Ignorance of a law is not a defense.
That is a very dangerous idea. If a law is not self evident, or someone doesn't understand why what they are doing is inherently wrong, it's a horrible law. Mainly because it gives governments the power to pass arbitrary laws without actual legal purpose, for the sole reason of arresting people. Thats the way Soviet Russia worked and achieved power early on when it was arresting anyone those in power deemed enemies of the state. I agree with you there. I was referring changing speed limits and not paying attention to the posted signs. |
|
|
|
No don't like emo. More into rock.
"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."
But back on topic. I am all for compromises, if they are made voluntarily by all parties involved. That is not the case here. Or as blahblahblah put it: AND SO DO YOU! Sorry bro, but I don't think so.
Here is one thing a central elected authority would be better than an AnCap type, public safety. We should not need to volunteer for safety of the public, that is something that should be mandatory. Without a mandatory 3rd party with all submit too, it would be too easy for companies to find ways to skirt this and harm the public. Obviously I know it happens now but because we are talking about theoretical forms of government like AnCap, then I am lending support to a properly run democratic republic and adhered to our Constitution (With almost all amendments) and Bill of Rights. |
|
|
|
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?)
Its cumulative so maybe not today or tomorrow, but some day the motorist might hurt someone by their speeding, so if you continue to ticket them when they speed, it usually encourages them to slow down. It is the deceleration impact that kills people and the person going faster has the advantage in these cases. That is one of the reason we have speeding laws. |
|
|
|
Though I wonder why uniformity trumps fairness.
Fairness cannot exist without uniform application. I see, so we should make the speed limits in all the US states the same? Otherwise they're not fair, right? Wow. What a weak comeback. I doubt one freeway will feel that it got unfair treatment as opposed to another freeway. It's not the freeway, but the motorist that gets unfair treatment. What will get a man fined in one state (going, say, 75mph), or in one section of a state, will not get another man in trouble at all. That is not uniform, and so, not fair, am I right? Not really. Both encounter the same speed limit on the same highway. But it's not uniform from highway to highway! What if on one highway, the speed limit is 65, but on the other, it's 55? A motorist traveling from one highway to another could get charged with speeding for doing something that was not before he took the exit. And a motorist traveling from Highway to city streets suffers even more stiff penalties for doing something that was perfectly legal only moments before. It's madness, I tell you. Ignorance of a law is not a defense. |
|
|
|
Though I wonder why uniformity trumps fairness.
Fairness cannot exist without uniform application. I see, so we should make the speed limits in all the US states the same? Otherwise they're not fair, right? And we should make the highway speeds the same as the city street speeds. That's fair, right? No, just an equal application of the posted speed limited law. |
|
|
|
Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education. That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price? It can but only at decreased value. You get what you pay for, in other words, yes? Do you know what the differences are between a poor man's television and a rich man's television? Bells and whistles. Picture-in-picture, more channels, 3-d, extra pixels. But they're both televisions, and both do the same job. A poor person may not be able to afford the best education for their child. But teaching them how to learn, and giving them the necessary skills to learn is not hard, nor expensive, and asking them "What do you want to be when you grow up," and then pointing them to the knowledge required for that particular profession is not much more added expense. That's basic education. Extra stuff, like social studies, history, etc, can be added if you want, or studied on their own. Learning is best accomplished when you want to learn. I disagree that we should reinforce a class society any more than we do. Myrkul is correct on his point about "basic education" and what is included in one. Myrkul now gets a reward: John Taylor Gatto on Education it has 5 parts over 5 hours and it is worth watching. I have been collecting many of the source documents to verify, so don't trust him or me. For subjects like this, do your homework. |
|
|
|
Selfish is a bad thing, it is a major reason society is messed right now. Everyone so focused on themselves with their narcissistic tendencies has let our republic some to the point of almost utter collapse. Participation in your community and your government is how you keep a prospering society (I don't mean financially, I mean socially and culturally).
You just represent the next step towards a point where it is fully justified to be selfish and cut-throat with no moral reservation to the impact of your behavior to people other than your own personal benefit. Life becomes only cold calculation for the most part and our humanity just dies off in general because no one cares and they don't feel it is their responsibility to care and or do something.
This is one of the major flaws of the AnCap ideology.
Note the need to ascribe sinister motives to those with a different opinion. You don't just have a different perspective on life, you are bad, evil etc. . I never said anything that you could construe into sinister motives... Sure about that, buck-o? Selfish is a bad thing Stating my opinion is not the same as calling you a bad person. If I wanted to do that I would just do it. I'll leave it here and people can decide for themselves if they believe it is a good or bad thing: Definition:Selfish: "Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure"
Self-interest: "taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others." |
|
|
|
|
Buying those ingots from someone who admitted they are just getting into this and stated that, the buyer should of understood the risk when he purchased it.
I have a friend that owns a pawnshop and it is very unlikely they have the type of equipment described.
|
|
|
|
If you had no self-interest, you wouldn't care about your family. Hear me out: Why did you start that family? Purely out of concern for the continuation of the species? Did you pick your wife solely on genetic factors? Do you want your children to thrive simply because they are human beings? No, you have self-interested reasons for all of that. Face it, you're selfish. It's not a bad thing. It's how humanity has progressed this far, and it's how we will continue to make progress.
Any of those other reasons would also be self-interest. Actions are either neutral, self-destructive or for self-interest. If I stand in the cold dishing out soup to the homeless, it is because it provides me with something, even if it is only a feeling of well-being or just assuaging some white guilt. You can keep that point of view all you want. You just discredit yourself even further. |
|
|
|
Selfish is a bad thing, it is a major reason society is messed right now. Everyone so focused on themselves with their narcissistic tendencies has let our republic some to the point of almost utter collapse. Participation in your community and your government is how you keep a prospering society (I don't mean financially, I mean socially and culturally).
You just represent the next step towards a point where it is fully justified to be selfish and cut-throat with no moral reservation to the impact of your behavior to people other than your own personal benefit. Life becomes only cold calculation for the most part and our humanity just dies off in general because no one cares and they don't feel it is their responsibility to care and or do something.
This is one of the major flaws of the AnCap ideology.
Note the need to ascribe sinister motives to those with a different opinion. You don't just have a different perspective on life, you are bad, evil etc. . I never said anything that you could construe into sinister motives and I do not think you are evil at all. We have nothing more to talk about. At least Myrkul one of most respectful and intellectually honest one of the bunch. |
|
|
|
You keep saying selfish like it's a bad thing. Self interest is how you stay alive.
Selfish is a bad thing, it is a major reason society is messed right now. Everyone so focused on themselves with their narcissistic tendencies has let our republic some to the point of almost utter collapse. Participation in your community and your government is how you keep a prospering society (I don't mean financially, I mean socially and culturally). You seem to be using two words interchangeably that you should not be. Selfish is self-interested. Narcissistic is self-loving, specifically to the exclusion of others. Narcissistic is indeed a bad thing, but selfish is not. Self-interest is, again, how you stay alive. If you are not self-interested, you don't eat when you're hungry. If you are not self-interested, you don't clean up your waste. If you are not self-interested, you don't seek the best job for your abilities. So if you're not selfish, you're broke, wallowing in your own shit until you starve to death. Now, I've used this quote before, but you keep making this mistake, so... "The greatest non sequitur committed by defenders of the State is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." - Murray Rothbard Let me take these statements and give you my perspective in my daily life: If you are not self-interested, you don't eat when you're hungry. - I eat because I am hungry, just because my body tells me its time to eat doesn't mean it was motivated by self-interest.If you had no self-interest, you wouldn't care that you're hungry. If you are not self-interested, you don't clean up your waste. - I clean up my waste because I care about my actions and how it affects other around me. That is called personal responsibility.
If you had no self-interest, you wouldn't care about your actions. If you are not self-interested, you don't seek the best job for your abilities. - I seek jobs I enjoy doing, will provide value to the company and will provide a proper income for my family.
If you had no self-interest, you wouldn't care about your family. Hear me out: Why did you start that family? Purely out of concern for the continuation of the species? Did you pick your wife solely on genetic factors? Do you want your children to thrive simply because they are human beings? No, you have self-interested reasons for all of that. Face it, you're selfish. It's not a bad thing. It's how humanity has progressed this far, and it's how we will continue to make progress. I am sorry that is how you have been conditioned to see the world. We just have different perspectives and I think you are wrong about your theory of human nature and behavior. We are much more complex than that. |
|
|
|
You keep saying selfish like it's a bad thing. Self interest is how you stay alive.
Selfish is a bad thing, it is a major reason society is messed right now. Everyone so focused on themselves with their narcissistic tendencies has let our republic some to the point of almost utter collapse. Participation in your community and your government is how you keep a prospering society (I don't mean financially, I mean socially and culturally). You seem to be using two words interchangeably that you should not be. Selfish is self-interested. Narcissistic is self-loving, specifically to the exclusion of others. Narcissistic is indeed a bad thing, but selfish is not. Self-interest is, again, how you stay alive. If you are not self-interested, you don't eat when you're hungry. If you are not self-interested, you don't clean up your waste. If you are not self-interested, you don't seek the best job for your abilities. So if you're not selfish, you're broke, wallowing in your own shit until you starve to death. Now, I've used this quote before, but you keep making this mistake, so... "The greatest non sequitur committed by defenders of the State is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." - Murray Rothbard Let me take these statements and give you my perspective in my daily life: If you are not self-interested, you don't eat when you're hungry. - I eat because I am hungry, just because my body tells me its time to eat doesn't mean it was motivated by self-interest.If you are not self-interested, you don't clean up your waste. - I clean up my waste because I care about my actions and how it affects other around me. That is called personal responsibility. If you are not self-interested, you don't seek the best job for your abilities. - I seek jobs I enjoy doing, will provide value to the company and will provide a proper income for my family. Here are the definitions below, sounds like major guiding force we want to in society, doesn't it? NOTDefinition:Selfish: " Lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure" Self-interest: "taking advantage of opportunities without regard for the consequences for others." |
|
|
|
|
I like the level of honesty. People kill people and criminals will get there hands on weapons and use them on an armed or disarmed population. Only difference is that criminals will have to think twice for trying to commit these horrible acts of violence. Disarming the population will only make us less safe and more victims of criminal violence.
|
|
|
|
Dalkore, just caught up reading the rest of your arguments. The gist of your claim is that, since you were born in this society that provided you, you now "owe" that society for the things it provided. Fair enough. So, tell me, how much is that debt, exactly, and how can one pay it off? I'm not even suggesting "i paid of my debt, so nowI can ignore rules and laws when I'm visiting others or am on public property." Rules that others establish for their own property I'm fine with. I mean, how much do I have to pay to buy back the claims that the state has laid on me and my own property, so that I can be free to have my own rules on the land I own, and pay taxes only for services I want?
I like this line of thought. One question, though: How would this not be a slave purchasing their own freedom? Oh, it surely would be. But, as you say, even many slaves got to purchase their freedom. I think this just highlights the fallacy of the "You are born owing a debt" bullshit. Your delusional to think you had no societal obligations when you were born. Again more of the selfish attitude and line of reasoning. Myrkul - You keep using the term " slave" to get emotional sympathy to your point of view. It shows how weak your argument is. Settling an obligation is just that, nothing more. You just want to call it slavery because your case is so weak that to use other relevant terms would show the selfishness of the position that you came into the world with no obligation to it. You keep saying selfish like it's a bad thing. Self interest is how you stay alive. Selfish is a bad thing, it is a major reason society is messed right now. Everyone so focused on themselves with their narcissistic tendencies has let our republic some to the point of almost utter collapse. Participation in your community and your government is how you keep a prospering society (I don't mean financially, I mean socially and culturally). You just represent the next step towards a point where it is fully justified to be selfish and cut-throat with no moral reservation to the impact of your behavior to people other than your own personal benefit. Life becomes only cold calculation for the most part and our humanity just dies off in general because no one cares and they don't feel it is their responsibility to care and or do something. This is one of the major flaws of the AnCap ideology. |
|
|
|
Dalkore, just caught up reading the rest of your arguments. The gist of your claim is that, since you were born in this society that provided you, you now "owe" that society for the things it provided. Fair enough. So, tell me, how much is that debt, exactly, and how can one pay it off? I'm not even suggesting "i paid of my debt, so nowI can ignore rules and laws when I'm visiting others or am on public property." Rules that others establish for their own property I'm fine with. I mean, how much do I have to pay to buy back the claims that the state has laid on me and my own property, so that I can be free to have my own rules on the land I own, and pay taxes only for services I want?
I like this line of thought. One question, though: How would this not be a slave purchasing their own freedom? Oh, it surely would be. But, as you say, even many slaves got to purchase their freedom. I think this just highlights the fallacy of the "You are born owing a debt" bullshit. Your delusional to think you had no societal obligations when you were born. Again more of the selfish attitude and line of reasoning. Myrkul - You keep using the term " slave" to get emotional sympathy to your point of view. It shows how weak your argument is. Settling an obligation is just that, nothing more. You just want to call it slavery because your case is so weak that to use other relevant terms would show the selfishness of the position that you came into the world with no obligation to it. |
|
|
|
Unless you are a 100% Native American, your parents either immigrated or were brought as slaves so they signed themselves up and you defacto when they came here.
Neither of these happen to be the case but that's not really relevant to a general discussion. You still have not specified a source for the authority other than the will of some people. Authority is gained and negotiated over time. Also it is not just "the will of some people", most people agree with having some form of central government. They would choose it given a choice because they distrust most people they are not in direct contact with. This is the point this fringe AnCap movement is missing, people are social and are naturally inclined to form methods of hierarchy. |
|
|
|
I find AnCap's position on this very selfish, anti-social and greedy.
I find that some elected politicians being able to just come by, take away my stuff, and use it for their own personal reasons, like wars of choice, earmarks, or payoffs to their business buddies, to be very selfish, anti-social, and greedy too. It's funny how wanting to keep your money is greedy, and taking someone else's isn't. Statist logic. Here's another one from Rothbard: "The greatest non sequitur committed by defenders of the State is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State." Wanted to use and have access to your government services and not agree that not 100% of your output is yours is greedy. |
|
|
|
I further reject the notion I need to own all my labor to not be a slave.
And you would be correct, as you could voluntarily enter into an agreement that a part of your labour will be owned by someone else in exchange for goods/services or repayment of debt. The issue here is when someone lays claim to a part of your labour without your consent, and enforces it against your will. What makes it OK for a government employee to come by and take something of yours, but not OK for me to do it? You were born into the world, you did not come into it like magic or teleportation. Yes, I believe a portion (that is debatable) is owed to my nation of allegiance.
Is it a portion of a determinable size? A portion that you pay in exchange for the services you wanted to buy and use? Or some indeterminate amount equal to a portion of the rest of your life? Do we own land and the things we make and buy, or do we just rent property and equipment from the government that technically owns everything? 1. I consent to some taxes to pay my share of the collective cost of all the public services I take advantage of or have access too. You are not the Government, it is different than a single person coming to take taxes, I do not consent to that. 2. I do not require that my taxes only go to things I only use. That is very selfish to think that is how it should be used. Yes, as long as someone resides in the United States, they should have to pay some taxes. When I use United States, you can insert any other nation as well, I don't want people to think I only apply it here. 3. Do we, should we, can we, are we, why we? Now we are getting into even more abstract discussions. I am here to talk about AnCap vs. Nation-States right now. My position is that AnCap is not a form of progression of government but a regression of it where it will become even more survival of the fittest with less responsibility taken on a whole of society because AnCap can't handle the idea of ANYTHING not being 100% voluntary. It is an idea that tries to has legitimacy but rejects history except to use to say that all forms of government that are not 100% voluntary are evil. I say to you, you are wrong and people here before you have more say on how things should be run before you do. Society is an evolution and governments are a evolution. |
|
|
|
I love that not a single statist has replied yet, though they've been all over the gun and AnCap threads like white on rice. Shows their agenda: Shout down conflicting viewpoints, rather than subject their own to rational discussion.
Dalkore, what's it feel like to be the only intellectually honest proponent of government?
Sometimes it is hard to sit tight and be right. Maybe they are just tired of your discredited philosophy and figure it is not even worth the time. What you don't realize is the was really to show the type of extreme and non-compromising views that exist in AnCap. |
|
|
|
Regardless if you have state governments or republic representation, it is still and government and they historically have required taxes for certain basic services.
I'm really surprised that no one else has challenged this statement, because it's false. The United States made it from 1776 to 1913 before any form of "required" tax was imposed. I say this, because an excise fee isn't an involuntary tax; nor is an import license. When libs & ancaps talk about taxes, we are talking about taxes upon income. Tax upon wages. If you don't own all of the fruits of your labor, then you don't own yourself. Thus, you are a slave to the state. Taxes upon the production & distribution of alcohol, although bad in their own way, can be avoided by simply not byuying alcohol, or making it yourself. Property taxes are pretty bad, also, for similar reasons. If you own your home, then the city has no claim upon it whether or not you pay your property taxes. Tariffs were a form of taxation of all goods imported into the United States since atleast 1790 and it was reflected in all goods in increased prices. You can either see yourself as a nation made-up and part of you or not. Calling it "slavery" is just a use of shock value tactics to try and trigger emotional responses. I further reject the notion I need to own all my labor to not be a slave.
I find AnCap's position on this very selfish, anti-social and greedy. You were born into the world, you did not come into it like magic or teleportation. Yes, I believe a portion (that is debatable) is owed to my nation of allegiance and no I am not a slave because I can freely at anytime expatriate if I so choose. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
