You're right, I don't understand your position. Are you arguing that they will not think (correctly) that their lives are in danger? Or that they will not hurt you to stop that danger? Or are you disputing that it's a bad idea?
Now your trying to change what the discussion was about. Pretty pathetic. That will not work. This scenario was about what was going on in the shooter's mind and that is all. |
|
|
|
And you think you're smart enough to live without any government...  I am, but I have my doubts about Dalkore. I did not misread anything, trying reading again.
lets try that again: This is why it's a bad idea: because others might think their lives are in danger
And this is what happens when you act on that bad idea: they'll hurt you to stop you.
He said RANDOMLY waving it about, you mental nut-case. Thus the danger to anyone within range is real, not imagined. If you can't figure such simple things out, you are not fit to live in a society free from government. Yet another reason for governments to exist: to protect others from the dangers posed by people with your dangerous attitude. It seems your whole argument hinges on the selection of the word "might" in hazek's post. Let's try again with a different word: This is why it's a bad idea: because others [will] think their lives are in danger
And this is what happens when you act on that bad idea: they'll hurt you to stop you.
Is that better? No its not better at all. You literally don't get it. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Just leave them be, they have shown themselves and discredited their opinions based on a lack of common sense or a sense or right and wrong. Can't trust what they say at this point. I would not feel safe around them in person with these attitudes.
Arrrrr!!!!!.... Fine...  Mind you, I went to a firing range one time, and there were quite a lot of people with really dilated pupils -- it seems handling a gun often gives people an adrenaline rush which they might find addictive. This would explain a lot... I am sad actually, I was surprised to see this reckless comment. It is really telling in my opinion on how they see the world. Quite scary that the threat of harm against them is what would stop them from randomly firing a gun in public, not that they might hit an innocent. Scary. |
|
|
|
And you think you're smart enough to live without any government... I am, but I have my doubts about Dalkore. I did not misread anything, trying reading again.
lets try that again: This is why it's a bad idea: because others might think their lives are in danger
And this is what happens when you act on that bad idea: they'll hurt you to stop you.
He said RANDOMLY waving it about, you mental nut-case. Thus the danger to anyone within range is real, not imagined. If you can't figure such simple things out, you are not fit to live in a society free from government. Yet another reason for governments to exist: to protect others from the dangers posed by people with your dangerous attitude. Just leave them be, they have shown themselves and discredited their opinions based on a lack of common sense or a sense or right and wrong. Can't trust what they say at this point. I would not feel safe around them in person with these attitudes. |
|
|
|
And you think you're smart enough to live without any government... I am, but I have my doubts about Dalkore. I did not misread anything, trying reading again.
lets try that again: This is why it's a bad idea: because others might think their lives are in danger
And this is what happens when you act on that bad idea: they'll hurt you to stop you.
Ok, your discredited as well. I am done with this, I feel comfortable that Myrkul and Hazek's lack of common sense on something so basic is proof enough that you do not have the capacity to setup AnCap or any other system in a manner that would be beneficial and safe for the people in it. I am serious. I'll just let your comments on this stand and people and judge them all they want. Me personally, have enough common sense and compassion to know I would not randomly discharge a firearm in public because I would not want to hurt someone, not because someone might hurt me. |
|
|
|
You want to tell me what good a speeding ticket does the person who is harmed as a result of a driver speeding? (Assuming anyone is actually harmed... and if not, who gives a fuck?)
Victimless crimes FTW. It is not a victimless crime. I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions. The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything. You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding. So let me get this straight, waving a gun in public and randomly discharging it is not a bad idea because you might hurt someone? But instead it is because someone might hurt me? That is one of the most selfish statements I have ever heard. I am sorry but unless you restate this, you discredit yourself on the grounds of your lack of judgement and common sense. How can we take your opinions on this as reasonable if they is your thoughts on waving and firing a gun in public randomly. Apparently you misread that. it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger
I did not misread anything, trying reading again. Here is the direct quote. I know your not stupid so what gives? Hazek - "It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. " Above comment was in response to: " I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions. The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything." |
|
|
|
You want to tell me what good a speeding ticket does the person who is harmed as a result of a driver speeding? (Assuming anyone is actually harmed... and if not, who gives a fuck?)
Victimless crimes FTW. It is not a victimless crime. I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions. The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything. You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding. So let me get this straight, waving a gun in public and randomly discharging it is not a bad idea because you might hurt someone? But instead it is because someone might hurt me? That is one of the most selfish statements I have ever heard. I am sorry but unless you restate this, you discredit yourself on the grounds of your lack of judgement and common sense. How can we take your opinions on this as reasonable if they is your thoughts on waving and firing a gun in public randomly. |
|
|
|
Do prices include shipping?
They do not but I ship the most economical for your benefit. |
|
|
|
3. At this point, most children and most schools. If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school. Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling. Its tough out there.
Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate? I point these things out because they would persist in both systems. Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone. Yes they would. [You're] patently wrong in this assertion. The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence. Keep dreaming Myrkul. I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same? I do not believe you can. |
|
|
|
The source is almost more important that the data. You need to tackle bias first before I start seriously considering the evidence. I am not going to start reviewing the data about gun control from the Brady Center before fully contemplating its source. I think the climate debate has been greatly overblown but I do think we are having an effect on the planet. The amount is where I have not determined from available data. |
|
|
|
3. At this point, most children and most schools. If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school. Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling. Its tough out there.
Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate? I point these things out because they would persist in both systems. Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone. Yes they would. Your patently wrong in this assertion. The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence. Keep dreaming Myrkul. |
|
|
|
3. At this point, most children and most schools. If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school. Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling. Its tough out there.
Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate? I mean seriously, that's my main beef with your posts too. I was just writing a post saying the same thing, but when I refreshed to preview, I noticed that I was late to the party. It must be nice to all repeat each other. Its like an echo chamber. Don't worry, I got enough for all of you. |
|
|
|
3. At this point, most children and most schools. If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school. Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling. Its tough out there.
Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate? I point these things out because they would persist in both systems. |
|
|
|
Why is it harmful? Well having everyone operate only for consumption of goods and profit makes a pretty thin culture.
What makes you think that only profit would drive everyone? For that matter, what makes you think that all profit is monetary? So the first example would be a business person that does only want to increase his wealth, he might fund projects that sway people to follow a trend in which he produces for and makes a profit.
Yes, that's called advertising. It's not a problem. Maybe he has a particular view of the world and believes that is the only correct manner, then he may use his wealth and influence to get "experts" to agree with him and indoctrinate the children into this way of thinking before they have had time to mentally develop and experience the world first hand to make up their own mind. Which children? At what school? And what's keeping the parents from switching schools, once they see what's happening? 1. I don't think all profit is monetary. I don't but that is the common message these days and many people fall into herd mentality. 2. Advertising is a problem. We don't need the complete commercialization of our society of lives. I didn't volunteer for that but it is forced on my everywhere. There are many South America cities where they have outlawed billboards and they are much more pleasant to walk around and they have a vibrant commercial district with annual growth of their lower and middle class. 3. At this point, most children and most schools. If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school. Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling. Its tough out there. |
|
|
|
When you say educated, what areas do we need to improve the current education? What subjects do they need more education of?
People aren't being taught how to think only what to think. This is the number one problem the current education system has, kids never learn that if they want to think correctly, i.e. think in a way that will yield the best possible results they need to correctly apply reason/logic and empirical observation. Instead kids are bombarded with facts that they must memorize in order to pass a test, not to mention that while being taught these fact they are also subtly being taught obedience to authority and the fallacious virtue of a violent state. Now we have an area of agreement we can build from. I agree so much. I actually want to teach a class on "how to think 101" & "critical analysis". |
|
|
|
There is the list without Government. Political Movements stays because even without Government, people will still lobby each other about the issues that affect them.
Why is it harmful? Well having everyone operate only for consumption of goods and profit makes a pretty thin culture. So the first example would be a business person that does only want to increase his wealth, he might fund projects that sway people to follow a trend in which he produces for and makes a profit. Maybe he has a particular view of the world and believes that is the only correct manner, then he may use his wealth and influence to get "experts" to agree with him and indoctrinate the children into this way of thinking before they have had time to mentally develop and experience the world first hand to make up their own mind.
You can already see this on a daily basis, very similar messages. Consume this, be like this, approve this, your not complete unless you drive this, idolize this, etc....
You can wear the blinders if you want but I am fully aware of the influencers and messages at play. You may want to focus you energy against government but just as you have said (not you but others), government is used as a tool. A tool by whom? I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. You think it's wrong to attempt to influence others? I'm not wearing any blinders, that I know of, at all. The influence you speak of is quite easy to avoid. Especially considering I have a choice in the matter. I can also teach my children to recognize such influence (this is my responsibility after all) and think for themselves. Laws on the other hand, not so much. If the federal government says I must or mustn't do this, well I have little choice in the matter. Yes, I believe some form of influence especially ones that can be only performed if you have lots of capital are bad and harmful. It is a case by case basis so I can not blanket all influence and propaganda. Let me say that currently, a majority of it is bad and harmful. Currently. |
|
|
|
If ancap is only compatible with intelligent people then we should stop talking about it because it will always be an ideal and could never really exist. But ancap is compatible with the unintelligent, they would just be worse off. Maybe that's why the unintelligent argue against ancap...
Whoa, watch yourself. Don't think that to agree with AnCap makes your intelligent and to disagree means the opposite. That would definitely tell me something about your intelligence level in the discussion of philosophy and dissent. I will allow you to retract your statement. D |
|
|
|
Dalkore, AnCap is only compatible with intelligent, modern and educated people.
So unless you have such people, no one here is arguing you can have an AnCap society. And if you do have such people no one here will believe any of your problems would actually be problems.
Ok, from how you informed me of the workings I agree. So how do we get people that are not to this level, to this level? I think about this at least once a day and have some ideas, but nothing stands out. When you say educated, what areas do we need to improve the current education? What subjects do they need more education of? |
|
|
|
|
@ Hazek - You are entitled to narrow a value-judgement to just if you don't force someone. But there is quite a bit of harm that happens and people don't know it happens and the people that perpetrate that harm will still exist in AnCap as they do now, just in AnCap there will be even less oversight than there is today which is virtually nothing.
Honestly I have nothing against AnCap as a concept, but we will need to fill it with humans at some point to make it real and that is the point where these other issues I am bringing up will come into play and really make like more of a living hell than today and its getting worse.
Don't think I am pessimistic either, I am an optimist and quite a happy fellow. I just know how people have been conditioned and that would not lend to the types of behaviors you would need to have AnCap succeed in the manner that people in general would see their daily life improve.
|
|
|
|
Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.
Elaborate. How do they wield this power and influence? Many ways, I will give you a few examples then you will need to use your imagination. Foundations NGO Lobbying Endowments PACs Dedications Scholarships Funded Research Advertising Movies Books Screenplays TV Shows Radio Shows Political Movements Pornography Celebrities etc.... Wait, you were complaining about capitalism and anarchy, right? Please omit all of the examples that require a government. And then explain why a capitalist wielding their power and influence through the remaining examples is harmful to society. I believe that was your argument, correct? Capitalists gain power and influence and then use it to harm society? First off, I am not complaining. I am having a discussion where I am in disagreement with some core points. Foundations NGO Endowments Dedications Scholarships Funded Research Advertising Movies Books Screenplays TV Shows Radio Shows Political Movements Pornography Celebrities etc.... There is the list without Government. Political Movements stays because even without Government, people will still lobby each other about the issues that affect them. Why is it harmful? Well having everyone operate only for consumption of goods and profit makes a pretty thin culture. So the first example would be a business person that does only want to increase his wealth, he might fund projects that sway people to follow a trend in which he produces for and makes a profit. Maybe he has a particular view of the world and believes that is the only correct manner, then he may use his wealth and influence to get "experts" to agree with him and indoctrinate the children into this way of thinking before they have had time to mentally develop and experience the world first hand to make up their own mind. You can already see this on a daily basis, very similar messages. Consume this, be like this, approve this, your not complete unless you drive this, idolize this, etc.... You can wear the blinders if you want but I am fully aware of the influencers and messages at play. You may want to focus you energy against government but just as you have said (not you but others), government is used as a tool. A tool by whom? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
