Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 08:43 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 03:33 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Why do liberterians, when joining a forum, never take part in conversations on ordenary life? Like movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever?

That's very obvious. See there's only one thing that binds Libertarians: the belief that our opinions, whatever they are, shouldn't be forced on others. That's why, for example, the most prominent libertarian in the US just happened to be a right-wing, pro-life, deeply homophobic, devout Christian conservative: Ron Paul. See this clip when he goes ballistic after the comedian Sacha Baron Cohen pretends to be a gay diva and hits on him. Yet who was Ron Paul's largest donor? The far more typical libertarian, Peter Thiele, an openly gay atheist. They are polar opposites, with completely different world views, and radically different opinions about what society should look like. In other words, if choosing between a politician who (a) thinks just like you and will pass laws forcing the country to be just the way you both agree is best, or (b) one who is totally the opposite you and world view you find incomprehensible, but he vows not to use force and allow other opinions to coexist, the libertarian will always choose B.

That would NEVER happen outside libertarianism. How many drag queens do you think voted for the other right-wing homophobic conservative in the race, Rick Santorum. Probably zero. For everybody else, the goal of politics and government is the opposite: government does not exist to preserve liberty, ensuring all citizens can exercise free will. Rather it's to deny people liberty, forcing everyone to live the way the ruling party dictates. Therefore, outside libertarianism, what binds people is a common set of beliefs about how the world should run. The creationists all want teachers to be forced to teach the earth is 7,000 years old. The older generation wants everybody locked up for doing drugs. The poor want any rich folks who hide their cash abroad and don't hand it over to be thrown in jail.

For this reason, at a libertarian meeting, since most of have nothing in common except a belief that threats of violence shouldn't be used to force people to do things against their will, that's the only thing we have in common to talk about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 08:49 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is literally impossible to satisfy every single person every single time. Do you agree or disagree?

Totally disagree. It's impossible only when you have one set of laws that everybody is forced to live with.

Consider a restaurant that has only 1 option on the menu. Is it possible to satisfy every single person every time? Of course not.

What about a restaurant that has virtually everything on the menu, from steak to vegan, and lets everybody choose? Then it becomes possible. And the more choices they offer, the more possible it becomes.

Same thing with government. If you have one set of laws that cover every place someone can live, of course you can't satisfy everybody. You're lucky to satisfy half.

Divide the country into 2 autonomous states and grant freedom of mobility between them so people can pick which state suits them, and the number of satisfied citizens goes up. And as you divide it more, into 10, 20, 50, etc., each time, more and more people are satisfied. That's why we always want laws as local as possible, with the maximum number of jurisdictions, and thus the maximum choices to get the maximum number of satisfied citizens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
17-05-2014, 05:03 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 08:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Divide the country into 2 autonomous states and grant freedom of mobility between them so people can pick which state suits them, and the number of satisfied citizens goes up. And as you divide it more, into 10, 20, 50, etc., each time, more and more people are satisfied. That's why we always want laws as local as possible, with the maximum number of jurisdictions, and thus the maximum choices to get the maximum number of satisfied citizens.
Good point! What if everyone's jurisdiction was in his own wallet? People would decide the size of their jurisdiction by how much are they useful to others. How much value they provide, that's how much money they receive voluntarily and that much freedom others decide to grant them.
It has a big advantage that this freedom is global, it's not decided by arbitrary lines in the ground like states or regions.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 05:50 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Force is an abstraction in that sense, not that it's particularly coherently defined in any case, and notwithstanding the great many other coercive interactions between humans.
The things that government does to get its stuff done is enough of a definition of force. That includes printing money, causing its value to evaporate right out of our pockets.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's transparent evasion. I was only speaking within a single framework, but if you want to go down that road, some issues have no outside.
What are these issues? The only such issues I know of are philosophical and these are not to be resolved by force nor opinion. The way I see it, there must never be any outside, nobody has the right to make decisions to control other people.
Except perhaps children, but even they must be explained and consulted as much as they can at their age level.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I can't for the life of me figure out how that's a response to my statement.
All moral or neutral interaction is voluntary for all people involved. Involving people against their will is immoral. Economy has a moral element too - an element of freedom. Economic participation without coercion is essential in getting empirical data on what people want and can provide.
Government policy of taxation and re-distribution is not just immoral, it's a violation of empiricism, it's an economic pseudoscience, an arbitrary decision based on a politician's opinion. This is how societies collapse, including Roman empire. Politicians make decisions that suit them, such as thinning the amount of gold in their coins and their mercenaries turn against them.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Objective" morality.

DOES NOT COMPUTE.
I know it sounds bold, but one is never too old to learn something new.
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Citation needed.
It's not a citation, it's summary of the situation. Empirically, there is no government, but people with paper rules enforced at gunpoint.


(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Wut? That's also a complete lack of response to my actual point.
No decision is perfect. Do you understand this? Consequently, no decision pleases literally everyone. Do you understand this? Consequently, anything else is magical thinking.
Your actual point was a veiled fuck-you statement. Firstly, an appeal to perfection is something that I never claimed. Secondly, you seem to have this misguided view that there must be some external authority that satisfies people from the outside and handles their things for them.
The problem with that is, that this external authority, the state can never act productively, it can only play a zero-sum game. It knows only win-lose interactions.

The state can not provide a single breadroll or a single dollar without taking two dollars from someone else. The state owns nothing, because it produces nothing. It's not a bank or bakery, it has only one function: justifying its own existence.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What the hell are you talking about?
Scientific analogy. You seem to be fond of peer review in physics, but somehow not in economy.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's because you don't understand it.

Liberum veto is a recipe for never getting anything done ever. By agreeing to abide by a decision making process, one recognizes that some decisions can and will go against oneself.

To blindly assume no one is ever going to break the rules or back out of their agreements is magical thinking.
Firstly, the free society is not about liberum veto, but about people handling their own business as far as they are concerned and cooperating where they see fit. It makes no sense to drag decisions all the way to parliament. The best voting ballots are in our wallet.
Secondly, it is you who assumes that no one is ever going to break the rules and agreements, when the government rules are concerned. You trust politicians blindly, them and their paper constitution and laws. That's magical thinking, you think people break rules, but politicians are people too. If politicians don't break rules, then common people won't break rules either - they're the same homo sapiens. If everyone breaks rules, then it is a very bad idea to have a central authority, it's putting too many eggs into one basket.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm trying to be charitable, but if you continue the disingenuous nonsense I'll find it very hard indeed.

Crime, by definition, is non-compliance with an agreed-upon set of rules.
Wrong. Rules agreed upon by whom? Some people far away? Law is just an opinion with a gun. It says nothing about what is actually right or wrong. Holocaust was approved by laws that went through a proper legal procedure in Germany, Nazis were quite meticulous about that. Of course, all such laws are based on philosophical errors. That's why moral philosophy is one of the most dangerous disciplines in the world. There are truths to which there is no outside, which even overlap the whole legal system. The legal system actually obscures these truths. (see UPB)

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  In a totalitarian dictatorship, yes. Let me know if your country or mine turns into one of those overnight, k?
Already happened. Compare the number of arrested bankers and arrested Occupy protesters. Compare the numbers of working people, public sector workers and the unemployed. See how many U.S. soldiers daily commits suicide because of PTSD. See the number of U.S. military bases worldwide and compare that to all the other countries' military bases combined.
There is one change though, the U.S. has the best media propaganda machine this world has ever seen.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Civil society on the other hand has a flat network structure. Any forceful actor will find himself isolated.
Isolated how?
Removed from economic interaction, people will tell others, don't sell food to this guy, he did this and this, and if the threatens you, pull your gun at him.
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Again, what you said does not even claim anyone right or wrong, moral or immoral.
Why should it? I was speaking about comportment.
Comportment? I don't even know what that is. Some kind of... acting. I

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Define the term first.
Libertarians: People who think that initiation of the use of force (or threats or lies) is immoral. Defense is all right with them.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's why you made up ridiculous nonsense and viciously insulted anyone who's ever been an elected legislator ever?
Because law is a made-up opinion enforced at gunpoint. That is initiation of the use of force and that is immoral. Legislators push their opinions on others and they are paid by money extracted from people under the threat of going to jail for the made-up crime of not giving your money to the government.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you actually, literally, genuinely think there are no checks and balances in any modern state?

For fuckin' serious?
No effective checks and balances, of course. All politicians and judges just make deals behind closed doors and in the public they play out a charade for the media. How do I know that? Because they print money all the time, for starters. If they ever gave a rat's ass about the people, they'd raise a hand to stop the printers, they would stop the minimal wage laws, they wouldn't increase taxes and they wouldn't start wars. They really don't give a fuck about us.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Try no and no. Citation needed and citation needed. Killed more than 1 million people is lunacy. Sunni fundamentalists give zero shits what happens in Shia Iran.
Yep, citation is needed. I'm not sure which one it was with Clinton's major involvement, Iraq or Iran. Either way, the results are gruesome. Have you ever heard of democide? The leading artificial cause of death on Earth is death of the people by governments.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsore...en/5314461
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/132...ainst-iran

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The House initiated the trial and the Senate found in his favour. Shit, that almost sounds like some sort of check and balance between government entities. Huh.
A ridiculous farce. Not even feminists raised hell about how Clinton treats his interns. Considering that American presidents are almost all mass murderers and psychopaths, these supposed checks and balances are woefully inadequate.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, Churchill said that. No shit it's not perfect. Nothing is. No one ever claimed so. So what?

And incidentally, no, least worst does not mean not good, any more than least best means bad. That's not valid reasoning.
The reasoning is valid, but the words are ambiguous.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Sure, except for the part where it's completely different. Nice try, though. 7/10 would conflate again.
Yeah, everyone thinks their religion is special.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Since I literally just defined government as a collective decision making process, and since a civil society is a collective entity, no, that's an incoherent supposition.

What crazy definition of "government" are you using here? Clearly something very different from the one I provided.
Government? People imposing their decisions on others outside their group under threat of violence. I do not care where do these men come from or who do they claim to "represent", whatever that means. I represent only myself, unless I hire a lawyer. Nobody will claim to represent me without my direct consent, that would be a lie, or if you want, magical thinking.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Like what?

Magical thinking doesn't count as an answer.
I don't know what do you mean by magical thinking. For all my life I buy or sell things without threatening people to give me money, claiming that I "represent" them, whatever that means.
Here are your answers.
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#pa
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#ea

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, but it sure as shit means I know them better than you do.

If you feel comfortable, from half a world away, spewing out vicious condemnation of a minor provincial legislator you've never met, who I have interacted with, you are not operating on a sane and rational level. That is a hysterically emotional and pathetically juvenile attitude.
Any kind of legislator wants me to be thrown in jail that has disturbingly high rape statistics, if I disagree with his opinion. I'd say my reaction is entirely in order.
If I resist in my disagreement in my own home, I might be even shot and that legislator wouldn't mind that at all. I find that very disturbing.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am sure lots of people met Obama, including the Peace Nobel prize staff, before he proceeded murder families and newlyweds all across the Middle East.
So what?
Nothing. Please can you voice your agreement with this policy as publically as possible? Such people should proudly wear that opinion on their sleeve, so people like me would know whom to avoid and freely decide not to sell them anything.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The electorate. Public service.

I mean, I know you love the ol' "lol conspiracy" answer, but Christ.
Lol reality.
[Image: monsanto-employees-government-revolving-door.jpg]

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Very little of the above ranting corresponds very closely to reality. I'm not sure what you're basing your opinions on, but I can quite confidently say you have no idea how things actually work in this end of the world.
Austrian school of economy and the principles of Universally Preferable Behavior.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Tax dollars don't just get burnt up in sacks, you know.

I remind you once again that there are lots of ways lots of things could improve and stress that literally no one said anything to the contrary. But magical thinking doesn't solve problems, and egotistical self-righteous condemnation is not endearing.
What I understand by magical thinking is that words on paper are stronger than power and economical interests.
As for egotistical and self-righteous condemnation, that's what I thought about Richard Dawkins, before I learned what he actually says.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't mean philosophers cannot be extraordinarily self-absorbed.
I'd rather if my doctors or philosophers were extraordinarily self-absorbed, as long as they're right.

I put forward a rational postulate, that initiation of the use of force (or threats or lies) is immoral. (defense is OK) Unless you can disprove it, you must accept it, if you call yourself a rational person. The burned of proof is on you, because I put forward no specific positive obligation. Legislators put forward lots of positive obligations and they must provide moral justification for each one of them, why is it moral to enforce it at gunpoint.
That's why these discussions are so unpopular, they are morally binding.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 06:29 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Jesus I can't believe I just read the entire OP (didn't watch the video though).

I disagree with everything you said. In fact everything you said (that you believe about humanity and government) is stupid.

You don't know what money is.
You don't know what tax is.
You don't know what government is.
You make assumptions about all Kings ever.
You make assumptions about all Politicians ever.
Both of the above you make negative assumptions that they're evil horrible people without a good bone in their body.
You make false assumptions about the regular citizen.
In the above your assumption about the regular citizen is a holy angel of perfect goodness incarnated.
Your history is wrong.
You talk about real world in some sense and than say it should be this way and present a fairy land (a stupid one at that) unrealistic idea.

You're (blatantly) biased and make false assumptions and you're completely ignorant about the subject you're talking about.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
17-05-2014, 06:47 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 06:29 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You're (blatantly) biased and make false assumptions and you're completely ignorant about the subject you're talking about.
Thank you for reading all the OP.
People tell me that a lot when I view their subject from the point of view of multiple different subjects. Anyway, conclusions aren't important. The method of getting to them is important. If I got everything right by mistake or random chance, would I still be right? If I guess test answer pattern, am I still learned? No, I'm not. So, what was your method of getting to these conclusions?

My method was trying three different schools, three different branches of economy and then philosophical self-education in moral reasoning. This is of course not a statement of the method itself, just FYI, I can't change what I learned for last 6 years or so, please don't expect me to come to your side right away at your first clever remark. No matter what you say, it will take time even if you were completely right about everything. I can't promise you fast results or any results, the fact that you don't agree with me right away is a mystery in itself. When that happens, I must start with one dreaded question.

How were you disciplined as a child?

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 06:52 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Force is an abstraction in that sense, not that it's particularly coherently defined in any case, and notwithstanding the great many other coercive interactions between humans.
The things that government does to get its stuff done is enough of a definition of force. That includes printing money, causing its value to evaporate right out of our pockets.

You don't appear to understand how money works.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What are these issues? The only such issues I know of are philosophical and these are not to be resolved by force nor opinion. The way I see it, there must never be any outside, nobody has the right to make decisions to control other people.
Except perhaps children, but even they must be explained and consulted as much as they can at their age level.

Anything affecting the whole planet - there's a trivial one for you.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  All moral or neutral interaction is voluntary for all people involved. Involving people against their will is immoral. Economy has a moral element too - an element of freedom. Economic participation without coercion is essential in getting empirical data on what people want and can provide.
Government policy of taxation and re-distribution is not just immoral, it's a violation of empiricism, it's an economic pseudoscience, an arbitrary decision based on a politician's opinion. This is how societies collapse, including Roman empire. Politicians make decisions that suit them, such as thinning the amount of gold in their coins and their mercenaries turn against them.

That's unsubstantiated assertion, but okay.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "Objective" morality.

DOES NOT COMPUTE.
I know it sounds bold, but one is never too old to learn something new.
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#upb

That's unsubstantiated assertion, but okay.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Wut? That's also a complete lack of response to my actual point.
No decision is perfect. Do you understand this? Consequently, no decision pleases literally everyone. Do you understand this? Consequently, anything else is magical thinking.
Your actual point was a veiled fuck-you statement.

No, you didn't understand my point.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Firstly, an appeal to perfection is something that I never claimed.

No, but I didn't say so.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Secondly, you seem to have this misguided view that there must be some external authority that satisfies people from the outside and handles their things for them.
The problem with that is, that this external authority, the state can never act productively, it can only play a zero-sum game. It knows only win-lose interactions.

No, that's a thing you made up rather than listen to me.

Reality does have zero-sum elements. Do you know why? The Earth is finite.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The state can not provide a single breadroll or a single dollar without taking two dollars from someone else. The state owns nothing, because it produces nothing. It's not a bank or bakery, it has only one function: justifying its own existence.

Wut? There you go making crazy shit up again.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Firstly, the free society is not about liberum veto, but about people handling their own business as far as they are concerned and cooperating where they see fit. It makes no sense to drag decisions all the way to parliament. The best voting ballots are in our wallet.

Well, you missed the point again.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Secondly, it is you who assumes that no one is ever going to break the rules and agreements, when the government rules are concerned.

Uh, no. That's another thing you invented.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You trust politicians blindly, them and their paper constitution and laws.

Citation needed.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's magical thinking, you think people break rules, but politicians are people too. If politicians don't break rules, then common people won't break rules either - they're the same homo sapiens. If everyone breaks rules, then it is a very bad idea to have a central authority, it's putting too many eggs into one basket.

Who watches the watchers?

The parts that are coherent are not original.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I'm trying to be charitable, but if you continue the disingenuous nonsense I'll find it very hard indeed.

Crime, by definition, is non-compliance with an agreed-upon set of rules.
Wrong. Rules agreed upon by whom? Some people far away? Law is just an opinion with a gun. It says nothing about what is actually right or wrong.

Irrelevant. I guess you don't know what law means either.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Holocaust was approved by laws that went through a proper legal procedure in Germany, Nazis were quite meticulous about that.

Most excellent Godwinning, sirrah. Most excellent. Emotional appeals are always better than substance.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Of course, all such laws are based on philosophical errors. That's why moral philosophy is one of the most dangerous disciplines in the world. There are truths to which there is no outside, which even overlap the whole legal system. The legal system actually obscures these truths. (see UPB)

It's nice that you claim an exclusive mandate on correctness. Good for you. Moral objectivity does not exist in the real world. Sorry.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  In a totalitarian dictatorship, yes. Let me know if your country or mine turns into one of those overnight, k?
Already happened.

Citation needed.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Compare the number of arrested bankers and arrested Occupy protesters. Compare the numbers of working people, public sector workers and the unemployed. See how many U.S. soldiers daily commits suicide because of PTSD. See the number of U.S. military bases worldwide and compare that to all the other countries' military bases combined.
There is one change though, the U.S. has the best media propaganda machine this world has ever seen.

The USA is not your country or mine. So, uh, nice try, I guess?

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Why should it? I was speaking about comportment.
Comportment? I don't even know what that is. Some kind of... acting.

Contextual synonyms would include attitude, conduct, demeanour...

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Define the term first.
Libertarians: People who think that initiation of the use of force (or threats or lies) is immoral. Defense is all right with them.

Superficial and inadequate. "Defense" is subjective.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's why you made up ridiculous nonsense and viciously insulted anyone who's ever been an elected legislator ever?
Because law is a made-up opinion enforced at gunpoint. That is initiation of the use of force and that is immoral. Legislators push their opinions on others and they are paid by money extracted from people under the threat of going to jail for the made-up crime of not giving your money to the government.

Nice try, but that isn't what you said. You did not confine your wild-eyed ranting to the system, but laid out a spread of insults on anyone taking part in even the slightest way.

Protip: insulting tens of thousands of people is not a good thing.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Do you actually, literally, genuinely think there are no checks and balances in any modern state?

For fuckin' serious?
No effective checks and balances, of course.

Since you've clearly got no idea how anything works in most of the world, I'm curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  All politicians and judges just make deals behind closed doors and in the public they play out a charade for the media.

Oh, for fuck's sake. "Lol conspiracy" is not an answer.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  How do I know that? Because they print money all the time, for starters. If they ever gave a rat's ass about the people, they'd raise a hand to stop the printers, they would stop the minimal wage laws, they wouldn't increase taxes and they wouldn't start wars. They really don't give a fuck about us.

"They do things I don't like, therefore they are evil".

Uh, that's a way to look at things, I guess.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Try no and no. Citation needed and citation needed. Killed more than 1 million people is lunacy. Sunni fundamentalists give zero shits what happens in Shia Iran.
Yep, citation is needed. I'm not sure which one it was with Clinton's major involvement, Iraq or Iran. Either way, the results are gruesome. Have you ever heard of democide? The leading artificial cause of death on Earth is death of the people by governments.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-sponsore...en/5314461
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/132...ainst-iran

Global research is one of the single least credible sources on the planet. What, couldn't find anything from RT?

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  A ridiculous farce. Not even feminists raised hell about how Clinton treats his interns.

Uh, right, 'cause I'm sure you, as a foreigner, were closely following American media 16 years ago.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Considering that American presidents are almost all mass murderers and psychopaths, these supposed checks and balances are woefully inadequate.

Citation needed.

Remember, hysterical insults and raving does not make friends.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Yeah, everyone thinks their religion is special.

It's so much easier to just wallow in confirmation bias, eh?

I mean, not that you'd know anything about that.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Government? People imposing their decisions on others outside their group under threat of violence.

Ah, so not my definition.

Notwithstanding you've completely ignored what I pointed out, which was that unanimity within any group is not indefinitely possible, and therefore cohesion depends on good behaviour, an idiotic thing to merely assume.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I do not care where do these men come from or who do they claim to "represent", whatever that means. I represent only myself, unless I hire a lawyer. Nobody will claim to represent me without my direct consent, that would be a lie, or if you want, magical thinking.

(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Like what?

Magical thinking doesn't count as an answer.
I don't know what do you mean by magical thinking. For all my life I buy or sell things without threatening people to give me money, claiming that I "represent" them, whatever that means.
Here are your answers.
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#pa
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#ea

Reifying "government" into some insane conspiracy is not rational behaviour.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, but it sure as shit means I know them better than you do.

If you feel comfortable, from half a world away, spewing out vicious condemnation of a minor provincial legislator you've never met, who I have interacted with, you are not operating on a sane and rational level. That is a hysterically emotional and pathetically juvenile attitude.
Any kind of legislator wants me to be thrown in jail that has disturbingly high rape statistics, if I disagree with his opinion.

Uh, wut?

Seriously, what the shit?

Do you even listen to yourself?

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'd say my reaction is entirely in order.
If I resist in my disagreement in my own home, I might be even shot and that legislator wouldn't mind that at all. I find that very disturbing.

Yes, but your paranoid fantasies are not particularly germane.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  So what?
Nothing. Please can you voice your agreement with this policy as publically as possible? Such people should proudly wear that opinion on their sleeve, so people like me would know whom to avoid and freely decide not to sell them anything.

I can promise that whatever insane thing you think I'm thinking, I don't.

This exchange has made that plenty clear.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The electorate. Public service.

I mean, I know you love the ol' "lol conspiracy" answer, but Christ.
Lol reality.
[Image: monsanto-employees-government-revolving-door.jpg]

So what?

"lol conspiracy" isn't an answer.

For the love of god, substantiate something.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Very little of the above ranting corresponds very closely to reality. I'm not sure what you're basing your opinions on, but I can quite confidently say you have no idea how things actually work in this end of the world.
Austrian school of economy and the principles of Universally Preferable Behavior.

Cranks and madmen. Gotcha.

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Tax dollars don't just get burnt up in sacks, you know.

I remind you once again that there are lots of ways lots of things could improve and stress that literally no one said anything to the contrary. But magical thinking doesn't solve problems, and egotistical self-righteous condemnation is not endearing.
What I understand by magical thinking is that words on paper are stronger than power and economical interests.
As for egotistical and self-righteous condemnation, that's what I thought about Richard Dawkins, before I learned what he actually says.

Funnily enough, it's what you evidently still go in for towards vast segments of the population, if the above raving is any indication. Maybe you should work on that?

(17-05-2014 05:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:39 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't mean philosophers cannot be extraordinarily self-absorbed.
I'd rather if my doctors or philosophers were extraordinarily self-absorbed, as long as they're right.

I put forward a rational postulate, that initiation of the use of force (or threats or lies) is immoral. (defense is OK) Unless you can disprove it, you must accept it, if you call yourself a rational person. The burned of proof is on you, because I put forward no specific positive obligation.

That's not what burden of proof means. "You have to disprove my premises" is an attitude we call presuppositional. Thanks for playing.

That's not something I disagreed with in any case, by the way. You were too busy jacking off to notice that. I was attempting to point out some flaws and misconceptions in the way you see things. You're not interested. Okay, then.

... 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, 06:55 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 08:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is literally impossible to satisfy every single person every single time. Do you agree or disagree?

Totally disagree.

Oh, you're cute. I know you're just saying that 'cause it's me.

(16-05-2014 08:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's impossible only when you have one set of laws that everybody is forced to live with.

That is in no way a response.

(16-05-2014 08:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Consider a restaurant that has only 1 option on the menu. Is it possible to satisfy every single person every time? Of course not.

Oooh! I love these facetious and irrelevant analogies. Where's this one going?

(16-05-2014 08:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What about a restaurant that has virtually everything on the menu, from steak to vegan, and lets everybody choose? Then it becomes possible. And the more choices they offer, the more possible it becomes.

Same thing with government. If you have one set of laws that cover every place someone can live, of course you can't satisfy everybody. You're lucky to satisfy half.

Divide the country into 2 autonomous states and grant freedom of mobility between them so people can pick which state suits them, and the number of satisfied citizens goes up. And as you divide it more, into 10, 20, 50, etc., each time, more and more people are satisfied. That's why we always want laws as local as possible, with the maximum number of jurisdictions, and thus the maximum choices to get the maximum number of satisfied citizens.

Yes. More choice means generally more possibility of satisfying wants. Since literally nobody ever disputed that, whatever.

But, hell, I'll play along. The restaurant does not have infinite stocks and infinite time.

Thus, my point was that it is not possible for everyone to always have everything they want. That's all. Reality does not work that way.

... 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, 07:12 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 06:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 06:29 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You're (blatantly) biased and make false assumptions and you're completely ignorant about the subject you're talking about.
Thank you for reading all the OP.
People tell me that a lot when I view their subject from the point of view of multiple different subjects. Anyway, conclusions aren't important. The method of getting to them is important. If I got everything right by mistake or random chance, would I still be right? If I guess test answer pattern, am I still learned? No, I'm not. So, what was your method of getting to these conclusions?

My method was trying three different schools, three different branches of economy and then philosophical self-education in moral reasoning. This is of course not a statement of the method itself, just FYI, I can't change what I learned for last 6 years or so, please don't expect me to come to your side right away at your first clever remark. No matter what you say, it will take time even if you were completely right about everything. I can't promise you fast results or any results, the fact that you don't agree with me right away is a mystery in itself. When that happens, I must start with one dreaded question.

How were you disciplined as a child?

None of what you suggest is realistic. You don't understand human behavior at all. Not only that but you get it blatantly wrong. You just assume politician = evil and regular person = good. You don't understand the human element in this and how humans interact to each other. Not to mention the other shit about you not understanding what government, money or tax is.

All combined has resulted in this extremely unrealistic opinion that you're trying to get across as some sort of solution to some sort of problem.
It's not a solution, not a realistic one anyway, at all. In fact it'd be harmful because you don't understand human nature and make false assumptions about this wrong understanding of human nature. You throw around "6 years of education" but that doesn't mean shit when you don't understand the basic drivers behind what you're trying to preach, that being economics and human nature.
You have an ignorant wrong biased view of how the world works.

And what the fuck does my discipline have to do with this?

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
17-05-2014, 07:18 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 06:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not what burden of proof means. "You have to disprove my premises" is an attitude we call presuppositional. Thanks for playing.

That's not something I disagreed with in any case, by the way. You were too busy jacking off to notice that. I was attempting to point out some flaws and misconceptions in the way you see things. You're not interested. Okay, then.
Do you want to say that you agree with the non-aggression principle? In that case, I have no problem with you. Go forth and talk about the non-aggression principle, from legislating rooms against law-giving as a form of attacking citizens, to parenting sessions against spanking and other forms of attacking children.

As for Godwin's law, Nazis are a part in my law studies. The principle of Roman law says, "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege", the law does not work retroactively. I was taught that Nazis broke something called "natural law".
Nuremberg trials were one of a few cases in world's history that broke the principle of non-retroactivity. The authorities admitted that there is such a thing as natural law and that people can break it, even if they have perfectly legislated words of paper justifying their actions. They just didn't actually say what is that "natural law".

Later I learned that is a very underestimating way to put it. The natural law is based on the only rational, sensible natural reality, compared to which all man-made written laws are just opinions. Just as homeopathy is a futile exercise at bad medicine, legislature is a futile exercise at bad philosophy.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: