Maximum role of Government? - page 24.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 04:02:10 PM

"I have an Ax (or knife) and want to make a hole in the boat" is a pretty clear statement of intent. Acting on that intent (moving the ax or knife toward the hull) is more than enough to warrant 'Clear and present danger'.

Still waiting on your arguments as to why Murder is wrong.

What if there is no statement of intent? Or what if he's a juggler that decides to practice knife juggling in your life raft. You can't coerce him to stop, right?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 03:57:12 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:55:11 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 03:51:57 PM

LOL

And what if he's got a gun? Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

If you've got them. But Self defense against an armed assailant is well-trod ground. No need to run over it again.

It's not self-defense (according to you) until he's actually done something wrong. I can't stop him mid-swing (as JA37 pointed out) because he hasn't actually done anything wrong. There's nothing wrong with swinging an axe through the air.

"I have an Ax (or knife) and want to make a hole in the boat" is a pretty clear statement of intent. Acting on that intent (moving the ax or knife toward the hull) is more than enough to warrant 'Clear and present danger'.

Still waiting on your arguments as to why Murder is wrong.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:55:11 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 03:51:57 PM

LOL

And what if he's got a gun? Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

If you've got them. But Self defense against an armed assailant is well-trod ground. No need to run over it again.

It's not self-defense (according to you) until he's actually done something wrong. I can't stop him mid-swing (as JA37 pointed out) because he hasn't actually done anything wrong. There's nothing wrong with swinging an axe through the air.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 03:51:57 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:46:58 PM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 03:42:49 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:33:08 PM

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
Roll Eyes

Damaging the boat would be the actual 'initiation' of force, thus, pushing the axe-man off the boat would be self defense. You can do it as soon as he starts his swing.

LOL

And what if he's got a gun? Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

Or a life raft and a knife. Punctuating it is a rather easy and quick thing to do.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 03:51:57 PM

LOL

And what if he's got a gun? Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

If you've got them. But Self defense against an armed assailant is well-trod ground. No need to run over it again.

Still waiting on your arguments as to why murder is wrong.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:46:58 PM

Damaging the boat would be the actual 'initiation' of force, thus, pushing the axe-man off the boat would be self defense. You can do it as soon as he starts his swing.

Why? Don't you have to prove damage before you can act on it? How do you know he won't stop just before impact?

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:46:58 PM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 03:42:49 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:33:08 PM

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
Roll Eyes

Damaging the boat would be the actual 'initiation' of force, thus, pushing the axe-man off the boat would be self defense. You can do it as soon as he starts his swing.

LOL

And what if he's got a gun? Do I use my Jedi reflexes to catch the bullet as soon as he fires it?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 03:42:49 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:33:08 PM

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
Roll Eyes

Damaging the boat would be the actual 'initiation' of force, thus, pushing the axe-man off the boat would be self defense. You can do it as soon as he starts his swing.

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 03:33:08 PM

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

Yes, and I've also heard that "three lefts do".

I imagine the following scenario.
A number of people are sitting in a boat in shark infested waters. One of them have an axe.
Axe-man: I want to make a hole in the boat
Passengers: Don't, we'll die.
Axe-man: Well, you can't initiate force against me and coerce me to do what you want. I want to make a hole. After the damage is done you can sue me if you like.
Roll Eyes

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 10, 2011, 03:08:10 PM

Nothing about my views have changed. It's rather dishonest to try to frame the discussion as if they have. I've never been interested in achieving your ideal society, only the libertarian ideal society.

I won't compromise libertarianism. Your rhetoric fails.

Then you will never have anything that even resembles libertarianism. Shame. Everything in libertarianism isn't completely bonkers, but it seems that the followers refuse to live in the real world.

Want to know my ideal society? It's a society where we all try to get along and were everyone realizes that you can't always get everything your way, and that you have to compromise to find a way that is acceptable to all.
It's not going to happen either, but I can dream.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: JA37 on July 11, 2011, 03:25:34 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 02:24:17 PM

In order to enforce environmental regulation, you will need to use coercion. This is in violation of my principles, and therefore wrong. If humankind cannot produce a voluntary solution to the environmental issues, then the end result (The earth becoming uninhabitable to people, and so, no more people) is only just.

So because your principles dictate that nobody can be coerced a few people are free to fuck up everything for everybody else. How is that just?

Voluntary solution. Ever hear the phrase 'Two wrongs don't make a right'?

JA37

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 02:24:17 PM

In order to enforce environmental regulation, you will need to use coercion. This is in violation of my principles, and therefore wrong. If humankind cannot produce a voluntary solution to the environmental issues, then the end result (The earth becoming uninhabitable to people, and so, no more people) is only just.

So because your principles dictate that nobody can be coerced a few people are free to fuck up everything for everybody else. How is that just?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 02:49:14 PM

You too invited to actually justify this view point.

You can sit there like bitcoin2cash does and just state it over and over, but we're only interested in hearing your justification for it and the arguments behind it.

Do me a favor, and justify why murder is wrong. I promise it will not be wasted effort.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 02:24:17 PM

Quote from: ascent on July 11, 2011, 02:07:48 PM

ad hominem attacks removed> he thinks that reciting canned Latin phrases and mantras is the equivalent of engaging in discourse. If one cannot articulate his own point of view and engage in meaningful conversation, and dig deeper into the subject matter, than one usually resorts to a set of scripted responses that add no further information.

No, I do not believe that 'canned Latin phrases' are the equivalent of engaging in discourse.

Here, for the umpteenth time, I will articulate my point of view:

In order to enforce environmental regulation, you will need to use coercion. This is in violation of my principles, and therefore wrong. If humankind cannot produce a voluntary solution to the environmental issues, then the end result (The earth becoming uninhabitable to people, and so, no more people) is only just.

You too invited to actually justify this view point.

You can sit there like bitcoin2cash does and just state it over and over, but we're only interested in hearing your justification for it and the arguments behind it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ascent on July 11, 2011, 02:07:48 PM

ad hominem attacks removed> he thinks that reciting canned Latin phrases and mantras is the equivalent of engaging in discourse. If one cannot articulate his own point of view and engage in meaningful conversation, and dig deeper into the subject matter, than one usually resorts to a set of scripted responses that add no further information.

No, I do not believe that 'canned Latin phrases' are the equivalent of engaging in discourse.

Here, for the umpteenth time, I will articulate my point of view:

In order to enforce environmental regulation, you will need to use coercion. This is in violation of my principles, and therefore wrong. If humankind cannot produce a voluntary solution to the environmental issues, then the end result (The earth becoming uninhabitable to people, and so, no more people) is only just.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Explodicle on July 11, 2011, 01:59:50 PM

Of course now that we have Bitcoin, frictionless automated externality negotiation might be possible, but I'm just daydreaming for now... Roll Eyes

No, I think you've hit the nail pretty close to on the head. All that is needed is for all the parties to agree on the damage done, and the method of repayment. The Internet and Bitcoin, I think have those problems solved.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 01:48:05 PM

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

He's twelve because he thinks that reciting canned Latin phrases and mantras is the equivalent of engaging in discourse. If one cannot articulate his own point of view and engage in meaningful conversation, and dig deeper into the subject matter, than one usually resorts to a set of scripted responses that add no further information.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 01:41:57 PM

Quote from: ascent on July 11, 2011, 01:19:13 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 11, 2011, 01:11:23 PM

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, huh?

There is no need for such a system, states can negotiate treaties without losing sovereignty. The same can be said for anarchist groups, but it's harder because there are more parties involved. It's a classic Coase theorem example.

Of course now that we have Bitcoin, frictionless automated externality negotiation might be possible, but I'm just daydreaming for now... Roll Eyes

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 01:48:05 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 11, 2011, 01:41:57 PM

Quote from: ascent on July 11, 2011, 01:19:13 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 11, 2011, 01:11:23 PM

Competing jurisdictions. The market will decide the law.

I guess you still haven't grasped the concept that there needs to be a global standard for managing the environment, which begins where your feet touch the ground locally.

Ah! So your agenda is revealed at last. You're a one world government type.

Novus Ordo Seclorum, huh?

Lickus Mis Scrotum

Know how I know you're 12 years old?

One last time.

Troll Elsewhere.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: AyeYo on July 11, 2011, 01:48:05 PM

Lickus Mis Scrotum

Know how I you know ~~you're~~ I'm 12 years old?

Because you make childish insults?

Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 24. (Read 28705 times)