And we allow the government to own them... why? For "national defense"?
Sadly, you don't understand the Cold War very well, do you? The technology to neutralize an incoming nuke was not guaranteed. You need to understand that possessing nukes was the deterrent to prevent the other nation from using a nuke on you. |
|
|
|
Though, I'm glad that you at least recognize how safe I am here since there aren't any worthy opponents.
Missing the point again. Without making comment on the worthiness of your opponents here, the point is to see how many opponents you might have in the real world - in other words, how much support can you get for your ideas? You can argue that you are a sophisticated philosopher whose ideas are too complex to be understood by the common man, but really, your philosophy boils down to one sentence, so I think the common man can grasp it. |
|
|
|
b2c, I'm not sure what you're arguing in these more recent posts. In order to solve a problem, are you suggesting that we should learn more about the problem, debate it and research it, or are you suggesting that... I dunno, are you suggesting... something else?
That's my stance. Different problems require knowledge external to a political ideology, studies, research, and then a nuanced solution applicable to said problem. The more concise you can be, the better, but in general, the solutions will vary, will be somewhat complex and require the knowledge of experts as well as common sense. B2c wants to slap a one sentence solution on everything: "Hands off me and my property!" He shuns actually needing to know anything beyond that. |
|
|
|
If your opinions are so crazy as to be indefensible by argument, and your first resort is violence, then you're a ragging hypocrite and a tyrannt worse than any state which you hate. You said you were going to "fight me tooth and nail". I guess you meant that figuratively then? How else are you going to fight me? Strongly worded forum posts. I think I'll survive. You'll survive, literally and metaphorically. By remaining in your bunker (the bitcoin politics forum), you're guaranteeing your safety, as well as guaranteeing not actually having any effect in the real world. Your choice. |
|
|
|
So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours. See you on the battlefield. We invited you to the battlefield, but you chickened out and chose to remain in your bunker. These last couple posts were basically check and mate. There's not even any point in cluttering up H-T with his dumbassery, much less me getting blamed for inviting him there, because he just shoved his foot so far down his throat that there's nothing left to say. Agreed. But I'd really like to see if he's capable of getting any traction in the real world. Obviously he knows he can't. I on the other hand seek out those in disagreement with my ideals, because I am confident in them. |
|
|
|
So if you want to force on me a system that allows that, you're going to need to justify it and sell me on it, otherwise I'll fight you tooth and nail, and there are a lot more people on my side than yours. See you on the battlefield. We invited you to the battlefield, but you chickened out and chose to remain in your bunker. |
|
|
|
Ultimately, I define my rights based on empathy. I don't ask others to do what I would not have myself do. I consider myself equal in rights to everyone else. I start with "I wouldn't want to be assaulted or killed", "I wouldn't want my property stolen", etc and then these all distill to "I don't want people to touch my property without permission". Since I consider my person to be owned by myself, it therefore falls under property.
Ummm, that's how most people feel, instinctively. Is this original? No. That gives us the NAP.
The NAP is nothing unless universally enforced, or at least consistently enforced within a region. It's also subject to interpretation because it's so vague. Then, that leaves the question of how property can be obtained in the first place and what constitutes theft. That's where homesteading and legitimate title transfer come into play.
I'm sorry, but somehow, based on this conclusion you've drawn, you've publicly interpreted this to mean that you own a life raft if you're the first in it, and thus you also declare the rules for all subsequent boarders. Odd. As you can see, all these disparate considerations ultimately boil down to the two tenets of libertarianism. It's accomplished by taking specific considerations, seeing what they have in common and generalizing them. Just because something can be said in a few words doesn't mean it's simple. Let's not focus on word count while ignoring content.
Well, if these disparate considerations are so rock solid, then why is there such disagreement about them here in this thread? |
|
|
|
How do you determine the method required for a particular case? The deeper we dig the more it seems like you just fly by the seat of your pants.
I'm going to assume that you don't actually want to discuss this topic with me, by carefully avoiding getting too deep into it. Tell me, how do you determine that your simplistic one sentence rule is adequate for everything? |
|
|
|
I don't need a simple process. That's your strawman. I need some kind of process. You say that you are concerned about consequences but how do you quantify that? Is it some utility calculation? I don't care if it's complex or subtle but it better be consistent. You seem to confuse those things.
Back up your claims about me. Demonstrate to me that I have not made significant educational posts which either state a reason for certain policy or have not made significant posts which suggest a solution. Back up your accusation about me, or shut it. Let me repeat my question, you say you are concerned about consequences but how do you judge them? How do you determine if the consequences are too great to allow something? Can you describe it for me? I just stated that each case often requires a different method. Mention a specific case - I have named several, and then we'll have a discussion. |
|
|
|
I don't need a simple process. That's your strawman. I need some kind of process. You say that you are concerned about consequences but how do you quantify that? Is it some utility calculation? I don't care if it's complex or subtle but it better be consistent. You seem to confuse those things.
Back up your claims about me. Demonstrate to me that I have not made significant educational posts which either state a reason for certain policy or have not made significant posts which suggest a solution. Back up your accusation about me, or shut it. |
|
|
|
So you can't explain your process other than "thinking hard about it". I'm really supposed to endorse that?
Unlike you, my process isn't simple like yours. It depends on each individual case. Would you like to discuss automobile efficiency and a method for that? Or CO2 emissions and a method for that? Or wolf populations? Or wildlife corridors? Or road management? I don't just have some simple process to explain to you. That's the difference between sophisticated understanding and application to problems and your method, which is application of one sentence to everything, acknowledging that no sophisticated understanding is necessary. I can point you to the post you made where you precisely stated that no sophisticated understanding is necessary - about three posts after you stated that you engage in sophisticated understanding to better understand subtle and difficult problems. |
|
|
|
In that regard, I'm actually in the same boat as you. My ideas are also seen as crazy by a country that is predominantly far-right authoritarian, religious nut cases that worship the US military and are blissfully.... no, more like orgasmically ignorant of history and anything not covered by Fox News. The difference between you and I is that I choose to surround myself by these people so that I can educate them, sway them over to my way of thinking, and also through their counter-arguments, strengthen, examine, and reflect on my own beliefs, often modifying them where they prove to be illogical. You, on the other hand, choose to surround yourself with like-mind people, which is essentially burying your head in the sand. You know you can't adequately defend your beliefs, maybe you're even afraid of beginning to question them, so you stick to pumping yourself full of world-view affirming literature and surrounding yourself with people that think exactly like you. If you truly like your way is not only the best way, but also a realistic and workable way for the world, then stop hiding behind "me too" people and go out and start winning strangers to your cause.
Nothing is more satisfying than having an effect - getting people who think they believe what they believe, but getting them to understand that what they believe is not the best way, usually because they're unaware of all the consequences of their beliefs. In reference to my post quoted here, knowledge is key - knowledge external to some political ideology. But you already know that. |
|
|
|
As for the other stuff, I honestly don't know what the existing precise regulations are, but I believe in studying each individual case and determining something that strikes some type of balance, admitting and fully accepting that everyone will not be pleased. What kind of balance? What guides you? Whatever tickles your fancy? Popular opinion? The alignment of the stars? Why do you ask stupid questions like this when you openly admit that your ideas are just some undefendable randomness you pulled out of your ass? There's a difference between picking some arbitrary rules and sticking with them vs. having no rules at all. I'm sure you know that. Yes, we know there is a difference. Do you know that there is a difference between arbitrary random rules and specific well thought out rules based on research, knowledge and examination of the consequences? |
|
|
|
In that regard, I'm actually in the same boat as you. My ideas are also seen as crazy by a country that is predominantly far-right authoritarian, religious nut cases that worship the US military and are blissfully.... no, more like orgasmically ignorant of history and anything not covered by Fox News. The difference between you and I is that I choose to surround myself by these people so that I can educate them, sway them over to my way of thinking, and also through their counter-arguments, strengthen, examine, and reflect on my own beliefs, often modifying them where they prove to be illogical. You, on the other hand, choose to surround yourself with like-mind people, which is essentially burying your head in the sand. You know you can't adequately defend your beliefs, maybe you're even afraid of beginning to question them, so you stick to pumping yourself full of world-view affirming literature and surrounding yourself with people that think exactly like you. If you truly like your way is not only the best way, but also a realistic and workable way for the world, then stop hiding behind "me too" people and go out and start winning strangers to your cause.
Nothing is more satisfying than having an effect - getting people who think they believe what they believe, but getting them to understand that what they believe is not the best way, usually because they're unaware of all the consequences of their beliefs. |
|
|
|
As for the other stuff, I honestly don't know what the existing precise regulations are, but I believe in studying each individual case and determining something that strikes some type of balance, admitting and fully accepting that everyone will not be pleased. What kind of balance? What guides you? Whatever tickles your fancy? Popular opinion? The alignment of the stars? Not necessarily any of those. In the case of the nukes, common sense guides me. In the case of the environment, knowledge that others don't bother to arm themselves with. Never the alignment of the stars. Never what tickles my fancy - unless it is coincident with well thought out and researched conclusions. Balance is important. Now, the last paragraph that AyeYo just wrote (in his longer post above) - consider it to be good advice, even if you find him abrasive. |
|
|
|
The nuke thing is an extreme case. It doesn't say anything really.
It says a lot given that the last 20 pages or so have posts in which a few members seem to adamantly insist that there should be no regulation of nukes. Precisely because it is extreme (individuals don't really need them and they cause horrific damage), it becomes telling that a select few think they should not be regulated. How about a cannon? Can a citizen own a cannon? If not, why not? What about dynamite? Black powder? How large of a firearm is too large, and why? You never really did address this before.
I think antique cannons should be allowed. Just a hunch. As for the other stuff, I honestly don't know what the existing precise regulations are, but I believe in studying each individual case and determining something that strikes some type of balance, admitting and fully accepting that everyone will not be pleased. But that's ok, because in liber-land, obviously not everybody will be pleased either. Once you accept that not everyone will be pleased no matter what solution is applied, it becomes clear that classifying items into different groups and applying solutions individually to those different groups is an acceptable method, rather than insisting that one simple rule applies to everything, which obviously results in situations that just aren't acceptable. |
|
|
|
"I'm starting with the man in the mirror, I'm asking you to change his ways". M. Jackson.
Right, but this reminds me of people calling out Warren Buffett for saying the rich should pay more taxes. Everyone's saying Warren Buffett should man up and just pay more taxes voluntarily. That's not the point. Volunteerism isn't the solution. The reason Warren Buffett doesn't just voluntarily pay more taxes is because that doesn't have the same effect as all of the extremely rich paying more taxes simultaneously. Anyway, I'm using Warren Buffett's statement as an example in general - not making a statement about taxes. By analogy, this means that asking Joe Schmoe in America (or western society) to live greener isn't enough. Policy needs to be enacted that addresses the issue in a multi faceted way. The solutions are out there. I wasn't talking about change on an individual level. I was talking about systematic change, although that would have to transform into individual change eventually.  Give an example of systematic change that you are in favor of. |
|
|
|
But even the "common man" isn't that ignorant and eventually catches on. Unfortunately, at this point "might makes right" and the anointed ones and the ivory towers in which they reside, are the only deciding factions left. And they are well bunkered in. I can see the writing on the wall too. If you can regulate nukes, then why not semtex, or fertilizer, or handguns, or knife length, or... or how about a lemonade stand? Yeah, I know you say it would never happen. Calling me a liar? Been there, seen that.
It has happened in the past, it will happen again. The past is prologue.
All that you said has valid points. But last time I checked, nukes have been regulated for pretty much as long as they've been around, and it hasn't led to any attempts at kitchen knife regulation (accept on airplanes), which frankly, sounds reasonable to me. I have zero problems with all citizens not being allowed to ever own a nuke. Zero. |
|
|
|
You definitely require a sophisticated understanding before you can appreciate subtle and difficult problems.
Remember when I said this? Yea, I was the one who explained that to you and you agreed with it. So, clearly, that's not what I reject. I reject the idea that, all things considered, consequences trump rights. Let's consider what you want. Basically, it's something to the effect: "Everyone should keep their hands off of others and their property." And then, over the course of some 46 pages in this thread, and many times over in other threads, you argue that above all else, that ideal trumps everything else, indiscriminately. It seems to me that indiscriminate application of that ideal does in fact, not require a sophisticated understanding of anything else at all. So please demonstrate to me the following: 1. Demonstrate that your ideal does indeed require a sophisticated understanding to appreciate it and apply it to subtle and difficult problems. 2. Demonstrate that you have not shirked the need for a sophisticated understanding when explaining the application of your ideal to subtle and difficult problems. |
|
|
|
You definitely require a sophisticated understanding before you can appreciate subtle and difficult problems.
I agree with this and I have said this to you many times. I've patiently explained to you that you can't slap your political ideology broadly to the world and society and hope it works. I've explained that to you, after it became obvious to me that you lacked a sophisticated understanding of many topics external to your political ideology. I believe the topics were related to deforestation, ecosystems, species decimation, riparian zones, trophic cascades, edge effects, etc. Thank you for summarizing my viewpoint (and undermining yours) in one succinct sentence. Of course, I understand your viewpoint. I simply reject it. You reject the importance of having a sophisticated understanding before applying measures to subtle and difficult problems? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
