Bitcoin Forum

The thing that gets me with decadent Libertarians and their naive ideology, is its tangle of contradictions.

I mean, how does freedom of association work in their half-assed Libertarian Utopia? Are people
allowed, for example, to form clubs and associations that exclude negroes and homos? Or do negroes and
homos have the freedom to join any club?

Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

 

 

Do I have the freedom to murder you or do you have the freedom to live? Either way someones liberty is being infringed.

You speak about naivety but then you put forth blithely ignorant arguments as absurd as the one I just did.

The only freedom that matters under the law is the freedom to not have people touch your person or property without your permission. If I own a building, it's my building and I can make whatever rules I want. If I say you have to push a peanut across the floor with your nose in order to stay inside, guess what, do it or leave. It's yet another example of the statists inflated sense of entitlement to think that they have the right to go anywhere they want.

So, to answer your question, yes I can form a club or association that excludes based on race or sexual orientation. There's a reason why that would never be a big problem as long as it's a minority opinion but I'm sure logic and reason aren't your cup of tea. You rather foam at the mouth and go "those goram libertarians!"

https://i.imgur.com/l70fE.jpg

First, let me congratulate you on managing to offend BOTH sides of the argument, that takes real skill.

Secondly, you seem to miss the point. What homosexual or black would WANT to associate with bigots?
also, it is not infringing upon someone's liberty to say to them, No, you can not come in.

See? no contradiction.

Please enlighten me further. As a Libertarian, you say we will be allowed to freely associate and form clubs that
discriminate against homos and negros. But surely that exclusion infringes the liberties of the homos and negroes left
standing at locked gates?

I mean, don't the boundaries of these extended anti-negro/homo areas constitute a border of sorts? Didn't you wise Libertarians
abolish boundaries and borders?

So let me get this straight, you think that in a libertarian society I won't be able to own a home and lock people out of it? I'll just have to allow people to come and go as freely as the wind? Is that what you really think?

No.


Two words: Private property.

Use a dictionary, if you don't follow.

Thanks!


But in the situation in which Whitey is having a really great party, but no negros/homos are allowed in. Or say, whitey
has a great farm with great food, but doesn't want negros/homos hanging around his BBQ. it's an entirely realistic situation.

Freedom of association is a legitimate freedom that inevitably restricts the liberty of others, usually based upon the
sacred cow delineations of race, gender and orientation.

So what does the wise Libertarian Council of Elders do?

No, that interpretation has missed the point entirely. The question is one of freedom of association. For example, the introduction of a system of apartheid.

Just trying to illustrate how Libertarians struggle with very simple problems.

Absolutely nothing. Whitey is free to have his BBQ, on his private property, free from whatever external influences he wants.


No, very simple people struggle to understand the solutions.

So if I own a home, I can lock people out. Fine. Now let's say that I only allow certain people in, perhaps only family, perhaps only white people, perhaps only homosexuals, at the end of the day, it's my house and if I want to lock people out of it, it's my right. You don't have a right to barge into my home so I'm not infringing your rights by locking you out.

The same applies to all private property, a club, a grocery store, a dirt road I own. You already agree with me but you are incapable of following the logic.

Thank you, you are progressing the argument. Presumably, this extends to whites only, schools, busses and housing areas and shopping malls?
All private property, naturally.

Yes, in a libertarian society, there won't be any public property.

The Libertarian position is that if you want to open a whites only restaurant, that is your right. But if I want to boycott your restaurant, and even boycott everyone who ever goes into your restaurant, that's my right too.

I can even boycott people who don't boycott you. I can boycott your suppliers, your employees -- I can even boycott their families, people who employ members of their families, and so on, if I really don't like your business. See how long a whites only restaurant lasts in a Libertarian society as decent people isolate themselves from everyone associated with it.

And, by the way, our society permits the Boy Scouts to exclude atheists.

Mostly I agree with the Libs' arguments here, but as usual, they don't completely grasp the full nature of what they're proposing. As an example, let's say I own a parcel of land. Who and what owns the parcels of land on all sides of me? What if they have obscure rules regarding entry onto their property? I'd be totally screwed. In other words - their system is lame, despite the fact that I agree with what they're saying about private property.

Yup. and Black only, and Hispanic only, and female only, and Gay only. It's private property, so the owners can set whatever rules they want.

Imagine if I bought the land on all sides of myrkul. I could have some fun, then.

Unless you're not particularly bright, you wouldn't buy a parcel of property that didn't include easements to permit yourself access to your own land.

There are many libertarians who believe that private property doesn't include the right to exclude others from reasonably traversing your land to the extent reasonably necessary to get to other parcels of land. Rights to private property generally don't include the right to do things to or with your land that unreasonably prevent other people from the peaceful enjoyment of their land.

A reasonably-maintained perimeter road would meet this requirement. It doesn't significantly affect your privacy or ability to use your land.

Yet again, we have a statist calling a system ignorant because of some objection he thought of after a few seconds, disregarding the fact that plenty of libertarians, much smarter than he and I have already come up with the same objection and figured out a response.

You're talking about homesteading a donut shaped parcel of land around some unowned parcel of land. You can't do that in the first place. However, if you were to homestead a parcel of land and then try to sell the center of a donut to someone, nobody would buy it unless there was a contract granting access. Just like you have title insurance when buying a house, you would have access insurance, to make sure you can actually get out of the driveway of the $200,000 home you just bought.

Seriously, read some books before you start hurling insults. It only makes you look ignorant. You won't convince any libertarian that's done their homework with hamfisted arguments.

That's quite a confrontational attitude. On the assumption that not all people think the same, there may well be considerable support for a whites only restaurant.
Which, I suppose, naturally leads to how a Libertarian society deals with conflicts. Presumably, its just left to sort itself out, as seems to be the pattern with you
dreamy folk.

You don't get it, do you? Try harder.

There may well be considerable support for repealing the 13th amendment. No system can save you when most of the people disagree with you.


In other words, you've got nothing.

Perhaps. At least in a Libertarian society, they can't use the law to push their views. Just remember, a traditional Democracy can't guarantee a particular outcome either. It wasn't so long ago in our history that discriminatory systems were firmly entrenched in the law. Likely a Libertarian system would have permitted substantially the same discrimination because it's the views of the people, not the system, that sets those norms. With most people believing gender discrimination to be invidious, almost any system would wind up prohibiting or discouraging it.

It depends what kind of conflicts you're talking about. The typical Libertarian view is that if the conflict involves a violation of rights, then it is the proper role of government to provide courts and police to resolve those conflicts. If the "conflict" is that you don't like what someone's doing and would prefer they do something else, then tough.

Taking stock from the above, Libertarianism will allow the freedom of association and the formation of racist apartheid private collectives.
Whites only restaurants, malls, schools, cultural festivals etc. However, liberals are free to boycott these collectives in some non-violent manner.

Yes, I can follow the reasoning, but suspect such a situation is somewhat unstable.

Perhaps some wise Libertarian can enlighten us further?

How do they provide that? Buy taxing people at gunpoint? You're still a statist and as such you're only hurting logically consistent libertarians by pretending you're on our side.


What do you mean by "unstable" and why should we care?

That applies to every system. Can you name a system that won't, under the right circumstances, "allow" such a thing? Our Democracy used to allow such things and only stopped allowing them when circumstances changed.

Absolutely, just as the situation was unstable in the United States and the system changed when people insisted it do so, so a Libertarian system would change as people's views change as well. See my prior post about expanding business ostracism.

Indeed, but then conflict resolution is what governance is all about. If Libertarianism can't deal with inevitable conflicts of interest, then is it reasonable to expect it to last?

I don't follow. What kind of conflicts of interest do you think Libertarianism can't deal with?

You mean where you do something in private that I don't like? I have to get over it. Sure, allowing me and a bunch of my friends to vote on a law to prevent you from doing it resolves the conflict in my favor, but that's not a good way to deal with the conflict.

Ascent... Here's the answer to your "I bought all the land around you, now what? Bwahahahah!":

http://www.privatejet-service.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Helicopter.jpg

That's just playing into his hands. Now he's going to whine about all the poor people that can't afford helicopter rides.

The point is, nobody is going to buy land unless there's a stipulation that access can never be denied by some maniac buying up all the surrounding land. When he buys the land he won't be buying up the right to deny access because that's not something the seller will own. It will have already been sold to the guy in the middle of the other land.

See Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" for a detailed argument.

The example I gave of an extended whites only, anti-homo collective would cause considerable ill will amongst the negro and homosexual community. Your expectation
that these people will be educated Libertarians and to passively boycott such a collective I find somewhat unrealistic.

However, even in this case, there is a natural tendency for such a society to polarise further and conflict to escalate. There is no mechanism in the Libertarian order to
prevent this, or is there?

The fact you keep using the word "negro" and now expect us to believe they will resort to violence is offensive. Stop trolling.

Good point, but 'poor people' usually can't afford to buy land, either.

And yes, only idiots buy land without a driveway.

This thread raises an entirely legitimate concern. The reason you have failed to address it is that you have not thought past the
simplistic assumption that property rights solve all problems. This is not the case.

Until you can reasonably and consistently address racial and religious conflicts, Libertarianism is nothing more than a childish
muse for the decadent.

The answer to every conflict ever: MYOB.

Who owns the driveway and who makes sure it stays a driveway?

This is what I mean by the term "childish muse".

Ok, what happens when obnoxious members of your society refuse to MYOB? What do you actually DO?

It's already been addressed. You lost the argument by admitting that I have the right to control my private property however I see fit.

The fact you keep attaching negative labels and generally being a sarcastic douche only shows how intellectually bankrupt your philosophy is.


Kick down my front door and see what happens. Depending on how scared you make me, there might be a loud noise followed by eternal nothingness or I might just crack your skull a little.

In other words, you can decide to put a fence up where my driveway leads out of my property?

Right, because we all know that when you oppress homos and negroes, they respond with violence. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws in the United States.

You are free to create any mechanism you would like, and you won't have to worry about the government stopping you.

If you were dumb enough to buy property next to my property without ensuring that you also bought access rights to get off your property, yes. However, that would rarely ever happen. A builder wants to sell houses. A road owner wants people to use his roads. These two would naturally come to an arrangement so that it would be possible. However, there might be a few cases where some idiot like yourself bought land he can't get on or off without a helicopter, in which case, too damn bad. Maybe you won't be such a drooling moron in the future.

No. you presented the crude argument that property rights would permit full freedom of association. I countered with the following:

Taking stock from the above, Libertarianism will allow the freedom of association and the formation of racist apartheid private collectives.
Whites only restaurants, malls, schools, cultural festivals etc. However, liberals are free to boycott these collectives in some non-violent manner.

Yes, I can follow the reasoning, but suspect such a situation is somewhat unstable.

Perhaps some wise Libertarian can enlighten us further?

I'm using negative labels with some of you as you appear deserving. I will dispense credit when due

Uh... Me. thus the term 'driveway':
–noun
1. a road, especially a private one, leading from a street or other thoroughfare to a building, house, garage, etc.


Depends on what they actually DO:

Wander on to the property, despite the no trespassing signs, kick 'em out.
Attempt to take my property, take it back, with all necessary force.
Attempt to take my life, defend it, with lethal force.

And then I asked "What do you mean by "unstable" and why should we care?" but was ignored. What negative label should I attach to you since you're so deserving? Weasel? Coward? Blind?

I'm not the idiot here. How do I ensure that the people who own the land around me don't change how they wish to use it? Who regulates that?

So you want to change topics from how do I ensure I can access my property, which I explained was through the use of buying and selling contracts for access rights, to now discussing who enforces said contracts?

Ignored due to it being utterly stupid.

You should care about conflict and instability as it will destroy your social order and return your society to anarchy. There is no mechanism
 to deal with conflict, to prevent it growing and to prevent the emergence of tyranny.

All you can come up with is babble about property rights? Jesus, this is just a post-Capitalist quagmire.

Out of curiosity.   What about the property beside that?

One of the problems, I find in trying to reason with people who live in a made-up world is determining what set of rules overlap with the real one.

Incidentally I started reading that Brock book.  So far he's kind of amusing.  What did you think of the first chapter?

Funny, that's the same reason I'll be ignoring you now.


You won't be worried about access on a parcel by parcel basis. You'll be worried about getting access to a major road. Since businesses want people to be able to get to them, they'll make sure you can. Once you get to the highway, you won't have to worry about how you get to Kroger or Publix because Kroger and Publix will have that already figured out.

Come now, I'm entirely willing to be enlightened. We have similar instincts after all, personally, I find most people in authority to be dismal
and undeserving tadpoles.

If we end this arguement here, with all due respect, I'll have to maintain my position that Libertarian theory needs to develop beyond the
realm of property rights and to address social conflicts more robustly.

I don't really care. If a forum debate is going to drastically affect your philosophical views then you're dumber than I thought. Go read some books, educate yourself and make up your own damn mind. This is just an avenue to explore ideas. It's no substitute for reading works by eminent scholars.

Any well reasoned argument will affect my opinion, regardless of where it comes from.

That's not what we were discussing. Try to pay attention to context.

It's the fact that if you don't get what you want here you're just going to leave it at that. The whole threat of "debate me or I'll just be closed minded" is kind of stupid.

See, here's the easy way to do it, and thus the way I figure it will get done:

Imagine a large tract of land, all unclaimed.
Now, pick an edge, and draw a thick line from it to it's opposite. This is a private road. It is built through this area to get from one point to another, both unrelated to the area involved.

Now, section off one part of this land, the farther away from the road the better.

This is the problem: How to ensure access to the private road from that property.
Easiest solution: Claim a strip of land and build a driveway. Now, nobody can buy or homestead a donut around you and lock you in.

See how easy that solution is?

Sorry, you don't get to dictate what I will be worried about (I'm just visiting fantasy-world I don't live there).  Your argument seems to be that this system of privatization actually doesn't significantly impede peoples function.  However when asked how this is done.   You answer appears to be "it's all figured out".

Right now, this reminds me of when Feynman was talking with a general and he told him his bright idea for fueling tanks.  "Someone should figure out how to make them run off dirt because then when they're in the field all they would need is a little shovel and..."

and by-the-by I asked you about the Brock book...No review?  Where's the love?

Again, the rules of fantasy-land impede me a bit.  Wouldn't it be better to assume that all of the land is claimed?  Including the big road.  Perhaps by multiple owners?  With various regulations and rules regarding use?

Well, if the land is all claimed, the access rights have all been worked out already, haven't they?

What on earth are you jabbering on about? Anyway, I got shit to do, so I'll just leave you lot
here waffling on about pathways and boundaries and property and all that pointless bullshit.

No you won't. Trolls never stay away from the lulz.

Like what, harassing people that cross your bridge? Fine, take your ball and leave.

"Screw you guys. I'm going home!"


Would you build a grocery store unless there was a major road that could get people to your store? No, of course not. That's what I mean by it's all figured out. Businesses want to make money therefore it will be in their best interests to do so. This isn't even remotely the same as making tanks run on dirt because that's technological problem while getting people to drive on roads to a store, isn't. It's a entrepreneurial problem.

I can't predict the future but I can suggest some possibilities. Since major road owners want people to drive on their roads, they also want to attract businesses which will attract customers, thereby bringing more drivers on the road. Road owners will guarantee access to grocery stores and other shops for that reason.

Another possibility is that major stores will first buy options and then build the roads themselves once they have all the options in place.

There are other possibilities but I shouldn't have to exhaust them all just to placate you. The fact is, road owners want drivers and shops attract drivers therefore road owners want to attract shop owners, it's pretty simple really. Just ignore that though and keep talking about "fantasy-land" like a complete and utter tool.

Not necessarily, not for a new owner or for any and all uses.

Speaking of "fantasy-land". Since you demand complete and utter perfection, that must be where you live.

There are a few different views on this in Libertarian circles.

One is, as I mentioned before, that private property rights don't include the right to exclude people from passing through your property to get to their property. Property owners have an obligation to ensure that their use of their property doesn't trample on other people's rights to reasonable use of their property, such rights include access. So under this system, the people around you cannot interfere with your ability to reasonably access your property, even if you have to cross their property to do it. A well-maintained perimeter road would meet this requirement, so it's not a blank check for others to traipse through your property as they please. The government would enforce this right of access.

Another is that a system of easements would be set up. When you purchase a piece of property, it would include necessary easements to reach thoroughfares that were encumbered in such a way that access to the thoroughfares could not be obstructed. This would work much the way the Internet works today. I get Internet access from a local ISP who arranges interconnectivity with other ISPs. The net result is any two people who each have Internet access can reach other through a path worked out by their ISPs, possibly indirectly. The government would protect your rights to those easements you acquired with your property purchase.

I think a hybrid of these two makes the most sense. A system of easements should be the primary mechanism, falling back to the fundamental right of access when someone attempts to sabotage or obstruct the easement/thoroughfare system.

'any and all uses' isn't necessary. Only the use you need it for is. You can find land usable for your use, elsewhere, if need be.

Would you as a grocery store be worried about any and all people as potential customers at any expense?  No, of course not.


Not every road will be a business.  Interestingly enough I actually own sole rights to a private road right now. It's not used by businesses and even if it were located in fantasy-land and I could make money per car.  It wouldn't be the kind of money I would care about.  I'd be far more interested in having access depend on some weird set of criteria or if I did want to make money the best way would be to have some pretty random set of rules with large fines.


Actually they are both identical in one very specific respect.  They are both assuming that stating the idea is the same as solving the problem.

So what's the problem with using the term "fantasy land"?  It seems both accurate - there is no real land like this - and useful - it shows the problems inherent in dealing with a non-existent place.  Just like if you were describing a place built from candy-canes. ;-)

Aren't you assuming that I know all uses I'd have for land up-front?

How is this demanding complete and utter perfection?

What's your point?


Congratulations, why do I care about driving on your private road? Some shitty little dirt road on your property isn't the issue. People building major roads that stretch far enough to get anywhere important will most likely be a business. Why else would people invest money in building a road from A to B (where A to B is a significant distance)? Any major road I'll care about driving on is most likely going to be a business, ignoring the crazy billionaires that build roads for no reason, which of course is something realistically worth worrying about.  ::)

The point still stands.


No. I've already explained that one is possible with current technology, it's just a matter of ironing out the details. Making tanks run on dirt isn't.


The problem is that it's childish and only shows how pathetically frustrated you are that you can't attack the issue intellectually so you have to lash out like a whiny brat.

No, just that you know the use you're intending to put the land to right away. If you want land you're able to do anything with, either buy unencumbered land, or renegotiate with your neighbors.

Most people don't really want fully unencumbered land -- it's additional cost that provides very little benefit. If you don't want a waste treatment plant opening up right next to your small home plot, you're going to need an arrangement that creates an incentive for someone to build a home in the adjoining plot instead. They're not likely to do that if you insist on retaining the right to turn your home into a sewage treatment plant at any time.

Exactly. This will, IMO, eventually result in voluntary 'zoning laws'.

It's your critique that is half-assed. You cannot complain that a libertarian society both would have problems and also that it is an unrealistic utopia.   Libertarianism is the best of all available options, none of which are ideal. Libertarianism fixes every problem that can be fixed without introducing unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem. 

Why would anyone want to join a club where they are not welcome in the first place?  Nobody has a right to be popular.

One important thing that I haven't heard mentioned yet is that if a Libertarian system were implemented in a real country there would obviously be a period of transition where the state sold off all the public properties like roads etc. Most access problems would be solved during this period of transition as most people would try to purchase the formally public road leading to their property especially if a road only led to one's property. Alternatively, a group of property owners (those which are served by the road) could purchase the road and agree to allow anyone access to the road (or just owners, or owners and guests, or whatever the owners choose). Even in the unlikely circumstance that access was blocked because a property owner was in a coma during the transition period. When the property owner needed access they could trade something of value or even attempt to persuade the owners of potential access routes to give them access. Most of the fantasy land examples seem to assume that the property owner's blocking access value blocking access to the property more than anything else. That is highly unlikely. There are millions of neighborly disputes that are resolved without the government every year. Why assume that people would be unable to resolve disputes when there is a really small gov't or no gov't.

To the poster that said that political systems must address minor religious and social disagreements or devolve into tyranny. In my view any political system that meddles in religious or social disagreements (besides actual violations of rights) is a tyrannical political system.

This is a particularly dismal reply to my original proposition.

It's not that negroes would not want to join a whites-only collective its that they would not be at liberty to do so.

The point is that that Libertarianism does not address the issues of conflict that naturally arise from, for example, the Freedom of Association.

You goofballs seem so tied up in the concept of property and ownership that you miss the big picture. This is to be expected from a
community born of decadence.    

Tyranny is then an end state in both cases.

Knew you couldn't stay away.

What a terrible travesty of justice to be prevented from doing something you don't want to do in the first place.  That's like complaining that you can't get raped. This is your big killer argument? fail.

Correct. Just as you may or may not want to bash my skull in with a baseball bat, but in no sensible society would you be at liberty to do so. Your freedom ends at my stuff.

It does address them. It says that your freedom ends at my stuff. You cannot use coercive mechanisms to get access to stuff that is not yours. But there are a variety of non-coercive mechanisms you might use.

What's the big picture? We fully accept that freedom means that some people will do stuff that we would prefer they not do and we are willing to let them do that in exchange for having that same freedom ourselves.

And note that our society has precisely the same problems. The Boy Scouts of America remain free to exclude atheists, and they have substantial government support. Racism in the South was substantially propped up by Jim Crow laws.

Let me make it easier for you. Suppose during a famine, a bunch of racist whites had a great farm. Now they would let everyone in to eat except negros, simply because
they hated them.

Now, those negros want to go in to whitey's BBQ party as they're fucking starving, but they can't because, by Freedom of Association, whitey won't let them.

The Blacks are going to be pissed, yes? It's going to cause conflict, yes? How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?.. It doesn't, because all anyone cares
about is property rights. So the conflict spirals down in to war and the whole things falls to shit as it has to.

So, you think that the consequences that result in emergency, life or death situations, should apply in all situations? Is your position that weak that you can only come up with examples that don't apply in real life, everyday situations?


Violence. The same as any system. Forcing whitey to allow blacks on his property vs. forcing blacks to stay off whitey's property. Get your head out of the clouds and stop pretending that any system is going to be perfect.

This is a slightly more thoughtful, but still suffers from "stuff" obsession. Freedom of Association has little to do with "stuff" or property and is
a source of conflict that cannot be resolved with "stuff" or property.

The only property based solution is partition and segregation. Spiraling conflict is the natural result in any case. How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?.. It doesn't.

At last, a glimmer of realism! Indeed, Libertarianism is not perfect. But then neither was Marxism or any other artificial
system of governance.

Freedom of association comes down to property. If I'm in your store, I have limited my freedom of association because I have to interact with the people you allow into your store. If I'm on my own property, I have complete freedom of association because I can limit who enters my property.

I agree that if you had people who generally believe that racism and sexism are unacceptable and you also had people who wished to practice those kinds of discrimination, conflict would be inevitable. I already explained exactly how that conflict would work -- the non-racist, non-sexist folks would likely isolate themselves from the racists and sexists.

If a bunch of racist people want to live together and be racists, that's fine. I'm willing to live and let live. I will despise them, refuse to deal with them, and refuse to deal with those who deal with them. But I'm willing to let them do that in exchange for them allowing me to have integrated water fountains even if they'd prefer separate ones.

At least the racists can't use the machinery of government to enforce segregation or discrimination, as has happened in pretty much every Democracy.

Derp! I don't know when anyone claimed it was perfect. If so, they were mistaken. Libertarianism is just and also, even though that's enough for me, it implies an economic system which works better than any others, free trade.


They're all not just but libertarianism is. Libertarianism is not Utopian though. If that's what you thought it was, that's just your own ignorance shining through. Read up, dummy.

That doesn't make it easier at all. Even if I accept for the sake of argument your improbable scenario, you have to compare the outcome to some other outcome.  To avoid this problem (and yes, it is a problem), you create a larger problem, namely who decides who lives and who dies in a famine. If there's not enough to go around, then someone is going to die. Saving one person condemns another. Is there more justice when a white dies than when a black dies? You have the same problem either way, don't you.

Your critique seems to be that libertarianism doesn't solve a problem than other ideologies also don't solve. I agree, but that doesn't seem to be a very compelling criticism.

• Arbitration (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Arbitration) (Pre-planned dispute resolution)
• Mediation (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mediation) (Unplanned dispute resolution)
• Castle doctrine (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Castle_doctrine) (ad-hoc dispute resolution)

Does that answer your question?

It looks like you called it. He left us for a whole hour. Haha, what a clown.

So your resolution is segregation? That is reasonable. However, I suspect that violence would be a exist in such a situation, would you agree?
Would there be a mechanism to keep the violence in check, or does it rest on the rationality and good will of a collection of redneck racists and
 their anti-racist counterparts?

Ahh negotiation! And if negotiation fails or break down? Who enforces what? In such a situation you don't have Libertarianism, you have anarchy and conflict.

The first real problem and the the whole thing caves in.

I had to answer a new poster, as I thought we might be able to resolve some the of the issues, but he was even more
stupid than the rest of you. Ho hum, back to kicking your myopic titbits into the debate gutter.

That's the fallback when everything else breaks down. I don't think it will get that far in any realistic situation. Racists don't get any significant benefit from being racist. So if they start suffering significant costs, I think their racism is likely to yield. But yes, decent people will (and should) segregate themselves from recalcitrant racists.

I don't think it's likely. I think it's possible. The truly to-the-bone racists will be in the minority in any realistic situation, so if they're violent, they'll just get put in jail. Hopefully, the non-racist supermajority will see no need to resort to violence.

Reacting violently to other people's actions within their rights would be treated like violence in defiance of the law is in our society. It would be illegal and would result in civil forfeiture, jail time, and so on.

Work on your self-esteem so you won't have to constantly declare yourself the victor.

Uh... no.

Or people will work together to solve the problem since they all have an incentive to find a peaceful solution. You really have no idea which way it will go.

Your argument amounts to "I can think of a situation in which your system gives a sub-optimal solution". That's a good refutation of the person who claims that their system will provide perfect results in every situation. But nobody is making that argument.

In any event, Democracy can be much worse. In any situation where a majority of people wish to oppress a minority, Democracy creates a high risk that they will be able to use force to do so in a way that the system will generally recognize as legitimate. At least Libertarianism does not recognize that use of force as legitimate, though of course if enough people with the ability to exercise force wish to exercise force, no system can stop them.

The hope of Libertarians is that the "live and let live" philosophy would reduce the situations in which people would feel the need to use force. Much of the unrest in our society today centers around how government force will be used to control non-coercive associations between people.

Sorry I didn't hear you.  Are you agreeing with the statement or not?

Are you equivocating here?  You personally do not but that's because you don't have property on the other side of it.  Other people do, right now there's a municipal order allowing them access.

Hey! I got that thing paved a decade ago.  See if I do anything for you again

So in other words you accept that it's feasible for a non-business to own a major road?

One is also a tank and the other is not.  They are still identical in the respect in which the analogy was used and I love that you pretty much demonstrate my point in your reply.

You are just too cute for words!  Seriously it's a creative, simple and easy-to-understand term which defines a portion of the issues rather well.  Your objection on the other hand I agree does show a degree of lashing out.  Unlike you, I limit myself to speculation as to the cause ;D

What's your point? I claimed that stores would assure access to a major highway and then you state the obvious viz. that they wouldn't assure access to every customer at any cost. How does that disprove my claim that stores would still assure access to a major highway? I'm assuming that you concede that point.


Would any rational person have bought that property in the first place if they couldn't be guaranteed access to it at a reasonable price in the future? No.


Of course it is. It's also feasible that everyone decides to kill themselves tomorrow at 2:33 PM -5 GMT. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable. I take it that you concede my point that most roads will be owned by a business.


Thanks but I'm taken.

While this side-trip into your psyche is...amusing.  I'd say that you can't reasonably expect an answer if you will not provide them.  It's a simple question.  Yes or no will do. 

Heavy on the prejudicial language there.  Define in his context how you are using "rational", "future" and "guaranteed".

Well firstly one of the senses of "feasible" means "likely" and/or "reasonable".  Even in it's stricter senses it generally isn't synonymous with the strictest sense of "possible".  So figure out what you are saying and get back to me.

I'm only a visitor to fantasy-land.  There's no reason for me to assume any of that.
...and this side-trip is just plain creepy.

Bigotry is not a "legal" crime.
Racism is not a "legal" crime.
Gender and age disrimination is not a "legal" crime.
Employment discrimination (depending on the contract covenants) is not a "legal" crime.
Segregation is not a "legal" crime.
Sexual orientation descrimination is not a "legal" crime.
Religious descrimination is not a "legal" crime.

Therefore, and obviously, exclusion and restriction of others from the use of one's private property is not a "legal" crime (regardless of the reasons).

List of "legal" crimes (rather short).

1) Murder and Injury.
2) Enslavement.
3) Theft.

Admittedly, most of the discrimination listed above is not nice, but that's a moral and religious concern not a legal one (take it up with your local ecclesiastical leader). We should all be kind, caring, charitable, loving, compassionate, empathetic and considerate. You just can't force such things as they don't fall into the category of "legal" crimes for which restitution can be demanded.

Can you define what you mean by "legal crime" here.

Do you need a definition for murder, injury, enslavement and theft? That's kinda funny. Oh wait a minute, lemme go get a hammer, gun and bulldozer (I forgot, and a cage). I'll be right on over...

Ok so "legal crime" in the sense you are using it has no meaning outside of something that qualifies as murder, injury, enslavement and theft?  Right?


Not tonight I have a headache.

I guess you could say there are 2 types of offenses. Mental and physical.

If you're going to allow mental offenses to become legal issues then you might as well open Pandora's Box. Because anything could be interpreted as offensive. There could be no end to the number of laws that one could write.

On the other hand, if we only consider the physical domain (physics of force), then you narrow the playing field considerably.

I personally prefer simplicity.

This sounds very attractive, but it's really not that simple. I eat a banana. Is that force? Well, not if it's my banana. But yes if it's your banana.

I don't give you $100. Is that force? Well, if you believe in enforceable contracts and I agree to give you $100, that's going to have to be considered force. Unless you don't believe in enforceable contracts, which seems to pretty much doom the concept of a modern industrial society which requires long-term investments and legally-enforceable agreements.

Every interaction with others is a form of contract. I do believe in enforceable contract. Still simple.

I suspect, in their heads everyone's already made the alliteration concerning the terms "simplicity" and "simple" so I won't bother.  ;D

You seem to be making the argument that "the lower the number of laws to be made the more you prefer it".   This is seems pretty weak.

i) Why is low number of laws the key element?  By the same token one could argue that if we only consider assault to a person (rather than property) then that result is simpler still! Better yet, lets only consider assault to peoples left arms!
ii) Can you actually prove that there is no infinite set of laws that could potentially be made (given an infinite amount of time) concerning the assault of person and property?
iii) Your secondary clause is actually a slippery slope fallacy.  Many societies already consider various forms mental abuse to be a crime and yet we still see limitations on laws regarding offensive things in those places. 

So by "legal crimes" you meant "physical assault to a person and I'll assume by extension to ones property" then?.  That's interesting since it doesn't cover "threat of violence" with is considered "aggression" under NAP.   Which means that blackmail in your world is not a crime.  Also to you an dependent elder, child, spouse can be in an raised in an environment with constant psychological abuse (including say making someone fear for their life) and believe that no crime is being committed there.  Right?

Law is complicated because life is, in part because life today is complicated.

Hmmm, yes. I think this is the key point. Libertarianism cannot accommodate the complexities of
human nature.
 

I actually do prefer fewer laws. There's less to mess with. There is a reason for the preference. I think when you have many laws you introduce the possibility of loopholes. Those tend to be exploited by lawyers allowing real criminals to use them to excuse themselves from the accountability of their actions.

Every type of physical assault is unique (including the circumstances and evidence, a lot like a fingerprint), that's why you have a court to determine the gravity of the crime and the specific punishment and restitution. I think a reasonable set of jurors, judge, arbiters, or other panel of discerning individuals can mete out a sentence of reasonable proportions.

In general, blackmail, slander, and other forms of questionable communication are not physical abuse as would be defined in the usual physical sense of the word, and so, would not fall into the category of punishable offenses. Notwithstanding, children, who by nature have limited ability to decide for themselves that they would leave such a negative environment if available, warrants some investigation.

Everybody else is free to leave an abusive environment (assuming it isn't their own private property they're occupying, in which case the other person has to leave). Threats of force still involve the element of force, and so are unacceptable. However, one must be careful when interpreting imminent threat as the act of aggression hasn't commenced yet. A sticky situation.

This is Occam's Razor.

The problem is that human nature will lead to conflicts that Libertarianism does not have the mechanisms to resolve.

Yes, the problem with "live and let live" is that it inevitably leads to conflicts. What leads to conflicts is fighting over the profits of government.

Which are?

Merely being imperfect humans leads to inevitable conflicts. This has nothing to do with Libertarianism, or for that matter any other type of form of government, belief system, "royal" proclamation, or list of prescribed constraints.

It is in man's nature to be destructive more often than not. It seemingly takes herculean effort to look outside oneself and "do the right thing."

The only constraints/actions governments can proscribe, are ones which involve the non-consensual entanglements and encroachments between men and their property. This is justice. Anything else, and the government abuses the same people it was intended to protect.

I said you were stating the obvious. I'm sorry if you don't know whether or not that implies I agree with you.

Define in his context how you are using "rational", "future" and "guaranteed".[/quote]

Use a dictionary. Answer the question.

There's no reason for me to assume any of that.[/quote]

Why is that an unreasonable assumption? Please provide some substance.

Noooooo....what you said in reference to this particular point was:

They only thing you clearly labeled as obvious was the idea about the feasibility of a non-business owning a road.  Unless you are saying that when you say: "What's your point?" you mean that the point you are responding to is obviously true?

On the same note, did you figure out what you meant by "feasible" yet?

Those people actually reading my posts would see that I didn't ask for a list of potential meanings.  I asked how YOU were using the terms.  Sadly I don't have a dictionary that is labeled "bitcoin2cash to my personal usage English" which is why it's, at least in my circles deemed reasonable to get a definition before answering a question.  Perhaps where you come from it's not reasonable?  Which is fine but given that you seem to agree that it's rational to not answer a question without terms defined to ones satisfaction isn't the only thing blocking the conversation here some kind of emotional hang-up of yours?

I mean, hey if you don't want to talk that's fine but there are easier ways to do that...like not-posting.  ;D

Also it's probably worthwhile to attempt to see this from my point of view.  You have, self-described yourself as a zealot.  Zealots, in my experience tend to oversimplify things.

Either a strawman or a implied false dichotomy.  I've simply stated that there is no reason to assume that (especially since fantasy-land is pretty poorly defined and possibly this is deliberate on your part). 

So fewer laws do not create loopholes or create less loopholes?  So if I have a law who's intent is to stop the use of dangerous weapons which only restricts weapons made of steel and a set of laws that provides specific requirements for each material based on various characteristics.  Are you saying the first law allows for less dangerous weapons than the second?

Not to mention this kind of highlights that the term "number of laws" is at least poorly defined.   What's the difference between my set of laws - strung together as a single sentence and classified as a single "law" and treating them as a group of laws?  Perhaps we need to use terms more like "simple" or "complex".   I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here - just trying to think things through.

However on that note this makes me think of the problems involved in approximation.  Bare with me here...if we assume that there is some kind of "true" justice then it seems reasonable that such a concept could be defined as a function (of sorts) where each possible situation is the input and the output maps to some set of results - leaving aside for the moment the difficulty in defining "true justice" and some of the other terms - we will call this function T.  A law then could be defined as a function attempting to approximate this function - which we'll call L.   It's inputs do not necessarily take into account every situation and it's outputs do not necessarily match T for any and all cases.    Given all that, what features would L require to approximate T best?

Yes and under your system apparently these child abusers are not criminals and are also not punished correct?

Depends on what you mean by "free".  Do you mean significantly unencumbered?

Technically that's equivocation.  Before you used the term 'force' to align with the term used by physicists.  Threats of violence are orthogonal to physical force.   Now you appear to be using the term to mean something else.

Nobody's perfect; so fewer imperfect laws would produce, in general, and statistically speaking, less loopholes.

Those aren't laws, they're suggestive mores/opinions masquerading as laws. Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder, not cause them. To wit, if I make a law which proscribes or obstructs a specific use of your property, I've violated your liberties. There's your first loophole. Oops!

This smacks of garrulousness, semantics and pedantry. If we can't communicate, then were going to have a problem.

I've actually given great thought to this. I do think it's possible, although, when you include things like imminent physical threats, the approximations become more vague. I haven't yet condensed it into mathemeatical form, I will get there eventually, here's my take on it:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447 (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447)



If the child feels threatened, cannot express their situation to someone else they trust and feel safe with, nor permitted to leave their environment, these "verbal" abusers would be holding their own children hostage. Kidnapping is enslavement, and is obviously not allowed.


Yes, free. Free in the general vernacular and etymology of the word, indicating unencumberedness. Pedantic again?, see above... You know what it meant. The contextual use of that word was not meant to imply that it cost you no money, no energy, and no mental effort to relocate yourself to another position in a 4-dimensional (x,y,z,t) space as constrained by an inertial reference frame. Oh wait, quantum physicists believe their is 11-dimensional space, sorry, better get that straightened out too...Geez!


I suppose that's true to some extent. Maybe we could equate threats of violence/force with potential energy, and violence that has already been committed, with kinetic energy. I'm sure we can figure something out here. Most laws should, for the most part, align with measurable and observable physical phenomena. Those laws which include potential threats can be observed/defined as deterministic, or at the least probabalistic, predictable events in progress. It would be like setting the initial conditions of an experiment, then introducing impetus to the inputs, followed by observing the outputs.

I'm getting the same problem. The defenders of Libertarianism are simply not following the argument here.

The whole point of governance is to resolve conflicts, Libertarianism has no mechanism to do this other than some
crude and ineffective notion of property rights.

Its nothing but a half-assed hangover theory from a decadent, post-consumer society.

Still waiting....

The mechanism is the same, laws, police, courts, and jails. The difference is that Libertarians don't recognize you wanting my stuff as a conflict that gets resolves in your favor.

We've already covered many examples in this thread. Let me help you, you decadent, lazy libertarian.

From earlier in the thread, the example of a whites-only restaurant opening in an ethnic neighbourhood.
Given there is enough support for such a restaurant, conflict will result.

This is one of many, many conflict scenarios - religious, racial, cultural -  that will always occur. There is
no mechanism to resolve these conflicts other than to let them beat the shit out of each other.

Hence, libertarianism is unstable and will always collapse into a barbarism or tyranny.

Ok, so libertarianism is not really a system of governance, it's a set of rules dealing with property rights. That's not really much of a change is it?

And we've explained several times how that conflict would be resolved.

You can make this argument about any system. Heck, you could reject freedom of speech on these grounds. If you're free to say things I don't like, there will always be conflict. With freedom of speech, we can never resolve this conflict other than to let people beat the shit out of each other.

If you value freedom, then you accept that people will conflict because some people will be free to do things other people don't like. The solution is simple -- the people who don't like it have to get over it. If not, if they respond with violence, we put them in jail. For the system to work, the majority of people have to value their own freedom above the power to micro-manage other people's lives. In other words, people have to learn to get over it. If you think that's impossible, then Libertarianism will not work but then neither will freedom.

The difference is primarily in the scope of government. You can have a technical argument over whether it's a "system" or not. A Libertarian government could, for example, be imposed by a dictator. Or one could be maintained by majority vote. Generally, the term "libertarian" applies to government policy choices, regardless of the system by which those choices are made.

Yes, there are. I've already told them to you, but you handwaved them away.

You haven't defined 'loophole' but until you provide another definition I'm going to assert that what you mean by it is something like 'allows for a deviation from "true justice" to some degree and in some particular case or set of cases'.  The consequence of this is that all laws do not have an equal number of loopholes nor are the equally egregious.   If so, your assertion is both a) Not necessarily true (generally and statistically  ;D ) and b)  Even if it was it begs the larger and seemingly more relevant question as to how well these laws approximate "justice".  Since it doesn't take into consideration the degree of the loophole or the injustice caused by having no law at all.

So provide a better definition or I'd say that you really haven't made your point. 
You're arguing by special definition (which is a fallacy!).  What I provided sure seems congruent with how the term is used where I live.  For example the laws in my jurisdiction disallow ownership of dangerous weapons and do make exceptions for their construction and use.  i.e. decorative weapons which are made from carbon steel are acceptable.


So what exactly are you asserting here? That my examples of laws are non-laws under your definition because they have a loophole? or because there is no possible case where they can prevent injury, enslavement and plunder?

No. You are talking about "number of laws" I gave an example of laws that could be considered a single law and asserted that this makes the term poorly defined.  You have given no rationale as to why "true laws" are somehow exempt from this.  I humbly submit that "true laws" notwithstanding my point is still made.
Agreed but to date you have made two arguments by special definition and one via equivocation.  I'd suggest that these are indicative of where the communication problem lies.

You can argue, mathematically that given a suitable single object for approximation and a function to approximate.   The more objects you use the more you can reduce your error in approximation.
I don't know about "it" but I was unclear about what you meant.  So someone who is significantly encumbered is not free?  Ergo when you said "Everybody else is free to leave an abusive environment" is incorrect or at least inconsistent.  Since it seems like someone who is elderly, disabled or in other ways dependent are "significantly encumbered".  I think it's reasonable to ask for a definition when there is an apparent contradiction and doing so should not earn someone an accusation of pedantry?  Do you disagree?

Ok, so is mental abuse illegal now in your world or what?  Just being mentally abused does not necessarily imply being held against one's will.  Your "trust and feel safe" criteria seems like exactly the kind of 'mental crime' you said we shouldn't have laws against.  So the only thing you've prohibited here is holding someone against their will under threat.    Even that doesn't solve very much because the abuse while horrible may simply be not as bad as the alternative i.e. starvation.

This sounds like you're saying that threats are not bad because they are intrinsically so but because they lead to the expressed or implied action.   I'd expect that is untrue.  What I'd assert is that mental abuse - including violent threats are intrinsically damaging it just isn't an assault on ones person in the "physical" sense.

While the idea that laws should be based on statistics and outcomes I find intriguing.  Have you considered turning the same lens on your ideas about property rights?

A couple of notes.   It's not Ockhams Razor per se.  As big Bill actually cautioned against using unnecessary entities to explain phenomena.  He certainly did not say that simple systems are correct or preferable.  While that is a common phrasing of the idiom it is also demonstrably false.   In some cases in ballistics one can ignore wind resistance. This is a "simpler" model according to Occam but it is also less correct (as a model of ballistics).

Personally I think that rather than use labels like "Libertarian" it's better to simply assert that complex systems are - as I mentioned earlier - best approximated by complex models.  However like any approximation function one must weigh other factors.  While I don't pretend to know what Libertarianism entails to a terrible degree of detail.  Some form of government which loosely fits under that label may in fact be optimal.   However I will say that nobody here has, from where I sit made a very good argument to that end.

Read here, and get back with me:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447 (http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=18489.msg351447#msg351447)

Then we don't have to fall over our words again, and again. I have a feeling you like to beat people up over the precise meaning of a word or combination of words. I don't find pedantry fun in the least. Words have meaning, but they can be misconstrued just for the sake of argument. Using a loosely defined language (i.e. any spoken language such as English, Spanish, French, Chinese, etc.) as opposed to a more strictly defined one (mathematics) would avert some problems in what I said versus what you think I intended to say.

The Laws of Men aren't rocket science (as in difficult), at least for the most part (I'm just waiting for you to jump on this one). They're quite simple, prevent injustice without causing it. I can come to your aid, but don't force me. As it has already been said many a time in this forum and others, I owe you nothing more than inaction. To wit, I can bring no harm, nor effectuate change in you or your property. If I do, there can be consequences.

Rofl?


War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

Compared to what? Are you saying that another system/ideology can accommodate the complexities of human nature better? Which one?

Human nature is complicated, which is why praxeology was invented.

 

Occam's razor is a concept concerning probability - the simplest solution is the most probable. My original statement was just a casual comparison.   

Beyond this I am sympathetic to you position. I quite like the Libertarian idea, I mean who doesn't like the idea more personal freedom? I also agree that
the arguments presented so far in the thread are naive and inadequate.

If Libertarianism does arrive, I suspect it will be with authoritarianism hidden deep out of sight.

Yes, most other systems of governance deal with complexities such as conflicts of interest. They judge and enforce a resolution. Yes, they are authoritarian and
restrict individual liberty to do this.

Libertarianism has no mechanism to resolve conflict and is hence unstable. In fact, naive and childish.

You keep saying this, in the face of evidence to the contrary (https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=30231.msg380860#msg380860).

Therefore you are either terminally stupid, or the most transparent troll on the internet.

Can you please cite and justify this evidence? Given that negotiation and arbitration can't solve all conflicts.

If by "Ockham's Razor" you mean what Ockham actually said...or Betrand Russel's formulation of the idiom.  Then no, it's not.
If by "Ockham's Razor" you mean what people commonly refer to by the idiom then yes you are correct.  However that sense is very likely false.

Still waiting on you to cite conflicts that negotiation can't solve.

Whites-only restaurants are not a conflict. Let me learn you why:
I own a building. I can exclude anyone I want from my building.
By extension, I can choose to allow anyone I want access to my building.
I own food, And I can choose to give, or not give, that food to anyone I want.
I can also set conditions upon which I will or will not give that food to someone. (for instance, paying $13.95 per plate)
It is not a violation of anyone's rights to tell them, "No."

That's actually the opposite of what I was talking about.  This is not an empirical derivation of law from some generally agreed upon concept of Justice.   It's actually much closer to the way you described my laws.  A set of mores or guiding principles.  Virtually every statement is way, way, way, way too poorly defined to be a law.

Also I'd appreciate a response to the bulk of this discussion which has been about your particular justification for your ideas as to what makes an optimal legal system. NOT primarily what your alleged optimal system consists of.   In that vein, any chance you can tell me what this has to do with your argument concerning your ideas concerning "number of laws" or your definition of "loophole" or "law".  After all I've been consistent in responding to your questions.
 

How about, instead you just be honest about it?  i.e. " 'Mental crime' wasn't what I meant" or "My loophole/number of laws argument doesn't really hold water".   I mean who cares?  I would guess that wouldn't affect your position anyway.   Why keep a bad argument around?


Are you implying that a pretty mild examination of your logic is somehow "beating you up"?  Wait until the lawyers from your preferred system get their hands on your "simple" laws.  I think you are in greater danger from getting "beat up" from the repeated back-patting in that other thread than anything from me.  ;D

I've already argued that that is an undeserved accusation.  Please back up your claim or stop accusing.

I can't deliberately misconstrue if I don't know what you're saying.  You made statements with apparent contradictions.  It's up to you, not me to clear those up.

Please cite a specific example of what you are talking about here.  From here it appears that your loose usage of language is the problem.   It makes your ideas appear as not being thought through.  You also seem to be saying that it's my responsibility to make your arguments make sense.  Why is that exactly?  I thought all I owed you was inaction?

No jumping necessary.  You have just made a change of subject fallacy.  Instead of giving an argument as to why "laws" need to be simple you are now just assuming it.  This is what logicians call "begging the question".

Hmm, I suppose we could possibly make progress here.

I would counter your assertion above. I propose that a white-only restaurant in the middle
of a black district will cause conflict. Do you seriously think that it wouldn't piss people off?

What about when some Klansmen walk along the street to go there, perhaps with a noose and burning cross?
Don't you think that would almost certainly cause conflict?

You inept system must be able to cope with conflict, not pretend it won't exist.

I'm referring to it's application in Bayesian statistics. This is the only interpretation that matters.

How about people who enable them?

So contracts aren't part of the machinery of government as you are using the term?  Because as a wealthy landowner it appears that I can enforce segregation and discrimination on my property.  Right?  The only difference here is, correct me if I'm wrong that I can't enforce that statewide or further and you can boycott me but you can't regulate my actions.

What are you referring to? Bergers paper?

To avoid any stereotypes, let's invert, and thus possibly subvert, your scenario:

"I propose that a black-only restaurant in the middle of a white district will cause conflict. Do you seriously think that it wouldn't piss people off?

What about when some Panthers walk along the street to go there, perhaps with brass knuckles and shotguns?
Don't you think that would almost certainly cause conflict? "

Hmm. In either situation, the problem can be completely avoided by not selling to the white/black person in the first place, but let's assume that the previous property owner was a moron, and didn't ask what the property was going to be used for.

Assuming that, and the business does indeed get started, remember that all the other property surrounding it, including the road up to it, is private as well. The road can, and indeed should, exclude troublemakers from traveling it. Simple things, like requiring any fires in the vehicle to be extinguished, etc, should do it. Come down to it, the street owner can just shut down access to the restaurant completely, if the place is causing that much trouble for the neighborhood.

But let's assume the road owner is a neutral party, far removed from, and thus uncaring about, the 'conflict' brewing. You're assuming that people have the right to not be offended. You're wrong. A white man, carrying a cross and wearing a hood is harming no one, just as a black man wearing a leather jacket and carrying a lead pipe ain't hurtin' nobody. As long as those things are true, there is no conflict. The minute that black man swings the lead pipe at someone though, or the white guy grabs someone to string up, then there's a conflict. A conflict that can be resolved using one of the three methods I presented in my previous post.

But really, your whole scenario is stupid. Who would go into Harlem and open a Whites-only restaurant? You'd get no business. You need to cater to the clientele most likely to come to your store. In Harlem, that's gonna be blacks. And as for racial tension in general, Talking (ie negotiation) has proved to be the best way to defuse it, every damn time.

You don't think people are capable of being free. You think that if people are free, some people will get so unhappy at what other people choose to do that they'll riot. And yet our society has most of these same freedoms and we don't have many riots at all. People say things every day that anger other people. But there's no blood in the streets. You must be completely mystified as to how this can be.

And the answer really is simple -- the majority of people understand that if they want to have freedom, they have to similarly extend freedom to other people. This will mean that other people will be free to do things that they really and truly despise. And they're perfectly willing to get over it. For the minority of people who can't over it -- we have police, courts, and jails. If you can't accept that your neighbor wants to pray to Allah or not pray at all, and your only recourse is violence, then you have no place in civil society.

Many people will respond violently to oppression. But only a small number of people will respond violently to other people's freedom. For that small number of people, they should be violently suppressed. They certainly should not ever get what they want.

So to you is justice defined as having little meaning outside of respecting property rights?   So something like racial segregation - the act of allowing people of one ethnicity or ancestry access to some areas of land and not others is not intrinsically unjust if it's done by a landowner.  However it is unjust if it's done by a government.  Right?

The nature of government is such that everything it does is unjust, even its good acts. Any benefit government gives to someone, comes at the cost of harm to someone else.

No, not at all. But I draw a distinction between those unjust acts that justify a response with force and those that don't. That doesn't mean I don't despise those acts and consider them just as unjust as you do. That doesn't mean I wouldn't fully accept other actions aimed at punishing the injustice -- just not the use of force. Not every injustice justifies the use of force to correct it.

If the majority of people want to be bigots, then we definitely don't want force available, because they'll use force to do things like segregate society and oppress minorities. If the majority of people don't want to be bigots, we don't need to use force against the minority. We can simply ostracize them and punish them in non-coercive ways. If they want to form their own minority enclave in which they are bigots, I see no reason not to let them. We can continue to consider them unjust and deserving of our hate. But we can also live and let live.

It is unjust if done by anyone.

Freedom includes the freedom to be unjust with what is yours.

So, to clarify your rambling reply:

Black panthers and Klansmen beating each other in the street due to a race-baiting restaurant:
1) Is a conflict
2) Can be resolved through, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. i.e the three methods you proposed.

So basically, you think Libertarianiam can work because you can talk your way out of any conflict such as a race war? Am I correct
or can you clarify further?

Those are not the three methods I suggested, Go back and read all three wikipedia links. Note that the third one isn't so much a method, but a demonstration of how it's enacted today.

And though it may be difficult for such a conflict-driven mind such as yourself, Yes, I do believe that most situations can indeed be solved by talking to the other person.

In a Bayesian context, Occam's razor corresponds to the selection of the minimal marginal likelihood of a set of models over their parameters. In a complex model, lower likelihood due to
the integration over more parameters will be offset by higher likelihood due to lower variance. This quantifies Occam's Razor, giving the most probable model
to be the simplest (that still fits the data).

As I mentioned, my original comparison was only casual.

Can you please state your three methods. These are the key to your entire argument.

We may soon reach or final point of opinion. Yours being the opinion that all conflicts can be resolved by negotiation.

COnflicts such as Race hate, religious rivalry, domestic violence, pagan ritual sacrifice etc.

I did already, you quoted them, I assumed you read them. I guess I was wrong. Go back and read them now. I'll wait...


Done? Good. So now you should have seen that no, not all conflicts can be solved by negotiations.

If you insist that your right to swing your fist does not end at my face, well, I'm just going to have to defend myself, aren't I? Let me list the things you have lumped together up there into their proper categories:
Not conflict:
Race hate, religious rivalry. (these only become conflict when violence is attempted)

Conflict:
domestic violence, pagan ritual sacrifice.

Conflict occurs when violence happens. Anything less is a disagreement, and people are allowed to disagree.

Ok then what you said earlier needs some clarification or you need to define some terms.


For example oppression is defined as the unjust use of power.  If the wealthy landowner is unjust in segregating his community then how is he not also oppressing people?  Is it okay to force him to stop?  If it isn't then how are people not reasonable in responding violently? 

Personally I think the whole thing is a weak argument.  As a person I'm willing to bet that the oppressed cares very,very,very little if the person oppressing them is 'free' to do so or not.  So the many/few argument doesn't wash.


You mean if 60% of your country believes that washrooms should be ethnically segregated.   Then laws can and will be passed to demand it?   That seems unlikely.  However if 60% of your country's land is owned by people who believe that.  Isn't that de facto segregation?

Consider a neighborhood composed of various races. There is one majority and a few minorities. The major road in and out is owned by XYZ company. All seems well. ABC company buys the road from XYZ company. Then, over the course of the next year or so, ABC company begins to change the rules of access, based on skin color.

Each restriction will create a competitor.

First, BLK company, them MEX, then AZN, each with their own roads, open to the affected group, and everyone else. Pretty soon, the restricted road gets no business, while it's competitors are booming. Or much more likely, the first split creates a competitor, which the original road drives business to by restricting it's customers, eventually starving itself out, or finding a mid ground, which will still be lower than the wide open road.

I guess the key point you missed (which is your debating style) is the phrase 'major road'.

And what stops a competitor, exactly? What is it about the width or length of a road that makes competing impossible?

What you're talking about still isn't very clear. Given some dataset X and some group of models M.  P(X|M) will absolutely NOT award the highest posterior probability to the simplest model in any and all cases.  What you're talking about sounds sort of like the bias-variance dilemma which I generally assume you don't worry about when you're taking a Bayesian approach.

Edit:Perhaps a clearer way of putting this is that the marginal likelihood penalizes complex models however that's not the same as saying that the simpliest solution is the most likely (by which I assume you mean has the highest posterior probability) not to mention that who was it...Murray? States that the relationship between complexity and number of parameters isn't exactly as simple as you seem to imply.

Where does the competitor get the land to make the alternative road? Why do you think this alternative road magically appears within a day of the rule changes enacted by ABC company? Even if alternative roads are built, what happens in the interim? Furthermore, there's already a road going from A to B. Why do we want three more roads right next to it or nearly next to it also going from A to B?

All of these things are questions asked by the new owners of the road before they make these changes, I'm sure...

If not, then Perhaps they shouldn't be making these sorts of silly decisions? They know that restrictions create competition. They know that they are only going to enrich their neighbors (Who will either sell to, or become, the new road) at the expense of themselves, not to mention generate tons of ill will and bad press. Companies, at least, we can be sure will act relatively rational, if for no other reason, their greater inertia.

...and while the road is being built why not economically sabotage it?  As soon as these folk break ground they have investors, a budget, a board of directors and profitability projections.  Which could take years to get lined up I might add.  Especially since there's no right to annex.  So you are now negotiating with every two-bit landowner.

As for the racist (or whatever restrictive) landowner I would assume they can still be clever about things.  Why can't I start getting everyone on my road with reduced rates and a contract which just happens to overlap within the first few operating years of the new road?  Profitability projections would have to be altered.  Could easily get the board to cancel the project and the racist doesn't have to let people of ethnicity X back on their road once their contract is up.  They might even be able to buy the unfinished new road cheap.  If the board does go through with the project they will be running at a disadvantage.

If they do quit next time you try to build a competing road, you have less land and your investors are more reluctant.

This also doesn't include some of the "dirty" but probably legal things I could do in that world.

See previous refutation of predatory business practices. True, you can't stockpile a road, but you can easily project out past those first few years.

However your assertion was that it was solely due to the restriction that demand was created.  So there was no market need for a new road.
What stops the racist from keeping their customers happy just until they bankrupt the project?

Nothing. Nothing stops the competing road from only operating when the first one is being a dick about who can drive on it, either.

He is metaphorically oppressing people, but he is not actually oppressing people. A refusal to interact with someone is not oppressing them. I don't oppress McDonald's if I choose to eat at Burger King, even if my reasons are bizarre or irrational (that Hamburgler always seemed creepy to me).

The equation of isolation with oppression is a bogus argument, akin to equating bullets with words. It is one I entirely reject.

Yes, being a racist in your own endeavors is an evil. But it is an evil of a qualitatively different sort than shooting people or stealing from them.

If there is going to be freedom, people will have to accept that other people may do things we really don't like. And we cannot respond with force.

So long as you use the word "oppressed" to include both using force to restrain people and refusing to do business with them because you don't like them, your arguments aren't going to make any sense.

Since that's exactly what happened, I'm not sure why you think it's unlikely.

Yes, it is. However, at least they won't be able to use force to segregate those who don't wish to be segregated. So we're a bit better off if force is off the table.

But in practice, if 60% of the people (or 60% of the wealth, or 60% of the power, or whatever) is willing to use force to compel segregation, no system will be able to avoid segregation. That's just a fact. The best we can do is set up a system that encourages people to value freedom and makes it as hard as possible to use force for applications other than legitimate defense.

I have no idea what exactly you were talking about. You responded to my comment first if I recall, not the other way around. I've never read your laws. Every statement I wrote about what Law is, was as precise as it will ever get. I'd like to see you do better.


I wasn't describing a legal system, I was creating definitions that anybody could utilize in whatever legal "system" they were willing to concoct. I'm personally not interested in responding to the # of loophole response or definition thereof. It will likely go nowhere. Let it go. If you can't get the gist of it, does that mean your going to "go off the deep end" and start hurting people? If not, then I'm sure we have a pretty good understanding.


Exactly who cares. I'm sure you got it. Again this is sounding like a debate about a debate about a debate, not an obvious clarification about a clarification about a clarification (don't even go there). You're the one keeping the bad argument around it seems. Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.


I figured you find something to annoy with. Let's see here. Your words didn't beat me up physically, so no. Does this help your fragile mind games about some off-handed rhetorical rant about a rant? Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.



Get over yourself, I'm sure you'll survive. Undeserved accusation? Boo hoo, cry me a river. On the other hand, lemme think about this one. Hmmm, what's the definition of deserved? Shall we try to mathematically, probablistically, or statistically derive this one? Or maybe we should talk to an ecclesiastical leader and get a poll going. Or if you're really bored, we can read all of human history and decipher through some filter equation so's we can see who wins the "most undeserved accused" award. <<Puke>> Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.


You seem clueless and informed at the same time. The sardonic irony in here is thick. And your right, they are all "apparent" contradictions (for you). I don't have to do anything for you at all. Either you get it or you don't, I'm not your wet nurse. I'm not going to argue about an argument any more than I'm going to define a definition. It's called circular. You'll end up going nowhere.


Not interested in making more examples than I've already compiled. I've thought them thru just fine (let's see you do better). I invite you to sit down and write a set of laws. We'll compare notes. Notwithstanding, it seems that if I did, you'd nit pick thru every word I wrote with the intent of finding contradictions that don't exist. I never implied you'd be responsible for my words or make my arguments make sense. You're assuming, I thought you didn't do that.


Read the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Ludvig Wittgenstein. I imagine you two would get along just dandy. Go begging.

Beside the point.   In order for the road to operate it needs to be built.   In order for the road to be built it needs investors.  Investors will want to know at what point their money gets returned to them (or unless you are counting on a "equal and opposite" bigot) before the road begins construction.  Breaking these provokes a response from your investors - at least in the world around me - perhaps it's different in your area.  This can be anything from invoking penalty clauses to pulling out (due to your breach of contract). 

As the racist controls the circumstances for your profitability they can force your project to be unprofitable until it dies.  Thus no road to operate.  Not only that but this is an extreme example the racist can simply make life more expensive for the group he/she is oppressing.   You can always make that just under the price it takes for a road to be profitable for investors.

If you're saying that having a restriction that everyone in my lands has to use washrooms segregated by ethnicity, live in specific areas of my lands by ethnicity, people who are of a specific ethnicity aren't allowed to leave (I can own the roads and presumably other transport remember!) and people of particular ethnicities are only allowed specific jobs with lower salaries (which I can control through contracts with people who build on my land) - isn't real oppression.  Then I think you're making a distinction without a difference.

But not so long ago you seemed to say that segregation was unjust?   I'm still stuck on how this is not an unjust use of power?   The only reason that is consistent with your wording is that you are just making a trivial exception to the term.   Why not just throw that away and say that - in your world - Some things that are generally accepted as oppressive acts are okay?
Ah! So your argument is essentially that there is no salient difference between lawmaking with regard to racism in 1847 and today then?

I'm not sure where your "practice" is taking place here but where I live anyway having the majority of the wealth does not give me the freedom to do what I like.   You are regulated as to what you can use your money to do, buy, etc...

Personally, I've always found Hamburgler preferable to "Big Mac" the nearly powerless symbol of law enforcement.  :D

So despite there being a bunch of commentary in that thread on your laws.   No explication is necessary?

Is that an implied argument from ignorance? (ie. if one can not do better than either no better can be done or it's somehow wrong to criticize?) Not to mention that I've already made the argument that law is likely necessarily complex.   I doubt if I have much reason to embark on creating a different legal system.

Wait. What?  Ok let's walk through this.  I don't feel any urge to hurt anyone so that means any impression of have of your rationale for a "simple" system is what you meant?  So currently I think your rationale is poorly thought out and ill-defined to the point of being useless.  Ergo that's what you meant?

Yes, I see that you console yourself with the idea that my consideration that your argument is bad is the result of some deliberate position on my part.   Have you considered that your belief that your argument is correct is the direct result of spending too much time talking with people who are unwilling or unable to criticize it properly?
 
Colour me confused.  So are you admitting you made a bad argument here?  You could have said that ages ago.

*sigh* Look it's simple.  Your argument was bad. The number of laws/loopholes:

i) Is not defined well enough to be useful
ii) In the various definitions posited by you it is incorrect.

I wonder if your argument would be so "off-handed" if someone hadn't called you on it?

...a false accusation.  Sure.  However it doesn't speak much for your intellectual integrity.

I understand a few things.  However I don't necessarily understand your argument - unless of course it's simply wrong.  By giving you the opportunity to redefine your terms I'm being considerably more polite than say...to pick a zealot at random...say bitcoin2cash.  His response to your approach is something like "you got nothing".

Thanks Atlas.  How about another topic?  Do you find it interesting how the same "you get it or you don't" rationale works equally well when arguing both correct and incorrect things?
"You either get that aliens are going to destroy the world in 2012 or you don't!"  The mild implication that there's something wrong with "not getting it" is great manipulation too.

Depends on what you mean.  A circular argument or definition is one in which it depends on the term itself for definition.  i.e. Whales are whales.  Other than dealing with religious people I rarely find myself in a place where someone has to make a circular definition so early on.  Why not just say: "Hey I simply assert this for no good reason?"

Argument from ignorance once again.

Well, you do keep implying that it's my fault that your words don't make sense.   Isn't "You get it or you don't" is a implicit argument that I have to make sense of your words and that you are not responsible for making sense of them to others.

I'd love to spend some time reading Wittgenstein but apparently I get distracted by sophomoric argumentation easily.  Considering what Wittgenstein was attempting to do for language what Bertrand Russel was attempting to do for math (and was subsequently foiled by Godel).  I think it's a great use of your time.

Unless I can write in another language you could actually understand, then yes.


It was an invitation to tango. Wanna dance, or not? If you have no reason to embark on a constructive legal system, why is it you're willing to argue about it so much? If you've got something to offer, then offer. I know of a lot of people who like to argue, but do nothing in the way of suggesting improvements.


Not interested in arguing again (and again).


I accept criticism fine and I need no consolation. I feel great, thanks. You are being deliberately pedantic. I do believe my positions and hypotheses are sound. It appears you think you know how to criticize properly, as if there was such a thing. Highly questionable. I could find plenty of your arguments to have baseless theories, but I'm not interested in pointing them out.
 

Yes you are confused. So we do agree on some things. I'm not admitting to bad aguments, unless they were referring to arguing over your arguements. Sorry you're a little slow.



Not true, no and no. Calling anything out, doesn't make you or anybody else right (or wrong). You assume a lot. One exception: unless you're THE Supreme being. Anything else, I'll take with a very big grain of salt. I like how you used the word simple as if it were any less or more simple than what I said. Back at ya! Nice try.


I'm not remotely worried. Pure rhetorical hyperbole.


And yet they're not too far from the truth... speaking of your intellectual integrity. You have little to offer other than argument it seems.


Yes how about that other topic (other than garrulous argumentation)? I don't recall talking about any aliens. Who's the manipulator now?


Simply can't help yourself can you? My assertions are solid. Your arguments are for naught. They in no way undercut the concepts and premises I bring to the table.


Aww... Don't wanna play? You're ignorantly arguing for argument sake.


Nope, not implying that my words don't make sense (they do). To be crystal clear, you have a language problem. You pretend to not get it and feign just enough ignorance so you can argue. Is that clear enough for you? What part of the word responsible don't you get? Get a dictionary. I daresay, you could never be a very good anthropologist, private investigator, or anything that doesn't lay down, to perfection, exactly what everybody means. This doesn't in any way imply I'm speaking in riddles or suggesting you solve a "mystery novel". Apparently, this is overly taxing your mental capacity. Take a class on praxeology. I pity you.


Yes, you do get distracted by argumentation; yours to be exact. You're making sophomoric assumptions about arguments over assumptions. At least Wittgenstein had something to offer.

So no definitions, distinctions of any kind, of any terms used by you are necessary to make your laws generally understandable to people who speak English?

I'll assume for the moment you mean "embark on constructing a legal system" (As I don't know how to "embark on a system").  So, in your world the only person who can offer a counter-argument on a subject is someone who is willing to construct said thing from scratch? Huh.  Go figure.  So for background where I live, someone can say "Hey, that paragraph in this document is redundant" without being expect to re-write the whole thing or "You should have used tail-recursion" without having to rewrite the whole program.  I could go on.  Who knew places like yours existed?

Depends on how you look at it.  From here all I've been doing is suggesting improvements.  You provided a weak argument for preferring a particular characteristic of a legal system.   I improved it...by showing you that it should be thrown away.

And interestingly enough...not what was said.  I didn't say that you have a problem accepting criticism but that you think your ideas a sound because you have problems finding enough of it and in high-enough quality (other than me - which you are now engaged in some game of "avoid making a point")

You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

...and that's the problem.  I mentioned that earlier.

More like I think I know something about it.  For example I think first you need to establish definitions so that people involved are working from a common understanding of your terms.   You seemingly have little need for that.  So it at least seems like that's at least one thing I have up on whatever feedback you are getting.

Sorry for interjecting but is English not your primary language or something?  I assume you mean you think my arguments are baseless or illogical.  Well, feel free to demonstrate your point.  I'd love to hear that.

So you're admitting to not following the conversation.  Ok!

Then you should be able to answer my earlier question about how we are counting laws.

Only what you've given me to assume.  I've provided a few provisional definitions which I've given you plenty of opportunity to correct or extend.

Hmmm...you are sure working hard to find something to whine about.   I doubt I was making a reference like that.  If you think something I said is not easy than please point out the specific thing.   I've certainly done that with you.

Well either I am pedantic - in which case you should offer some argument to that effect or I'm not.  In which case you will not be capable of arguing that (successfully).
There's nothing hyperbolic here.

That you have nothing?  Are you just setting yourself up to be zinged now?

You of course.  I'm using the statement about aliens as an example of the kind of argument that can be put forth using the same technique you used.  You implied (and in a few cases stated) that there is something wrong with me if I don't understand your argument. 

Perhaps I need to be more figurative? I think the point I'm making here is that your table is currently empty.  Feel free to "bring something to it".

Sounds like you don't understand the term but since you won't define terms...

More like I simply do not pretend to know what you are thinking and I consider that language to be far more complex than what exists in my head.  Pretty much everything else is logic.  You've already demonstrated pretty clearly that you are using some non-standard definitions of terms pretty central to the discussion (e.g. law) and you've already made some arguments by special definition.  It sure seems reasonable to assume that we need to define things a bit better.

You'll have to explain what you mean by perfection.  Not only have I, in this discussion demonstrated an understanding of the term colloqually but I've also demonstrated that it's not necessarily for everything.  My example about law was about approximating functions.  Perhaps you just don't have the background in math but approximating functions aren't perfect.  They're approximations....and of course since you're already eliminated yourself from the potential causes for these problems...I guess you're just left reaching.

Not really, most of this talk is entirely focused on a couple of seemingly crappy arguments you made.

 :D Sorry... just couldn't get past this spot, I was laughing too hard.

...and still no evidence.  Funny that.

jgraham,

I believe throwing away any, or all of your purported axioms, assertions, theories, definitions and contrivances or assumptions about the aforementioned, would most likely be an improvement. Why don't we leave it that way? I prefer a lot less pollution. Enough said (or not said, apparently). As some would say, "less is more".

Most improved indeed.

Ok, then lets start from the beginning again.  ;D You claimed something about fewer laws/loopholes being something vaguely positive or desirable in...something
(Hopefully not being too restrictive here.)

Now either you hold to that assertion or you do not.   If you do not, well then we're done here.

If you do, then please define what is desirable (in a non-trivial way) and how laws/loopholes are counted.

It would seem there are some of us in here (to remain unnamed) that demand that the rest of us be wordsmiths.

So just to be cheeky, why don't we all start reading the English dictionary (we'll start there and work our way back etymologically to Latin or Greek) and then after we're done doing that, we then define all of the possible ways we can combine those words to mean different things other than their original meanings.

Once we've got all the combinations down, then we can have a conversation. Or better yet, why don't we just speak binary. Kinda hard to confuse 1 and 0 I would think. Although combinations of 1's and 0's could mean anything you want... Darnit!

Which brings up an interesting possibility, if we were to write in a programming language (preferably assembly), then there would be less to "debug" in our conversations.

Interesting thought...

Well, except your own amazingly pedantic response to his accusation that you're being pedantic.

Like responding to 'You're being argumentative.' with 'AM NOT!'  :D

If "avoiding the question" isn't an art form then you're well on your way to making it one.

In fact, what I've said has nothing to do with being all that good at language. My 4yr old understands logical axioms well enough to be able to make a reasonable syllogism.   Heck nobody says you have to get it right on the first try.  I think I've been pretty patient with you and your shenanigans (accusations, name-calling and dodging the question).  You want to redefine your terms?  Or even your whole argument.  Go ahead.

However if you want to whine and gainsay or whatever you're doing...hey be my guest.  It tends to look bad on you IMHO.

So asking for evidence of something is, in your world amazingly pedantic? (not even ordinarily pedantic).  That's hardly much of a formal requirement.

It's not what you said, but how you say it. You consistently come across as being even more pedantic than I am, and brother, that's saying something.

The question isn't worthy of any different answer than the one already given. That being, fewer laws, and thereby less confusion, and thus less loopholes, which take advantage of said laws, is preferable. There is no axiom or assumption to start with that could prove that beyond a scintilla of doubt. Nothing is that way, because you have to start somewhere (the axiom). So what? Would it help to say it seems like common sense, and leave it at that, or must we delve into thousands of set-logic constructs to proof everything we say? If so, I value my time differently than you do.

Pardon the shenanigans, but our conversation was going nowhere, and explaining it along the direction it was taking would have still gone nowhere.

By the way, the implied 4yr old comparison - not bad, kinda figured. Reminiscient of the shenanigans you referred to. I guess it takes one to know one. Oops, better be careful; I think I stopped caring, about 10 posts ago.

Sorry, did we start dating at some point?  For future reference unless we're sleeping together you don't get to say that.

Not much to really say to this, there is no intent or desire on my part to make more of a detail than is necessary.  Mostly though the things I'm interested in are relatively small pieces of text e.g. arguments about "law counting".   Probably because I think they are just concrete enough to be tackled to some useful end.  Much of what you folk talk about is so poorly defined that - just based on the English I've personally encountered - it could mean such a wide variety of things that engaging is well beyond my patience.  So unlike Freddie accuses this isn't me projecting every definition and sense onto some word this is my personal store of English usage I've actually experienced in conversation (often on the selfsame topics).  Perhaps broadened slightly by the other languages I read and write too.   IMHO the more you experience of language the more you get used to seeing the multiplicity of meaning.  The more you realize the need for more precise definitions.   Especially if it's going to be the basis of some larger argument.

So not to put too fine a point on it. To me you and a number of others here just have no idea how to reason a point.   These are like conversations I had in elementary school

Dating or not... You're just too damn funny for words. Keep it up, I'm entertained.  :-*

Sure every argument starts somewhere. However there's nothing stopping the argument from starting from a set of common and agreed upon premises.  Even when two people love each other very much....sorry wrong speech....sorry when two people have agreed upon premises (including what you're calling 'axioms') it's entirely common to require some definitions.

Here, for example it's unclear how I determine if one set of laws is "fewer" than another.   Clearly this is important, if it can be established that there is no useful way to count laws then the premise while assumed to be true - is useless (except perhaps as a rhetoric device).  So we throw it away.  From there it's also important to understand what is "preferable" here.   Do you only mean it in the trivial sense (i.e. preferable to you) or is there some more general sense you are appealing to.   Again if it's just preferable to you and you are appealing to no other value system.   Then again the axiom - even if assumed true - is useless (same caveat).  Once we have those two things, it's worth determining if the statement is falsifiable.   Just because you assume something to be true or believe that it can not be proven correct - it may still be falsified.    


No offense but you're not up to that even if you were willing.
This is another example of your shenanigans.   It's technically a false dichotomy.  You do it a fair bit, you make a "Do we have to do A or B" argument.  When clearly those aren't the only choices.  To wit, it's likely that your argument can be evaluated in more ways than either simply being assumed true or making a tedious proof.

Not necessarily true.  I'm pretty sure I could get you to a point where either I can destroy the utility of the statement or demonstrate it false outright.  Even if I can't that's still somewhere.

Actually that was just a counter-example to the "worthsmith" nonsense.  The idea being that a four year old is probably not a wordsmith.  You do seem to project something strange onto my words.

Multiplicity of meaning is the problem with any "spoken" language. Mathematics resolves much of this of course, but I don't know of anybody who speaks mathematics or uses set theory on a regular basis in their everyday speech.

T'would be nice, but obviously just isn't the case. We all have to deal with drawing inferences from what is expressed either written, spoken, or gestured. Then we act. There aren't many people willing to play the role of logician. It takes way too much effort for the average person. It tends to take too much time. We assume things like words have specific meanings, and hope they don't deviate much from those. Not that it wouldn't help in some cases, but for the majority of conversation, most people seem to get the gist. That usually suffices.

It's when one expresses one way, and acts contrary to that expression (our interpretation thereof), is where we take issue. These are usually about broad topics involving a variety of scenarios. Notwithstanding, subsets of those conversations can be completely picked apart. I'd venture a guess that just about everybody could have every word, construction or combinations of words picked apart for any number of reasons. Why do that? Because you can?

What exactly does this accomplish? There are very few words in any dictionary that have "precise" definitions and meaning, as you say, unless you're reading something different than I am. And in context they can mean something entirely different. This doesn't even include things like satire, sarcasm or wittier elocution like paraprosdokians.

Or any of the logical languages like loglan for that matter.


Usually? You mean like when I talk about what we should eat for dinner? Sure but that doesn't make the argument that just assuming some informal meaning here is sufficient. I'd counter that in most cases where there is some value on the outcome people do a fair bit of back and forth to determine the precise meaning.

Good example, this morning one person in my employ and a manager were discussing moving an application over to a different platform.  I'm a PM/Architect so when I walked through the discussion I was consulted.  I asked three questions:  Is the cost of conversion high? Does the cost increase over time? and Are there any significant benefits?  Turns out the cost was high, the cost did not increase and there were significant benefits.  I suppose I could have taken everyone at their word.  However, I didn't I asked what the benefits were.   Turns out they had nothing to do with the application.   So the employee assumed I meant "benefit" in the very general context.   So I told them that we shouldn't migrate the application.   The conversation went to a few other things.   Just as the manager was leaving the employee said "So I'm going to test migration" and the manager said "yeah, go ahead".   I stopped them both and asked the manager "Do you mean that we should test on the platform we decided not to migrate to?" Turns out he was talking about some other aspect that we had discussed and simply assumed that the workers question was in reference to that.

Also not to put too fine a point on it but you are using terms in completely non-standard ways (i.e. Law) so that doesn't help things.

I'd say that in loose terms  ;D that's precisely what happened above.

However that's neither here nor there.  It's not what I did, nor what I advocate.
I assert this is why the back and forth is important.

I'd be interested in your standard of Law. You've referred to it in the past. I'd like to see the dissertation. You say I've used 'Law' terms in non-standard ways. Or is it non-standard terms describing 'Law'? For you to know if I use non-standard terms, is to imply you know what the standard should be.  Whatever you say or you think I said, I don't care. I want to see yours.

Show your hand. If you don't, I'll personally consider you bluffing. At this point I could care less what I've said thus far. Ignore that. Produce, or forever hold your tongue. I'm tired of the masturbatory word play.

Throw down.

Yes, getting your ass handed to you has never been so much fun!  Just look at some of the reviews I've had:

"jgraham showed me how much my arguments are just my definitions implicitly begging the question" - Bitcoin2cash

"after a single discussion with jgraham I realized that I've been kind of a dick" - Atlas

I guess the short answer is (in my best Cary Elwes voice) "Get used to disappointment."

I said that YOU are using terms in a non-standard way (as opposed to say what I think the modal definition used by some group like 'society' or English speakers is).  To think that means I know how the term "law" should be defined is, for one an is-ought fallacy.   This is a good example of what I mean that a lot of people here don't know how to reason a point.  Maybe that fools the locals where you are but it's to reason what late-night infomercials are to knowledge.  ;D

Furthermore I don't even need a formal definition of a term to determine that you are using it differently from said group uses it.   In this particular case I just gave you an example which seemed to be acceptable by said group and you called it "not a law".  Ergo, you are defining the term differently than this group does.

You also realize that the statement was made in the larger context of justifying why I needed more precise definitions.   If you met someone who used the term "Cat" to mean either "Cat" or "Dog" you would probably find yourself asking them to define things more often than someone who didn't.

All that said, and while I doubt I have a well formed definition.  I'm warming to the idea of framing the argument the way I did earlier, with functions (or function like constructs) approximating a "true" function.   At least I think that puts forward a somewhat concrete outcome for laws and by virtue of that gives you the idea of the kinds of metrics one might construct to determine a system that is better or worse all while not making some of the oversimplifications which you appear to be making.  It can even include some ideas about "simplicity" - if you were following the sub-discussion about Bayesian inference and Ockhams Razor - however perhaps not exactly as you intend.

But like I said that's not a formal definition.


What exactly do you want me to show?  A formal definition?  Isn't that like saying "Show me something I illogically inferred you had!".  I confess threats like this are the absolute weirdest aspect to the culture of this place.  Bitcoin2cash does this too (to be fair it's possible he's reformed since I think he chastised someone in this thread the same way I chastised him) and it's bonkers.  To me, what you are saying is: "Tell me what I want to know or I'll willfully make myself more ignorant than I already am!".   Why on earth would I care?

...and yet that's what I was talking about.  How is this significantly different than asking me to take my own words out of context?

Ever thought you take yourself a little too seriously?  No?  How about a lot?  Truth is even if you don't find my response satisfactory your theatrics here are just that.

Then you should stop and just approach the argument like a reasonable person.
Ok now I think you're trying to incite mockery.  Who finds that intimidating?

jgraham,

Assuming the is-ought fallacy determination of what Law is, would you try the moral/ethical attempt at what Law is?

After some thought it would seem that the moral Law cannot be derived from what one observes in nature (as in X is Y), or at least it cannot be described in such terms without referring to what one prefers (good, bad or indifferent). However, and notwithstanding that, would you try anyway?

Laws of man are concerns regarding moral and ethical issues i.e. whether one should kill or not, steal or not, and other what-not. Would you agree that were the world lawless, that arbitrarily (very broadly defined) losing your life, or those of your loved ones would at least be a "bit of a bummer"?

The mere fact you engage in conversation in the Politics & Society section of this forum you accept the fact that there will be a lot of is-ought scenarios. If you don't like that fallacy, you should try elsewhere.

Start there.

What does that even mean?  Seriously.  I think you will probably assume that this lack of comprehension is some problem with me. So I showed this sentence to...now seven ...people and they can't figure it out either.  Some even read the prior exchange.  What am I assuming?  English grammar would tell me that the direct object is "is ought fallacy determination".  Is that the same thing as the "is-ought" fallacy you made earlier?   When you assumed that because you used the term Law in an obscure way that necessitated I know what the "true" definition of law should be?  Why am I assuming that?

Is this some obscure way of saying: "Can you give me a definition of law anyway?" (and perhaps implicitly "I don't really know what an is-ought fallacy is")


Again, I don't really know what you're asking for here.  It's not even clear what you mean by "observes in nature".   Doesn't everything you know come from some observation of your environment or are you stating that certain fundamental concepts of law are somehow intrinsic to people?


I agree that losing the life of people I care about for any reason would be a bummer but to me that would be both trivially true and not really a question of ethics or morality.
Also now you seem to want to talk about the "issues of law" instead of the "definition of law" and you are asserting (assuming? arguing?) that these things, whatever they are are moral and ethical.

Again I really don't know what you are talking about.  What's an "is/ought scenario" and what does it have to do with what's being talked about?  An is-ought fallacy is the assumption that a statement about an element's attribute necessitates it's correctness.  For example you assumed that because I knew that you used a non-standard (or obscure) definition for "law" I must know the way it ought to be defined.  This is untrue and crap logic.   Perhaps you are using my terms in yet another obscure way or you're implying that most of you here engage in crap logic?  If the later: QED.  ;D

Protip: Using idioms or even parts of idioms in two different senses in the same discussion with no clarification probably hampers more than helps communication.

These would be a little more believable if you had actual quotes.

Here's a real review:

"jgraham is a loudmouthed douche that tries to make up with posturing what he lacks in intelligence and he'll never convince me that stealing is justifiable and doesn't require restitution in kind" -bitcoin2cash

Have a nice day, statist clown.

jgraham,

"In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is."

Your definition of is-ought is not the same as the author who wrote it. To wit, your english, your logic, and much of your reasoning is not in line with the norm/standard usage. This is evidenced by the fact you mentioned there were 6 or 7 people that didn't get it. Either you can't explain it, in which case it's plausible you suck as an instructor, or we're all ignorant and your the only one "in the know", or it's something else entirely that the majority of us can't put a finger on but you.

I'm merely asking you to opine about the moral and ethical issues which involve the Laws of man. That's it.

You talk a lot about something going somewhere going nowhere. It would appear you have nothing of interest to offer (assuming you were even doing that) other than argumentative argumentation.

They would be more believable if I wasn't (rather obviously) joking about these being real reviews.

Classy.  If had you put something in there that was say...a demonstrable quality of the person you're describing like I did.  It would have that "it's funny but true" quality.  Which I think is much more effective.
 
I'd say it's rather clearly in line with what Hume is talking about.  You said: "For you to know if I use non-standard terms (what the term is), is to imply you know what the standard should be. (what the term ought to be) ". Emphasis mine.

Seven people didn't understand a sentence of yours with a few of them even reading the prior message for context.  They seem to understand what an is/ought fallacy is.

Wait. What?  
How am I the "instructor" in this context?  It was your sentence.  The point was to let them read without me injecting my own biases.

Who's "we" in this sentence now?  You and the people who read your sentence?  Do you not understand your writing either?

Can you narrow that down a bit?  Does "Laws of man" mean something different than "laws".  Are we using your definition of law or what I assume is the colloquial usage? So for example if I make another example of a law like "knives more than 6 inches in length can't be carried..." will that be considered a law or not?

No I'm pretty sure I don't talk anything like that.


Tip: To me this sentence would mean that "argumentative argumentation" (whatever that means) would be "something of interest".  The subordinate clause is treated like an exception to the primary clause.  i.e. "You have nothing to offer other than money" means "You have only money to offer".

So if you mean nothing of interest to you.  Well that's only marginally in my control.  Actually, from where I sit I haven't really done much arguing.   More just asking for clarification.  I don't really call that arguing.

To the marginally informed:

Definitions:

Argumentative: Given to arguing; disputatious. Contentious.
Argue: To put forth reasons for or against; debate.
Colloquial: Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal.

The above is exactly what you do and are. You're twisting words colloquially to be argumentative due to the very side-effects of the language. Every word everybody else uses is a weasel word for you. You say I say one thing to just twist it around again because it suits your combative verbal loquacity. In fact, if I were to quote you, you'd probably argue with yourself not realizing it.

Clarification: To make clear or easier to understand; elucidate.

Clarification is exactly the opposite of what you do. If you had an ounce of capability in this sense you'd have dispensed with the response and gotten on with it. Of course, this is impossible for you because you're incapable of such conciseness.

As I'm most certain you can't help yourself by manipulating the meaning of the above commentary, and will answer with more diarrhea of the mouth, so even despite that, my request still stands, that being:

Define your version of the Laws of Men.

If you can't or refuse to do that, then there is nothing more to say betwixt us. Engaging in verbal intercourse with you is not satisfying. It's shallow meaninglessness.

As you so eloquently put it, "unless you're sleeping with me you don't get to say that."

Classy.

Depends.  I assumed you were saying I am arguing more than you are. By the above definition I'm probably arguing just about as much as you (since it would seem that your words above are an argument).  I'm also doing a pretty large amount of explaining about my words and reasoning.  You, not so much.
I'd tend to think "twist" implies intent. So I need to know the actual definition you are using before I can twist words. Unless to you mentioning that your use of a word differs from mine implies "twisting".  Is the request to know what you mean by said word is also "twisting"?

You are potentially correct in one point.  When you say "colloquial" meaning "usage in familiar and informal conversation". Then yes, I think I do that at first. Like most people I figure.  What's the problem there?  I do appear to recognize that your usages are different than mine.   I also tend to ask for what your definitions are.  What's the problem with figuring out what you are talking about?

Who is "everybody else" in this sentence?  Didn't you just say that I was using terms in a colloquial sense.  Doesn't that mean that the majority of conversations would favor my usage?

You're appealing to something you can't know there.  Just sayin...

I think you're wrong.  I could give you a dozen examples easy from the above thread where I clarify something. I've also run a few of your short posts through some software I have for testing readability.  Yours tend to come out as less readable than mine.  

If you happen to be referencing my final use of the term "clarification" in my last post.  You would see that I wasn't saying that "I am clarifying" but that I was "asking for clarification" which I seem to be doing.

Also, perhaps it's different where you are but "conciseness" and "clarity" aren't necessarily the same.  One, where I am anyway means being brief or removing unnecessary detail. So unless you trivially define "unnecessary" then that doesn't imply "easily understood".   I figure that's why people use the phrase "clear and concise" noting the importance of both axes.

Perhaps you're just seeing that I tend to think the world is complex instead of simple.

Thankfully that may not mean so much.  ;D


You get that I've shown almost zero interest in that. Right?  So isn't this like saying "Unless you eat a hundred live spiders.  The conversation is over."?
Look your many attempts to change the discussion from your poor logic are noted.  I know the drill.  You're trying to move the battle from a position of weakness to one of strength.

Huh.  In a few lines I sketched out law, it's purpose, the kinds of ways you can measure it's success and the fact that it's required to be complex.  I also tried to say how simplicity fits into the mix. Considering you begged all those questions here and in your back-patting thread.  I'm not so sure I deserve to be labeled 'shallow'.  Also while I admit I have trouble answering questions when you won't define your terms.  It was very easy to find questions that you can't answer about your own ideas.  Which shows some lack of thinking on your part.  Some might call that shallow.


Except the way I used it made some sense.

/thread.

Well I'm glad we had this chat.

Your posts have about as much focus as a toddler with ADHD.

Hush child...the adults are talking.

Oh, I see you think it was a slight.

No, I just consider wild unsubstantiated claims the domain of children.
Don't you?

I do. However, I also consider your posts about as focused as an over-caffeinated chipmunk.

Why?  Seriously.  If anything FredericBasshat was accusing me of the opposite - an over attention to detail.

or are the caffeinated chipmunks in your area like, really studious and concentrate on things well?

Nothing much going on here, moving on.

The words of Leon Festinger seem like a fitting way to send you off: "A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

Impudent snobbishness.

I have convictions; we didn't talk about those. You chose instead to argue colloquialisms.

I didn't necessarily disagree with you. We didn't converse about things I'm interested in, so there was nothing to disagree with. You like to argue for argument sake.

I saw no facts nor figures and your sources were few and far between given your penchant for wordiness.

I like logic, but I care less to find logic in your arguments about arguing.

You've got nothing to offer, including your final send-off.

Figures.

jgraham,

My final and fitting send-off to you:

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I think you really need to take a year-long course in "I'm not really as smart or as important as I think".  Lucky for you I have an opening.
<Cue myrkul or bitcoin2cash gainsaying>

Well the quote is actually kind of putting down people with convictions.  So I'm glad you see how it applies to you.

Well you seemed to have a conviction that clearing the air with regard to a few, very simple questions of mine concerning things you said wasn't very important.  You seemed to talk about that one a lot.  Even when I was pretty good about answering your questions.  You were still pretty bad about answering even one of mine.  The only thing of yours I'm not interested in is detailing the "laws of man".  Partially because you won't define what you mean by that term and partially because if it by some miracle mirrors what I consider laws.   I've already noted that they are necessarily complicated and it's not really reasonable or fair to assume that I'm going to spend some large amount of time detailing something I never claimed to have in the first place.

Perhaps you saw an out and you took it?

Implied false dichotomy.  Yeah logic is a big friend of yours.
As I mentioned, without context it's pretty reasonable to start from a colloquial definition of terms.  From there you could have simply defined your terms.  However you seemed to want to rag on the idea that definitions I used were different from yours more than just telling me what you are talking about and getting on with things.

So the statement: "The fewer laws the better" we aren't in disagreement?  i.e. That the statement is probably so poorly defined as to be useless?
So the statement: "Fewer laws mean fewer loopholes" we aren't in disagreement?
So in thinking it fair and reasonable to provide definitions when asked.  We weren't in disagreement?
So in saying that I was "twisting" words.  We weren't in disagreement? (and just about every other invective)

Seems like there was a lot of disagreement to me.

Sorry, you actually don't know that.  You have no problem slapping unsubstantiated derogatory labels on people though.  That's pretty well supported by this thread.  That, is the cause of an awful lot of the argument in this thread.  You.

It's a quote, not every element is going to apply.  However considering you are seemingly unable or unwilling to define what you are asking.  It's hard to get to the "facts and figures" part of the discussion.

I don't really know what specific portions of my posts you are referring to as "arguing about arguing".  If you did point out each place I'd suspect you'd just end up pointing out responses your various groundless accusations about me or some argument I've made.  

I didn't say it was my send off.  I said it was yours.  You were supposed to be out of here remember?

There once was a man from nantucket...

Wow! And we're done here. Not unexpected, of course.

I'm sure at some point you will be.

Another good quote to summarize Freddy's approach:

"The problem with trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed"

Let's recap:

Freddy busts in with some argument from special definition.  "Racism is not a legal crime" (we have to presume here he means 'acts of racism' as I doubt there are many places where the belief that ethnic group X is inferior is illegal and if it is it's going to be difficult to enforce.  It's also clearly not what people are talking about).  Since acts of racism, printing pamphlets to promote the hate of ethnic group X is illegal or restricting employment on the same basis are illegal.   That's sufficient evidence that this definition of 'illegal' is different than the one people are using here. 

He is asked what "legal crime" entails.  Instead of defining it he re-lists examples and threatens the asker.

Now these could be a list of all possible "legal crimes" but when asked that the definition gets broadened to only include physical force.  The response here is that this doesn't include threat of violence which starts a whole list of questions he has trouble answering.  This also starts his argument about 'simple is better' (that is a low number of laws).

Two major points are brought up here,  one is that it's not at all clear how one counts laws (or loopholes as that term is introduced) - no argument or rationale is given just namecalling.  Nor is it clear how a lower number necessitates 'better' laws. An example is given of a law that seems less just than a group of laws.  These laws are called "not laws" (even though they parallel the laws a lot of people live under).   Then provides a kind of half-definition "Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder" so implying that restricting the kinds of weapons one can carry can't prevent injury.  However no argument is made as to why this might be true.  No response is given when this is highlighted.

Also the argument that complexity is required to model something complex is made...and missed by Freddy.  It's also at this point Freddy is kind of locked in to his belief about "simplicity" and since he can't fight the logic he's kind of reduced to attacking wording and slapping all sorts of labels on things.  Which of course make his situation worse, after all if someone calls an argument (or person) pedantic.  An introspective sort would like to see why they think that.

Freddy then just wants out so without addressing the issues he has brought up.  He wants to talk about some other poorly defined thing now and then acts all silly about it.

The bitcoin2cash comment about behavior being OCD-like.  From the DSM-IV: Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace; Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort

Admittedly nobody here seems to fit the diagnostic criteria but I assume that's not b2c's point.  Still given those two points, what is more OCD-like?  Someone who continues to focus on a particular set of points to some useful end OR someone who gives up when it becomes too hard and wants to switch to a different game.

Seriously though I don't really think these guys have a mental disease but rather it's just some silly face-saving nonsense.

jgraham,

Assuming you're going to attempt the following: (GIVEN)

Do a little brush-up on physics and try and work your way backwards to formulate a "reasonable" set of Laws for Man. Which is to say, measure every action another man makes with regards to his property and person and map that physically to how it affects another person's property (which it inevitably will intersect to some extent). If that force is measurable (tangible not ethereal) and unacceptable (not consensual) to that other person then he has reason to retaliate in a similar manner.

There are varying degrees of force that are applied to things or persons. For application of law to be equitable (assumption here), I would like to believe you could only respond in an approximately proportional way. Is this really so hard to understand?

I know illegal can be defined by anybody to mean anything, but then that would make the word utterly worthless in a orderly society (less violence in the broad sense), if it couldn't be defined in some physical and logical way. If it can be one thing and an opposing thing at the same time for different people in the same place at the same time or for similar circumstances, I'd think that would lead to chaos.

Anybody could be a bigot or a racist and physically harm no one if he merely thinks the thought. If however he physically acts on his thoughts, and harms another because of those thoughts, then we have physical violence. Punish the criminal act not the criminal thought. Physics deals in objective measures. Attitudes or emotions about specific actions or persons are subjective.

Example: Jack is admired (objective statement). Jack is admirable (subjective statement). Likewise; Jack's opinions make him a racist (subjective statement). Jack said he killed a man because he was not of the same race (objective statement). Is Jack a racist? I say this isn't knowable except to Jack; and even then the label may only be applicable to him. His personal righteousness or wickedness is his problem as long as it is not expressed outwardly. In this case he is a murderer.

Punish the objective act not the subjective opinion about the act.

With regards to physical threats, one can only make predictions. Those predictions are prone to subjectivity. If your entire case regarding the 'complexity' of law rests/hinges on making predictions about physical threats, I will concede that point. However, I question the prudence of anybody writing laws which would likely include preemptive force to prohibit actions not yet committed. There are one too many variables to consider, and each situation is unique, so why even try?

In response to the above statement: "restricting weapons cannot prevent injury." On the contrary, the very fact you're restricting them causes injury. What will happen is you will threaten or remove my ability to acquire (own) a "weapon" as opposed to the unjustifiable use against another (a legitimate claim). This force or threat of force causes injury in and of itself.

To wit, if I ignore your supposed "law" and acquire a weapon in opposition to your "law", your law gives you and yours the permission to punish me (inflict injury or enslavement) in an attempt to stop me. Law is force legalized (a simple distinction no doubt).

Restricting weapons causes injury. However, you intervening in a "fight" that uses a weapon to bring injury to another man and his property, could prevent injury. Simply speaking, you have no business in what physical characterstics my property has, for were that the case, property would cease to be property (exclusive ownership is not possible)

On the other hand, were you enterprising enough to acquire (and not thru theft/plunder) all of the materials to make said "weapons" then you could probably prevent injury. Have fun with that one though.

Not necessarily. Your logic is terribly flawed.

1. Just because weapons are not restricted does not mean that all people will choose to have said weapons. Those who choose to not have a weapon are vulnerable to those who do have a weapon.

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

Right, because in Israel, where every citizen is required to own a fully automatic weapon, rage killings happen daily. Oh, and don't forget the accidental discharges you hear about on the news.  ::)

Huh?

It's called 'Refuting your point'.

Those who choose to have a weapon are not vulnerable to those who do have a weapon.  The choice is yours.

"Those who choose to not have a weapon are vulnerable to those who do have a weapon"

Elaborate.

you say: "If everyone have gun, people shoot people on accident or because they get angry"

I say: "Everyone in Israel DO have gun, and people NOT shoot people on accident or because they get angry"

Simple enough for you?

No. I asked you to elaborate.

Oops.. Sorry, I forgot you're on my 'Troll: Do not talk to' list.

We really need an ignore feature.

I'm waiting for you to elaborate on the claim you made about Israeli citizens.

Think before you speak.

I suggest you think before you speak. In a libertarian society, there is no law that requires one to keep a firearm, nor is there a mandatory period in which an individual goes through training in the military. If there is no law to keep a firearm, then there is no cause for one such as yourself to dream that in your fabled libertarian society, all would choose to keep a firearm. Nor is there any reason for one such as yourself to fantasize that in fabled libertarian society, all would receive the training that one gets when enrolled in the military.

Remember, in your fantasies, your libertarian society is not Switzerland.

Think before you speak.

It is obvious that you don't have a clue what real Liberty is, thus have no clue what a real Libertarian is, thus don't value Liberty at all, thus making you a sellout to Humanity.  Your blatherings therefore stem from nothing more than what is called a Peanut Gallery and should be treated as such.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v199/Lannister/Liberty.jpg

Have you already forgotten that you described a hypothetical situation* where "everyone chooses to have a weapon," and you concluded that "then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise." And I responded by showing that in Switzerland "all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home" and virtually no one dies "due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage."

Military training is irrelevant to "the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage" otherwise these events would be common in gun owning populations in countries without mandatory military training. Which they are NOT   <--- (I guess my mistake was to assume that this is OBVIOUS, unless of course you were thinking)


* - Are these not your words? Is it not you who speaks of a scenario where everyone owns a weapon?

Mandatory gun ownership by those who have received training is different than voluntary gun ownership by those who do not require training. Mandatory gun ownership does not imply that one chooses to own a gun or needs the gun. In a society where most choose to own a gun, the implication is that it was necessary to do so, and that is very different from the climate in Switzerland.

The dynamics are completely different. Furthermore, Switzerland has a government, and more importantly, resides in a geopolitical climate which obviously favors the choices it makes. Such geopolitical climates are not guaranteed to be uniform elsewhere, and thus your comparison may be weak for the following reasons, at the very least:

1. Mountainous terrain
2. Swiss banking rules and their history with WWII.
3. Population density
4. Preexisting social distribution within its population.

None of this supports your claim that wide spread gun ownership (by people without military training) = chaos

Do you have a solid set of examples of wide spread gun ownership (by people without military training) in various geopolitical scenarios, especially those with limited government, or as in the scenario favored by myrkul, no government?

You might want to think through various scenarios, such as a high density apartment building, with plenty of children, where most renters, without military training, choose to own a gun because they feel compelled to own a gun due to the society they live in.

Lol it's pointless Gideon, he doesn't want to take a stance and argue what he believes, he only wants to drag other people down and pick them apart when they express there points of view(otherwise known as a Bully).  This is standard practice for those who don't have the courage of conviction, or courage of much else.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v199/Lannister/5353_awww20yeah.jpg

You don't see all that happening in places with lots of radical proponents of the 2nd amendment

Whoops, This is the country I was thinking of, not Israel.

Point still stands.

Earlier I might have suggested you do a brush-up on condescension but it looks like you took care of that already.  ;D


So are you asserting that Person A who applies a measurable force against Person B's property creates the right for Person B to apply a force equal in magnitude, duration and modality to the property of person A and no more?


I don't know what you mean by "physical violence" but if you mean "aggression" as defined in NAP.  Then no.  You can take action to oppress a community and no aggression (in the strict NAP sense has occured).


My case against what appears to be your argument about "complex laws are bad" is that its simply begging the question.  If the purpose of law is to approximate "true justice" then Laws are only necessarily simple if "true justice" is necessarily simple.  If true justice is complex then laws are needfully complex.  


At best ignoratio elenchi.  Even if we accept the somewhat tenuous idea that restricting the kinds of weapons which can be carried has the potential to cause (or perhaps "contribute in some way" is better) injury.  This does not actually negate the potential to prevent injury.

Which was the point.  

Point of clarification. 

It needs to be clear when people are talking about restriction.  Are we talking restricting types of guns allowed, or restricting ownership altogether?

Just clarify when points are being made.

Well I know I don't know what "real" liberty is.   Please elucidate.

Don't get your panties in a bind. It was a suggestion. Stop offending yourself, it's a waste of energy.


Approximately, yes. As an example, it might be ridiculous to kill someone if they thumbed their nose at you. The punishment wouldn't fit the crime.


Not knowing what "physical violence" is, makes you stupid. It is equally, if not more descriptive, in the context I used it than "aggression". I define stupid as someone who knows something is a certain way, and then either acts in opposition to it (to their obvious detriment), or claims it to be something that they know it is not (a liar). Labeling you as ignorant would be nicer. Your definition of "oppress" is lacking. You need to be more precise in your usage. I'm not even going to try to guess what you might mean.


You beg a lot it seems. Firstly, complexity (specifically in law) is for those who like to obscure the truth. Secondly, if you don't fall in the first group, you must be a child. That would make you innocently unaware, which you are not. The actions of humans can be diverse, and given enough ability to observe all of them with perfection, predictability improves. Sleuthing and sifting thru mounds of evidence and non-evidence is what might be construed as "complex" but that has nothing to do with law in my opinion. Again, I know lawfulness can and should be simple (it's lawlessness that isn't). It's the application of justice, or lack thereof, that may be complex due to the limitation in our abilities to interpret with exactitude what happened betwixt conflicting persons. That or we just have a mean streak in us.



Your "point" assumes a lot. If everybody was sheep, and followed your every command, then sure, restricting what types of "weapons" one could possess could potentially have an outcome of less injury. The problem is that law is force, it isn't a suggestion. So for every person who comes into possession of a weapon, you can threaten and then apply, if necessary, injury to that individual to prevent him from keeping his "weapon". Were you effective in the enforcement of your "law" you would injure everybody who has a "weapon". In my case, many people could have weapons, and yet incur no injury, is a plausible outcome. At least my scenario has the sporting chance of producing fewer injuries than your "law". Your law's outcome (enforcement) always produces injury.

You seem to have deftly missed the point.  You are taking a patronizing or superior attitude with me which makes your actions, by definition condescending.

Who said I was offended?  It's a simple statement of fact.  You're giving more than a hint of social maladjustment there too.

That's light-years away from the idea in physics (perhaps you need to brush up?) of force being equal in magnitude, duration and modality (meaning the "kind" of force - that is some agreed upon standard which could be low-level i.e. SEWG or more high-level like Ionizing Radiation, Non-Ionizing Radiation, etc..). Punishment fitting the crime is more about one's sense of justice.  i.e. Do murderers deserve to be murdered?

Strawman Fallacy.  I didn't say I don't have an idea of what "physical violence" is I just don't know precisely what YOU mean by the idiom.  I have already been warned by YOU that I should avoid colloquial (common/informal) interpretations of your words.   So it is by your own request that this question is asked.

Secondly your statement that you provided a term that is as or more descriptive than the one I used.  Is simply false.  You referenced a general term almost entirely without context.  I referenced a term as defined by an ideology parallel to Libertarianism for which there is a fair amount of literature on. 

As stated your belief is based on misrepresenting my position.  Not to mention you have made no case as to how this is to my detriment.  Also I find it interesting that you find all liars stupid.   As that makes your definition internally inconsistent in a number of cases.  Bravo?  :D

To crush or burden by abuse of power or authority
 
What does this even mean?

Seriously I really don't have much of an idea of what your attempting to do here. To me this appears to be a mish-mash of special definitions and/or poor logic that doesn't force a new conclusion or counter mine.   I can easily show you where these are if you like but you might also think about just restating your position some other way.

Is everyone always following this law, all the time the only way it can prevent injury?  Probably not.

All this appears to be saying is that if a law is completely unambiguous and enforced 100% then every lawbreaker is injured.  However you're equivocating on the word "injury" first you are using it in the sense of dealing out some degree of physical force in the second sense you are using it to mean removal of something someone possesses.  So your argument is invalid.

So everyone would have restricted weapons but nobody would be injured accidentally or unjustly by them?  That is plausible how exactly?

Neither premise is either forced or supported by your statements.

I see again, and apparently I haven't learned my lesson, that jgraham comes thru with the assumption that he doesn't know anything useful. If word-play were what I was interested in, I'd play. I gave you a chance to actually contribute something of interest, but I would be wrong on that count. I pity your wife and children (if you have either).

As a side note, I'm absolutely certain you don't "go off" on your employer like you do here in the forums, as you likely wouldn't keep your job for any more than a few minutes. So how about you put on your best "employer-face" and get off your pretend "greater-than-thou" soap box.

Condescending? Condescending?!! Look in the mirror, your excellency (vitriolically sardonic).

Of course, you'll probably won't do that. You'll accuse me of deftly avoiding your supposed "probing" and self-important "misunderstood/I dunno what you mean/huh?" line of questioning. I'm amazed at how many other people "get it" but you don't. Your self-aggrandizement is unnecessary. Everybody knows you can "rub" two words together and actually say something. However, if you can't draw any inferences, then you're worthless.

jgraham, it can easily be seen that you are one of two types of person.

1) Brilliantly ignorant or,

2) Ignorantly brilliant.

And yes, I know that's an oxymoron. Unfortunately, words can't describe the depths of queerness that you are.

jgraham,

Just for kicks and giggles, and knowing this will probably go sideways on me, I'll ask a few questions of my own. Notwithstanding, I don't really care at this point as I'm going after the entertainment value. Two can play at this game. Let's pretend for a moment that you just don't "understand" anything I say (or anybody else it seems) or what anything means. To wit, you're ignorantly unawares but inquisitive (I'll give you a infinitesimally small benefit of the doubt here).

Define: the words crush, burden, injury, abuse, power, authority, justice, patronizing, standard, maladjustment, offense, condescension, deserve and detriment.

Define or explain the phrases: "simple statement of fact", "light-years away from the idea", "fitting the crime", "hint of social maladjustment", "simply false", "general term", "without context", "sense of justice", "internally inconsistent", "second sense", and "superior attitude".

Oh, and by the bye, don't use any moral references as those would be entirely inappropriate. I'm not interested in your opinions regarding right or wrong, as they are groundless due to their subjectivity. I only want objective definitions. To be a little more precise, but perhaps still obscure and vague in your world, consider the following:

"In asking whether moral values are objective or subjective, we ask whether moral values are up to us or not. If they are up to us, then moral values are subjective; if they are not up to us, then moral values are objective."

Knock yourself out. You can take that any way you like colloquially speaking.

So now you're the person who gets to say what is and is not useful?

I'm guessing here, but I expect that whatever the issue is it's the result of you using specialized definitions - to the point of complaining multiple times about my use of common definitions, refusing to define your terms and then somehow using that to justify complaining about the conversation not getting very far down the path you want it to go.

See you make this accusation a lot but you don't really seem to have anything to back it up.  You change the word you accuse me of (sometimes being apparently contradictory).  Can you point me to some evidence that all I'm interested in is word play.  Perhaps what you're seeing is that I don't let many of your slights pass unscrutinized?  You do have this habit of making ad hominem attacks in a post and criticism will usually be taken as a sign you are willing to talk about something.

Not to mention you could very easily pin that label on you.  Aren't you the one who admits to using uncommon definitions for terms?  Haven't you used a single term in two different places in the same argument and treated it as if it was the same term?  

Oh hey, that's not condescending.

They say: "Thanks".

Again I have to guess what you mean here.  "Go off" on someone to me means to get angry or rage at.  I really don't think I'm angry.  To me the only things I am quietly insisting on is that your definitions are reasonably clear to me, that your arguments force a conclusion reasonably well and that your premises are well supported.  Perhaps the great-organizing-principle-of-the-universe smiled upon me when giving me a job where that is valued.  If your job requires the antithesis of that then I wish you luck.

So how exactly am I acting "greater-than-thou"?  As opposed to say someone who believes they get to say what is or is not useful or that everyone should automatically know their definitions?  Just sayin...

Where am I assuming greater knowledge than you?  You on the other hand did assume that I had less knowledge than you in Physics.

If you cite the portion of text and make your argument I'll try to be as objective as possible.

Did I accuse you of avoiding the point?  I did accuse you of missing it.  What is self-important about admitting one's ignorance?  Where I am we consider that the opposite.
Using the sample of arguments you've given me as a basis, and the appearance that you think there's something wrong with defining terms.  I wonder how confident you can actually be that other people "get it".  In software development you really get to see how badly people communicate, that is how frequently two people meet, talk for a few hours and go away with completely different ideas as to what was agreed on.  It's one of the reasons that people use agile methodologies.

In any case, why the amazement?  Since when is some people agreeing with you intrinsically the sign of a good idea or a lot of people agreeing with you for that matter?

So to you putting aside my own definitions of things (when you said they weren't correct), and using your definitions is somehow self-aggrandizing? How does that work?

I'd argue that you haven't given me much to draw inferences from.  Just some definitions and arguments that don't stand up to casual scrutiny.


Tell you what, if you are legitimately confused about what I mean, you can cite the passage where I use that term and add some text like "what do you mean by X here?" and I'll do my best to define the terms in context to your satisfaction.

I'm guessing that when I pointed out that when I restated what you appeared to be talking about with regard to physics you didn't like me pointing out that your example was not an example of what I was talking about.  It's not a question of Justice (which is the term I used) being 'inappropriate' in a definition but that what I was talking about (and I assume what you were speaking of ) was about how some undesired consequence happened to person or property.  That is I was comparing methods, you were comparing outcomes.  I think it's pretty clear that these are different things.