The Myth of Compromise - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:47:49 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:46:13 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:43:08 PM

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister.

Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister?

Can you see how stupid a worldview that is?

Nobody is in the right here. The father lied. My sister and I sharing the land is a compromise. We both get what we are entitled.

I stand by all of my contentions.

Actually that's a compromise. You started with an inheritance you were promised and agreed to share it rather than kill your sister.

Welcome to the real world. You will find the same logic applies to things like land ownership, security deposits on leases and the correct level of taxation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/voters-defeat-many-gop-sponsored-measures.html?hp

There are several examples here of situations where about 50% of the population have to endure laws they disagree with but prefer that to killing the other 50%.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:46:13 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:43:08 PM

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister.

Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister?

Can you see how stupid a worldview that is?

Nobody is in the right here. The father lied. My sister and I sharing the land is a compromise. We both get what we are entitled. There was no sacrifice.

I stand by all of my contentions.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:43:08 PM

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister.

Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister?

Can you see how stupid a worldview that is?

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefathers. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Back to circular reasoning. Back to the ignore bin until the next incarnation.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:39:04 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:35:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:34:16 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:28:17 PM

...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.

You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you.

If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself.

So you are back to saying that all compromise is a question of "food vs poison" ?

Yes, yes it is when it comes to questions of principles and morality. It may work elsewhere.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:35:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:34:16 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:28:17 PM

...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.

You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you.

If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself.

So you are back to saying that all compromise is a question of "food vs poison" ?

Since that has already being dealt with, why not read the replies that came earlier and thus save us all repeating ourselves.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.612356

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:34:16 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:28:17 PM

...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.

You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you.

If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself. There cannot be a compromise because for me to compromise will be to sacrifice my birthright.

Again, you cannot compromise when it comes to rights or you will have none at all.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:28:17 PM

...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.

You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 04:29:57 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:26:48 PM

Quote from: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 04:25:30 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:20:43 PM

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol

When Bolsheviks continued to cease her family's businesses and degrade their rights, they sure did.

Mexico is a lovely climate. So is Italy. There are dozens of other countries she could have chosen. America just happens to be the land of opportunists.

They all force her to pay for "a public good". Moot point.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:26:48 PM

Quote from: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 04:25:30 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:20:43 PM

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol

When Bolsheviks continued to cease her family's businesses and degrade their rights, they sure did.

Mexico is a lovely climate. So is Italy. There are dozens of other countries she could have chosen. America just happens to be the land of opportunists.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:26:14 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:19:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:16:18 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:02:00 PM

...snip...

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy.

How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence.

All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief one.

If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land.

All I am saying is that you need to grow up. The court may award the entire plot to one of the claimants and the other will have to pay legal costs for both sides. Just because the court does that does not mean the loser was wrong to bring the case. Its perfectly normal for honest people to have honest disagreements and to use courts to settle them.

What's sickening is your idea that one of these honest people should kill the other.

If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution that is based on force after all.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 04:25:30 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:20:43 PM

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol

When the Bolsheviks continued to cease her family's businesses and degrade their rights, they sure did.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:19:43 PM

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:16:18 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:02:00 PM

...snip...

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy.

How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence.

All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief one.

If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land.

All I am saying is that you need to grow up. The court may award the entire plot to one of the claimants and the other will have to pay legal costs for both sides. Just because the court does that does not mean the loser was wrong to bring the case. Its perfectly normal for honest people to have honest disagreements and to use courts to settle them.

What's sickening is your idea that one of these honest people should kill the other.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:20:43 PM

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 04:19:28 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:13:00 PM

Quote from: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 04:10:50 PM

from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Quote

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all.

Ad hominem.

Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned that would of been better spent in a savings account.

Calling a psychopathic killer a "Superman" is sociopathic. I don't see how that can be construed as ad hominem. Ayn Rand accepting public assistance because "she paid into it" makes her a hypocrite for saying things like "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Also:

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hawker on November 09, 2011, 04:16:18 PM

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:02:00 PM

...snip...

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy.

How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence.

All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief won.

If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land.

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:13:00 PM

Quote from: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 04:10:50 PM

from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Quote

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all.

Ad hominem.

Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned that would of been better spent in a savings account.

Calling a psychopathic killer a "Superman" is sociopathic. I don't see how that can be construed as ad hominem. Ayn Rand accepting public assistance because "she paid into it" makes her a hypocrite for saying things like "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes."

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ALPHA. on November 09, 2011, 04:02:00 PM

...snip...

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy.

How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence.

ALPHA.

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: cbeast on November 09, 2011, 04:10:50 PM

from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Quote

In December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,

"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."

This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all.

Ad hominem.

Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned, that would of been better spent in a savings account.

Topic: The Myth of Compromise - page 2. (Read 4259 times)