Topic: Myrkul Sells AnCap... (Read 8698 times)
I wasn't talking to you. I was pointing out that the barn idea can be used in modern examples, and that having to rely on homesteading and force without the government is a stupid fear.
Writing software and building automation machines can be done without a tax collector, too.
I don't recall anyone saying it couldn't.And what's wrong with rent? Why the need to homestead?
Renting is fine. Provided that the actual owner of the property established ownership in a legitimate, rights-respecting manner. The way to do that is to homestead it, or to acquire it in voluntary exchange with someone who did, or with someone who acquired it in voluntary exchange from someone who did, etc.And how many times a year do you people have some stranger knocking on your door, asking to see your deed to the house, threatening to kick you out and homestead on your property if you don't have it readily available?
That's not homesteading, it's eviction. And it's irrelevant.
Writing software and building automation machines can be done without a tax collector, too. And what's wrong with rent? Why the need to homestead? And how many times a year do you people have some stranger knocking on your door, asking to see your deed to the house, threatening to kick you out and homestead on your property if you don't have it readily available?
Sorry, but my experiences were unpaid and just plain real life. But the ideas you put in my head are of the Wild West, precisely because of your attitude, which is, drum roll, please...
Homesteading, a gun on your hip, and staking your claim
Homesteading, a gun on your hip, and staking your claim
Well, I'm glad you have a more romantic vision of me than I do of myself. I won't be going up Brokeback Mountain with you, however. Sorry if I have disappointed you.
Disappointment somehow implies a previous respect for you. And to be honest, you're free to head up Brokeback Mountain with your current partner, whomever he may be. I don't go in for that sort of thing.
You had me fooled there, what with how much of a crush you have on me. So maybe, if you don't want to jump my bones, you should leave me the fuck alone.
Sorry, but my experiences were unpaid and just plain real life. But the ideas you put in my head are of the Wild West, precisely because of your attitude, which is, drum roll, please...
Homesteading, a gun on your hip, and staking your claim
Homesteading, a gun on your hip, and staking your claim
Well, I'm glad you have a more romantic vision of me than I do of myself. I won't be going up Brokeback Mountain with you, however. Sorry if I have disappointed you.
Disappointment somehow implies a previous respect for you. And to be honest, you're free to head up Brokeback Mountain with your current partner, whomever he may be. I don't go in for that sort of thing.
Sorry, but my experiences were unpaid and just plain real life. But the ideas you put in my head are of the Wild West, precisely because of your attitude, which is, drum roll, please...
Homesteading, a gun on your hip, and staking your claim
Homesteading, a gun on your hip, and staking your claim
Well, I'm glad you have a more romantic vision of me than I do of myself. I won't be going up Brokeback Mountain with you, however. Sorry if I have disappointed you.
Always the allusion to the settler days and the wild west.
What? Please do tell what has superseded barns in your part of the world? Some high-tech solar-powered force-field perhaps?
He's a suburban Angelino. Probably hasn't ever seen a cow that wasn't already ground up.
Almost completely correct, myrkul, except for everything in your post. I grew up with a barn and two horses on our property. I've helped build one barn and one horse shelter. For many years I lived in a house across the street from an open range where cattle grazed. I've ridden a Thoroughbred, a Mustang and a Quarter Horse, none of which were rental horses.
So, then, you're what, 110, 115, to have done these things back in the "settler days"? After all, the comment that started all this was in response to:
Barns can get built without the need for a tax collector.
And you then implied that barns only needed to get built back in the wild west. So, I assume, since you have built a barn, It was for Sheriff Earp? Or did you go on one of those "Old west" camping trips? How much did you pay for your "authentic" experience?Sorry, but my experiences were unpaid and just plain real life. But the ideas you put in my head are of the Wild West, precisely because of your attitude, which is, drum roll, please...
Homesteading, a gun on your hip, and staking your claim
Always the allusion to the settler days and the wild west.
What? Please do tell what has superseded barns in your part of the world? Some high-tech solar-powered force-field perhaps?
He's a suburban Angelino. Probably hasn't ever seen a cow that wasn't already ground up.
Almost completely correct, myrkul, except for everything in your post. I grew up with a barn and two horses on our property. I've helped build one barn and one horse shelter. For many years I lived in a house across the street from an open range where cattle grazed. I've ridden a Thoroughbred, a Mustang and a Quarter Horse, none of which were rental horses.
So, then, you're what, 110, 115, to have done these things back in the "settler days"? After all, the comment that started all this was in response to:
Barns can get built without the need for a tax collector.
And you then implied that barns only needed to get built back in the wild west. So, I assume, since you have built a barn, It was for Sheriff Earp? Or did you go on one of those "Old west" camping trips? How much did you pay for your "authentic" experience? Always the allusion to the settler days and the wild west.
What? Please do tell what has superseded barns in your part of the world? Some high-tech solar-powered force-field perhaps?
He's a suburban Angelino. Probably hasn't ever seen a cow that wasn't already ground up.
Almost completely correct, myrkul, except for everything in your post. I grew up with a barn and two horses on our property. I've helped build one barn and one horse shelter. For many years I lived in a house across the street from an open range where cattle grazed. I've ridden a Thoroughbred, a Mustang and a Quarter Horse, none of which were rental horses. And I'm not an Angelino. Sometimes you just can't figure people from their Internet posts.
He's a suburban Angelino. Probably hasn't ever seen a cow that wasn't already ground up.
It also occurred to me that other than driving the country into the ditch, this guy is also well known for something not completely dissimilar
Quote from: Wikipedia
The mission statement of Habitat for Humanity is "Seeking to put God’s love into action, Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope."[2] Homes are built using volunteer labor and are sold at no profit.
Always the allusion to the settler days and the wild west.
What? Please do tell what has superseded barns in your part of the world? Some high-tech solar-powered force-field perhaps?
He's a suburban Angelino. Probably hasn't ever seen a cow that wasn't already ground up.
Always the allusion to the settler days and the wild west.
What? Please do tell what has superseded barns in your part of the world? Some high-tech solar-powered force-field perhaps?
Barns can get built without the need for a tax collector.
Always the allusion to the settler days and the wild west. Nostalgia is fun! Homesteading, a gun on your hip, staking your claim.
I love Albert Bierstadt too: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&cp=9&gs_id=5b&xhr=t&q=albert+bierstadt&safe=off&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I&bpcl=40096503&biw=1107&bih=1027&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=io3UUL_6BcaA2QX3z4HwBw
Did you like Heaven's Gate? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUfnWwqNAg
2) There are many things that might seem obvious to some people, but are extremely hard to communicate to others. For example, regarding these notions of "compulsory voluntarism" AKA "consensus based society" -- I'm sure most 10 year olds intuitively understand from personal experience in the playground, that if you get a large enough group together, there's no way in hell everyone is always going to agree on everything. They also see that things generally work better if the group succeeds in making a decision rather than dithering. They also understand peer pressure, where some members of a group say that they "voluntarily agree" when they're actually relenting. They understand that there's an unspoken exchange going on: group membership and activities have value, and 'weak' or submissive members must make sacrifices for everyone's sake. An-Cap supporters don't seem to get these basics, and they somehow imagine that everyone is already basically the same. This is pure speculation, but these discussions give me the impression that An-Cap supporters maybe missed out on those playground social lessons due to all that 'home-schooling'. Or maybe they suffered some terrible trauma at the hands of "State school bullies or teachers", which destroyed their innocence and naive faith in authority figures?
Total straw man. In such a group, even with peer pressure and weak or strong members, an individual is always free not to participate (hopefully). Barns can get built without the need for a tax collector.
More idiocy from AugustoCroppo... You're not fooling anyone, numbnuts.
Of course I am not fooling anyone. That is what you are trying to do, not me. I am preventing critical thinkers to waste time checking your references, so they can efficiently understand how you try to fool them. I am not concerned with you, I am concerned with the readers observing the discussion.
Edit: By the way, you did not subverted my user name this time. I am glad you are learning to respect the name which people owns. I therefore offer my apologies for the name I subverted to teach you a lesson. I will edit the posts where I made that.
Aside from the "public property" quip, that's a description of an AnCap phyle, or society group. The whole "forming an association," forming a contract, giving of oneself to work together to overcome obstacles of life, etc. The reason is that what is being described is a contract.
No, it is not:
What we have in reality isn't a contract, since contracts are voluntary agreements between two or more people.
So, what you have if is not the social contract?
Two can play the definition game:
"Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest."
"Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest."
More pseudoscience from Myrkul....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
More idiocy from AugustoCroppo... You're not fooling anyone, numbnuts.
Two can play the definition game:
"Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest."
"Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest."
More pseudoscience from Myrkul....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
Quote
Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.[1][2][3]
It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual, group, or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good".[4][5][6]
It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual, group, or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good".[4][5][6]
The term 'enlightened self-interest' was used by John Ikerd in his article Rethinking the Economics of Self-Interests, 1999...
http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.html
Quote
However, that social and ethical foundation has been seriously eroded over the past two centuries -- as glorification of greed has replaced enlightened self-interest.
...and by Mastiff in his blog post "Enlightened Self-Interest" vs. Communal Responsibility, 2005:
http://criticalmastiff.blogspot.com/2005/07/enlightened-self-interest-vs-communal.html
Quote
He answered, briefly, that if people were free to follow their selfish impulses, the problems would work themselves out. This is due to the idea of enlightened self-interest, i.e. that it is in the best interests of each individual to do things that benefit the group. (He gave the example of planting fruit trees on his property that he would never live to eat from, because doing so raises his property value.)
'Enlightened self-interest' is not a philosophy in ethics. It is just a fancy use of words by two random writers.
Quote
The social order originates in an altogether primitive and unanimous agreement. When men in the state of nature have reached that stage where the individual is unable to cope with adverse forces, they are compelled to change their way of living. They cannot create new forces, but they can unite their individual energies and thus overcome the obstacles to life. The fundamental problem is, then, "to find a form of association which defends and protects with the whole common energy, the person and property of each associate, and by which each individual associate, uniting himself to all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before". The solution is a contract by which each one puts in common his person and all his forces under the supreme direction of the "general will". Where results a moral and collective body formed of as many members as there are persons in the community. In this body the condition is equal for all, since each gives himself wholly; the union is perfect, since each gives himself unreservedly; and finally, each, giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody. This body is called the "State or Sovereign"; the members, who, taken together, form "the people" are the "citizens" as participating in the supreme authority, and "subjects" as subjected to the laws. By this contract man passes from the natural to the civil state, from instinct to morality and justice. He loses his natural freedom and his unlimited right to all that he attempts or is able to do, but he gains civil liberty and the ownership of all that he possesses by becoming the acknowledged trustee of a part of the public property.
Aside from the "public property" quip, that's a description of an AnCap phyle, or society group. The whole "forming an association," forming a contract, giving of oneself to work together to overcome obstacles of life, etc. The reason is that what is being described is a contract. What we have in reality isn't a contract, since contracts are voluntary agreements between two or more people.
I reckon the plantation owners felt they could do some pretty good rationalization too.
Jump to: