The state cannot exist without taxation.
That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.
No, I do not believe that states are necessary (because humans self-organize) or desirable (because they are inherently violent).
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 65. (Read 105893 times)
That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.
No, I do not believe that states are necessary (because humans self-organize) or desirable (because they are inherently violent).
The state cannot exist without taxation.
That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes.
What are you ranting about?
Can you explain how threatening to put someone in jail, or kill them if they resist being taken to jail, if they do not pay you money is not violence?
The state cannot exist without taxation.
Taxation is violent.
Thus, the state is inherently violent.
Yet somehow you believe that an inherently violent organization is the solution to violence?
Can you explain this paradox?
Can you explain how threatening to put someone in jail, or kill them if they resist being taken to jail, if they do not pay you money is not violence?
The state cannot exist without taxation.
Taxation is violent.
Thus, the state is inherently violent.
Yet somehow you believe that an inherently violent organization is the solution to violence?
Can you explain this paradox?
It is true that nation states interact in a way that is anarchic. However, they are still nation states, which are systems of institutionalized violence.
Did you indicate to me anywhere that in your lib-land, when I venture onto your property, I am not subject to your house rules, not subject to you pointing a gun at me, not subject to paying a tariff, toll, fee or tax, and not subject to who knows what?
It's a system built upon violence. You can see it if you try, but it does call into question everything you think you know. This fact will sit in the back of your mind, nagging you, until one day you see it.
Did you indicate to me that in your lib-land, when I venture onto your property, I don't have a nagging sense that you are in control, might have stockpiled weapons, and might lay down some rules if I choose to remain on your property?
You really want to stop the violence? Stop paying taxes, starve the beast. Without your money, it has no power.
No thanks. Why would I want to starve the beast that keeps wackos from having nuclear weapons in their garden shed?
He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others.
I can assure you - I don't have a blind spot for chaos, which results in huge death rates.
Do you want a prime example of your libertarian system at work everyday in a really big way? It works exactly as you have specified. It's called the world. It has 192 members, and each claim their own property and do what they wish on their own property. Hands off to anyone else! There is no centralized authority. It's a classic example of "If you're on my property, you follow my rules!" Disagreements are worked out via sanctions, courts, treaties, private security forces, weapons, etc. Many have nuclear weapons! Imagine that. Kind of like your lib-land, eh?
It is true that nation states interact in a way that is anarchic. However, they are still nation states, which are systems of institutionalized violence. They rely upon violence for funding, and all your hand waving will not change the fact that if you ignore the tax man (an act which can only be construed as violent by twisted logic), a man shows up your door with a gun. How do you expect such violent monoplies to act to one another?
It's a system built upon violence. You can see it if you try, but it does call into question everything you think you know. This fact will sit in the back of your mind, nagging you, until one day you see it.
What is your alternative proposal? One world government? One violent state to rule them all?
You really want to stop the violence? Stop paying taxes, starve the beast. Without your money, it has no power.
He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others.
I can assure you - I don't have a blind spot for chaos, which results in huge death rates.
Do you want a prime example of your libertarian system at work everyday in a really big way? It works exactly as you have specified. It's called the world. It has 192 members, and each claim their own property and do what they wish on their own property. Hands off to anyone else! There is no centralized authority. It's a classic example of "If you're on my property, you follow my rules!" Disagreements are worked out via sanctions, courts, treaties, private security forces, weapons, etc. Many have nuclear weapons! Imagine that. Kind of like your lib-land, eh?
Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".
I advocate that you use common sense.
You also advocate violence.
He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others.
As Monty Python said, "come and see the violence inherent in the system."
Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".
I advocate that you use common sense.
You also advocate violence.
Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".
I advocate that you use common sense.
Note that you are allowed the first and third action. Why do you suppose that is? What makes the first and third different from the middle? Need a hint? I'll give it to you: "potential harm to others."
I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?
You really know different ways of getting nuclear bomb or my property out of my possession other than with violence? Do tell.
Geez. First of all, do you understand that the first goal is to prevent you from ever possessing such a device? Secondly, do you understand that if you willfully engage in risky behavior, bad things can happen?
Suggestion: don't climb El Capitan without a proper belay.
Suggestion: don't handle nuclear weapons.
Suggestion: don't wander around in dark alleys at night.
The key actions listed above, respectively are: climb, handle, wander. You know these things going in. You know the consequences. What happens is in your control.
Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".
I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?
You really know different ways of getting nuclear bomb or my property out of my possession other than with violence? Do tell.
Geez. First of all, do you understand that the first goal is to prevent you from ever possessing such a device? Secondly, do you understand that if you willfully engage in risky behavior, bad things can happen?
Suggestion: don't climb El Capitan without a proper belay.
Suggestion: don't handle nuclear weapons.
Suggestion: don't wander around in dark alleys at night.
The key actions listed above, respectively are: climb, handle, wander. You know these things going in. You know the consequences. What happens is in your control.
I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?
You really know different ways of getting nuclear bomb or my property out of my possession other than with violence? Do tell.
The fact that AyeYo has been there five years tells me just about all I need to know about that place. The fact that you seem so keen to change venues seems a little bizarre. Are you incapable of arguing without help? Why does it matter where we debate? Are you incapable of putting my ideas to the test by yourself? I'll let you spin this however you want but the fact remains, I'm here, argue if you want but do so respectfully or you'll be disregarded by me and won't be taken seriously. It's your choice.
That looks like you've made a decision to not go over there based on the environment you'd find yourself in.
Allow me to quote you.
you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there
Which is clearly a lie. Nowhere in the post that you quoted do I say that. All I say is that, "I'm here, if you want to argue then do it". You might have interpreted it differently and in which case, I can correct your misunderstanding but don't just make up lies and claim I said something I did not. If and when I can make a post in the politics section, I will. I suggest you just wait until then before furthering this pointless derail.
From my point of view, you were very clearly hesitant to get involved in posting over there. You can set us straight when you begin posting over there.
We're not speaking of the intentions of the mugger. Don't confuse the matter. We're talking about your decision making process. You've made a claim, and I'm calling you on it. You're trying to claim that you're going to end up being killed. I'm calling you on it.
You're not even following the argument. I'm calling you on the fact that you do advocate killing people just as much as a mugger does.
I've never advocated any such thing. There are other means to collect money. Do you have first hand experience with the matter?
The fact that AyeYo has been there five years tells me just about all I need to know about that place. The fact that you seem so keen to change venues seems a little bizarre. Are you incapable of arguing without help? Why does it matter where we debate? Are you incapable of putting my ideas to the test by yourself? I'll let you spin this however you want but the fact remains, I'm here, argue if you want but do so respectfully or you'll be disregarded by me and won't be taken seriously. It's your choice.
That looks like you've made a decision to not go over there based on the environment you'd find yourself in.
Allow me to quote you.
you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there
Which is clearly a lie. Nowhere in the post that you quoted do I say that. All I say is that, "I'm here, if you want to argue then do it". You might have interpreted it differently and in which case, I can correct your misunderstanding but don't just make up lies and claim I said something I did not. If and when I can make a post in the politics section, I will. I suggest you just wait until then before furthering this pointless derail.
We're not speaking of the intentions of the mugger. Don't confuse the matter. We're talking about your decision making process. You've made a claim, and I'm calling you on it. You're trying to claim that you're going to end up being killed. I'm calling you on it.
You're not even following the argument. I'm calling you on the fact that you do advocate killing people just as much as a mugger does.
I think unless FirstAscent, AyeYo, or Hawker can themselves explain how exactly a free market libertarian system can address the issues they bring up, and THEN explain why that way of addressing those issues is worse than it's currently done...
Please show us where we have not done that. I'm not a big fan of rewriting 500 word posts.
Here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/intellectual-property-in-all-fairness-38854
I have yet to see any of you answer the question of how a libertarian free-market society would prevent crazy people from owning nukes, or juggling vials of dangerous bioweapons.
I think unless FirstAscent, AyeYo, or Hawker can themselves explain how exactly a free market libertarian system can address the issues they bring up, and THEN explain why that way of addressing those issues is worse than it's currently done...
Please show us where we have not done that. I'm not a big fan of rewriting 500 word posts.
we do have a post of yours here where you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there
You're either lying or confused. I offered you a deal in post #882 and I let you run your mouth until post #945 when I finally revealed that I had registered hours earlier when were first discussing it. As I mentioned once but I guess I'll say it again, I can't start a thread or make a post in the politics section anyways so this whole "dare" amounts to absolutely nothing.
I'm not confused at all. Here's your post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.543311
I'll quote it:
The fact that AyeYo has been there five years tells me just about all I need to know about that place. The fact that you seem so keen to change venues seems a little bizarre. Are you incapable of arguing without help? Why does it matter where we debate? Are you incapable of putting my ideas to the test by yourself? I'll let you spin this however you want but the fact remains, I'm here, argue if you want but do so respectfully or you'll be disregarded by me and won't be taken seriously. It's your choice.
That looks like you've made a decision to not go over there based on the environment you'd find yourself in. Welcome to reality.
Once again, I suspect that you won't ever let it come to that.
So, in other words, you advocate it but you just don't think it will come to that. Much like a mugger doesn't think he'll have to shoot anyone.
We're not speaking of the intentions of the mugger. Don't confuse the matter. We're talking about your decision making process. You've made a claim, and I'm calling you on it. You're trying to claim that you're going to end up being killed. I'm calling you on it.
I think unless FirstAscent, AyeYo, or Hawker can themselves explain how exactly a free market libertarian system can address the issues they bring up, and THEN explain why that way of addressing those issues is worse than it's currently done, this whole "debate" will be nothing but a circle-jerk by people who can't even understand what they are talkimg about. "You're wrong, it won't work, because I said so/it's stupid/because it's not how things currently work" is not an argument. You guys have not demonstrated an ability, or willingness, to think things through, and instead are rather quick to let this "debate" degenerate into personal insults.
we do have a post of yours here where you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there
You're either lying or confused. I offered you a deal in post #882 and I let you run your mouth until post #945 when I finally revealed that I had registered hours earlier when were first discussing it. As I mentioned once but I guess I'll say it again, I can't start a thread or make a post in the politics section anyways so this whole "dare" amounts to absolutely nothing.
Once again, I suspect that you won't ever let it come to that.
So, in other words, you advocate it but you just don't think it will come to that. Much like a mugger doesn't think he'll have to shoot anyone.
Yes I do.
Money. Mouth.
I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.
Please demonstrate to me, by referencing any post I have ever made here, where I advocate the killing of any person.
So what happens when I have a nuclear bomb on my property and I don't just hand it over?
What, in general, are your expectations in this world (natural and artificial), and this society, when you engage in extraordinarily risky behavior outside your bounds of expertise? Tell me, do you adjust your behavior and temper your decision making based on outside influences?
Consider that not too long ago, you made the decision to not post over at honda-tech.com. To your credit, you subsequently claimed that you decided to sign up over there, but we do have a post of yours here where you said that you wished to not engage in posting over there. I would qualify that as a decision that you made based on accepting that there are outside forces that you did not wish to risk engagement with.
Tell me now, what kind of rational thought and decision making processes do you apply in this world with regard to acquisition of WMDs? Simultaneously, please indicate to me that in your favored libertarian land, you will be forever free of being confronted with situations that force you to choose a less favorable path than you would ordinarily desire so that you can avoid consequences that are not appealing to you.
Quote
What happens when I don't pay my taxes? You're going to send me a nasty letter? Fine, I'll ball it up and toss it in my trashcan. I doubt it will end there though. Ultimately, all laws are threats of imprisonment or death. If you don't understand that then you have no business saying what should and shouldn't be a law.
Well, keep me informed of that one. Once again, I suspect that you won't ever let it come to that. You see, once again, we all find ourselves in reality, and our decisions are guided by reality. Let me know.
Jump to: