Inheritance Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 04:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I think you'll find people do not disagree with the rudiments of your ideas so much as they disagree with you.

Thank you. Yes, that's the point.

You're a physicist. Imagine a forum with a panel of physicists taking comments from the audience. If someone from the audience spouts utter non-sense, like "the earth is 7,000 years old", the physicists will just smile, chuckle and proudly pat each other on the back for being so much smarter than that moron. And if the challenger is an absolute genius, with an intelligence way beyond the physicists on the panel, and he very eloquently and succinctly lays out an entirely different way of viewing the universe, and a system that is so sophisticated and profound it goes over the head of the physicists, then the physicists will just calmly listen. On the other hand, if the challenger dumbs down the his ideas and comes out like a freight train, pinning the physicists in the corner with the inescapable reality that everything they thought they knew is wrong, then the physicists will truly become irate, ranting, screaming and calling security to throw the guy out. See, there's no way the physicists would actually accept that they were wrong about, well, everything. The best you can hope for to know that your point REALLY hit home and that you really are on to something is to see the panelists totally lose it and go ape-shit crazy.

Consider when Stefan Molyneux (libertarian) debated Sam Seder (liberal). Like most libertarians, Molyneux came across as an eloquent, intellectual philosopher. What Molyneux actually was telling Seder is that Seder is a club-wielding neanderthal bully. But Molyneux said it so nicely it was completely inoffensive to Seder. Seder left the debate proudly patting himself on the back for showing Molyneux a thing or two. And it did nothing to sway the listeners either way. The libertarians considered it a debate between an intellectual and an idiot, and felt Seder failed to make a single point. And the liberals of course felt the same in reverse. But, if Molyneux had dumbed his message down, been more crass and direct, so that the reality of his message was inescapable and Seder was forced to see himself through Molyneux's eyes as such a backwards brute, then Seder would have gone absolutely ballistic and lost it on the show. And then, just maybe, an open-minded liberal listening in might have realized that Molyneux must be on to something.

Same here. I often times make weak posts. Some of my posts have factual inaccuracies or make weak points, or lack in substance. Whenever that happens I get nothing but polite replies. But, sometimes I really think my post through very carefully, invest the time to cross-check all my facts until I'm convinced that my point is absolutely airtight, copy some of the best arguments from the great philosophers who are so much cleverer than myself, but simplify it so much that the message is inescapable. Whenever that happens, the validation for me is that EvolutionKills will respond with his 'go fuck yourself' graphic. Chas will call me a fucking cunt. Liberals will start giving me negative reputation. If I don't get that reaction then I know my post wasn't as strong as I thought it was and I have to up my game.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 05:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 04:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I think you'll find people do not disagree with the rudiments of your ideas so much as they disagree with you.

Thank you. Yes, that's the point.

I suspect, as ever, the point has eluded you.

(17-05-2014 05:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You're a physicist. Imagine a forum with a panel of physicists taking comments from the audience. If someone from the audience spouts utter non-sense, like "the earth is 7,000 years old", the physicists will just smile, chuckle and proudly pat each other on the back for being so much smarter than that moron. And if the challenger is an absolute genius, with an intelligence way beyond the physicists on the panel, and he very eloquently and succinctly lays out an entirely different way of viewing the universe, and a system that is so sophisticated and profound it goes over the head of the physicists, then the physicists will just calmly listen. On the other hand, if the challenger dumbs down the his ideas and comes out like a freight train, pinning the physicists in the corner with the inescapable reality that everything they thought they knew is wrong, then the physicists will truly become irate, ranting, screaming and calling security to throw the guy out. See, there's no way the physicists would actually accept that they were wrong about, well, everything. The best you can hope for to know that your point REALLY hit home and that you really are on to something is to see the panelists totally lose it and go ape-shit crazy.

Persecution complex. Always a harbinger of credibility...
Dodgy

(17-05-2014 05:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Consider when Stefan Molyneux (libertarian) debated Sam Seder (liberal). Like most libertarians, Molyneux came across as an eloquent, intellectual philosopher. What Molyneux actually was telling Seder is that Seder is a club-wielding neanderthal bully. But Molyneux said it so nicely it was completely inoffensive to Seder. Seder left the debate proudly patting himself on the back for showing Molyneux a thing or two. And it did nothing to sway the listeners either way. The libertarians considered it a debate between an intellectual and an idiot, and felt Seder failed to make a single point. And the liberals of course felt the same in reverse.

Are you going somewhere with this?

(17-05-2014 05:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But, if Molyneux had dumbed his message down, been more crass and direct, so that the reality of his message was inescapable and Seder was forced to see himself through Molyneux's eyes as such a backwards brute, then Seder would have gone absolutely ballistic and lost it on the show. And then, just maybe, an open-minded liberal listening in might have realized that Molyneux must be on to something.

Ah - more insane projection onto other people.

Protip: you can't read minds.

Any and all delusion to the extent that you can is a serious problem. Compounded by your abject refusal to even come close to recognizing such a problem...

(17-05-2014 05:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Same here. I often times make weak posts. Some of my posts have factual inaccuracies or make weak points, or lack in substance. Whenever that happens I get nothing but polite replies. But, sometimes I really think my post through very carefully, invest the time to cross-check all my facts until I'm convinced that my point is absolutely airtight, copy some of the best arguments from the great philosophers who are so much cleverer than myself, but simplify it so much that the message is inescapable. Whenever that happens, the validation for me is that EvolutionKills will respond with his 'go fuck yourself' graphic. Chas will call me a fucking cunt. Liberals will start giving me negative reputation. If I don't get that reaction then I know my post wasn't as strong as I thought it was and I have to up my game.

Keep on fightin' the good fight fer Jesus, brother. A quick find-and-replace on that nonsense would pass for the most ardent theistic troll. That's the same played out idiotic rhetoric spouted by any jerkass with a hard-on for adversity.

You are an asshole. You constantly misconstrue and misrepresent others, constantly misinterpret basic facts, and constantly wallow in self-congratulatory narcissism. That's the exact opposite of compelling. Good luck with that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 05:28 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 05:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 04:19 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I think you'll find people do not disagree with the rudiments of your ideas so much as they disagree with you.

Thank you. Yes, that's the point.

You're a physicist. Imagine a forum with a panel of physicists taking comments from the audience. If someone from the audience spouts utter non-sense, like "the earth is 7,000 years old", the physicists will just smile, chuckle and proudly pat each other on the back for being so much smarter than that moron. And if the challenger is an absolute genius, with an intelligence way beyond the physicists on the panel, and he very eloquently and succinctly lays out an entirely different way of viewing the universe, and a system that is so sophisticated and profound it goes over the head of the physicists, then the physicists will just calmly listen. On the other hand, if the challenger dumbs down the his ideas and comes out like a freight train, pinning the physicists in the corner with the inescapable reality that everything they thought they knew is wrong, then the physicists will truly become irate, ranting, screaming and calling security to throw the guy out. See, there's no way the physicists would actually accept that they were wrong about, well, everything. The best you can hope for to know that your point REALLY hit home and that you really are on to something is to see the panelists totally lose it and go ape-shit crazy.

Consider when Stefan Molyneux (libertarian) debated Sam Seder (liberal). Like most libertarians, Molyneux came across as an eloquent, intellectual philosopher. What Molyneux actually was telling Seder is that Seder is a club-wielding neanderthal bully. But Molyneux said it so nicely it was completely inoffensive to Seder. Seder left the debate proudly patting himself on the back for showing Molyneux a thing or two. And it did nothing to sway the listeners either way. The libertarians considered it a debate between an intellectual and an idiot, and felt Seder failed to make a single point. And the liberals of course felt the same in reverse. But, if Molyneux had dumbed his message down, been more crass and direct, so that the reality of his message was inescapable and Seder was forced to see himself through Molyneux's eyes as such a backwards brute, then Seder would have gone absolutely ballistic and lost it on the show. And then, just maybe, an open-minded liberal listening in might have realized that Molyneux must be on to something.

Same here. I often times make weak posts. Some of my posts have factual inaccuracies or make weak points, or lack in substance. Whenever that happens I get nothing but polite replies. But, sometimes I really think my post through very carefully, invest the time to cross-check all my facts until I'm convinced that my point is absolutely airtight, copy some of the best arguments from the great philosophers who are so much cleverer than myself, but simplify it so much that the message is inescapable. Whenever that happens, the validation for me is that EvolutionKills will respond with his 'go fuck yourself' graphic. Chas will call me a fucking cunt. Liberals will start giving me negative reputation. If I don't get that reaction then I know my post wasn't as strong as I thought it was and I have to up my game.

Your view of reality is inaccurate, like many of your posts.

And you most certainly not more intelligent than everyone here as you imply in your (yet again) silly analogy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 05:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you most certainly not more intelligent than everyone here as you imply in your (yet again) silly analogy.

See, I guess I made a good point when you resort to personal attacks. Like I already conceded in my prior posts, I was a through-and-through liberal, part of the hive mentality that we needed government laws and regulation was to solve our problems. It was pure chance that I just happened to run into some Swiss people at a trade show with some software they liked, so they arranged for me to live there for a couple years. Like every other closed-minded liberal, I thought their ways were pretty backwards, like leaving everything to the local authorities. Heck, I was shocked when they told me that if I decided I wanted to live there and get Swiss citizenship the people I would ultimately have to convince was whatever local city counsel I wanted to live in. If I only lived there for a few months I'd have returned home unconvinced. It's only because there were so many bugs in my code and it kept crashing all the time that I had to stay for a couple years fixing it. And, over the years, I was forced to open my mind since I couldn't deny that they did everything exactly the opposite of the way we did, and somehow they got better results. I mean they have no welfare program at the federal or state level, yet nobody is hungry or homeless and everyone is well taken care of. As I started digging to understand this paradox I realized the formula to their success was simply to follow their constitution, which was modeled after the US's, based on the same classic liberal philosophies.

I readily admit that if I were really highly intelligent I would have figured it out on my own. I know that if I by chance had glanced the other way while walking that trade show 20 years ago, I'd still be a liberal, still be fighting for federal government laws that forced everybody to tow the line. My hats go off those who, purely of their own intelligent, were able to figure out how to evolve past that primal urge to use force to control other people.

Here in this forum I'm just trying to figure out how to better hone the message. To see which points resonate and really hit home, striking a raw nerve. The way I know I succeeded is just when I see liberal vitriol come back. Of course in real life, I would never present these points in such an offensive way. All of my American friends are liberals and I don't want to lose them. But I do find that I can experiment anonymously on a forum like this and when a liberal goes postal, then I know I made a good point, and then in real life, I just figure out how to make the same point in a softer manner. It actually really has helped me simplify and streamline. Look at my first posts in the forum. Like all libertarians they went on and on about all the philosophical reasons for it, like determining the source of authority, etc. Those points never had any impact, in any forum, nor in real life. And they wouldn't have had an impact on me either, back when I was a liberal.

But, I found simple messages connect, like asking you guys why, since you want to be able to exercise free will, it's so offensive to you that I offer to treat you the way you want to be treated. That one always gets me some negative reputation. And the one that really hits home is asking saying that I'll go along with any policy you want, and all I ask is that when specifying the jurisdiction, you just provide me a way to move out and escape if I find the laws too oppressive. I point out that the US is one of only 3 countries along with N Korea and Cuba that doesn't let their citizens just leave, no strings attached, if they find the rules too burdensome, and that even if I move halfway around the world, you liberals are still hunting me down and trying to force me to abide by your rules, and if I moved to Mars, the liberals would STILL chase me and hunt me down telling me that I had some eternal obligation to do what they told me to and surrender to them all the fruits of my labor so they can take what they want. Especially when you show how that fits the definition of slavery to a 't', wow I get all sorts of 'fuck you's', personal attacks, negative reputation and name calling. And sure enough, it works in real life. I spent the last few months in Paris, about as left liberal as you can get. And I found that message, presented in a non-offensive manner of course, really does make liberals think. I only discovered that by throwing all sorts of arguments on the forum and watching which ones resulted in the most hateful replies. That's the beauty of the internet and forums like this. Since nobody knows who you are, and you don't care what anybody thinks, you can say pretty much anything to test your beliefs, without fear of confrontation or alienating friends. See, you take this stuff too seriously. It's nothing personal. If we met in real life we'd probably become friends.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... hive mentality... closed-minded... forced to open my mind... I started digging...

Hey, that's crank bingo!

From the young-earthers to the vaccine denialists, that's what they all say. Good luck with that.

(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Here in this forum I'm just trying to figure out how to better hone the message. To see which points resonate and really hit home, striking a raw nerve. The way I know I succeeded is just when I see liberal vitriol come back.

Because you are insane, you don't realize the difference between content and form. The content of your posts is frequently inaccurate and often simplistic, but that is not what earns you disapproval. Your conduct does that.

(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Of course in real life, I would never present these points in such an offensive way.

A open admission of being wilfully offensive. Interesting.

(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  All of my American friends are liberals and I don't want to lose them. But I do find that I can experiment anonymously on a forum like this and when a liberal goes postal, then I know I made a good point, and then in real life, I just figure out how to make the same point in a softer manner. It actually really has helped me simplify and streamline. Look at my first posts in the forum. Like all libertarians they went on and on about all the philosophical reasons for it, like determining the source of authority, etc. Those points never had any impact, in any forum, nor in real life. And they wouldn't have had an impact on me either, back when I was a liberal.

Look at my first posts in response to you. I merely asked you to define a couple terms. You proceeded to engage in a trollercoaster of personal insults, straw men, and misrepresentation the likes of which I have rarely had the displeasure to encounter.

(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But, I found simple messages connect, like asking you guys why, since you want to be able to exercise free will, it's so offensive to you that I offer to treat you the way you want to be treated. That one always gets me some negative reputation.

Nope. Citation needed. Your fantasies don't count.

(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And the one that really hits home is asking saying that I'll go along with any policy you want, and all I ask is that when specifying the jurisdiction, you just provide me a way to move out and escape if I find the laws too oppressive. I point out that the US is one of only 3 countries along with N Korea and Cuba that doesn't let their citizens just leave, no strings attached, if they find the rules too burdensome, and that even if I move halfway around the world, you liberals are still hunting me down and trying to force me to abide by your rules, and if I moved to Mars, the liberals would STILL chase me and hunt me down telling me that I had some eternal obligation to do what they told me to and surrender to them all the fruits of my labor so they can take what they want.

I've previously noted how myopically obsessive you are about the United States. Thanks for re-affirming that, I guess?

We see the same fixation on monolithic group identity, of course, but by now I take that for granted from you.

(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Especially when you show how that fits the definition of slavery to a 't', wow I get all sorts of 'fuck you's', personal attacks, negative reputation and name calling. And sure enough, it works in real life. I spent the last few months in Paris, about as left liberal as you can get. And I found that message, presented in a non-offensive manner of course, really does make liberals think. I only discovered that by throwing all sorts of arguments on the forum and watching which ones resulted in the most hateful replies. That's the beauty of the internet and forums like this. Since nobody knows who you are, and you don't care what anybody thinks, you can say pretty much anything to test your beliefs, without fear of confrontation or alienating friends.

Ah, so the paranoid narcissism is what comes out when you lift your filters. Okay, then.

(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  See, you take this stuff too seriously. It's nothing personal. If we met in real life we'd probably become friends.

If your outright delusional persona is merely that, I am certainly pressed to ask just what you expect to accomplish with a non-stop parade of misrepresentation and fallacy.

I find it incredibly hard to credit that you find that a productive avenue of discussion. I've long leaned towards the view that you don't understand your own shortcomings; I might well stick with that, seeing as how being inadvertently disingenuous would be eminently preferable to being deliberately so. Which would you rather I conclude?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 08:12 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 06:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Because you are insane... Look at my first posts in response to you. I merely asked you to define a couple terms. You proceeded to engage in a trollercoaster of personal insults, straw men, and misrepresentation the likes of which I have rarely had the displeasure to encounter.

Yeah, look at your first posts. I made VERY obvious statements with no hidden meaning using words in the way that everybody understands. I said what everybody knows, that the one and only central doctrine for libertarians is the non-aggression principle--don't force people to do things against their will. Despite this being such an obvious statement, you ask me to define 'force'. So I copy/paste from the dictionary. You ask me to define 'physical'. So I copy/paste from the dictionary. You ask me to define 'violence'. So I copy/paste from the dictionary. Then you keep telling me these definitions are inadequate and I need to make up my own, and you play the usual silly games, like if someone shoots you with a laser gun, is it violence, since that requires physical contact, matter touching matter, and photons don't have matter? So if I tell you to do something or else I'll shoot you with a laser gun, am I forcing you to do it... Your nonsensical word games, pretending that the point I was making was somehow unclear is what I call 'trollercoaster'. You thought you were so clever to come up with silly little 'gotcha' points, whereas to me, a truly clever person would use his intellect to contemplate other people's opinion and, either respond with a reasonable rebuttal, or be willing to change his opinion. But you wanted to play silly word games. I went along for page after page, constantly copy/pasting from the dictionary every time you asked what a word meant. And then it grew tiring and I gave up.

(17-05-2014 06:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 06:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That one always gets me some negative reputation.

Nope. Citation needed. Your fantasies don't count.

It worked with you. I told you the only time I'd every disagree with you on a policy position is if you were (a) forcing people to do things against their will, and (b) drawing the jurisdictional lines in the one place that prevented people from fleeing if they found your rules too offensive. You were unwilling to concede this was the only issue dividing us, despite your inability to respond to my repeated challenges to name one policy that did not fit. I tried using more tactful ways of pointing out that whenever 2 people are debating and 1 person lays out the one and only position he disagrees with his opponent on, and the other refuses to either acknowledge it or come up with an exception, it tells you about the strength of the latter's position. It got no response from you. You just kept playing your word games, insisting that there was more to our disagreement than just you trying to force other people to do things against their will and not allowing them a means to escape. After trying all sorts of ways to rephrase it, when I compared your position of using force and not allowing escape to the way neanderthal cavemen resolved their issues with a club, THEN the silly endless circle-jerk ended, you spouted off vitriol, gave me negative reputation, etc., etc. So I learned that a good way to get a reaction from a liberal, who likes to think himself as being so modern and progressive, is to show that his 'might makes right' philosophy dates back to prehistoric times.

(17-05-2014 06:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I find it incredibly hard to credit that you find that a productive avenue of discussion. I've long leaned towards the view that you don't understand your own shortcomings; I might well stick with that, seeing as how being inadvertently disingenuous would be eminently preferable to being deliberately so. Which would you rather I conclude?

I do find it a productive avenue of discussion. I know that the urge for one man to control another, to use force to take from other people what you want, or make them do things you want, is so primal and ingrained in the way life on earth it will be nearly impossible to convince people to give it up. The best I can do is try to express it in such a way that you can get a glimpse of how you look to those of us who have shed that primal instinct. Obviously if I succeed you won't like it because, as a libertarian, we look at the left vs right battle as a childish circus. The right will pull every dirty trick in the book to get the club of power (51% of congress/parliament). Look at Carl Rove saying Hillary Clinton must have serious brain damage rendering her unfit for office because she wore some prism glasses after she fell and hit her head. If the right succeeds in getting the club, they'll immediately go and pass all these laws forcing the left to do things their way. And, of course, the left will also pull no stops to get the club so they can then force the right to do things their way. So, it's a given you're going to be furious if I succeed in showing you how the way you 2 sides fight and beat each other to a pulp looks to an observer sitting on the sidelines, wondering why you guys can't just put down your clubs and agree to disagree and peacefully coexist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 11:08 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 11:35 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yeah, look at your first posts. I made VERY obvious statements with no hidden meaning using words in the way that everybody understands. I said what everybody knows...

That right there is a disingenuous start. But I expect no less from you.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... that the one and only central doctrine for libertarians is the non-aggression principle--don't force people to do things against their will. Despite this being such an obvious statement, you ask me to define 'force'. So I copy/paste from the dictionary. You ask me to define 'physical'. So I copy/paste from the dictionary. You ask me to define 'violence'. So I copy/paste from the dictionary. Then you keep telling me these definitions are inadequate...

Protip: they are inadequate.

"lol dictionary" is not sufficient basis for philosophy.

Deal with it.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... and I need to make up my own...

No, merely provide some.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... and you play the usual silly games, like if someone shoots you with a laser gun, is it violence, since that requires physical contact, matter touching matter, and photons don't have matter? So if I tell you to do something or else I'll shoot you with a laser gun, am I forcing you to do it... Your nonsensical word games...

Again, we see that not buying into your simplistic and inadequate restrictions is apparently "nonsensical word games". Good luck with that attitude.

Your thought exists within a tiny box. You refuse to question the box. You refuse to consider the box. Within the box you are happy. Oh well.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... pretending that the point I was making was somehow unclear...

Nope! Citation needed. That is not a thing that happened.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... is what I call 'trollercoaster'. You thought you were so clever to come up with silly little 'gotcha' points...

No, that was you that repeatedly and tiresomely belaboured facile rhetorical points. The pointless hypothetical is no less than your second favourite tactic. Try to keep things straight, eh?

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... whereas to me, a truly clever person would use his intellect to contemplate other people's opinion and, either respond with a reasonable rebuttal, or be willing to change his opinion. But you wanted to play silly word games. I went along for page after page, constantly copy/pasting from the dictionary every time you asked what a word meant. And then it grew tiring and I gave up.

You... really don't understand how discussions work, do you?

If something isn't good enough, saying it again will not make it better. But, points for stamina, I guess. It's more than enough to get most people to give up on you, I'm sure. No doubt you count that as a victory.

"I don't think your provided definition is sufficient, because it has immediately apparent exceptions" is a perfectly valid response. Not one you seem prepared to deal with, mind - but that part is not my problem.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It worked with you. I told you the only time I'd every disagree with you on a policy position is if you were (a) forcing people to do things against their will, and (b) drawing the jurisdictional lines in the one place that prevented people from fleeing if they found your rules too offensive. You were unwilling to concede this was the only issue dividing us, despite your inability to respond to my repeated challenges to name one policy that did not fit.

The question was facetious and idiotic. I've explained in detail why I think so. You are utterly unable to even begin to attempt to understand what anyone else says. You are therefore even more woefully unprepared to marshal honest or even coherent responses. You'd rather take off on bizarre tangents and construct an endless and bewildering array of straw men.

Shall I explain once more? You demonstrably can't - in theory you might just be refusing to, but even I'm not that pessimistic - understand other people and their opinions, worldviews, and motivations, so I don't know why I bother. But, here goes!

Remember the part where I mentioned environmental regulations? Remember the part where you affirmed that there should in fact be some, and furthermore affirmed that they might require a maximally broad jurisdiction, given the global scope of some environmental concerns? Right. Hold that thought, and we'll continue on.

What precisely should those regulations be? The exact specifics of your opinion are not relevant. Nor mine. But it is virtually a guarantee that our respective opinions regarding the contextual specifics will differ. Do you understand this? I have more or less abandoned all hope of you grasping this point, simple thought it may be.

Agreement in principle is easy to come by. Agreement in principle is trivial. And yet you bloviate on endlessly about how there is some great imagined fundamental difference between that amorphous collective you call "libertarians" (protip: those who self-apply the term are anything but uniform; you admit as such, but you go on to play No True Scotsman with it) and the amorphous collective you lump together as "everyone else" (which is insane in its own way).

Alas, no. Your hopelessly simplistic generalisations are woefully inadequate. Specific opinions are predicated on subjective precepts and subject to innate statistical variation among humans.

You can have all the agreement in principle in the world, and yet that will remain so - differences of opinion are inevitable.

I provided you with definitions I was working from, and explained to you some of my reasoning; this was a wholly futile endeavour, as you just responded with an army of straw men the likes of which has rarely been seen on this good Earth.

No doubt you will respond with the same old non-answer, "but it doesn't matter what I think (although of course I have my own opinions regarding any given issue), I just don't force them on other people".

If you believe in the legitimacy of a legal apparatus to maintain personal integrity, and you believe in the legitimacy of a legal apparatus to maintain property, and you believe in the legitimacy of environmental regulation, then you believe in a legal apparatus to enforce same. You believe there are things other people should be prevented from doing, by force if necessary. Sounds an awful lot like forcing your opinion others to me. At which point the traditional non-objection is, "but what if they agree to it". Great! Can you guarantee that everyone will magically follow every rule and agreement forever? If so, that's pretty special. But unfortunately, reality does not work that way.

And so, you - like everyone - accept and support some degree of communal regulation backed by force if necessary; indeed, you have said as much. Great; and here is the very special part you refuse to respond to: so does everyone. The exact specifics of such vary as enumerated.

So there's that.

Incidentally we might take this moment to reflect that the breed of environmental regulations you explicitly endorse are not, in fact, covered by the facile dictionary definitions of "initiation" and "force" you so obsessively harped on, neatly demonstrating that even you do not find them entirely sufficient. So there's that, too.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I tried using more tactful ways of pointing out that whenever 2 people are debating and 1 person lays out the one and only position he disagrees with his opponent on, and the other refuses to either acknowledge it or come up with an exception, it tells you about the strength of the latter's position. It got no response from you. You just kept playing your word games, insisting that there was more to our disagreement than just you trying to force other people to do things against their will and not allowing them a means to escape.

See above. But also, no, your delusional recounting is not borne out by actual record.

Pointing out flaws in your stated definitions and positions is not "word games". But it's kind of adorable that you think so.

(ignoring, for the meantime, the numerous factual inaccuracies you've provided)

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  After trying all sorts of ways to rephrase it, when I compared your position of using force and not allowing escape to the way neanderthal cavemen resolved their issues with a club, THEN the silly endless circle-jerk ended, you spouted off vitriol, gave me negative reputation, etc., etc. So I learned that a good way to get a reaction from a liberal, who likes to think himself as being so modern and progressive, is to show that his 'might makes right' philosophy dates back to prehistoric times.

You are so obsessed with your own fantasies you refuse to abandon them.

I mean, congratulations on adopting a literally unfalsifiable delusion, but it's unlikely to reflect well on you if you persist in it.

You'd rather wallow in phantasm, convinced that you know what others are thinking. You do not, but alas, that hardly stops you. I get that that is a much simpler way to deal with the world, and I can see why you cling to it. Unfortunately, all the conviction in the world does not make delusion anything but.

To wit: someone agrees with you? Must be because you're so right! Someone doesn't agree with you? Must be because they're mad because you're so right!

I mean, that's highly deranged, but at least it's internally consistent. At least there's that going for it.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 06:29 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I find it incredibly hard to credit that you find that a productive avenue of discussion. I've long leaned towards the view that you don't understand your own shortcomings; I might well stick with that, seeing as how being inadvertently disingenuous would be eminently preferable to being deliberately so. Which would you rather I conclude?

I do find it a productive avenue of discussion. I know that the urge for one man to control another, to use force to take from other people what you want, or make them do things you want, is so primal and ingrained in the way life on earth it will be nearly impossible to convince people to give it up.

Once more, you vapidly assert as much, for no reason other than to make yourself feel good, and with no substantiation whatsoever.

No, your feels are not substantiation.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The best I can do is try to express it in such a way that you can get a glimpse of how you look to those of us who have shed that primal instinct.

Ah, that ol' fixation on group identity, compounded by composition fallacies.

Protip: you are not multiple people. You are not addressing multiple people. Do not use plural pronouns.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Obviously if I succeed you won't like it because, as a libertarian, we look at the left vs right battle as a childish circus.

The important thing is that you've found a way to feel smug about it.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The right will pull every dirty trick in the book to get the club of power (51% of congress/parliament). Look at Carl Rove saying Hillary Clinton must have serious brain damage rendering her unfit for office because she wore some prism glasses after she fell and hit her head. If the right succeeds in getting the club, they'll immediately go and pass all these laws forcing the left to do things their way. And, of course, the left will also pull no stops to get the club so they can then force the right to do things their way.

Look, composition fallacy again. How nice.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, it's a given you're going to be furious...

Hahahahaha NOPE. I might think you're a self-obsessed jackass, but I'm hardly furious. At best you're mildly entertaining, and at worst you're simply tedious.

That statement, once again, appears to be something you just made up. I freely grant that you are, in fact, very good at flat-out making up ridiculous mischaracterisations - everyone's got some talent - but it is not a particularly endearing mannerism.

Saying so does not make it true. Believing so does not make it true. So long as you remain convinced that it does, you will remain congenitally unable to participate in honest discussion.

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... if I succeed in showing you how the way you 2 sides fight and beat each other to a pulp looks to an observer sitting on the sidelines, wondering why you guys can't just put down your clubs and agree to disagree and peacefully coexist.

No, that's just pathetic fantasy again.

If you could stop projecting your delusions for long enough to read a single sentence anyone else wrote, you might see that no, the world does not operate according to the fevered visions dancing in your ignorant mind.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 11:44 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
Tough topic. On one hand I hate taxes. On another hand I think individuals rather than dollars should be taxed. A person who receives a large inheritance should at least be taxed at cap gains rates unless they are being paid from a a tax free investment like a whole life insurance policy.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 11:21 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2014 11:50 AM by frankksj.)
RE: Inheritance Tax
(17-05-2014 11:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Protip: [dictionary definitions] are inadequate.

How would you like if I, as an individual, did to you precisely what I'm criticizing you for? I tell you to do something and if you don't, I bust down the door to your home, haul you off at gunpoint, tase you if you resist, and lock you my basement for 20 years. And then when you ask me why I'm using force against you, I reply “Gosh, I can't really tell if this is force or not. Hmm... The dictionary definition is too ambiguous.” Well I find it no less irritating when you do it. The idea of forcing people to do things against their will is pretty obvious. Your inability to get your head around it is what made me question how you could possibly be a real physicist, able to grasp infinitely more complex concepts like relativity.

(17-05-2014 11:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Remember the part where I mentioned environmental regulations?

Of course. The fact that I've addressed this repeatedly and you never dispute my position proves that you're quite trapped. As I've said a million times before, the idea of using force is not vague. What IS vague and subjective is the idea of 'property'. If I break your arm, unquestionably I'm using force. But is your arm really your property? You didn't make the matter in your arm. At some point those atoms made up somebody else's arm. Or a tree. Most will accept that all the 'matter' within your body is your property. So what if you have a prosthetic arm which I break? What if it wasn't even attached to your person at the time, but was far away? Is that still your property? And why would it be any different for me to break your arm than, say, your car? If I break your windshield, nobody except you questions that this was force, what real intellectuals question is if you have the same right to defend your car, through counter force, as you would if I were breaking your arm. Early libertarians split on this with the eastern Europeans generally saying 'no'--people don't have the right to use counter-force to defend property. Property belongs to the state. Western European libertarians, however, did believe property was an extension of your personhood, and you're entitled to defend it.

So, if I am in one jurisdiction (say Germany) and I damage somebody else's property in another jurisdiction (say a French person's land by dumping pollution in a river that drains into it), then if you are a propertarian libertarian as I am, then, sure, there must be some intra-jurisdictional way to compensate for property damage. And since some level of pollution is inevitable those jurisdictions need to agree on the rules when someone in one jurisdiction damages property in another. Dumping mercury into a river, not allowed. Your son pees in the river, that's immune from property damage claims.

See, nobody but you thinks the concept of 'force' is vague. The issues are pretty obvious and clear-cut. And there's nothing in environmental laws that is remotely contradictory to libertarian principles. Pollution is one person damaging (initiating force upon) the property of another, something that is clearly not allowed in a libertarian system.

I keep shooting down this ridiculous claim over and over. You never dispute my rebuttal. It goes in one ear and out the other and you just keep bringing it up over and over and over as an example of where the idea of 'force' is somehow ambiguous. It's a pathetic attempt because no doubt you DO advocate all sorts of barbaric rules that are unquestionably initiating force. For example, here's some scenarios:

1. My neighbor had a heart attack so I mow his lawn to help him out, but I don't report it to my government minder.

2. After several months my neighbor feels guilty that he's taking advantage of me, so he agrees to tutor my son in exchange for my mowing his lawn, as an even barter. But we don't report it to our government minders.

3. After a few more months my neighbor's health deteriorates more so he no longer has the energy to tutor my son, and so each week in exchange for mowing his lawn, he instead gives me something that I can exchange to get someone else to tutor my son (like a $50 bill). Again, we don't report it to our government minders.

4. What if instead of spending it now on a tutor I save it to send my son to boarding school? And what if I give it to a Swiss bank for safekeeping?

Most liberals would say that #3 should be against the law and, if we kept this up and flagrantly refused to comply, we should eventually be hauled off at gunpoint. And #4, even though it's a peaceful, voluntary exchange between two individuals, that's a win-win which both benefit from, and which doesn't hurt anybody but the nebulous "society" which just wants a cut, well that's the worst and deserves a harsher punishment even than rapists. But, they're less barbaric with #1 and #2, even though essentially nothing has changed. See, in nearly all cases like this it IS very clear-cut when force is being used. There is NOTHING ambiguous about someone hauling you off at gunpoint that you can't decide if it's force or not. BUT, liberals can't explain why force should be used in case #3, but not necessarily in #2 or #1. There is no logic or reason.

So rather than addressing these clear-cut cases which account for 99% of the things we disagree on, liberals keep desperately trying to find some extreme example where you can argue that force is ambiguous--like my favorite that liberals always use 'if you shoot with a laser gun is it force since photons don't have matter'. If you wanted a productive debate then forget about silly fringe games like that, and address the obvious issues, like the one I just presented, where we disagree.

(17-05-2014 11:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  the only time I'd every disagree with you on a policy position is if you were (a) forcing people to do things against their will, and (b) drawing the jurisdictional lines in the one place that prevented people from fleeing if they found your rules too offensive. You were unwilling to concede this was the only issue dividing us, despite your inability to respond to my repeated challenges to name one policy that did not fit.

The question was facetious and idiotic.

Look, that one issue IS the core, central doctrine of libertarianism. The fact that you won't address it, but just dismiss it is 'facetious and idiotic' shows that you're mind is closed and you're not even willing to consider libertarianism anyway. So why debate? And you tell me I'm pompous and arrogant, when who the fuck are you to dismiss the core tenet of respected intellectuals, like Locke, Jefferson, and recent nobel prize winners like Friedman and Hayek? Sure, it's fine to disagree. But to refuse to even consider it, just dismissing it as “idiotic”?

(17-05-2014 08:12 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You believe there are things other people should be prevented from doing, by force if necessary.

Actually, just one. As I've said before the only thing I believe force should be used for is to block the initiation force, since nothing can stop force but force. As I keep saying, my goal is to eliminate force across the board. That means one person can't hit you in the face, can't break your arm, can't burn down your house, can't pollute your river. Every law and rule I advocate, like the ones in the bill of rights, exist to BLOCK force—not to create it. However, as I've said a million times, I accept it's inevitable that people will always want to gang up (such as with a 51% vote) and initiate force to coerce people into doing things against their will (such as laws and police). I'm fine accepting that, I ONLY ask for one thing: when you draw the jurisdictional lines where these laws apply, draw them so that people can relocate if they find the force too oppressive. That's it.

I have never been inconsistent. I have never wavered on this point. I have never advocated any position that goes against it. I think it is a reasonable compromise, and that it's actually a win-win for both of us because if, instead of trying to boil the ocean and get a whole country to do things your way, you just focused on a local community of like-minded individuals, you'd probably be able to live in a place with laws that and a society that reflected your world view. I think you guys are hurting yourselves when liberals and conservatives refuse to accept this compromise and insist that they will only draw the jurisdictional lines at the one place where escape is impossible and will fight to the death to get the ruling majority, aware that when their side loses, the other side will beat the shit out of them with their own inescapable laws. I think it's dogmatic that liberals and conservatives refuse to just agree to disagree, narrow the jurisdictional lines, and agree to peacefully coexist. Instead they spend all their resources which could be spent actually doing good, fighting the other side.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 11:43 AM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 11:21 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Actually, just one. As I've said before the only thing I believe force should be used for is to block the initiation force, since nothing can stop force but force. As I keep saying, my goal is to eliminate force across the board. That means one person can't hit you in the face, can't break your arm, can't burn down your house, can't pollute your river. Every law and rule I advocate, like the ones in the bill of rights, exist to BLOCK force—not to create it. However, as I've said a million times, I accept it's inevitable that people will always want to gang up (such as with a 51% vote) and initiate force to coerce people into doing things against their will (such as laws and police). I'm fine accepting that, I ONLY ask for one thing: when you draw the jurisdictional lines where these laws apply, draw them so that people can relocate if they find the force too oppressive. That's it.

Your definition of 'force' is not entirely clear, regardless of how many times you claim it is.

By your statements above, we can conclude that polluting someone's river must be force because you are willing to use force to prevent it.

Most of the existing laws are pretty much like that. There seem to be only a handful that you idiosyncratically have decided are not - that those laws themselves initiate violence. You personal definitions are unknown to us though you have given a couple of examples, yet you constantly insist that we are being dishonest when we ask you to define the boundaries.

Without laws and police, no agreements are truly enforceable. And if you break an agreement, it is you who are initiating force.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: