "doesn't work", by which I take it to mean that individualism is always preferable- but that is demonstrably not true. It is sometimes possible to take collective action that will lead to a better outcome than would have been reached by every individual acting in their own best interest.
One classic example is the tragedy of the commons (google "tragedy of the commons" if you don't know what I'm talking about)- for example: A group of fishermen make their living fishing in a lake. If they all act in their own self-interest, the extraction rate of the fish will be greater than the natural reproduction rate of the fish. If everyone is allowed to fish to their hearts' content, all the fish in the lake will die out and everyone will be left without fish. If a mayor / council / president / whatever takes a collective action measure, in the form of fishing quotas, or parceling the lakes into fish farms or selling the rights to fishing in the lake to a single entity which will employ the fishermen and make responsible use of the resource, you get an outcome that is hands down better to the 'individualistic' approach for all involved.
Another example is public goods. Say you live in the wonderful country of Chile. Everyone is happy in Chile, except for the fact that there are roving bands of 'Chilean Lanzas', the local brand of thieves, who go about stealing from people. The individualistic approach would be to take justice into your own hands and protect your property from these groups of criminals. A collectivist approach would be to form a police force, which will handle criminal affairs fairly, more effectively and efficiently. You could say the same thing about the matters of national defense (forming an army is the collectivist approach and it is good), and of providing justice and therefore being able to protect property rights and allowing you to enforce contracts (forming courts of law is the collectivist approach and it is good).
So, yeah. Collectivist measures CAN be superior to just letting every man choose for himself. These are well-known and documented cases in economics (public goods and shared natural resources). Those cases aside, though, I generally prefer individualism over collectivism.
Any kind of purely individualistic state wouldn't allow for a lake that anyone can fish out of, it would be someone's private property, and this person would have an interest in maintaining the fish population of the lake.
"Individualism" doesn't mean that people can't ever have coinciding interests...the point is that everyone acts in their interest rather than in the interest of the whole. If a police force was better at protecting individuals, it would clearly be in any person's interest to fund/hire/etc. a police force to protect them.
|
today I learned that thuggishness has two g's
double gangster
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: This makes no sense.
Shit, it really doesn't
the law is just a formal guideline for what actions are justifiable or not
which is in turn based on what a bunch of people find agreeable, not just the lawmaker
if someone rich guy pays a reputable court to make a law to his benefit, people will notice and call them on it. the lawmaker firm risks losing his clients plus credit, and the rich guy may not get anything since people won't go to that court anymore.
so, vis-a-vis, it is much better to have a free market on law-making, because at least you have somewhere else to go and aren't stuck w\ the corrupt monopolist decision.
also, it's much easier to bribe a state judge that has more stable terms and don't have to worry about losing their job until reelection time even if he's somewhat bad, than a private judge who's always trying to build up credit and be the best so people flock to him, which means more $$$. if he screws up, it's instant lose.
more incentive mechanisms can be put in place too, that I can't even imagine. lots of things can happen when you're not bound to state bureaucracy.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:Show nested quote +people will adopt those codes that best facilitate peaceful human interaction, because no one likes to get hurt Who adopts these codes? Who enforces them?
I think your notion of enforcement is a little off
you don't need thug cops walking around looking for terrorists and rapists all day
cops don't do shit on patrol anyway, they just harass people and give tickets
if people get robbed the cops aren't there to help, be honest
you go and file some papers to them after your car is gone, or you call them and they show up 1 hour later if someone broke into your house
is that enforcement? it ain't. it's a joke service
what exactly is enforcement for you, and why can't you imagine cops that aren't non-consensual?
and why can't you imagine people enforcing self defense? they do it today and the world didn't fall apart yet. there's private security guards, private body guards.. they're not out there shooting people, what the frick. they're doing exactly what they're paid for, and if they don't then they get fired and out of a job because people didn't pay them to be thugs (like the state cops)
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
You're basically saying people are going to follow the rule of law even in situations in which its in their best interest not to
no, I never said that, I said that it is rarely in someones self interest to pick a fight
because of retaliation, because of ostracism, because of measures already put in place to stop them.
unless they want all that, like, they want to have fun beating people in a bar fight, or quick money for cocaine, not caring for what happens next
its short-term thuggery
and if everyone wants to be a thug, then we will have a thug world, no law is going to change that my friend.
when people do something, obviously they think its the best for them (#4 on OP, also one of the basic premises of praxeology)
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:, which simply doesn't happen without enforcement. If you were right, we wouldn't need police, people wouldn't steal, and communism would probably have worked out pretty well. Attempting to use the objectivist "stigma" as a deterrent is already disproven by gyges, so you're left with the need for your voluntary society to dole out legitimate violence. how is an invisible and invulnerable man analogous to people in reality?
r u for rela?
and I've already said that moron's behavior doesn't disprove shit, I not only "conceded" that but I started the fucking OP saying that people act on their self interest
#4#4#4#4#4#4#4#4
have you read it motherfucker? lol
and I don't get you man.
are you saying people aren't allowed to defend themselves
or that they don't know how to
they need to ask a master-thug first?
or let the master-thug do it for them?
else they can't because it's too unorganized?
that's retarded
you think people don't have the slightest clue of what self defense is?
even children know. "he started it"
go to a day care, maybe you'll find someone more mature there
ooooh ok disregard that last one
was weak anyways
law does not start from the lawmaker
it starts with every individual
the lawmaker only tries to negotiate the rules of society
it's the individuals, yes, surprise, the individuals who ultimately decide
everyone is their own moral agent
you know that, don't you?
then, there is no need to relinquish that exact claim which would only be given back
INDEED... the system AS IS allows for self defense!
why the fuck have you not mentioned that? HUH?
I just now realized that so obvious fact.
WHY DO I NEED TO RELINQUISH MY PERCEIVED RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE TO YOU JUST SO YOU COULD GIVE IT BACK TO ME?
I bolded it just so you wont miss it pls.
hint: I DONT, THUG
you just want me to
you just want the whole world to have your sacred authorization to do anything, right?
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
Once you do that, you have a government and a collective. So you're back to square 1.
your definition of violence is still too broad and meaningless
and you havent answered my questions on this again and again:
am I being violent to you by changing the pixel patterns in your screen, and messing with your visual inputs?
would I be violent by sending sound waves into your head (speech)
would I be violent for being in front of you and not allowing you to go through me
would I be violent to you by refusing to let you stick your genitals in my anus.
would I be violent for hitting you back
if I understand your definition of violence, all of those are yesses
which means
its a shit definition.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Show nested quote +1-He will do what he's payed to do
2-I believe such coercive actions are not needed
3-he just has to collect evidence enough to prove the thief is a thief in court
4-the thief is blacklisted and has to repay the victim to get cleared 1- Okay, I pay him to lock up my competition. 2- They are. 3- WHAT COURT? THERE IS NO FUCKING COURT. 4- Already dealt with.
1- thankfully, that sir you just blew your money on is no more right to pass a court decision than a bum on the street. hes not a god, nor is he a thug.
people are eventually gonna notice and call you on it, go to the court next door, and you're left w\ nothing
2- besides self defense. which shouldn't be considered coercion. but you do, perhaps because you don't like people resisting your thuggishness.
3- you mean theres no demand for courts, or that people are just missing out an amazing profit opportunity because no one knows how to read or something?
if theres no courts, well, just hire some bum on the street that both parties agree on to arbitrate the case.
why do you want a thug to arbitrate your case anyways...
4-what? when, where?
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
Jesus you keep stating the exact same 'solutions' without dealing with THE GLARING PROBLEMS WITH THEM.
what problems?
that there's no thug to make people obey him?
how about you take a nice cup of peace and try to figure out consensual ways to deal with problems b4 taking your gun out?
certainly there's better ways
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:You admit it in section 1 of the prior post, so we're pretty much done with that entire section of your argument. You even go as far as to fall back on the "how is it different now?" argument, which essentially gives up your position.
did I ever say that private cops would have to knock down peoples doors and incarcerate people?
I never did, and I don't know how you find this thuggishness necessary for self defense purposes
it ain't.
at most I conceded that it may be for strict restitution and compensation purposes
at most
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
There are arguments to be made that some of our checks and balances have not survived intact, but that's not the argument you're making. Instead that argument would be of the form "sure there's a collective, but it isn't representative when it comes to government, ergo there's a deficit of legitimacy". The prior argument does not follow from your original position, but its one I think most people would be far more sympathetic to.
yeah I just got mad
very mad
I don't like to argue that. history does not prove anything after all like I said
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:Show nested quote +I haven't even fully explained how a court system could work (I'm no legal expert, I believe and have explained why I believe thousands of competing experts can do a much better job than some monopolist pigs) and you're so damn defensive rejecting it already. No, you essentially told me how a lack of legal system would appear. You didn't do anything to solve enforcement or substantive law or certainty of law or certainty of arbiter, all of which I've pointed out. tell me what kind of enforcement you want
substantive law... no clue. why wouldn't it be possible though?
you want fries with that? there you have it. unless you're the only one who cares about that shit then 2 bad. they may not have that flavor after all.
as long as it's not a thug thing that imposes itself on people non-consensually.
then they're not gonna do that, they'd lose clients.
and certainty... thats a joke, right? do you want certainty of food and shelter to come from the state too? those are no less important, why limit yourself to law?
they're just services dude. If there's a demand, entrepreneurs will want to supply that profit opportunity, and multiple entrepreneurs will compete to offer the best service.
certainty is no excuse to pull a gun and make people do something. and if you mean stability, well then I already tried to explain why 1000 judges *may be* more stable than 9 but you just hand-waved that w\ no argument...
so I don't know what else to say.
tough luck? you can't have everything you want from other people? go stabilize yourself?
maybe something like that.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
Restating an argument does not make your point valid in the face of ignored criticisms. Since you've been doing that repeatedly, I'm going to stop being charitable and tell you to go back and try again.
Go back. Try again.
uh, thank you for being charitable so far...? lol
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
Make a legal system, a system designed around the application of coercive force work without a coercive force. Feel free to base it on something other than rational self interest, because rational self interest is exactly what most legal systems attempt to avoid in favor of objective collective interests.
ok, to put things in perspective.
say I'm a serf from 1000 years ago
would you require from me, lord L, that I devise a political system
prove it to you that's better than slavery
just so you can at the very least listen to what I have to say
and then perhaps concede that you're being a bit too intrusive?
a bit too thuggish?
have a cup of peace yo.
the legal systems of today even don't stop self interest, because self interest is an inherent characteristic of human behavior. people always act on their goals even if their goals are external to them. it's part of my op.. maybe you should read it some time.
you got to understand self interest, not try to take it out of the equation. you're never going to take it out of the equation. you're never going to control "the beast". so you might as well just let the leash go and try to tame it.
allow people to make their own legal systems. you do "allow" the countries of the world to do it, right? well then, let the state... then the county.. the town, and the individual do it too.
the system that is in place does not seek the best benefit for the individual, it seeks to leech off it, to stay in control and minimize the chance of revolution by giving back just enough so we dont kill them all. wait, I think I wrote that b4. sigh. w/e.
if the system's means were to supply the wants of individuals, then it would not be necessary for it to be non-consensual, for everyone would pay them thugs on their own self interest...
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Actually, mine is the accurate definition of what violence is. Yours is a perverted moralistic version because you want to add pejorative force to your words. You do so because your argument does not do what you want it to do.
still don't know what yours is
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
If you want to replace "perceived unjust xyz" for violence in future posts, feel free to go back and read your arguments. Especially if you force the requirement of subjective unjustness. Essentially your argument boils down to "nothing I disagree with should be done against me", but Kant has already completely demolished that position morally. Hobbes also deals with this statement under his argument regarding the explicit foole and with his need for a third party arbiter.
you know I'm not an objectivist so no need to preach at me
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
Who ultimately gets to decide if something is unjust?
the individual
obv.
but you don't quite admit that.
no sir, there needs to be a "thug entity" above them all to define what is unjust!
man can't do it himself! it would be chaos!
people would call their mothers unjust, rape them and kill them, just because they can!
man is that aggressive.
let us thugs, beings above man, do it for you, peons! yes!
then we'll have order.
(thug order)
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: Do you get to say "microsoft, you are illegitimate" and burn down their offices? According to your argument, if you actually had that perception, you'd be entitled to do so. Better burn it completely because they'd be entitled to hang you from a tree afterwards using the exact same subjective viewpoint.
when someone says "you are illegitimate" they always mean "I think you're illegitimate"
and by "entitled to" you mean they would claim being entitled to
again I'm no objectivist so I don't know why you're telling me all I know already
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
So, go back. Try again.
what did I get wrong sir? I didn't claim any of that
I said your definition sux because it's too broad
if every interpersonal action is violence in your definition, then why call it violent?
and I'm sorry if I misrepresented your definition, but you haven't defined it in ages, while you know very well what mine is.
unfair I say
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:Show nested quote +and if you got an idea on how to solve them, guess what, yo can open your company and show people how much more trustworthy you are w\ your devices. you'll be leading in no time because you're such a genius. Leading what? Why would I open a company that would make me an objective threat to the most armed individuals who currently have a huge incentive to keep their actions under wraps? If I had a private army to protect myself against them, I'd essentially end up becoming the new government because I would be the provider of defence, and as such everyone would be forced to pay me for services. what the fuck lol
you're coming from a statist world so I understand why you think there's thugs under every rug and you need a stronger thug to protect you, but...
let me tell you this
standing armies are not profitable
they are 99.9999% of the time not the fruits of a free market
even private mercenaries work for the government
there would be no armies to shoot you down or to take it over
because it would be stupidly unprofitable to do that
let me give you a couple scenarios.
don't read if you don't wanna
you raise an army with money from nowhere (lets say you were mad rich and suddenly turned evil). that cost you 100 million.
now you take over a country and pillage everything. total earnings are 200 million
good job sir thats a lot of money, now what? you killed everyone.
now the countries around you are getting ready for invasion, and it's gonna be increasingly harder for you to take them over
will you be able to take them all down? OK lets say you are! you are a war specialist and your leet plans devised a way to pillage through the whole world?
now what retard? everyone is dead but you and your army. what a great profit huh.
armies are not made for destruction, any statist thug knows that. they are meant for herding the farm. standing armies and fighting armies for that matter are a waste of resources unless they're meant to control territory. Getting people to kill people doesn't make you that much richer. Controlling them does.
Now that you know, you're gonna be conservative this time. Instead of simply obliterating everything, you're going to try and conquest every little land you move to. With your massive army, it's gonna be easy, right? This is an anarchist world after all, no one has shit.
ok. you move to the neighboring country. everything is taken over, civilians are disarmed. now they have to obey your rule and pay you tribute. Fine. Earnings are 100 million (generous). wtf, but thats exactky what I just spent on the army. well no shit idiot, just think a little. the US army is payed for it's taxpayers, and the army isn't even big enough to take over the entire country. How the fuck did you expect to take over a country and even earn any profits?
Those people don't want to give you anything, they're gonna resist, they're going to die trying to stop you, they're gonna strap bombs in their chests and blow your army with them. They don't see you as legitimate, they see you for the thug. If even the US has trouble managing their shit w\ a non-revolting population, how are you going to keep those people down AND extract good money from them?. Long term, impossible. you go broke.
You need people to see you as legitimate for there to be enough collaboration and progressive capital accumulation on their part for an invasion to be worth it long term.
In other words, you do have to become their state, and they have to accept it.
Else, it's a quagmire. Oh where did I hear that word before? I wonder.
So thats why massive armies are retarded in a free market. In a free world, people won't see you as a king, they'll see you as a thug. you won't have your dough.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
But not only would they be forced to pay me for services, I'd essentially be able to do whatever the fuck I wanted because anyone who opposed my monopoly of power would get killed. other PDAs would fight me in massive turf wars, with the winner forming a far more brutal government than the ones we have now. nope, people won't pay for that, so no armies will be raised unless it's for defensive purposes. It's not profitable.
It's only profitable if you can control people and make them pay for the deaths of others.
Its what austrian economists call the externalization of the costs of violence.
or something like that
externalization of costs for sure.
meaning, if you can make other people pay for it, hell yea you can blow up the world and be god, np.
but you can't control people that don't see you as legit.
they'll have greatly reduced efficiency at best, suicide bombers at worst.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
Well, unless we assume that the corporate owners of the company hate profits and would instead rather act out of goodwill. But we can do that with any power structure and typically that doesn't work out. Nope, they love profits. but pure and simply, violence is retardedly expensive. increasingly so as time goes by and word can go out that you're a thug. a private thug, this time.
the real thugs in the state, well not quite, since people see that thuggishness as alright. but sooner or later... truth will out
... unless we all die first. but otherwise it will out.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
The PDA argument has already been dealt with before. The best part is that it literally replaces the government with thugs, which is rhetorically the entire reason you're making the argument. what
how are they thugs?
they're not making anyone pay them
working on self defense is being a thug?
security guards are thugs?
a lady that pushes a rapist back is a thug?
everyone in the US that believes in self defense is a thug?
the US courts are also thugs for allowing citizens to defend themselves?
and I've already explained why it's not profitable to do so
oh, think like this
in starcraft terms
it's like youre saying "4 pool is invicible no one can stop it"
well duh if people know that you can 4 pool them, they're going to prepare for it and not let you have your way
they're going to wall off, use SCVs. your lings won't do shit, and you'll be broke
meaning, the thugs who wanna be thugs may even succeed vs. noobs, like, d, c-
but against pros
youre gonna lose mofo
high five
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: So you admit that you assume things would be relatively the same? I already told you that you need to stop assuming you'll have the services that civil society provides after you've removed civil society.
will peope continue to like, talk, and write shit down?
yeah? are they being force to do that now?
is there a ministry of media that I'm not aware of?
hell there may be, idk, not an expert on thuggishness
does civil society provides people with a voice?
does it make the grass grow?
the sun rise?
I mean...
even on those grounds that you talked about earlier, about thugs paying people to shut up.
well, if people can talk, and there's a demand for talking, then they're gonna talk to the highest bidder, right?
so yeah, thugs can pay people to shut up, of course.
but as that info being squelched becomes more scarce, it becomes increasingly more valuable (theres less supply)
a small crime, OK, he can pay off some people
but a sequence of crimes, hundreds of people, then thousands. is it possible?
can he shut up family members, every one of his thug staff, neighbors, multiple PDAs?
I don't know if he can man
but if he can do all that
then surely he'd have waaay more than enough to do the same thing in a statist society.
state thugs are not gods, they can be shut up too. even more so since they have a monopoly, stable employment, etc etc etc
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:
Go back. Try again.
no u
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:Show nested quote +thats ridic. your definition of voluntary is just as twisted as that of violence. No it isn't. There's a difference between motive (why you're doing something) and intention (what you intend on doing). This distinction takes a while to accept if you don't know what the difference is, but I assure you they're different. For instance: I steal bread from a store. I intended on taking the bread which wasn't mine, but for what reason? 1) I am a klepto and I love stealin'. 2) I had hungry kids to feed. Those two be on the level of motive, whereas my intention to take the bread was on the level of intent. Another example: Say I'm sleepwalking and I stab your face in. I didn't have the intent to stab your face in. I didn't have control over my own body. Because I had no intent, I had no motive either! Motive and intent are very hard to distinguish and even appeal level judges make the mistake, but the distinction is important.
ok.
intent is what you want to do
and motive is why you want or what you want to do that for.
voluntary is "with intent"
didn't have to elaborate so much but ty.
what was this for anyway...
oh yeah. civil society.
so is civil society consensual also?
I still don't quite know what it means..
I didn't read that much tho tbh.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:Show nested quote +if you define free will to exist even under duress.. then I guess it's valid So are you saying that if you'd grant that free will exists at all, that you have no control over your ability to choose in such a circumstance? No. The choice is morally unambiguous and a single acceptable path is laid out in front of you, but that's because you've accepted that you should only do what is moral. If you, by contrast, believed that little girls go around spreading AIDS and bully little boys, you might choose to kill the group of 5 or sacrifice yourself to get rid of the rest. Either way, the choice is there.
thats not how I define free will. my free will is not about whether I have a choice. let me define. it is "the liberty to act w\o being physically threatened for something you do or dont do". don't really matter how many choices I have, just as long I'm not being physically "forced" to do it.
I know it's not the regular definition so sorry for wasting ur time on that. Its a determinist redefinition. a quite poor one at that but it was made just so compatibilism
I would have no free will under the threat of death in that scenario.
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote:Show nested quote + I'm saying, if standard oil didn't do anything w\o people's consent, then it did not deserve to be acted upon w\o consent.
I don't know the specifics Go back and try again. Learn something. This isn't a new debate. Natural monopolies are not the same as coercive monopolies. Coercive monopolies, however, form naturally despite outside coercion against their formation.
what's a coercive monopoly? I don't know your definition of coercion but I remember thats not the same as mine.
oh yeah, I think I know what you mean.
hahah
ok so tell me if I wrong.
but do you mean that..
a monopoly is always coercive in the sense that... like private property, you are forcing everyone to back off your shit?
so, I have a coercive monopoly over my own body then?
if this is right... then this shit is as dumb as your definition of violence
goddamn, how do you convince anyone with that bs?
a rapist comes at you, "let me rape you! you can't have a coercive monopoly over your own body!"
"I'm gonna steal your car! because you have a coercive monopoly of a means of transportation!"
whaaat...
any private property is a coercive monopoly amirite?
man you gotta stop with these definitions im serious haha
On April 30 2010 06:15 L wrote: No, it doesn't. Go back to my original question and look at your responses in context. It does indeed rely on a measure of coerciveness, but you don't seem to understand the scope.
well ok let me try again.
first word defines use, second word defines ownership. that much is right because you didn't quote.
so, if the coercion isn't in the second word, on exclusive ownership...
it can only be in the first word! of use.
so you mean, coercion only exists if I stop someone from using it?
ok that makes sense
but that's dumb, separating use from exclusive control...
the one with exclusive control dictates how to use it so...
there's always gonna be some restriction on the use
even if its a restriction on changing the restrictions.
loophole?
what a long ass post
|
On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote:
Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted.
there is no objective right
there are rights for a goal
L's goal is to be a thug obv.
|
On April 30 2010 06:34 jgad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote:
Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted. I disagree entirely. I'm a strong individualist in almost every sense, but I also believe strongly in the power of cooperation. In fact, both go hand in hand. The opposite of individual freedom is tyranny - that's not cooperation, it's subjugation. Cooperation is when people freely agree to work together towards a common goal . Proponents of individualism simply disagree with coercion - forcing people to do what you want of them rather than have them do so of their own volition. Most governments, as they stand, are coercive in nature. They, under the auspices of serving the "public good" (an ill-defined term at best), assume what they deem to be the only legitimate monopoly on the use of force - force they use to serve whatever ends are deemed to be "the public good". Hardly cooperation.
yes my friend
don't let people drag you down to their level
like that L thug
|
On April 30 2010 06:37 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 06:34 jgad wrote:On April 30 2010 06:26 sc4k wrote:
Almost every time I see arguments like this it comes down to what you are as a person...a natural cooperator or a natural individualist. If you think either collectivism or individualism is 'right' you are being short-sighted. I disagree entirely. In fact, both go hand in hand. Well you clearly don't disagree entirely then.
yeah i think he fucked that up
you weren't saying individualism v. cooperation
you said it right but he misrepresented it
its all good
lets have a group hug
|
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote:
The problem I have with the OP's treatise is that he's claiming that collectivism "doesn't work", by which I take it to mean that individualism is always preferable- but that is demonstrably not true. It is sometimes possible to take collective action that will lead to a better outcome than would have been reached by every individual acting in their own best interest.
doesn't work for what
I didn't say it doesn't work
I said its full of holes
and it can certainly work for some goal
like thuggishness
but overall, collectivism as I see it is a misnomer
because there is no collective goal
only your goal, which may indeed be "the best of others" or something
but thats yours
a collectivist's goals is actually his individual goal
thats kinda weird isnt it.
so... it's kinda broken
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote:
One classic example is the tragedy of the commons (google "tragedy of the commons" if you don't know what I'm talking about)- for example: A group of fishermen make their living fishing in a lake. If they all act in their own self-interest, the extraction rate of the fish will be greater than the natural reproduction rate of the fish. If everyone is allowed to fish to their hearts' content, all the fish in the lake will die out and everyone will be left without fish. If a mayor / council / president / whatever takes a collective action measure, in the form of fishing quotas, or parceling the lakes into fish farms or selling the rights to fishing in the lake to a single entity which will employ the fishermen and make responsible use of the resource, you get an outcome that is hands down better to the 'individualistic' approach for all involved.
people can individually agree to those quotas
and those who don't can be ostracized
why jump for the gun?
I know it's an issue though, and props 2 u for bringing something actually relevant and not more of the same "oh you're a selfish person you!"
"you want to rape little children don't you? anarchist!"
nah no one actually said that
but close
anyways I don't have all the answers. not the point of the thread. if it was, i'd be a statist, because I'd have all the answers, and I surely would entitle myself to be the president of the world and boss people around.
I admit I don't have a clear answer for that.
but I still think pulling the gun is the wrong way to solve it
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote:
Another example is public goods. Say you live in the wonderful country of Chile. Everyone is happy in Chile, except for the fact that there are roving bands of 'Chilean Lanzas', the local brand of thieves, who go about stealing from people. The individualistic approach would be to take justice into your own hands and protect your property from these groups of criminals. A collectivist approach would be to form a police force, which will handle criminal affairs fairly, more effectively and efficiently. You could say the same thing about the matters of national defense (forming an army is the collectivist approach and it is good), and of providing justice and therefore being able to protect property rights and allowing you to enforce contracts (forming courts of law is the collectivist approach and it is good). who pays for the police force..
and why do you have to force them to pay for it?
surely you've seen neighborhood patrol guards somewhere, payed voluntarily?
On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote:
So, yeah. Collectivist measures CAN be superior to just letting every man choose for himself. These are well-known and documented cases in economics (public goods and shared natural resources). Those cases aside, though, I generally prefer individualism over collectivism.
I don't concede they can be superior at all
I'm not a wuss like you
rage
lol
|
On April 30 2010 09:03 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 08:54 Zato-1 wrote:
The problem I have with the OP's treatise is that he's claiming that collectivism "doesn't work", by which I take it to mean that individualism is always preferable- but that is demonstrably not true. It is sometimes possible to take collective action that will lead to a better outcome than would have been reached by every individual acting in their own best interest.
One classic example is the tragedy of the commons (google "tragedy of the commons" if you don't know what I'm talking about)- for example: A group of fishermen make their living fishing in a lake. If they all act in their own self-interest, the extraction rate of the fish will be greater than the natural reproduction rate of the fish. If everyone is allowed to fish to their hearts' content, all the fish in the lake will die out and everyone will be left without fish. If a mayor / council / president / whatever takes a collective action measure, in the form of fishing quotas, or parceling the lakes into fish farms or selling the rights to fishing in the lake to a single entity which will employ the fishermen and make responsible use of the resource, you get an outcome that is hands down better to the 'individualistic' approach for all involved.
Another example is public goods. Say you live in the wonderful country of Chile. Everyone is happy in Chile, except for the fact that there are roving bands of 'Chilean Lanzas', the local brand of thieves, who go about stealing from people. The individualistic approach would be to take justice into your own hands and protect your property from these groups of criminals. A collectivist approach would be to form a police force, which will handle criminal affairs fairly, more effectively and efficiently. You could say the same thing about the matters of national defense (forming an army is the collectivist approach and it is good), and of providing justice and therefore being able to protect property rights and allowing you to enforce contracts (forming courts of law is the collectivist approach and it is good).
So, yeah. Collectivist measures CAN be superior to just letting every man choose for himself. These are well-known and documented cases in economics (public goods and shared natural resources). Those cases aside, though, I generally prefer individualism over collectivism. Any kind of purely individualistic state wouldn't allow for a lake that anyone can fish out of, it would be someone's private property, and this person would have an interest in maintaining the fish population of the lake.
yeah, there you go.
just privatize the whole thing
problem solved lol
why didnt I think of that. disappointing.
On April 30 2010 09:03 Lixler wrote:
"Individualism" doesn't mean that people can't ever have coinciding interests...the point is that everyone acts in their interest rather than in the interest of the whole. If a police force was better at protecting individuals, it would clearly be in any person's interest to fund/hire/etc. a police force to protect them.
yeah
I mean
theres people that love jumping the gun
fuck them
thats right L, thats you
thug
lol
|
the law is just a formal guideline for what actions are justifiable or not No it isn't. That would be A law, not THE law.
if someone rich guy pays a reputable court to make a law to his benefit, people will notice and call them on it. People do this all the time in the majority of states in the world. Over 90% of the world's legal systems are run via bribes (including some of those in the USA which you actually mention ), yet you're assuming that the good will and private self interest of individuals will make them act in a manner that doesn't benefit them.
Wronnnnnnnnnnnng.
Hilarious how you can cite cases wherein your assumptions are flat out wrong, then restate your assumptions a line or two down.
what exactly is enforcement for you, and why can't you imagine cops that aren't non-consensual? Because the fact that you would need them indicates that someone in the equation doesn't want to have cops running him down. Unless you assume that me killing you and stealing all your shit indicates consent on my part to be taken to some sort of consensual jail, of course.
If, by contrast, you're talking about a large group of people who have collectively agreed to restrict one another by agreeing to have some sort of consensual police force, but then you'd have a collective and a commonwealth of laws and your initial argument doesn't work again.
no, I never said that, I said that it is rarely in someones self interest to pick a fight Its rarely in someone's interest because they know they're going to get carted off to jail in civil society. Can't assume current conditions. Go back. Try again.
the individual
obv.
but you don't quite admit that. Okay, so now everyone has the right to unilaterally declare themselves above the 'law' of the commonwealth?
There goes your system of law enforcement again!
1- thankfully, that sir you just blew your money on is no more right to pass a court decision than a bum on the street. hes not a god, nor is he a thug.
people are eventually gonna notice and call you on it, go to the court next door, and you're left w\ nothing
2- besides self defense. which shouldn't be considered coercion. but you do, perhaps because you don't like people resisting your thuggishness.
3- you mean theres no demand for courts, or that people are just missing out an amazing profit opportunity because no one knows how to read or something?
if theres no courts, well, just hire some bum on the street that both parties agree on to arbitrate the case.
why do you want a thug to arbitrate your case anyways...
4-what? when, where? I'm only going to bother dealing with this point and the one about war because I've already dealt with everything else. Feel free to reread the context surrounding the ring of Gyges so that you can understand why its being used.
1- What's a right? This is why I had you ask yourself the prior property question. Until you know what a right is, don't tell me XYZ has a right to ABC.
2- Self defence is coercion, but its justifiable coercion. Again you shit up the place by attempting to use pejorative moral language instead of actually dealing with what I'm saying. This doesn't just go for this line either. This goes for the entirety of your rhetorical diarrhea. Your magic private cops are cops, but public ones are thugs? Give me a break.
3- Hire a random bum off the street? And have him do what? Armlock the loser if the loser just decides to tell both of them to fuck off? Not only do you have no enforcement, but you also have no certainty in your legal system either.
Give me a real solution, otherwise stop pretending that vagrants on the street do the same function as an entire legal system. Then again, given that you have no idea where the original incentive to actually form a commonwealth comes from, this isn't surprising. Your only incentive is that you hate government, I suppose.
4- Go read.
Regarding the list of things you need to read because i've addressed them, i'll quote 5 things that I've DIRECTLY answered, or that you could literally look up in a dictionary and see that you're wrong.
are you saying people aren't allowed to defend themselves
if I understand your definition of violence, all of those are yesses
what problems? (this one is particularly hilarious)
WHY DO I NEED TO RELINQUISH MY PERCEIVED RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE TO YOU JUST SO YOU COULD GIVE IT BACK TO ME? (also pretty hilarious)
tell me what kind of enforcement you want
All of these have been answered, but you're doing your best to avoid recognizing that.
And so we'll end on this point:
let me tell you this
standing armies are not profitable You're 100% wrong. People do not go out waging wars because its unprofitable. In fact, the entire conception of a "justified war" which arose in the middle ages was specifically to develop a moral force AGAINST highly profitable wars of opportunity.
So, I'll ask: What exactly do people wage wars for if it isn't profitable? Include both negative gains (preventing losses) and positive gains in your answer. Then address the issue of perspective; How does a commonwealth vs a private organization that can wage war change the calculus (you will find that perspectival analysis is very detrimental to your position here)?
Bonus because its hilarious and frankly I love to see your double think in action:
they're not making anyone pay them You realize that this is exactly what the mafia did, right? Tell people to pay for protection, don't force them or anything. Then, if you don't, create a need for protection? Governments do the exact same thing; Start conflicts than beat the "rally around the state to protect you from shit we're starting!!!" drum. How is this different when its a private organization?
Maybe because you're hoping that a nice, gentle happy PDA would outcompete all the ruthless ones that kill their competitors. But then why wouldn't you apply the same evolutionary pressure to governments and say that the nicest, gentlest, happiest ones will outperform the others? Ah, because public bad, private good, thugs thugs, violence, have a cup of peace. Gotcha.
|
#1 - Only individuals have consciousnesses
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals
two is practically wrong, because we have the action known as "communication" (technically true because it is impossible to know exactly what another individual means, but you can take an extremely good guess)
three is true if you count communicating as an action, so you can "assume" that when i say i'm a human being, i do think so
four is hilariously wrong. not only because of obvious examples (alcohol, drugs) but because humans don't think like that. for example: you have something to do (a paper for instance) but you feel like procrastinating, although you know you shouldn't.
- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3)
your assuming the collectivist is deaf, blind, and illiterate.
|
On April 30 2010 11:36 0neheart wrote:Show nested quote +#1 - Only individuals have consciousnesses
#2 - Individuals cannot know what other individuals think or want
#3 - Individuals can only afflict other individuals by actions, and can only *assume* what other individuals think by their actions
#4 - Individuals always act on the best means known to be available to fulfill their goals two is practically wrong, because we have the action known as "communication" (technically true because it is impossible to know exactly what another individual means, but you can take an extremely good guess) three is true if you count communicating as an action, so you can "assume" that when i say i'm a human being, i do think so four is hilariously wrong. not only because of obvious examples (alcohol, drugs) but because humans don't think like that. for example: you have something to do (a paper for instance) but you feel like procrastinating, although you know you shouldn't. Show nested quote +- The collectivist is wrong when he says he knows whats best for anyone but himself, breaking premise #2, since he cannot know other people's goals are. (he can only assume per #3) your assuming the collectivist is deaf, blind, and illiterate.
I have not read the entire thread, or much of it at all, but I feel I can answer some of these arguments that you make on the various points.
#2 - Individuals cannot know what others want/think because no individual reveals the entirety of their thinking to another. Taking a "good guess" is nowhere near close enough.
#3 - Communicating is most definitely an action. Someones actions will never represent someone's thought. It may represent part of it, but not enough to actually know what they are thinking; only enough to make assumptions.
#4 - In that procrastinating example, the short-term goal has been shifted from finishing the paper to avoiding to finish the paper. #4 is correct. The ONLY reason people do something is because they believe it is the best method to reach their goal(s). Whether it is short-term or long-term goals that are focused on at any particular moment is dependent on the moment itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
