Random selection of the representants.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on November 17, 2012, 10:31:56 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I could also argue that I transcend 'responsibility' because that too is a made-up concept.

Someone should, like, rob blahblahblah's house and then tell him "nope, no one is responsible for this robbery, because responsibility is a made-up concept".

That'll teach him the difference between valid and invalid concepts, whether derived from observable reality or "made-up".

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 17, 2012, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 03:08:58 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 02:19:52 PM

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

I am. I could argue that "a bit of everything" is responsible -- me, the world, other people. However, I only have the empirical evidence of my senses that the rest of the world exists, whereas I know that I exist. Therefore, I am responsible for my actions.

So, you own yourself.

Different concept.

Nope, same concept.

If it's the same concept, then I wonder why people bothered to create a whole new word for it based on 'respond'.

As you point out, one primarily refers to verbs, the other to nouns. English is a very messy language, and many words share meaning.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote

Or is your favorite phrase, "It's not my fault"?

You never answered this... or did you?

Quote from: ?? on ??

I could also argue that I transcend 'responsibility' because that too is a made-up concept.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 03:08:58 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 02:19:52 PM

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

I am. I could argue that "a bit of everything" is responsible -- me, the world, other people. However, I only have the empirical evidence of my senses that the rest of the world exists, whereas I know that I exist. Therefore, I am responsible for my actions.

So, you own yourself.

Different concept.

Nope, same concept. Have you never heard the phrase "own your mistakes," or "own your actions"?

Or is your favorite phrase, "It's not my fault"?

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: fornit on November 17, 2012, 01:38:57 AM

Quote from: Rudd-O on November 16, 2012, 10:48:53 PM

Quote from: fornit on November 15, 2012, 10:27:11 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 15, 2012, 08:47:31 AM

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me Cry

(and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy Embarrassed

)

Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing."

congratulations! your perception has increased from 0 to 1! you are now able to the see walls up to 4m ahead, recognize when an ogre is eating your limbs and tell hamsters and strategic missiles apart - if they move.

Classic sardonic religious believer non-response.

fornit

hero member

Activity: 991

Merit: 1011

Quote from: Rudd-O on November 16, 2012, 10:48:53 PM

Quote from: fornit on November 15, 2012, 10:27:11 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 15, 2012, 08:47:31 AM

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me Cry

(and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy Embarrassed

)

Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing."

congratulations! your perception has increased from 0 to 1! you are now able to the see walls up to 4m ahead, recognize when an ogre is eating your limbs and tell hamsters and strategic missiles apart - if they move.

Rudd-O

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: fornit on November 15, 2012, 10:27:11 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 15, 2012, 08:47:31 AM

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me Cry

(and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy Embarrassed

)

Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing."

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: glub0x on November 16, 2012, 03:13:20 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 02:00:09 PM

Quote from: glub0x on November 16, 2012, 01:54:35 PM

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

If you feel a post is off-topic, report it, and ask that the thread be split.

To be honest, this thread hasn't really been about your idea of legislator lotto since the first reply.

There is actually once every page a reply in the subject. Now the fact that you are not able to respect the thread of someone else is for me a very strong sign that the anarchy you promote is just going back 6000years and start again.
Respecting the rights of other (speaking, property, integrity, ... ) is not natural, you are the first and best exemple here.

I am not even speaking of the fact that the first law you want to put in your anarchy is the exact opposite as the view the author you linked to me defend. wich i would sum up as Security is a product as any other, let's put it in competition.

Quote

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

If I could split the thread, I would. I can't. So if you would like the thread split, request it. In the meantime, there is a conversation going here that will be moved when the thread is eventually split, and your thread is continually bumped to the top. The more you whine to me about it, the less time you are spending reporting those posts and getting the thread split. Seems like your time would be best spent asking someone who can do something about it, n'est-ce pas?

Now, my apologies, but if you wish for someone to remove their conversation to another thread because it is off-topic, then the appropriate time to ask is when that conversation starts, not after you have already participated in it.

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 02:00:09 PM

Quote from: glub0x on November 16, 2012, 01:54:35 PM

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

If you feel a post is off-topic, report it, and ask that the thread be split.

To be honest, this thread hasn't really been about your idea of legislator lotto since the first reply.

There is actually once every page a reply in the subject. Now the fact that you are not able to respect the thread of someone else is for me a very strong sign that the anarchy you promote is just going back 6000years and start again.
Respecting the rights of other (speaking, property, integrity, ... ) is not natural, you are the first and best exemple here.

I am not even speaking of the fact that the first law you want to put in your anarchy is the exact opposite as the view the author you linked to me defend. wich i would sum up as Security is a product as any other, let's put it in competition.

Quote

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 02:19:52 PM

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

I am. I could argue that "a bit of everything" is responsible -- me, the world, other people. However, I only have the empirical evidence of my senses that the rest of the world exists, whereas I know that I exist. Therefore, I am responsible for my actions.

So, you own yourself.

dank

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1002

You cannot kill love

Some people seek power and control over others because it makes them feel a sense of happiness. There's a great chance these people have never had love in their life so they don't know any other way of feeling happy.

If you show these people how love gives a true sense of happiness, and how power just requires additional power to feel good, they will stop chasing the unattainable ultimate power over humanity, since control is temporary and illusory.

As less people fear those in power, the less power they have, causing what we see in society today, the eradication of our human rights.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 12:15:14 PM

...then answer me this question: Who owns you? Answer that question - truthfully - and you will see the moral basis for our claims.

To put it another way: without an almighty "Property God", there is no such thing as ownership. In what little I know about myself, I would like to think that I transcend this made-up concept of ownership. Therefore I cannot 'own' myself, and neither can anyone else.

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: glub0x on November 16, 2012, 01:54:35 PM

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

If you feel a post is off-topic, report it, and ask that the thread be split.

To be honest, this thread hasn't really been about your idea of legislator lotto since the first reply.

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

What happens to opposing viewpoints if AnCap becomes mainstream? It seems that AnCap would start to oppress their opponents. Thus it would no-longer be voluntary - everyone would be forced to do things the AnCap way.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "forced to do things the AnCap way." If you mean forced to operate as capitalists, you would be wrong. If you mean forced to not steal, rape, murder, or coerce, well, then I suppose you would be right. But again, "forcing" someone not to do those things is not coercion, it's defense.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Since the notion of "private property" seems just as much a dogma as the notion of "State ownership", what makes AnCap supporters (and holders of related views such as Libertarianism) think they are more morally right than others?

If you feel "private property" is "dogmatic," then answer me this question: Who owns you? Answer that question - truthfully - and you will see the moral basis for our claims.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Edit: and we haven't even touched on the possibility of a healthy middle-ground like the "real world" has -- with various combinations of a State and private property.

If you can call - with a straight face - the systems currently in place around the globe "healthy," you're either hopelessly deluded, or straight-up evil.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 09:41:48 AM

Quote

...

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal.

Let's not keep taking things to extremes.

By basically saying "it's either my way, or the rape and murder way! Which do you prefer?", it seems you're being intellectually dishonest and avoiding discussion of legitimate criticisms. I'm sure your heart's in the right place, but these sort of tit-for-tat debates are just silly.

I'm saying "Rape and murder is always wrong"

You reply with "Hey, let's not take it to extremes, now..."

How is that not defending rape and murder?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: fornit on November 16, 2012, 10:22:53 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 09:41:48 AM

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

you basically say it yourself. where there is no such law there is no such crime. for example, if you have no law protecting property, the term "theft" doesnt make any sense.

Care to point out where I don't protect property?

Quote from: fornit on November 16, 2012, 10:22:53 AM

Quote

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal.

yay, more universal rulesets! like the world hasnt enough fanatics already...

Tsk... It's not a new universal ruleset... it's one that everyone already agrees on. Read the book. Maybe you'll listen to a fellow French Canadian.

fornit

hero member

Activity: 991

Merit: 1011

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 09:41:48 AM

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

you basically say it yourself. where there is no such law there is no such crime. for example, if you have no law protecting property, the term "theft" doesnt make any sense.

Quote

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal.

yay, more universal rulesets! like the world hasnt enough fanatics already...

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: fornit on November 16, 2012, 09:28:03 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 08:51:04 AM

Quote from: fornit on November 16, 2012, 07:27:57 AM

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?

Oversimplifies what matter? Either you live peacefully with your fellowman, or you are a criminal. Which is it?

the term "criminal" doesnt make any sense in a society without a state or other central authority.

and btw: just the fact that you consider your minimalistic ruleset "right" doesnt make it so. and besides that, how is forcing someone to follow the "right" rules any less coercive than forcing him to follow rules you consider wrong? from his viewpoint your ruleset might be just as arbitrary as the spaghetti monster.

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal.

fornit

hero member

Activity: 991

Merit: 1011

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 08:51:04 AM

Quote from: fornit on November 16, 2012, 07:27:57 AM

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?

Oversimplifies what matter? Either you live peacefully with your fellowman, or you are a criminal. Which is it?

the term "criminal" doesnt make any sense in a society without a state or other central authority.

and btw: just the fact that you consider your minimalistic ruleset "right" doesnt make it so. and besides that, how is forcing someone to follow the "right" rules any less coercive than forcing him to follow rules you consider wrong? from his viewpoint your ruleset might be just as arbitrary as the spaghetti monster.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 16, 2012, 08:51:04 AM

Quote from: fornit on November 16, 2012, 07:27:57 AM

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?

Oversimplifies what matter? Either you live peacefully with your fellowman, or you are a criminal. Which is it?

Sounds like blackmail -- very coercive! Either he adopts and abides by the moral code of the dominant political system in his environment, or he risks their wrath.

When the "moral code of the dominant political system in his environment" is "Don't steal, Don't bully, and Don't murder," I'd hardly call it blackmail to consider him a criminal if he refuses to abide by it.

Unless you're pro- murder and theft, now?

Topic: Random selection of the representants. (Read 4941 times)