| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
First I wanna say that I surely deserved to be tempbanned, but L did not. He did not offend me in the least bit, while I was calling him a thug like 5 times every post. If my pleading could have any weight on the moderator's decision I would PM him, but I fear for getting banned again so I won't, ha. I'll respond very kindly from now and capitalize every sentence. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: blablabla I will address ur post the day ur unbanned On April 30 2010 14:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: What a battle Yurebis and L had. Why'd you fucking mods have to stop it!?!? It wasnt for the flame I don't think, but because they didn't like the low-level arguments we were having, too much repeat and snobbishness. Anyway they have full rights over the wonderful site that is teamliquid and I would personally do the same except maybe issuing a warning first. But no problem. On April 30 2010 15:06 buhhy wrote: o__O Did they both get temp banned because of this thread? Yes Being jerks was the reason given Repetitively so in the case of L, worth a week of isolation, and 2 days for me. Not that bad. On April 30 2010 15:06 buhhy wrote: Anyways, most people who would rat out a bribe are those who can't stand another person getting easy money (being bribed) or an easy way out (bribing). Following premise #4, People act on their best interest, those who refuse a bribe weighted that taking the bribe would give him less net benefit than not taking a bribe. Could be due to high factors like the chance of getting caught times punishment, psychological burden (yes that can be a factor), retaliation by the part of the victimized party, idk cash too low, risks too high, bribe isn't made, and no moral judgment has been passed. I think entrepreneurs could very easily handle those risks, at the very least better than government does since the state just ignores the economical incentives of man wholly. Guess what, it never goes away, the fairest of judges can also be bribed (for a lot of money). I think even L agrees on that. So the question is not "how can bribery and corruption be stopped" since it's not ever going to stop, but how can it be diminished best. By the gun? It maybe so, but using the gun to stop another gun is kinda counter-effective I would think. On April 30 2010 15:13 Ace wrote: I had L winning on my scorecard  Ofc he's winning, he uses a gun to make his point. Very easy to win like that. Ask your local representatives. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 02 2010 10:27 0neheart wrote: it's true that you'll never know the other person's entire mind, but being sure of someone's intentions is definitely possible. basically, i disagree that you would need to know all of somebody's thoughts to be sure of what they think on a major issue. Which is why I said you can assume, and you can even be right on your assumptions. But you can only know if you're right after the fact, after you've let the individual act the way you described w/o changing the initial circumstances (i.e., putting a gun in his mouth) On May 02 2010 10:27 0neheart wrote: are you really saying that no one has done something just because he felt like it? am i the only one? -_- "Just because" is also an intent. But if you mean to argue that there are cases where people do stuff without knowing, then yes that happens, however, the great great majority of the time, 99% being my made up statistic, I believe man act conscientiously. On May 02 2010 10:39 Manit0u wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication Read this first, thoroughly. Then think that the informations you acquired aren't even a tip of an iceberg when it comes to the subject of communication in sociology (this field should be a major one for your OP, communication spreads over many fields). When you educate yourself some more (you have some free time now seeing that you're banned), come back, read your OP again and review it. Edit: Read the rest of the OP so I can provide some more opinions. 1. It's hard to understand because I'm a grammar nazi. 2. You start off wrong and then the rest of your hypothesis just goes downhill. 3. You want to look smart but you fail hard. I have no idea about your education but you either read just a few things you found on the net and then proceeded to create your "hypothesis" or you're studying sociology/psychology or whatever else but you're a bad student. Required reading for the OP: Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind H. G. Wells, Men Like Gods (yes, it's science-fiction, but it illustrates what you're trying to convey a lot better than you do) After you finished this 2 books and familiarized yourself with terms like diffusion of responsibility, come back and make the thread again. The premises and hypothesis are not mine but rather come from praxeology, a very well studied field of economics/philosophy that studies human action inside austrian economics. it is an a-priori, introspective theory, so if you do not agree with the premises you can certainly disregard everything as rubbish, no problem. But do note that communication IS part of human action. You would not notice the difference between an android talking, to a human talking, so how is it that you feel safe to infer you know what the human is thinking when technically you shouldn't even know he's human? An agent in reality is just an agent in reality, he can have many chemical truths and those may be scientifically proven to be a basis for a conscience, and analyze it, but until that day, you cannot logically prove that you know what other man thinks. It is only assumed per the way he acts and talks, correct? Then my point stands | ||
|
ShroomyD
Australia245 Posts
On May 02 2010 23:44 Yurebis wrote: Ofc he's winning, he uses a gun to make his point. Very easy to win like that. Ask your local representatives. Well, if it makes you feel any better, you were winning on my scorecard. Till I realised you were a damn subjectivist, mr yuberries!!11! | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 02 2010 11:16 Drk_ItachiX wrote: To be brutally honest, this whole OP fails for two reasons: 1) Totally misconstrued sense of "consciousness" Just my own definition, for the sake of discussion. If you don't like it, then redefine it and show it to me why my definition is "misconstrued". On May 02 2010 11:16 Drk_ItachiX wrote: 2) Narrow understanding of human communication, as Manitou suggested Prove it to me how can communication exist outside of action. Can there be communication without action? On May 02 2010 11:33 cursor wrote: So we are all greedy. We all act collectively, only on the "presumption" that its what other people want and that we are all after the same goal. That's really great, very insightful. Rampant individualism is the best thing you can do for society. Taking care of yourself and "yours" is the best thing you can do for society. Screw the old lady down the street who cant pay for her healthcare, that's obviously her fault. This really gives me a philosophical reasoning to be a self-centered prick! TYVM Nope. you got it all wrong and thanks for the smear. I am saying that the only way you can know that which is best for another is to respect that other's wishes. And you don't do that by forcing a gun to everyones head and telling them to be nice. You offer them things, and you trade things, individually. There can't be a greater good in a world of individuals. There can only be a net individual good, and that can only happen if you allow those individuals to choose what is best for them. The grounds for cooperation are very individualistic, so much in fact that I despise collectivism just for that equivocation. Dude why you be stealing my job thats no fair On May 02 2010 12:05 cursor wrote: Point well made. It's part of an individual desire to want to help someone. Because... that makes ME feel good. The point is using (or not using) collective consensus to force others to do something. Like pay for this or give that. If I believe people won't do enough of it freely, that's more of a lack of faith in humanity than a criticism of a system of personal freedom. Not just feel good (though thats certainly a factor), but he can expect to have something back in the future too. And the lack of faith part, I wouldn't call it faith, it's just another economical evaluation like any other. A thug expects people not to give him money even if hes nice to them and all, and since he wants that money so bad, he's gonna force people to give it to him. He doesn't have a "lack of faith" that people will give him money but, he just wants that money now, his goals now. It makes his means no different to me, for whatever his goals are, even if external to himself A thug stealing for medicare and education is no different than a thug stealing for bling imo. The state does not act on a collective wish, as that does not exist, he's just stealing and giving some crap services back as an act of "self-sacrifice". (Oh how kind of him, stealing from me to give it to me! Very sweet.) | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 02 2010 13:11 cursor wrote: Let's not assume though, that people who have 10 million dollars actually deserve that money. By deserving, you mean what? Like.. whether he stole it from somebody? I don't know if they did and I couldn't tell unless I were a private investigator and went through their whole lives. If he stole part of it then yeah I'd consider him undeserving, obv. On May 02 2010 13:11 cursor wrote:And are actually a Million times more productive than the man in the 3rd world country who has 10 dollars and is actually making the product that the millionare "owns". Then you mean to assume in that hypothetical that the millionaire stole their labor from then? Was the millionaire forcing them to work at the point of a gun, or was it a voluntary job where the laborers could leave anytime? If they laborers were indeed doing everything, why not then leave the job, do their own thing, and earn a lot more than what the millionaire offers? Are you saying that the workers are dumb and wouldn't have guessed that they could (in which case it makes the millionaire no less deserving nor exploring nobody, he's supplying the workers with something, even if that something is just a little information on how to do their thing), or that the millionaire is stealing their times and lives by forcing them to work? Too muddy of an argument, needs clarification. On May 02 2010 13:11 cursor wrote: Participation in production should assume some kind of ownership of the product, instead of the laborer being another item to just be owned. The rich, to me, have been stealing the whole time anyways. The laborer is not even claimed to be owned unless he's not a laborer but a slave, in which case he should be chained, confined, under surveilance or a little bit of all options. And, in which case, I'm just against it as you are.If the laborer chose to be there and receive a shit paycheck, what's wrong about it? The laborer is working on his best interest too, and if better jobs are available, then he will go for them instead, and the millionaire will be left with nothing or less apt workers for himself. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: You honestly think Donald Trump has Earned, in human output, 16 houses, 13 cars and 2 planes? While someone who works 7 days a week 12 hours a day making shoes deserves to live in a sheet metal shack? I don't claim to know enough about him to judge either way. But if all you know is that he got a lot of stuff, then I would say that you don't know either. Has he, or has he not, stolen from someone else to own what he owns? The answer to that is the same answer to whether I would consider him to be unworthy of his property or not. On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: That's fine. The logic is irrefutable. Okay. Investing, just gambling on what will make your money grow is a fine way to make money. Are you implying there's something wrong with investment? You're investing time into a forum. Investment is often times how capital is able to accumulate, and superior chains of production come to exist. You invest into something because there's a greater prospect of return than if you did nothing or continued to do the same thing. And gambling... same deal. On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: Jealousy plays no part in my logic. I'm sure I'm in the top 10% of wealth in the world what with my computer and my refrigerator. I work a part time job and live in a nice house. Not renting. My point is, wealth is concentrated so tightly at the top... with the top 1% owning the vast majority of the wealth in the world. To think that they actually produce, or even facilitate the production, to warrant that of ownership is pretty silly. Considering most of them just push papers around and have "meetings" all day- bet it in a restaurant or on a golf course. If they don't produce nor do anything that other people don't want to trade for, then they won't earn anything and their capital reserves will diminish until they do. The very basic premise of capitalism is that people can only earn when they do something worth to others... so unless you can point out what they're doing exactly that is 1-not worth to others 2-earns them money anyway 3- capitalistic in nature, then I don't know what you're talking about. suonds like theft, or unjustified transference of resources, which goes against free market principles ofc. On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: Plumbers do not need to be told what type of pipe goes where. Usually the "owners" have no idea how to do these things. There are business models where decisions are made democratically, by the body of workers. Then go become self employed plumbers? Isn't it in their self interest to earn more? If they find the company they're employed to as provinding them with nothing they already have, then they'll certainly go do their business themselves! But it's not the case, is it. Even if it's just a name, the company does offer him with something, because he chose to be there! Democracy.. I'm not going there, too much for one post. On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: I really find it ironic that we live in a society that treasures "democracy" so so much, but will defend, with fervor, the correctness of working in these huge top down structures (corporations, government bodies) where all the decisions are made at the top, and are forced downward. You're a great Democrat (in the political sense) untill you go to work, then you're a rank and file fascist. Free market is not top down. The corporations listen to the consumers, and I would argue, in a far far more responsive and direct way than the best direct democracy could offer. Well whatever let me try to explain a bit. Democracy listens to the wishes of every individual in its geographic region and concatenates into a certain number of individuals called the state. The state has its ways of doing things much like a corporation does, except, its goals are not profit but public approval. More precisely, enough public approval so they keep afloat. They have very little incentive to go past public approval as their profits do not scale as well as a company owner (unless they got private ties to like, war profiteers and shit, but thats besides the point). Their job is to hear the whining and do just enough about it so the babies shut the fuck up. Compare that to the incentives of a corporation, that, do have a direct scaling of earnings to profit, and it is in the shareholder's best interest to provide exactly that service which the corporation does best, ever more efficiently so they earn more. Thats in a nutshell. The common argument for the state or democracy is that there are certain services that the free market cannot handle (bs but w/e) so "we need" people w\ guns to do that for us. Also, I suggest that you work on your definition of force. Is a boss at work being forceful when he preaches (screams even) at its employee? I'd say no, because the employee can leave anytime if he doesn't like the job, so "fuck teh pooleeece" doesn't apply in a free association atmosphere... as much as I like to say "fuck da poleeece"... On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: Other business models do exist, and work. Though I won't argue, that until this point- the top down, monarchy style ownership has done much much better. How is capitalism monarchy? is a boss no different than a king for you? For one, you need the king or feudal lord's authorization to leave the feud... not quite analogous IMO. Also if you know of a superb business model that is very efficient because of its added tolerance to the bottom employees, then guess what, you're free to sell that idea or make your own business and try it yourself. Unless you wish to force that model upon others, then yeah, I guess your best bet would be to implement it via democracy. It works good @ forcing, no joke. On May 02 2010 14:52 cursor wrote: The sweatshop worker isn't being forced to work. He is doing that which he wants to do to the best of his ability (including knowledge).edit: Investing really gets me though. The sweatshop worker should invest half his earnings. Or, investing being sold on TV as an "everyman" sort of solution to retirement, even though 99% of earnings are made by 1% of investors. I'll spare you the links to obviously biased websites. Let's just be glad social security wasn't "invested" in the stock market at the time it was being pushed. And my parents happened to lose over half of their retirement in 2008. Fortunately, Social Security wasn't invested as well. If 99% of the earnings are made by 1% investors, then why the fuck do you posit that those investors are dumb enough to stay in that voluntarily joined group? They got to be either extremely retarded, or the situation isn't what you describe... And your complaints on social security... I share them wholeheartedly, however the solution is not to... uh.. what, dismantle the stock market? if that's what you're implying with that parallel... but to stop stealing from people "for their own good". Let people do what they think it's best with their money, you can't possibly even get near their individual efficiency even if somehow you could indeed know what every citizen thinks, wants, needs. Even if the government had brainscanners and computers calculating every want in society automatically, they'd do a shittier job than if they'd let people choose, because the aggregate economical judgment of 300 million people > a few thousand bureaucrats in D.C., any day of the week | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 02 2010 15:21 Drk_ItachiX wrote: The fact of the matter is that we as Americans embrace an imperfect sense of democracy and capitalism much like the Soviets embraced an imperfect sense of communism and dictatorship. How can there be a perfect one, if there can't be a perfect transition between the minds of many, to the minds of an elite? The elite put in power is forever trying to guess what it's subjulgates are, and that evaluation is forever doomed to be imperfect, inefficient. It's a few thousand thugs trying to emulate the minds of millions... can't work. On May 02 2010 15:21 Drk_ItachiX wrote:You can argue that rich of America only own their fortunes due to their gimmicky passion for the economy or whatever capitalist-favored industry they partake in and that they are not worthy of any more praise than a less paid and less influential physician or even a construction worker. You praise whoever you want, dog. but if you mean to say any of the two did something wrong, I don't agree at all unless you prove that either has stolen from others to have what they have. If they didn't then what could have been done wrong? Working for cheap is bad? Selling a lot for cheap is bad? What can it be? On May 02 2010 15:21 Drk_ItachiX wrote: However, you cannot deny that the higher paid you are in a capitalist society the more critical your position is to the society as a whole. By critical, you mean, people depend on you more? Yeah, I can see that. However there is a huge gap between depending, and claiming to be deserving of your services. To illustrate: If you were to invent a magical machine that made infinite loaves of bread, and were to sell them at a huge profit of a penny each, to the whole world, would it make people dependant on you? Maybe so, after some time it may be that every wheat farm goes bankrupt from your stable success. Are people entitled then to your bread? Would it be right then, for people to force you to keep making bread at one cent, never more or less? It would not, your services are voluntary just as the people buying them are voluntarily funding you. Even if it means other peoples less efficient services are having less of a "share", in no way is it implied that such "shares" were deserving to any party. The consumer decides what it wants, every time, and if the prospect of On May 02 2010 15:21 Drk_ItachiX wrote: Its true that there are other working systems out there, its just a matter of whether or not the government feels the initial pros of that system outweigh the initial cons and if the government has the capacity to work towards perfecting that system. What is that system? | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 02 2010 15:46 cursor wrote: Ya. Is society more "just" now? Or more "just" if it were re-arranged? To assume it would be "pure" either way is pretty naive. I certainly won't say we need to redistribute everything. I obviously wouldn't say that society is now a perfect refection of 'production' to 'possession'. Either way we are off topic. GG Not offtopic. On May 02 2010 23:57 ShroomyD wrote: Well, if it makes you feel any better, you were winning on my scorecard. Till I realised you were a damn subjectivist, mr yuberries!!11! How do you know my alt. screen name you be stalking me? you know me? unless you dont and I just misread I don't ever base my arguments on moral subjectivism, value subjectivism is a requirement, but I could have been a natural rights advocate and they wouldn't change... austrian economics and praxeology are value-free theories it just so happens that peace is indeed profitable. and violence is indeed destructive. just so happens... | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
On May 03 2010 01:07 Yurebis wrote: austrian economics and praxeology are value-free theories If anyone has patience enough for a lecture, here's a great one by Hoppe on Praxeology. | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
Yes, I'm proposing its a legal system of stealing. No private investigators needed. Just as you might describe a 50% tax on the wealthy as a legal form of stealing. The system is a giant machine that funnels wealth from the bottom to the top... income distribution supports this. The only argument against is that 1% of people are the only "real" workers"... about 10% don't mind doing a little work... and 90% of people are just lazy leaches who want some kind of populist society so they can just do nothing. Of course, I'd argue that the vast majority of people are hard workers who are cheated out of owning part of what they produce by a system of wage slavery. It's actually a term used and in some circles isn't seen as any different from actual slavery. Especially in a society where your only other real choice is a different wage job- where the structure is essentially identical. Your point about "not having a gun to their heads" is of course, literally true. My argument is that the ideas of a business being collectively owned are intentionally kept out of discussion- and would appeal to people if they were given a chance. I work in a job with a lot of public contact. I know 90% of people who come in, or more, don't know a thing about collective ownership, forming a union or even collective political action. In fact, its probably the same 90% that know as little to nothing about investing, starting their own business or taking some real capitalist initiative. But I do know, that you could get these people to do just about anything for 15$ an hour. Of course, that could be the way things or supposed to be, or a result of a system that intentionally makes them that way. (edit: I wouldn't argue with Austrian Economics either, it makes too much sense. I'd prefer to see a more communal type of society, than an atomized one, just for the fact of the type of people I think each breeds- but sometimes we don't have a choice. Ron Paul is one of my favorite politicians and I wouldn't have a problem voting for him or being happy about him being president. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff he says- but enough of it makes perfect sense and he is rational enough for me to like him a lot.) | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: Thank you. Yes, I'm proposing its a legal system of stealing. No private investigators needed. Just as you might describe a 50% tax on the wealthy as a legal form of stealing. Ok. At least you're honest! I commend that. On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: The system is a giant machine that funnels wealth from the bottom to the top... income distribution supports this. The only argument against is that 1% of people are the only "real" workers"... about 10% don't mind doing a little work... and 90% of people are just lazy leaches who want some kind of populist society so they can just do nothing. Once you start passing judgment on what another man's work is worth, you are evaluating his work for you and yourself only. A judgment that the work of a CEO is no more valuable to you (or society as you want it to be) than the work of a sweatshop laborer would be no more objectively correct than say that the only real job is starcraft progaming and everyone else is a bum.What defines a person's salary is an aggregate of it's profit expectations by the person's boss, final consumers of the service, and everything in between. Does a CEO deserve to earn a million dollars a year? That's for each one to judge but fact is, he has aggregately been expected to, and people have invested that much capital on him because they expect him to serve it back by his functions of administration and whatnot (I srsly don't exactly know what a CEO does lol) More simply and harshly put, you are nobody to judge what someone's job is worth (unless maybe you're going to be paying them one way or another and you wish to negotiate). You can however outcompete them and undercut if you're able. If being a CEO is a cakewalk, then surely other able persons would appeal to the corporation's shareholders by offering them the same service of the current CEO for half the payoff. But I don't think it's that easy, and the shareholders probably are more than willing to spend an extra million dollars hiring someone trustworthy and stable. Who am I to tell anyways. I don't own any stock. On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: Of course, I'd argue that the vast majority of people are hard workers who are cheated out of owning part of what they produce by a system of wage slavery. It's actually a term used and in some circles isn't seen as any different from actual slavery. Especially in a society where your only other real choice is a different wage job- where the structure is essentially identical. Your point about "not having a gun to their heads" is of course, literally true. A little historical perspective.You are a neanderthal, and after a week worth of hunting, you've only managed to kill and eat a single deer, and are still starving. Would you blame the deer for offering you too little meat? Or maybe nature for not making enough available food for you? Today, (ohmygod I'm saying "we" again) are not at a technological era just yet where people can have electricity, clean water, food, housing, and so many other man-made products and services, for free. So until that time, "we" do have to put up with scarcity, number one. Number two, if you believe in property rights, you are not entitled to other people's products and services, as much as they are not entitled to yours (Politics being the art of convincing people otherwise). Those workers you speak of are not being cheated because they are not having anything being taken away from them by other human forces. Number three, poverty is a relative concept. What you consider to be poor today may have been rich a thousand years ago. Even the noblest of kings did not have gas pumps to keep him warm, electricity, well conserved food, etc. etc. etc.. so do have some perspective when you think about the poor. Why are they poor? Has the robber baron stolen anything from them? Are they entitled to be rich just because you feel bad for them? On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: As long as it's not forced bro, all the power to you.My argument is that the ideas of a business being collectively owned are intentionally kept out of discussion- and would appeal to people if they were given a chance. I work in a job with a lot of public contact. I know 90% of people who come in, or more, don't know a thing about collective ownership, forming a union or even collective political action. In fact, its probably the same 90% that know as little to nothing about investing, starting their own business or taking some real capitalist initiative. But I do know, that you could get these people to do just about anything for 15$ an hour. Of course, that could be the way things or supposed to be, or a result of a system that intentionally makes them that way. On May 03 2010 02:48 cursor wrote: Ron Paul is a minarchist. So obviously he contradicts himself when he says the state is both harmful and necessary. Not all libertarians are minarchists.(edit: I wouldn't argue with Austrian Economics either, it makes too much sense. I'd prefer to see a more communal type of society, than an atomized one, just for the fact of the type of people I think each breeds- but sometimes we don't have a choice. Ron Paul is one of my favorite politicians and I wouldn't have a problem voting for him or being happy about him being president. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff he says- but enough of it makes perfect sense and he is rational enough for me to like him a lot.) but depending on your definition of libertarianism, then they may not be libertarians anymore. The words been changed so much | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 03 2010 02:30 jgad wrote: If anyone has patience enough for a lecture, here's a great one by Hoppe on Praxeology. [long ass video] r u a double agent? that video is 2 long for an intro u gonna make ppl hate praxeology.. listennin to hoppes heavy accent I like this guys comic | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Hell is full of thugs w\ good intentions. | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
On May 03 2010 05:39 cursor wrote: I totally agree that no one is "entitled" to services of another. No one has the right to service from another. That's obviously just slavery. I tried explaining this to my Mom for like 2 hours, because she knows how socialist I lean- and she couldn't seem to understand what I meant. The state should be very careful about what it guarantees people, because eventually you may be looking at doing pretty heavy handed shit to make these things happen. The classical self-contradiction of well-meaning socialism. It's one or the other - either nobody is entitled to the services of another, or you belive that they are. Socialism is, ipso facto, the latter. Wanting to do good for other people is not socialism - that's just being a good person. Making other people do what you feel is good for other people is socialism, and it is a form of slavery. | ||
|
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 03 2010 14:38 EmeraldSparks wrote: Should parents be required to feed their children? Yes. That is not slavery. It is duty. You mean, you would support the use of coercion against parents for the goals of making them treat to their offspring? Such duty is in your head. It is not in the heads of abusive parents obviously. There are more peaceful ways of resolving the "issue" (your deep disdain to other's people use of their property), like claiming the abused child to be misused homesteadable property in court. if the court agrees, they're not going to do the dirty work for you, but they also aren't going to defend the parents if you break into their homes to retrieve the misused property. . What makes children homesteadable property? Idk, some level of setience, the prospect of it becoming a rational being... w/e. How can someone prove to do a "better" job at homesteading something without homesteading it? Don't think it's that hard to prove if you got a good parenting reputation yourself, while the parents are keeping the child locked, beating, and barely feeding it... What's "better" anyway since there can't be a priori goals? The goal would obviously be to keep the children alive and healthy. Tbh I don't really care about other people's misuse of homesteadable property even if I were able to homestead it instead. For those that do care... I don't see why you caring makes it an obligation in the part of another individual to do what you want. How about you try talking to them first, or maybe buying their children? Sounds harsh, but so is the CPS knocking down peoples front doors and taking children while parents are out. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: No. The law is not a specific rule within the larger context of a legal system. A legal system has rules for who makes rules, rules for who interprets rules, penalties on people who don't follow rules and ways of enacting those penalties, etc. If you take away any of these qualities, you don't have a functioning legal system. You could have a static legal system that doesn't need all that... but whatever, that's just pure semantics, and I have no problem using your definitions. A law (not The Law, ok) is just a formal guideline on what actions are justifiable or not. But it stems not from the lawmaker, it stems from what people think its fair. You can have the best legal system, and the best legislators in place. If people don't like one of the laws, they're worthless, they're pieces of paper. Ultimately, it is each individual's moral sense, in the form of agreements (however they may be), that decide what a law ought to be. The lawmaker just formalizes it. His function isn't to regulate people's actions, it is to facilitate them. Each individual that believes in it will adopt those laws without being unjustifiably coerced into it, and if they reflect a common agreement, then a lot of people will accept it and have their interpersonal activities facilitated by it. Try seeing things that way for a moment. I know it's hard but or but individual <-(negotiates right)-> lawmaker <-> individual which could ofc be reduced to individual <-> individual On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: You give someone something for favors in a situation where it creates a conflict of interest. Oh ok. how did someone even estimate that? (to refresh your mind... ill paste) + Show Spoiler + On April 30 2010 11:09 L wrote: 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 )amazing stat though, and I don't doubt it. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Nope. to make an analogy, you point to me the beast that is the economical interest of man, and claims that I'd kill people if I were to let it go out of its cage. That we ought to leave it caged. What you don't admit however, is that there is no way to cage the beast without another beast taking care of it. You think that if we have a certain system of cages where there's beasts caging other beasts which are in turn caging themselves, that everyone is going to be jailed. But it can't work yo. The beasts will figure out a way to collaborate, get out, and freely enslave the lesser beasts in coordination. Why do I support this? I don't. The legal systems which involve such corruption are those with the weakest government oversight; Western industrialized nations, by and large, are very well developed on the legal front; state courts in the USA, for instance, are completely anomalous to the concept of judicial independence, yet they're the direct spawn of fear of the american government. Your philosophy here actually CREATES the problem you're trying to bash me for acknowledging. Well done. The 90% of bribes are happening because there's a beast on the outside being bribed by a rich beast from inside the cage. The bribes happen when there is such a power to be sold. But in a world without cages, there's nothing to bribe another beast for, because there are no cages, the beasts that choose to go in one can just as easily go out. just ... beasts thats right, no cages, believe that. So anytime a court is even rumored to be corrupt, guess what, you can not go to that court, you can not contract to people and PDAs who use that court. Other courts will take the opportunity to smear that court and steal market shares, etc. If a monopolistic court is corrupt? Uh... wait 4 years and cross your fingers, or convince half of the population that it's corrupt, so you can put a slightly different beast in (the incentive mechanisms are still the same after all). so superior... On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: That's irrelevant, remember? You said every single person can judge based on their own perception. Unless you're your own judge, jury and executioner, you can't enforce any of your cute principles. And if you're all three, you don't actually have principles, its just you walking around doing whatever you want to whomever you want. People can freely assemble and figure out cooperative means to enforce their perceived rights... and I find that a lot of people also believe in self defense and (homestead-based) property rights. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: That guy fucking threw gum on the ground? DEATH SENTENCE ACCORDING TO MY PRINCIPLES. Not many will agree with you. I doubt any big PDA would at the very least. They'd lose too much supporting that type of judgment. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Your principles are nothing but wishes until you get force applied behind them. By your definition of force yeah.. But your definition of force is so broad that me being in front of you could constitute force... (I'm forcing you to not move your body through mine in space, even if I'm not even touching you) please prove me wrong and define it more like mine please On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: If you get a group to enforce your principles with you, you're in a commonwealth and thus that's unacceptable according to your original position. Thats called a contract? Unless I was unjustifiably coerced to join such a group, in which case, yeah I'm against it? But you seem to think it's not possible for people to do stuff together voluntarily? I beg to differ, we're both here voluntarily posting under TL's jurisdiction and property for example. People can do the same in life, believe it! On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: But yeah, you already know this. You already know that your 'principles' don't afford you rights in your property unless those rights are defended. You admit as such right here: Yes. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: To use your own example; sure you can claim you owned something, but whoop de doo, no one cares. How do you know no one cares? I think other people who claim to own their stuff will respect my claim to own my stuff... there's a profit motive... Unless they wanna be dumb thugs. But people also generally have no problem w\ self defense so... thugs can be dealt with once their actions are spotted as thuggery. It's the hidden thugs I worry most about. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Your own arguments DIRECTLY contradict each other. Either you cede one point or you cede the other. Nope. You just don't believe people can cooperate without leviathan... which is sad. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Stigma already dealt with as insufficient. Not going over it again. Sorry but you have not. That story was fine and I liked it, but I've explained why it's completely explainable why someone invisible and invulnerable would act that way praxeologically, and why someone who isn't would not. Stigma is a form of retaliation. Stigma means less people to do business with. That is a direct toll on how much money you can make. Imagine being rejected by a whole society? Even if you're very skilled at stealing and lying, you're going to get caught eventually if you keep doing it. People will take action against your theft to the ratio it is threatening to them, and because they have far more support, they'll outperform you, and your activities will become more and more obsolete. Then what? You either need a really really big pool of resources (money) to waste it all on fucking with others, or you're going to die alone right then. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Its not consensus to a body of law, yet there you are joining one? Either you're forced in by measures which would vitiate your consent, or you are indeed consenting to it. This section literally contradicts itself in two subsequent phrases. That's impressively quick. It's not a consensus with the whole planet because thats impossible even w\ a massive state. It's just for those that voluntarily joined it, consented. I'm not going to give you historical examples but there are examples of free jurisdictions out there. Like merchant codes, international law maybe, I don't know, don't care for empiricism tbh. Also I recommend if you look into the real story of the wild west, its a lot cooler than the hollywoodian myths http://mises.org/daily/4108 On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: But again, how is a PDA different from a state here? Why can't you do the exact same thing in modern times by moving to another country? You're not unjustifiably coerced to join. (god I hate having to use your definitions lol) On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: So you admit that you pretty much don't have rights because you can't enforcement. There goes property. Now you simply have a bare pre-property relationship to objects. That relationship is terminated the moment you lose possession. There goes bailments, trusts, banks, investments, currency, securities, financing. Clearly such a society would out compete one with such amenities. I'd cite how history shows the opposite occurs with 100% frequency, but you don't listen to facts. I think you have a pretty bad perspective of humanity if you can't picture people doing agreements to respect each other's property w\o a thug overseeing them. How does international trade ever happen since theres no 'one thug' to rule them all? On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Ah good. I'll bold this because its incredibly important. You've already stated that private moral judgement is the only form of judgement in your society; what happens if any person finds that the private cops are 'unjustified', even under conditions that most would call 'justified'? Well, now you have a civil war. If someone thinks the PDA is unjustified, then leave it, be loud, sue them, go to court, say why is it unjustified, start your own, join another one, go live in the woods, I don't know. There's tons of things that can be done to stop it. Why does it always have to escalate to war w\ you... War is unprofitable... no one wants war but the war makers (a.k.a. thugs a.k.a. state) On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: This portion right here is the central nugget of your entire rant and why I wanted you to search back to get here. Essentially your premise relies on the concept that states automatically practice unjustified coercion, but that's not true. That isn't remotely true. Sure it happens, but as you've admitted, a PDA could do the same. So why is competition between nations not the exact same type of free market force that would drive PDAs to not rape and pillage their vassals? You don't see it as unjustified, that's fine man. But fact is, a PDA is far less intrusive than a state. Don't have to join it... doesn't shut down the competition, doesn't claim to own everything. If you can't even admit that much well... you must be very invested in the idea of a state then. Saying it doesn't work, ok, any statist says that, but at least the ones that do understand how a PDA would function would call it "utopian" if you know what I mean. "we can't free the slaves or else they're gonna be all over the town killing people" or so they used to say. Anyway, competition between nations is not the same thing because people aren't able to move that easy. The cost of moving greatly hinders people's ability to freely choose. If you were to have a plantation on an island, and tell the slaves that they're free to leave if they want, and well, not only that but all other places in the world are also completely occupied islands of thugs, well, you do have a free market of thug islands but not really that much of a choice but to live in one, plus the huge costs of moving... unfair analogy, yeah, but why are we arguing that anyways The state doesn't even own it's coercively-paid-for civic buildings! Much less all land! So it's hardly analogous to the free market either! Unless you want to claim that it does own everything... which you might, but I'm not going to argue if you feel that way. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Is a state unjustified when it incarcerates murderers? This is central; If you find that there is a justified use of force, then you need to agree that the justifiability of actions coming from those with power rests upon a spectrum, and does not automatically lie at 'unjust' for states and 'just' for private individuals. You've already admitted that private enterprises COULD do stuff you consider unjustified. No, I don't see incarceration as justified, and it would take a lot of wrongdoings by someone for me to think it is. The person would have to have such mental processes that no matter what we tell him he behaves like a crazed dog always trying to harm and destroy, even his own mother. Like an US general or something. In general no, there is no reason to put a rational being in jail when he can be reasoned with (duh) On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: If you admit that, then your conclusion is false and we can start a more honest discussion about the proper limits that can be imposed upon a government and how best to impose them. Thanks but no thanks. I don't like discussing how hard a slave has to be whipped. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Oh. So you can't be asked to actually field a working civil society, but you want me to believe that in the face of the massive holes, zero case study support and completely contradictory support you've pushed forward that I should take a leap of faith and assume it'll work. No. Try again. Sorry to repeat this analogy but, you a thousand years ago would be telling me, a delusional slave, that a world without monarchy would not work on the same grounds, which is sad. Give peace a chance maybe? What was, or is, has no weight on what I think ought to be... sorry for repeating again. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Who's going to deny those opportunities? And how would this even matter if you haven't solved the problem of me stealing in the first place? Why would I bother buying food if I could just take it and walk away with it? Your stealing can be dealt with self defense. After the fact, you are blacklisted and can't do a lot of things that regular law-abiding people can. Hardly will you be able to steal repetitively from the same places, and people will grow more and more weary in your activities. You will be stopped, sooner or later. The more you steal, the more they'll invest to stop you, and because of the defenders' advantage (lol starcraft), they'll be more efficient at defending than you at stealing. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: You tried to address this issue by calling the PDA your legal system, but I've already demolished that. Here, however, you're back to an entirely stigma based system. You don't even know which option you want to support! I can't blame you! They're all trash. Sorry, you have not. And it's not just stigma, I've said it at least three times, stigma is just one of the possible forms of retaliation. And retaliation isn't all either. Preventive measures yo, like static defense. Think cannons or sunkens (lol). If you can't even think that private cops and security in general would be better managed and think of better things to do privately than publically, I really can't help you... since you're an empirical type of person, you should notice the fact that whenever rich people need security, they never turn to the public authorities, they're trash, even though they're paying for it, they'd rather pay that same public funds amount wasted on the cops to a private agent who is sure to use it better. That should give you a hint, if not everything else I've ever said and everything you yourself probably experienced in dealing w\ public services. It's all trash for the same economical reason... that you ignore. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: No. Already dealt with. You see that system as necessary, that's all right? That's not proving it. If you want to prove it's necessary, then lower your gun and see if the people choose it! I doubt you expose all that law theory to people when in practicality it comes down to what I said it was! Everyone should forfeit their right to X to leviathan only so leviathan can give X back to them... Sounds like a pretty dumb system to me! On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: You realize all of these support my statement, right? I don't really give a shit about your moral point of view, but you're trying to defend the statement that war is not profitable, yet you just gave me a list of sources of profit. Besides 3, which is a problem that your entire system just wishes away. Have you heard about the broken window fallacy? You have right? The state is the glazier, who surely earns a profit, but only so long as he isn't caught for what he is, a window breaker. Would people keep paying the glazier who's breaking their windows? I mean... If a PDA were to do that it would inevitably go bankrupt for the many reasons I said and I'll probably have to repeat again for you, but Amerikah, ain't breaking anytime soon, even on the red. It has public support and printing presses so it keeps going, no problem. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Yeah, I figured when they were having shootouts between the FBI and the italian mafia that they were both trying to consolidate power independently. Little did I know that co-existing as power brokers means they're not competing, despite the fact that they were both aggressively attempting to consolidate their positions! Oh wait, that makes no sense and neither does your premise here! I'm not going to argue, sorry L. I don't know about those shootouts. If you don't believe then don't. But the mafias would always rather settle w\ money than w\ force. (like any sane human being) and that the illegality of drugs and prostitution only helps the thugs in black markets is almost an undeniable fact at this point in time. If drugs weren't illegal, they'd be outperformed by more peaceful institutions who don't spend unnecessary money on guns and thugs. Oh I just said that again. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Go to Somalia. None of that stuff is illegal because they have no real legal system. I guess the private warlords don't exist anymore because of that? Wrong. Wow, L, your empiricism is going strong it seems. So you take a third world country with a completely different culture, history, and tradition, a country which you don't know more about than I do in fact (I have noted that you didn't know how their legal system worked, which it's ok, it's rather "primitive" really), ignores any of the millions of possible confounding variables that may exist, and takes it as a demonstration of fact that drug wars wouldn't stop even when decriminalized (legalized). Nice. There's no way anyone can win an argument with you man, you can just cite Somalia all day and prove that slavery is fine even. Somalia is growing rapidly compared to its neighbors, and the warlords being asses there are actually thugs trying to reinstall the state, not for-profit mercenaries. It's for-power mercenaries being payed by thugs from elsewhere. And it's failling because their activities are stopping, people there are not going to buy the idea of a state unless their families are fine with it. It may happen in the future, I don't know because I'm not familiar with their culture, but if you want to understand whats happening in Somalia and claim it's evidence for your ideology, at the very least try to familiarize yourself with it first, please. If you want an empirical argument against criminalization of drugs so hard, go read some about the 1920's... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Society The mafia (both private and state) flourishes in a black market, because peaceful establishments aren't left alone to work. You try to open an illegal drug store, they'll shut you down. Only if you got bribe money do they let you stay afloat. Because there's only those few suppliers then, it means prices will go up for that product, and huge profits can be made by the mafia (either one). The state isn't working to stop the drug, they're working to stop those supplies that aren't paying their share, and the regular mafia isn't looking to give everyone drugs, they're looking to give the least so prices stay up, they got no competition anyways, they can take their time. Mafias (both) love to make things illegal. It means they got control. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: No, and I think you must have skipped my whole section on war trying to explain why thats not so.No. It actually works such that a nicer mafia would have less immediate resources available, so their competitors who were less nice would have more funds to expand and take more territory, which would again give them more resources to expand. Once they hit the point that they were relatively equally matched with other PDAs, they would focus on developing their captive market by being nicer. The financial market exhibited the exact same problem during the recent crisis; Even if you knew what you were doing was wrong, someone else was going to make a move and if you didn't you'd be smaller than your opponent and would get completely walked over. The balance between "how much to leech" and "how much the economy grows" is for each state to make. States judge differently what to do... and there's too many variables to account for. "Resources to expand" are useless in making your pool grow UNLESS you can tax those newly acquired peons in foreign lands. If people don't see you as legit, they're not going to sit down and get taxed. They'll keep revolting till you go away, till you put a puppet in, till you do something more contrived. And even then, they won't be working at full performance. Hell, even your people back home might not be working on high gear, since you'd have to tax them more to get enough resources to invade some foreigner. It's not easy invading Iraq to get all the oil. (it's easy to burn the oil ofc) No, in fact, when a state invades another state, it's purpose is much more likely to be just for blow resources, to create more scarcity, so what they do already have, increases in price. It's the broken window fallacy all over again. They break windows so they can fix them. You can make a profit as long as you're not caught, and what better way to not get caught when you got citizens following your rule and paying for your wars? You just got to be cautious enough not to get impeached or overthrown basically, which shouldn't be too hard tbh. PDA's are way more restrict in what they can do because people aren't just going to put up with an increase in monthly rates and will see you're trying to stockpile more than you need to defend your clients (you're buying more resources to invade someplace else). Every cent is accounted for out of someone's pocket, not a printing press or bottomless public funds. And your analogy to the financial market is debatable since it could have been caused by the FED's low interest rates and all, not by addicted investors, but I'm not going to preach you on the austrian business cycle which you may know about already and I'm not that familiar with it anyways. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: To try to expand, you don't just buy more guns and bang, there you have it, you got to face retaliation, you got to subdue perpetually till you turn a profit, or simply kill them all and take what you can for a one-night thing, which of course isn't profitable in the long run.How is that even MORE of a factor when it comes to an organization that essentially buys guns and tries to expand their turf with goons? Well, you're going to assume that people are made of daisies and that people could contract with another PDA or some shit, but you might as well make the same argument about street gangs; doesn't flesh out in real life. The PDAs will outcompete eachother to a point where the best PDA will have that enough resources to serve the protective needs of their clients, not hundreds of jets, tanks, navies, international bases for a show of power, like some state we know. Each gun and cop will be payed directly by peoples pockets, and to invade someother place, you'd have to at least match their expenditures on defense right? which means, your PDA would have to double its premiums just to try to invade someone. Who's going to put up with a sudden doubling of their rates when they can go to the second-rate PDA instead? Not many clients I'd say. Everyone would see through it. And even if someone is able to do it, someone has a huge amount of money and wants to blow it trying to subdue some town. Fine, he can do it. But will the people be subdued? Will they pay him taxes and still keep going economically strong like before? I don't know man, but I find it extremely unlikely. I find it much more likely for that scenario to happen today, where that rich evil man can pay much much less to the state and provocateur a war to do the same thing, but making the very peons hes subduing to pay for the army... You must have ignored that whole section on war I wrote, I swear, because I'm repeating myself basically. On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Rofl. Asking for insurance insurance again, eh? Your PDA is your insurance against unjustified coercion, but you have no recourse if they themselves coerce you. You can join PDA#2, make a ruckus about what PDA#1 did to you, use the media, courts, people will hear and if your story is true, PDA#1 will suffer directly in popularity and profits. what recourse do you have if the SWAT busts your house and kills your dogs for a pack of weed? You can mail your congressman...? Complain w\ the very cops themselves so maybe one of the cops gets tried by the same monopolistic courts, and then maybe gets fired? Sorry but I have to say LOL. it's very sad... On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: Its quis custodiet ipsos custodes all over again, but in this case the watchmen aren't just enforcers; they're an unaccountable power monopoly. Here you're faced with an infinite regress because of the issues of corruptibility of ultimate power. This very same corruption is probably why you're so opposed to states, yet you don't actually solve anything here. You just complain and set up a system which would make the problem worse. That question of who watches the watchers is so easy to solve... the answer is, let people decide how to answer it. Let people organize in the way they want to solve it. Don't just force them your answer just cuz you think it's best. If it truly is best, then they'll choose yours anyway! Because it was indeed best! Why jump for the gun? You're not afraid of what others may do. No. That's bullshit. You're afraid that you might be wrong... right? (cute moment)On April 30 2010 14:31 L wrote: See, i'd like to agree with this, but the fact that you admit that a PDA could eliminate competition by unjustified means essentially 1) admits that a PDA could abuse their position as a monopoly to gain a massive competitive advantage in the market, and 2) sets up tyrannical corporatism of a nature far worse than any government we currently have. First off, it wouldn't be far worse, because if it was worse, it means they'd be oppressing and squishing the citizenry too hard, not allowing them to produce, meaning, they'd be leeching off too hard. The incentive that a PDA has for devolving into a state is directly proportional to the chances it has into successfully subduing its population into citizens times the profit expectancy from that. How likely is it for a non-slave to be subdued peacefully into a slave? How likely would it be for a free man to be subdued peacefully into a citizen? I think both are analogous, and very unlikely. Once people are free of states, states are no different than mafias, and no free man is going to be fine w\ peacefully giving racket (tax) money to them. The individuals, if not peacefully subdued, will not work efficiently, so the profits cant be any more than just as much as they would pay in taxes for a native state, minus what percentage they get back in benefits (they're not getting any benefits besides having tanks patrolling the streets, if you can count that). So i'd say like, 10% Just think why won't the US of today raise taxes to 70%, 80%. They can right? They got all the army they need to turn the USA into the Martial States of Amerika. Why won't they? They won't because it's retarded. The retaliation (rebellions, as little they may be) and little profit prospect (with strikes, impeachments, tax evading, people refusing to work, minus the additional expenditures to keep the army going), it's just retarded to try it w\ a profit motive because coercion becomes unprofitable past the point where it's recognized as so! and I doubt free men would see the rebirth of a state as peaceful in a free world. SECONDLY, PDA#1 could try to destroy PDA#2 #3 etc. Assuming that you PDA#1 does indeed magically have the resources (people just gave you money to do it, ok), and acknowledges the profit expectancy is very low but wants to blow it anyways (dumb and unrealistic but ok) Will PDA#2, #3, #4, all just lay down and die? You may get #2 unprepared, ok but #3, #4, they'll all grow stronger as people are pooling resources to stop YOU this time, and they'll have the defender's advantage, they'll have the moral ground too. People don't see you as legit, ravaging past towns and trying to subdue everyone. Not even getting any profits really because no one wants to be your slave. So you'll either run out of resources before you conquer everything,or after.. really. Starcraft parallel The more you 4 pool people the more people will know you for the cheesy faggot you are. (and by you, I don't mean anyone in particular so don't ban me thx) so yea, maybe you'll be able to 4 pool in the Ro32, Ro16... but by the 8? semis, finals? You won't last man. Hell, even if you do win the whole tournament by 4 pooling, they probably wouldn't even give you the prize tbh, maybe you'd be banned even. damn I spent almost 3 hours typing this no kidding | ||
| ||
HomeStory Cup
XXVII: Day 3
Zoun vs HeRoMaRinE
Ryung vs Babymarine
sOs vs ShoWTimE
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  44603Calm  8695Horang2 1560Flash  1260EffOrt 1155BeSt 717Bisu 640Leta 462Zeus 338Soma 311[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
BSL: ProLeague
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
WardiTV European League
The PondCast
RSL Revival
WardiTV European League
RSL Revival
FEL
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
