Does this guy's views remind anyone here of anyone: Wikipedia entry.
I don't advocate violence. I however have no problem aligning myself with the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Locke, Madison, Bastiat and Spooner.
Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 87. (Read 105875 times)
I don't advocate violence. I however have no problem aligning myself with the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Locke, Madison, Bastiat and Spooner.
The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.
Quote
I'm well aware of that. You're even dumber than I thought if, after reading all of my posts, you'd think I thought he meant a state of the USA. Is that the best commentary you could come up with?
Here, I highlighted it for you. You referred to a place, not a sovereign political entity. Dumb, whose dumb? Admit you were wrong and get on with it.
Yes, I admit that your posts are so annoying that I often rapidly type out a response, without spending time working out the formally correct wording. I should have said "The state which governs the region you live in." Forgive me for not spending the proper amount of time necessary to satisfy a nutcase.
Does this guy's views remind anyone here of anyone: Wikipedia entry.
The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.
Quote
I'm well aware of that. You're even dumber than I thought if, after reading all of my posts, you'd think I thought he meant a state of the USA. Is that the best commentary you could come up with?
Here, I highlighted it for you. You referred to a place, not a sovereign political entity. Dumb, whose dumb? Admit you were wrong and get on with it.
Same applies to a state.
So the US government is the same as Timothy McVeigh?
If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.
Please enlighten us oh wise one. Answer the question. And if you think he's referring to a State within the United States of America, you're just being coy. The STATE as in statist STATE a.k.a. your GOVERNMENT.
I'm well aware of that. You're even dumber than I thought if, after reading all of my posts, you'd think I thought he meant a state of the USA. Is that the best commentary you could come up with?
Assumption:
If there is a direct threat of violence, the use of violence in response is morally acceptable.
Questions:
If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If there is a direct threat of violence, the use of violence in response is morally acceptable.
Questions:
If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
A nuke that is within range is like a load gun pointed at your face. It may be that the person doing it has no bad intentions, it may even be that the safety catch is on but you cannot allow them to carry on as sooner or later there will be a bang. So yes, if an individual owns a nuclear weapon and its under his control and you are in range, its a direct threat.
Same applies to a state. If its your own state, you can campaign to get them into an arms reduction treaty. If its an ally, you can campaign to have your government lobby that state to enter an arms reduction treaty. If its an enemy, you need your government to act on your behalf to remove the threat, ideally with an arms reduction treaty.
At the moment, parts of the world are dismantling their nukes and other parts are trying to get nukes. We are still at the stage where a US/Russian war would result in human extinction. Hopefully the reductions will continue.
If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.
Please enlighten us oh wise one. Answer the question. And if you think he's referring to a State within the United States of America, you're just being coy. The STATE as in statist STATE a.k.a. your GOVERNMENT.
If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
The state you live in? The two aren't the same. Anyone who thinks the analogy works suffers in a bad way, and I pity them. And it's a fact, I am starting to pity some of the individuals here based on their reasoning abilities, beliefs, and desperate statements they make to defend the costume they've donned while playing political rebel.
Assumption:
If there is a direct threat of violence, the use of violence in response is morally acceptable.
Questions:
If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If there is a direct threat of violence, the use of violence in response is morally acceptable.
Questions:
If an individual owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
If a state owns a nuclear weapon, does that constitute a direct threat?
Ownership and intent don't matter. If its there, its a threat and must be disarmed. If you fail to disarm it, you are at the mercy of the person in control. He doesn't have to leave home but he may as well have a blade at your throat.
You already know this - you agreed that society has the right to use the best way to protect itself from nukes. I'm not sure why you want me to lead you through the same baby steps to sanity again.
You already know this - you agreed that society has the right to use the best way to protect itself from nukes. I'm not sure why you want me to lead you through the same baby steps to sanity again.
You're a liar. I said if it was the best way, and it was determined that there was intent to do harm. 'And' not 'Or'. Possession and intent is necessary. Discuss intent, or I have nothing more to say to you.
If someone is pointing a gun at you, do you have to ask his intent? No - its dangerous. He may love you and hurting you may be the last thing he wants. But if he is pointing a gun at you, you have to stop him. Intent is irrelevant. You are free to protect yourself.
If someone has a nuke and you are in range, the only difference from him pointing a gun at you is that there is no way for the nuke to miss. Do you have to ask his intent? No - its dangerous. He may love you and hurting you may be the last thing he wants. But if he has a nuclear weapon and can kill you, you have to stop him. Intent is irrelevant. You are free to protect yourself.
You already know this to be true. Why are you even arguing?
Exactly! Any individual's idea of acceptable behaviour is just an opinion. Now, please provide a better response, or admit that you can offer no alternative to MightMakesRight where any arbitrary conflict is not clearly addressed by some contract between the conflicting parties.
Of course there are alternatives. That much is obvious. I just can't say that any alternative is factually true. Asking me whose opinion we should follow is like asking me which football team you should root for. My team, of course.b2c doesn't care about violence. b2c's position is that it doesn't matter if all of humanity dies - what matters is that our rights live on. And he doesn't believe our rights include the right to prevent someone killing you.
...snip...
Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights.
Even if the world ends up as a nuclear wasteland, I would choose that over violating a single person's rights.
So there is no point asking him to come up with a position that involves benefits like reduced violence. His view is that real world consequences don't matter. If you have to die in order for his right to a nuke to be protected, then sucks to be you.
Exactly! Any individual's idea of acceptable behaviour is just an opinion. Now, please provide a better response, or admit that you can offer no alternative to MightMakesRight where any arbitrary conflict is not clearly addressed by some contract between the conflicting parties.
Of course there are alternatives. That much is obvious. I just can't say that any alternative is factually true. Asking me whose opinion we should follow is like asking me which football team you should root for. My team, of course.
Exactly! Any individual's idea of acceptable behaviour is just an opinion. Now, please provide a better response, or admit that you can offer no alternative to MightMakesRight where any arbitrary conflict is not clearly addressed by some contract between the conflicting parties.
Of course there are alternatives. That much is obvious. I just can't say that any alternative is factually true. Asking me whose opinion we should follow is like asking me which football team you should root for. My team, of course.
But, hey, look at you. You want to threaten everyone for hundreds of miles around with nukes irrespective of their wishes, whereas I would only be threatening you. Which of us is the narrow-minded totalitarian?
For a more realistic example, please answer the questions from my previous post (from "Get the idea?" to the end):
In *your* libertarian world, yes, you should fear me, because if you do anything I don't like, anything that I consider an infringement of my rights, then I will seek redress. [...] No contract = no court = no law = MightMakesRight.
For a more realistic example, please answer the questions from my previous post (from "Get the idea?" to the end):
Get the idea? ...
In *your* libertarian world, yes, you should fear me, because if you do anything I don't like, anything that I consider an infringement of my rights, then I will seek redress. [...] No contract = no court = no law = MightMakesRight.
@FredericBastiat: You have not addressed these above points. They are succinct and relevant.
Orderly from the standpoint of absence of violence. You could have a disorderly home, I don't care. I do care if you have lack of order and logic in your laws, especially when they commit acts of aggression against me.
I define "carrying a nuclear weapon around" as either violence or intention to engage in violence. You do not. Which definition should a libertarian society follow? One of the problems facing governments of today is inconsistencies in the body of law they enact - flaws, or lack of coherency and logic, you might say. Others call them "loopholes". Often loopholes are closed with modified legislation if the loophole becomes problematic. In this thread it has been *amply* demonstrated that the libertarianism you and b2c propose is full of inconsistencies. Please try to eliminate these inconsistencies by answering, e.g. the questions in my above-linked post, from "Get the idea?" onwards. How *exactly* am I permitted to behave in the presence of a person who interprets as a threat when I reach for the banana hidden in my pocket?Whose definition should we all follow?
Any answer would simply be an opinion.Whose definition should we all follow?
Any answer would simply be an opinion.
Uhhh, it's not at all clear to me. How personally is your life in shambles, or unpleasant, and so on because of the present qualities of government or, additionally, due to certain missing things in your life?
There are too many things, and I'm not interested in listing any of them. I wouldn't even know where to start. Understand me, I'm not an anarchist per se, but my guess would be 90% of government law is pure unadulterated theft and violence. And besides, just because some of it doesn't directly affect me now, should I want to engage in some future activity that I'm not at the moment, is sufficient enough to give me pause.
You know me well enough. I've spent plenty of time in this forum stating my beliefs and philosophies. Go read up, don't make me regurgitate it.
I'm just having a really tough time in seeing how your supposed hardships correlate directly with how you think society and government exists today. I'm not buying it. I think many of us would like concrete examples.
Uhhh, it's not at all clear to me. How personally is your life in shambles, or unpleasant, and so on because of the present qualities of government or, additionally, due to certain missing things in your life?
There are too many things, and I'm not interested in listing any of them. I wouldn't even know where to start. Understand me, I'm not an anarchist per se, but my guess would be 90% of government law is pure unadulterated theft and violence. And besides, just because some of it doesn't directly affect me now, should I want to engage in some future activity that I'm not at the moment, is sufficient enough to give me pause.
You know me well enough. I've spent plenty of time in this forum stating my beliefs and philosophies. Go read up, don't make me regurgitate it.
My ideology just makes it more difficult for you to justify stealing from others to achieve some legal means to an end. It truly is sad if our civilization cares less for the ill and inferm. It's even sadder when we have to steal by covert indirect violence and deception, via unjust laws, in an attempt to try to remedy the situation. All this while trying to appear benevolent and kind. Shame.
What, exactly is your concern, again? Because it's not clear to me. Share your hardships with us.
Uhhhh... errrr... ummm... Read above quote. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Uhhh, it's not at all clear to me. How personally is your life in shambles, or unpleasant, and so on because of the present qualities of government or, additionally, due to certain missing things in your life?
My ideology just makes it more difficult for you to justify stealing from others to achieve some legal means to an end. It truly is sad if our civilization cares less for the ill and inferm. It's even sadder when we have to steal by covert indirect violence and deception, via unjust laws, in an attempt to try to remedy the situation. All this while trying to appear benevolent and kind. Shame.
What, exactly is your concern, again? Because it's not clear to me. Share your hardships with us.
Uhhhh... errrr... ummm... Read above quote. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Jump to: