Ummm.. no. My mother never spanked me. Ever. Nor did she use any other form of discipline at all (quiet corner time etc.). Instead she tried to persuade me to do what she wanted using words.
In fact, like a true statist, she intervened when she saw people hitting their children in public. Humorously, this once resulted in a fight between my mom and a rather large African-American lady.
I guess that intervention to help defenseless children is what you call 'selective violence.' I am all for it.
Topic: Private school is child slavery!!! - page 2. (Read 8717 times)
That fits in rather nicely with my usage of the word. AnCap supporters want exclusive control by means of imposing
Quote
"the one law" on ALL of society, and...
I'm sure that does indeed fit quite nicely with your usage of the word. Unfortunately, it doesn't fit with the sentence you're using it in. I really don't see why you have such a problem with it, since that "one law" says only "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal." Did your mommy not teach you these things?His mommy probably taught him "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal" all the while mommy herself bullied and hit him all the time (and no doubt treated his property as if it belonged to her). That's how he came to believe that stealing, hitting and bullying is okay and virtuous, so long as you are part of the magical group of people with permission to do so.
Inconsistency, lies and selective violence is how you breed a normal kid into a statist moron.
I really don't see why you have such a problem with it, since that "one law" says only "Don't bully, don't hit, and don't steal." Did your mommy not teach you these things?
Rather than being sarcastic, ask yourself: don't steal what? Property is enshrined into that law like it's an almighty "act of god", rather than something invented by the human intellect. But it seems you are too brainwashed to see it no matter what I say.
My mommy taught me to emphasize with those less fortunate. She said that every rule was secondary to this. She said that a paternalistic state was best for society. She said that even though we were quite well-off, we should always vote for tax increases on affluent people like ourselves.
As a scientist, she taught me to trust in induction and dismiss philosophical arguments.
I guess your mommy taught you to be an AnCap? Bad mommy, very bad. It is much worse to have had a bad mommy than it is to live in a slave state.
So I havent read the whole thread nor do I intend to, I went to a private christian school 7-11th grade, I was kicked out my junior year for drinking. I blew my knee out during football and had gotten fairly addicted to painkillers thanks to a generous 6x60 percocet (sp?) 30mg script. First time ever using drugs and I went overboard. All the while my sister had to drop out of school for a semester and was in the hospital for 3 months, not one person ever called and asked how I was. I was living at my buddies house because my parents were with my sister at the hospital and my coaches/teachers couldnt have cared less. Private [Christian] institutions as I know them are hypocritical, so much so I am no longer a practicing christian, not one time over the course of 4 years there did I ever feel "God's love" there were good people there and I do not intend to bash christians for the wrong doing of a few.
Now the worst part of it all is that when you sign up to go to school there both you AND your parents sign forms saying that they are allowed to discipline you in whatever manner they see fit and you are not allowed to sue them for wrong doing. In a sense I had to sign away personal rights to attend school there. Instead of getting detention for being late our football coach was informed and we were punished by at practice, our coach happened to be the dean of students and not the kind of man to fuck with.
I graduated from PLD in Lexington and while my class was 500 compared to 120 at my other school the group of friends I have are the most loyal, kind, fair and generous people you will ever know. When I have kids they will go to public school no question, of the friends I know from the private school 4 have ended up in rehab 2 are pregnant and 6 have dropped out of school that leaves 3 still on track to be successful... Now with my group of friends we are all juniors at the University of Kentucky and only one person has decided to drop out of college. I think there is no question which environment better prepares you for life. Of course the only advantage of going to private school is the networking, a guy 3 years older who went there was on Romney's campaign team first year out of college. If you live in the US you pay for education either way, but the extra $$ for private school is not at all worth it.
Now the worst part of it all is that when you sign up to go to school there both you AND your parents sign forms saying that they are allowed to discipline you in whatever manner they see fit and you are not allowed to sue them for wrong doing. In a sense I had to sign away personal rights to attend school there. Instead of getting detention for being late our football coach was informed and we were punished by at practice, our coach happened to be the dean of students and not the kind of man to fuck with.
I graduated from PLD in Lexington and while my class was 500 compared to 120 at my other school the group of friends I have are the most loyal, kind, fair and generous people you will ever know. When I have kids they will go to public school no question, of the friends I know from the private school 4 have ended up in rehab 2 are pregnant and 6 have dropped out of school that leaves 3 still on track to be successful... Now with my group of friends we are all juniors at the University of Kentucky and only one person has decided to drop out of college. I think there is no question which environment better prepares you for life. Of course the only advantage of going to private school is the networking, a guy 3 years older who went there was on Romney's campaign team first year out of college. If you live in the US you pay for education either way, but the extra $$ for private school is not at all worth it.
No, I'm not "laying down the law" on how things should be treated. There's only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property.
So, what you're basically saying, but cannot bring yourself to admit, is that AnCap would be a monopoly on force?
Oh. No quote from the dictionary? Why not? Hey wait a minute...
From the thefreedictionary.com
Quote
monopoly
4.
a. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
b. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
4.
a. Exclusive possession or control: arrogantly claims to have a monopoly on the truth.
b. Something that is exclusively possessed or controlled: showed that scientific achievement is not a male monopoly.
That fits in rather nicely with my usage of the word. AnCap supporters want exclusive control by means of imposing "the one law" on ALL of society, and...
I've never stated, nor implied that the two competing ideas of property would intermingle. I stated that a commune - by definition a community solely composed of communists - would be accepted, tolerated, and respected within a larger AnCap society.
...political dissidents would be confined to their own special areas, where they would be tolerated simply because they're safely "out of the way" and won't get up the AnCap lynchmob's noses. You're not even willing to entertain the possibility of limits on AnCap's territorial domain. It would all be 'AnCap' terrority, just not presently annoying any particular AnCap moguls. Yet AnCap is somehow magically not a monopoly on force?
You've got some explaining to do, young man!
Take for example a competing law:
Given such a law, applying labels of 'property' on parts of the community and attempting to 'own' those bits of the community would be fraudulent and coercive. We've already talked about this. We've already established that two competing laws of this nature could not co-exist without conflict and unresolved accusations of 'coercion' from both sides. Therefore, the 2 jurisdictions would be in conflict until they somehow resolve their differences, probably by agreeing on some non-overlapping country borders.
...you mean communists would want to segregate themselves from capitalists? Madness! Quote
There is only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon people or objects in the community.
Given such a law, applying labels of 'property' on parts of the community and attempting to 'own' those bits of the community would be fraudulent and coercive. We've already talked about this. We've already established that two competing laws of this nature could not co-exist without conflict and unresolved accusations of 'coercion' from both sides. Therefore, the 2 jurisdictions would be in conflict until they somehow resolve their differences, probably by agreeing on some non-overlapping country borders.
You say that AnCap has no State, but this is incorrect. By having even just one law and people willing to enforce it, it does have a State. Sure, it would be decentralised, distributed, and disorganised, but it would be a State nonetheless.
You also appear to have a funny definition of "State."Let's see what I can do to correct this...
...
a) a walking law-book
b) judge
c) jury
d) executioner
e) educator
f) defence force
...sounds like a State to me!
I thought I'd share this, considering the holiday...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=66QdQErc8JQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=66QdQErc8JQ
To paraphrase from a different debate, AnCap is a state like bald is a hair color.
No, I'm not "laying down the law" on how things should be treated. There's only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property.
So, what you're basically saying, but cannot bring yourself to admit, is that AnCap would be a monopoly on force?
Take for example a competing law:
Given such a law, applying labels of 'property' on parts of the community and attempting to 'own' those bits of the community would be fraudulent and coercive. We've already talked about this. We've already established that two competing laws of this nature could not co-exist without conflict and unresolved accusations of 'coercion' from both sides. Therefore, the 2 jurisdictions would be in conflict until they somehow resolve their differences, probably by agreeing on some non-overlapping country borders.
...you mean communists would want to segregate themselves from capitalists? Madness! Quote
There is only one law: No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon people or objects in the community.
Given such a law, applying labels of 'property' on parts of the community and attempting to 'own' those bits of the community would be fraudulent and coercive. We've already talked about this. We've already established that two competing laws of this nature could not co-exist without conflict and unresolved accusations of 'coercion' from both sides. Therefore, the 2 jurisdictions would be in conflict until they somehow resolve their differences, probably by agreeing on some non-overlapping country borders.
I've never stated, nor implied that the two competing ideas of property would intermingle. I stated that a commune - by definition a community solely composed of communists - would be accepted, tolerated, and respected within a larger AnCap society. However, a capitalist community would not be respected, tolerated, or accepted within a larger communist society.
You say that AnCap has no State, but this is incorrect. By having even just one law and people willing to enforce it, it does have a State. Sure, it would be decentralised, distributed, and disorganised, but it would be a State nonetheless.
You also appear to have a funny definition of "State."Let's see what I can do to correct this...
The pertinent definitions of "State" from dictionary.com:
Quote
7. a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.
8. the territory, or one of the territories, of a government.
9. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America.
10. the body politic as organized for civil rule and government ( distinguished from church).
11. the operations or activities of a central civil government: affairs of state.
12. ( initial capital letter ) Also called State Department. Informal . the Department of State.
Obviously, 8-12 don't apply, but 7 comes close. Let's take a look at that:8. the territory, or one of the territories, of a government.
9. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America.
10. the body politic as organized for civil rule and government ( distinguished from church).
11. the operations or activities of a central civil government: affairs of state.
12. ( initial capital letter ) Also called State Department. Informal . the Department of State.
Quote
7. a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.
Well, it certainly looks like you might be right here... However, there is a word in the definition that has me concerned...Nation
Quote
1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.
Whoops. "to possess a government peculiarly its own" Hmm. No, even definition #7 doesn't fit. I suppose you could call an AnCap region "politically unified," in that they all reject politics, but they're definitely not a nation. No, the closest you could come is calling it a territory filled with single-person "States".
Fjordbit: can you just post on the other thread? Myrkul doesn't try to control your behavior or make you feel bad by suggesting that. Thanks :-)
If you want to speak about Bitcoin being used as school payment, then it would be wise to speak in the thread where that was raised, and not in the tangent thread, would it not?
If nothing else, you'll get the attention of the people who are interested in that, and not the trolls in this thread. I'm just trying to help you do that. But if you want to be trolled by cunicula et al, be my guest.
If nothing else, you'll get the attention of the people who are interested in that, and not the trolls in this thread. I'm just trying to help you do that. But if you want to be trolled by cunicula et al, be my guest.
Thanks for your permission.
This forum isn't serious business; you would probably do well not to worry about things so much.
Once again, that goes in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1341698
Myrkul: Thread Monitor
If you want to speak about Bitcoin being used as school payment, then it would be wise to speak in the thread where that was raised, and not in the tangent thread, would it not?
If nothing else, you'll get the attention of the people who are interested in that, and not the trolls in this thread. I'm just trying to help you do that. But if you want to be trolled by cunicula et al, be my guest.
Once again, that goes in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1341698
Myrkul: Thread Monitor
Bitcoin actually provides the perfect voluntaryist solution to keep track of who has paid how much for what services. You didn't chip in for school? Your kids don't go.
Right, this is the same principle behind our nation's lax enforcement of human trafficking laws. The law is for the benefit of tax payers only. It is not an entitlement handed out to aliens. For third-worlders, we merely enforce freedom of contract.
The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.
Well, the initial premise is a bit odd, but what about property taxes confuses you?
How you can distinctly tie property taxes directly to a person who has paid them using bitcoin as a mechanism for qualifying children for eligibility of education services.
Quote
Bitcoin actually provides the perfect voluntaryist solution to keep track of who has paid how much for what services. You didn't chip in for school? Your kids don't go.
Once again, that goes in this thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1341698
The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.
Well, the initial premise is a bit odd, but what about property taxes confuses you?
How you can distinctly tie property taxes directly to a person who has paid them using bitcoin as a mechanism for qualifying children for eligibility of education services.
Quote
Bitcoin actually provides the perfect voluntaryist solution to keep track of who has paid how much for what services. You didn't chip in for school? Your kids don't go.
The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.
I think you may be a little confused as to which thread you're in. That was copied from a previous thread, and this discussion is primarily (or, at least, it started out as being) about whether or not privately funded schooling is moral. Whinewhinewhine contends that it's "child slavery."
I suggest you paste that into the original thread.
The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.
Well, the initial premise is a bit odd, but what about property taxes confuses you?
The inital premise seems off to me. Typically schools are paid for by land tax. If you rent, you don't pay land tax directly, you would pay a landlord. The landlord would pay the land tax, but I know in my case I don't even pay that directly. I pay my mortgage company 1/12th of the cost every month, and they put it in escrow. Then once a year they pay the property tax. Those coins used to pay that will probably have very little taint with what the renter paid. So, pretty quickly this becomes too cumbersome to use in the intended way.
Bitcoin is no more tangible than EVE ISK. Or USD in a bank account. It's all just bits on a computer somewhere.
X
Bitcoins aren't even digital "things" (like, say, an mp3 is) they're just transactions in a record that everyone has.
Fail...
I have to say, this is the most words you've managed to string together sensibly the whole time we've been conversing.
Of course, you completely failed to make a point.
Jump to: