[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:42 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  I said not everyone can afford to move.

Ah, backpeddling. Yes, it's true. When I said the only time I would push back on any policy you propose is if drew the jurisdictional lines in such a way that people couldn't move out and escape if they found your rules too oppressive, you DID respond 'not everyone can afford to move'. As though because some people might not be able to move and escape your rules that is somehow justification for not even allowing them to try. Like you're saving people from the option of being so stupid as to squander their meager savings to escape.

If you don't like that answer, than pick another one:

Since I will accept any jurisdictional line that allows people to leave, why is this so offensive to you and non-negotiable that you insist the line must be drawn so that it covers precisely every square inch where those affected are legally allowed to move?

It is a direct response to what you offer as a solution - moving.
Read nothing more into it, because every time you do that you get it wrong.

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
16-05-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 02:42 PM)djhall Wrote:  Ah, well, if that is the debate, then my comments don't apply.

DJHall, here's my 2 cents on your posts. They're a waste of time. They are 100% accurate, more eloquent than I could write, and your fellow libertarians will appreciate every well written word. But that's just preaching to the choir. For the non-libertarians that you're trying to convert, it goes totally over their head. It doesn't generate any reaction. It's like when Stefan Molyneux went on the Sam Seder show. Stefan was SO eloquent, almost poetic in how he spoke. Sam never addressed anything Stefan said, but just dismissed him as being arrogant for using all those fancy words.

What I've come to appreciate is that what's driving the non-libertarians is the primal urge for man to control other men, to use force to make them do things against their will. They see something they want, they pick up a club (ie the laws & police) and take it. You're doing something they don't like, they pick up a club to make you stop. It's very primitive. And when you counter that thinking with philosophy, there's no reaction. So, I make a point of being as simple, direct, and crass as I can. Sure, it does nothing to convince them. But it sure as hell generates a reaction. Their face turns red, you see veins popping out of their neck, and they start firing off posts like 'FUCK YOU!!!'.

When I write my post that says "Look, I just want to leave and get away from you tyrants, why are you so dependent on me that you have to keep chasing me, hunting me down and trying to force me back?" it's so simple and base they get it. It's taking a complex philosophical matter like the origin of rights, and bringing it down to club-wielding neanderthal level. They can easily look up the laws and see that I'm not making it up. This really is the policy which they embrace. They're just not used to being slapped in the face with it. They're used to libertarians, like you, rebutting them with polite, intellectual reason, which all too easy for them to ignore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 04:57 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:44 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I guess that depends on whether Frank has active warrants like Bobby Fischer did before he expatriates. If not they will give exactly 0 fucks.

Citation needed. Bobby Fischer was NOT indicted and extradited for crimes committed within the US, but rather for (a) going to Yugoslavia, and (b) not sending the winnings back. This isn't disputed. I dare you to copy/paste one actual citation that says the indictment and extradition was over something he did BEFORE he expatriated. I'm waiting....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 04:57 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 05:02 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  3. We want to roll things back to the founding father's time.

Why the fuck would you want to do that? The founding fathers designed the Constitution to be a living document amended as necessary as society changes. They would be disappointed if it had never been amended.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-05-2014, 04:59 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is a direct response to what you offer as a solution - moving.
Read nothing more into it, because every time you do that you get it wrong.

You conveniently avoided my question. I repeat:

You can pass any law or regulation or tax you want, and I won't protest so long as the jurisdictional lines are drawn so that those affected have the recourse of moving away if they find your rules too oppressive. Therefore, since I will accept any jurisdictional line that allows people to leave, why is this so offensive to you and non-negotiable that you insist the line must be drawn so that it covers precisely every square inch where those affected are legally allowed to move?

I've asked that question many times. Responding that "well moving is expensive" is just avoiding the question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:57 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:17 PM)frankksj Wrote:  3. We want to roll things back to the founding father's time.

Why the fuck would you want to do that? The founding fathers designed the Constitution to be a living document amended as necessary as society changes. They would be upset if it had never been amended.

Of course I want something even more modern, more progressive, that guarantees even more freedom and limits coercion even more. But since my ideological opponents are proposing we go back to the stone-age system where whatever group ganged up and got the power was able to use force against others to plunder their belongings and coerce them into doing things against their will... well since that's the alternative, sure I'll take the "modern" 300-year old constitution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 05:05 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 05:28 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:59 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Therefore, since I will accept any jurisdictional line that allows people to leave, why is this so offensive to you and non-negotiable that you insist the line must be drawn so that it covers precisely every square inch where those affected are legally allowed to move?

I'm thinking about moving to Costa Rica when I retire. Many Americans have done this before me. Doubt I'll encounter any problems. ... I mean, once the house arrest and 10 mile radius ankle bracelet is up.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 05:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... well since that's the alternative, sure I'll take the "modern" 300-year old constitution.

Where blacks and women didn't have the right to vote. Good luck with that.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What I've come to appreciate is that what's driving the non-libertarians is the primal urge for man to control other men, to use force to make them do things against their will. They see something they want, they pick up a club (ie the laws & police) and take it. You're doing something they don't like, they pick up a club to make you stop. It's very primitive.

That is why you get the reaction you do. You assume you know what everyone else's positions and opinions are, and you are rarely correct.

This makes your arguments childish and petulant.

Quote:And when you counter that thinking with philosophy, there's no reaction. So, I make a point of being as simple, direct, and crass as I can. Sure, it does nothing to convince them. But it sure as hell generates a reaction. Their face turns red, you see veins popping out of their neck, and they start firing off posts like 'FUCK YOU!!!'.

Your philosophy is simplistic, you see no nuance. I am not convinced because you are unconvincing.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
16-05-2014, 05:08 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(16-05-2014 04:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 04:44 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I guess that depends on whether Frank has active warrants like Bobby Fischer did before he expatriates. If not they will give exactly 0 fucks.

Citation needed. Bobby Fischer was NOT indicted and extradited for crimes committed within the US, but rather for (a) going to Yugoslavia, and (b) not sending the winnings back. This isn't disputed. I dare you to copy/paste one actual citation that says the indictment and extradition was over something he did BEFORE he expatriated. I'm waiting....

Just this once I will directly reply. Your timing is wrong he violated a US Order (he was informed of the consequences before hand) and then fled but never expatriated until he was held by the Japanese for using a suspended passport. Afterwards he was offered first an Alien passport by Iceland and when the Japanese refused to release him for that was granted full citizenship. Note I am not saying I agree with the order or the conduct by the Japanese but pretending the reason he was held was because he left the US is disingenuous at best and know you just plain lying because reality is inconvenient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fisch...ky_rematch

Quote:Fischer emerged after twenty years of isolation to play Spassky (then tied for 96th–102nd on the FIDE rating list) in a "Revenge Match of the 20th century" in 1992. This match took place in Sveti Stefan and Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in spite of a United Nations embargo that included sanctions on commercial activities. Fischer demanded that the organizers bill the match as "The World Chess Championship", although Garry Kasparov was the recognized FIDE World Champion. Fischer insisted he was still the true World Champion, and that for all the games in the FIDE-sanctioned World Championship matches, involving Karpov, Korchnoi, and Kasparov, the outcomes had been prearranged.[448] The purse for the rematch was US$5 million, with $3.35 million of the purse to go to the winner.[449] According to grandmaster Andrew Soltis:[450]

[The match games] were of a fairly high quality, particularly when compared with Kasparov's championship matches of 1993, 1995 and 2000, for example. Yet the games also reminded many fans of how out of place Fischer was in 1992. He was still playing the openings of a previous generation. He was, moreover, the only strong player in the world who didn't trust computers and wasn't surrounded by seconds and supplicants.

Fischer won the match with 10 wins, 5 losses, and 15 draws.[451] Kasparov stated, "Bobby is playing OK, nothing more. Maybe his strength is 2600 or 2650. It wouldn't be close between us".[452] Yasser Seirawan believed that the match proved that Fischer's playing strength was "somewhere in the top ten in the world".[453]

Fischer and Spassky gave ten press conferences during the match.[454] Seirawan attended the match and met with Fischer on several occasions; the two analyzed some match games and had personal discourse. Seirawan later wrote: "After September 23 [1992], I threw most of what I'd ever read about Bobby out of my head. Sheer garbage. Bobby is the most misunderstood, misquoted celebrity walking the face of the earth".[455] He further wrote that Fischer was not camera shy, smiled and laughed easily, was "a fine wit" and "wholly enjoyable conversationalist".[456]

The U.S. Department of the Treasury warned Fischer before the start of the match that his participation was illegal, that it would violate President George H. W. Bush's Executive Order 12810 imposing United Nations Security Council Resolution 757 sanctions against engaging in economic activities in Yugoslavia.[457] In response, during the first scheduled press conference on September 1, in front of the international press, Fischer spat on the U.S. order, saying "this is my reply".[458] His violation of the order led U.S. Federal officials to initiate a warrant for his arrest upon completion of the match,[459] citing, in pertinent part, "Title 50 USC §§1701, 1702, and 1705 and Executive Order 12810".[460][461][462]

Prior to the rematch against Spassky, Fischer had won a training match against Svetozar Gligorić in Sveti Stefan with six wins, one loss and three draws.[463]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: