Topic: Any pro-NAP and anti-NAP members want to try a debate... with a difference? (Read 5059 times)

I notice you ignore the fact that I said "If I do not pay the bill, I am dragged off to be put into a cage" and then only after, said "or possibly executed". Way to try and shift the discussion. Not going to work.

But I still get to choose which bundle gives me more of the services I want, and fewer of the services I do not want, and there is nothing forcing me to bundle. It's an option. Something you don't get with Government services. Those are all bundled, and there is no option to not bundle them.

And I'm the paranoid schizophrenic.  Remember, you can turn off the TV, if you don't like what the voices are telling you to do, FA.

Would you like me to discuss the entire free market as a whole? 'cuz I can, and doing so makes your arguments even weaker.

"If government provided television in the way it does other services:
There is only one service, and possibly only one channel. If I don't like it, I can move to another country, where they also only have one service, but the channel is different."

Television was a terrible analogy anyway for a number of reasons.

1. The market has bundled services (paying extra for stuff you don't want).
2. Massive media (brainwashing, manipulation, etc.)
3. It's a small subset of the free market.
4. It doesn't address the option afforded a citizen to move to another country.

Even USSR Soviet Russia wasn't this bad: executing people publicly for not paying taxes. 

In what world do you live?

I think you might have some type of undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenia.

 

Yep.  I'm scard'.  This time, I'm enjoying watching you dance.

 

A little thought, indeed. so little, in fact, I'm amazed you can remember to breathe.

Let's compare. To illustrate the point, We'll use television.

"voluntarily contracted to the service" Did you now?
Private:
I have a few different services I can choose from, or I can select to not subscribe to any television at all. I don't even need to own one.

If government provided television in the way it does other services:
There is one service to choose from, and even if I don't want a TV, one is provided for me, and there is no off switch. If I do not pay the bill, I am dragged off to be put into a cage, or possibly executed (probably on TV, so the other slaves can see).

"I don't have a choice" Really? Move to another country.
Private:
I have a few different services I can choose from, or I can select to not subscribe to any television at all. I don't even need to own one.

If government provided television in the way it does other services:
There is only one service, and possibly only one channel. If I don't like it, I can move to another country, where they also only have one service, but the channel is different.

Your third point, addressing "I can live with fewer services than the government provides." is indeed circular, because I can use the same points to illustrate it:
Private:
I have a few different services I can choose from, or I can select to not subscribe to any television at all. I don't even need to own one.

If government provided television in the way it does other services:
There is one service to choose from, and even if I don't want a TV, one is provided for me, and there is no off switch. If I do not pay the bill, I am dragged off to be put into a cage, or possibly executed (probably on TV, so the other slaves can see).

Just about any human being can refute that with a little thought. If taxation is violent extortion and criminal, then so is the act of billing for services rendered by any individual, entity, or company. Pay up, or pay the consequences.

Ah, you say: "No, in such cases, I voluntarily contracted such services." Did you now? Upon further introspection into the nature of contracting said service, we find a world full of corruption, over charging, media influences, unknown contractual obligations, limited choices due to circumstance, societal peer pressure, brainwashing, and a whole host of other reasons.

Ah, but you still give a last gasp: "Taxes don't give me a choice." Really? Move to another country. You claim that there are no better options, as they tax you as well. You mean just like when you choose another service provider, they also have the nerve to bill you as well?

Ah, but you try one more time. You say: "I can live with fewer services than the government provides." To which I point out that your argument has now gone circular, as I already addressed that in the second paragraph of this post.

No, my sarcasm detector is working just fine. So is my bullshit detector, and it's screaming fit to wake the dead.

You cannot refute this:

Nor:

Nor can you refute:

So you cut and run. All of these are simple statements or questions, and you cannot answer them without admitting that you are wrong. So you avoid them, like you have been all along.

Well spoken. As I've said, the mind of the libertarian is wired such that the ideology and the philosophy of thought experiments within their own visualized world trumps reality. And by reality, I mean all the dynamics of the real world, and the understanding of it, and not just social dynamics, but physical dynamics, and how it all interrelates.

Looks like your sarcasm detector breaks when you think that you are "winning" something intellectually.

Like I said on my Ron Paul book review:

"The enemy is not who you deem to be your political opposition; that mindset has been tried and proven a failure. The enemy is your own ignorance; that is something that you can only win in combating. Every step you take in battling your own ignorance is a small victory. And seeking for others to also take their fight inward rather than externalizing their lack of understanding in more and more heated, vitriolically frothing rhetoric, the more we all move forward."

Follow this and we'll all be much better off.

OK, good. Thanks for admitting it. If you feel like giving it another go, though, feel free.

You make me laugh.  Yes you've crushed me under your towering intellect.  It was the genius stroke of a metaphor about eating arsenic being equivalent to some moral decision or something or the other.  I've been bested.

LOL

 

No, not tired as much as "bored".  I'm bored arguing with half-wit ignoramuses who think they are intellectuals because they've read half a dozen books (if even that!) on their darling Libertarian ideology.

I'm going to go compile some blog posts.  Maybe I'll return sometime this week.

Keeps your eyes peeled.

 

I'm not going to claim that initiating force would never happen. What I do claim is that it would universally be recognized as criminal behavior, regardless of who did it.

lol. he's "tired".

I think he's too afraid to admit that initiating force wouldn't happen in a peaceful society, but unwilling to accept that, because then the onus would be on him to explain why a peaceful society isn't a "good" society.

Then prove it, if you can!

Oh, But I did!



Don't blame me if your arguments are so weak I can destroy them in a few sentences. I do love to watch you dance. So, disappoint me, if you can, and stand your ground. Or, you know, keep dancing, while I get more popcorn.


Did you forget this?


Someone else would like your opinion on it. I doubt you'll give it, since you don't have anything that can refute it, but you did say more voices would help, so... There you are.

Face it, chief. I've got you backed into a corner, and just like Hawker, you can't defend your position. So you run. Which is not the behavior of an intellectually honest scholar.

Maybe later.  I've grown weary of this conversation with you.  Perhaps some time when I'm bored I'll return and answer your supposedly impossible questions - which are, in fact, nothing of the kind.

Also, you never answered the main questions and postulates I raised in that other forum.  You simply danced in the periphery of the conversation like the Sophist you are.  You'd much rather dance at the edge of the conversation, because, once again, the translucent skin of Libertarian Ivory Tower theoreticians burns so easily if exposed to light.

Since you already admitted that "you like to watch me dance" it belies that you actually intend on putting any of your beliefs on the table and therefore are beyond reaching.  Congratulations.  You've solved what every 2 year old child has learned: that if you don't allow your beliefs to be flexible and conforming to reality then you can simply believe whatever you like.  And it might make you happy but that doesn't make it real.  Enjoy your tea parties with your stuffed animals.

 

If there are some more people out there who would like for me to respond, then that would increase the likelihood that I will.  But if it is simply for trying to convince someone who is already a lost cause, then, like I said earlier, then maybe later if I'm bored.  I'd rather work on my book.

If it's really so stupid an analogy, you should be able to tear it apart fairly easily. Perhaps the real reason you won't address it is because you can't. You have no response to it. You also can't refute:


Nor:

Nor can you refute:

The reason my replies are short is that I do not require pages of prose to hide the fact that I have no point. I place my point right out there for all to see, and refute, if they can.

I would also like to point out that I did address your "points" in the very next post in that thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.995254

Now, would you like to address mine, in this one?

The reason I won't 'answer' this is because it's too stupid.  It's a horrible analogy.  Whomever thinks it's a good analogy has the literary sense of a Harry Potter or Twilight novel.

Myrkul has to have the shortest answers of all time because he can't actually 'dance' with me long or else he'd put his foot in his mouth.  I've had all I have to say regarding this on that other thread I cited multiple times, I cut through all the Libertarian nonsense there and posed questions and insights so uncomfortable for the Libertarians that none of them took up the challenge of trying to answer them.

I'd really like to get niemivh's opinion on if this statement is true or false. Obviously there are going to be questions as to whether or not "continued life" or "peaceful society" are always morally preferable, but this seems like a pretty basic statement.

For example, a particularly resilient organism could ingest a small amount of arsenic and continue to survive supposing it had been building an immunity to it. In fact, in Upper Styria, Austria, in the 1800s, there were a group of peasants that were doing this as they saw it as a tonic to cure ills and help control body weight. In the same token, a "peaceful society" might similarly be conditioned to withstand a reasonable use of force, thus perhaps justifying such use within the context of whatever they saw fit.

However, in both instances, the reasons for justification were/are clearly "bunk". The onus is on the person arguing that force is beneficial to provide very clear reasoning for why, and, assuming a blank state where no arsenic has ever been consumed and no force has ever been initiated, which cannot be guaranteed, but must be assumed for a rational philosophical discussion, it is pretty clear to me that arsenic:continued life::initiating force:peaceful society.

EDIT:Is a peaceful society a "good" society is another question, but it seems clear to me that such a claim is a TRUE statement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History

Oh, and if you want to read about Pennsylvania's anarchy (which is mentioned in that wikipedia article, but not detailed), you can see it here: https://www.mises.org/daily/1865