I feel you and crytoanarchist have demonstrated the value of a state having a monopoly on violence. Hardly. Don't you think it would be best if the agency preventing you from being robbed didn't have the ability to rob you? |
|
|
|
They don't do that in free countries
Please tell me, which countries are the free ones?  I hear tell Mexico is pretty good about leaving you the hell alone. Unless some thug wants your car, your money or your wife/girl. Something tells me you've never actually been there. Then you should examine that something, and question what else it has told you wrongly about. What part of Mexico did you visit? |
|
|
|
I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.
Vim Vi Repellere Licet. You don't know what that means. You have said you will attack me, using violence, because I disagree with you. You backed up crytoanarchist when he said he would strangle me with his bare hands. You make weasel assertions that my words go "beyond disagreement" and that entitles you to be violent. Pasting wise Latin sayings doesn't mean you understand them. There is no excuse for you using violence in pursuit of your political goals. Says the man whose political goals are violence. Tell you what, Hawker. I apologize for any confusion. I would never attack you simply for disagreeing with me. I was simply pointing out that your advocacy for a violent monopoly is essentially a threat to peaceful people who disagree with you. Apology accepted. I was sad to see you go there. Thank you for the demonstration of why violently resisting the state is futile. Even though they are the aggressors, it's a fight you cannot win. Now, can we please move on? |
|
|
|
I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.
Vim Vi Repellere Licet. You don't know what that means. You have said you will attack me, using violence, because I disagree with you. You backed up crytoanarchist when he said he would strangle me with his bare hands. You make weasel assertions that my words go "beyond disagreement" and that entitles you to be violent. Pasting wise Latin sayings doesn't mean you understand them. There is no excuse for you using violence in pursuit of your political goals. Says the man whose political goals are violence. Tell you what, Hawker. I apologize for any confusion. I would never attack you simply for disagreeing with me. I was simply pointing out that your advocacy for a violent monopoly is essentially a threat to peaceful people who disagree with you. |
|
|
|
...
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
He's using castor oil, from organically grown, non-genetically modified castor beans grown in his window garden. He took a lesson from you  Are you perhaps confusing me with someone, or just being an asshat? |
|
|
|
I find it quite odd the person with the "violent society" is being pushed/shoved/choked etc. by the "peaceful" person.
Vim Vi Repellere Licet. |
|
|
|
...snip... You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself. What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down? Just how violent do you feel entitled to be? Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself. So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me. I won't back down in my belief in democracy. So how far will you go? I don't want you to back down in your belief in might makes right. Just in forcing that view on me. If you leave, and don't come back, that will be the end of it. I'm not going anywhere. I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you. You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing. What's next? You're refusing to leave my property? I've kicked you off, and you return, continuing to advocate your violent society? Stop changing the subject. We never discussed it being on your property. You quote was that I was within your fist range. I have never been on your property. I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you. You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing. What's next? If I can rightfully violently remove you from my presence, then you're on my property. If we're not on my property when you do this, I will go to my property, or ask the property owner to remove you. Will you chase me there, or re-enter the property, to continue to force yourself on me? |
|
|
|
...snip... You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself. What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down? Just how violent do you feel entitled to be? Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself. So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me. I won't back down in my belief in democracy. So how far will you go? I don't want you to back down in your belief in might makes right. Just in forcing that view on me. If you leave, and don't come back, that will be the end of it. I'm not going anywhere. I do advocate we live in a democratic society but I haven't hurt you or threatened you. You've done your pushing, shoving and throwing. What's next? You're refusing to leave my property? I've kicked you off, and you return, continuing to advocate your violent society? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I follow your idea here. The point of earning money is being able to use it to improve your living conditions.
Wrong. Money is meant to be traded for service and goods. ...which improve your living conditions. No. That does not automatically improve your living conditions. Just because you get a meal or water, does not mean you are in better living conditions. Just because you get an oil change, doesn't mean you are living more lavishly Are you no longer hungry or thirsty? Your life has been improved. If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions). |
|
|
|
...snip... You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself. What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down? Just how violent do you feel entitled to be? Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself. So you start off with simple pushing and shoving and if you are string enough, you will throw me. I won't back down in my belief in democracy. So how far will you go? I don't want you to back down in your belief in might makes right. Just in forcing that view on me. If you leave, and don't come back, that will be the end of it. |
|
|
|
They don't do that in free countries
Please tell me, which countries are the free ones? I hear tell Mexico is pretty good about leaving you the hell alone. Unless some thug wants your car, your money or your wife/girl. Something tells me you've never actually been there. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I follow your idea here. The point of earning money is being able to use it to improve your living conditions.
Wrong. Money is meant to be traded for service and goods. ...which improve your living conditions. |
|
|
|
...snip...
The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.
And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip... You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent. Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands. You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence. And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths. Quit twisting my words, you sociopath. I want to remove the State's monopoly on violence so that the entity enforcing my rights isn't violating them itself. Not all Democrats are sociopaths, just the ones that know and understand that they are authorizing the use of violence against peaceful people, and support it anyway. Like yourself. You make threats saying that my support for democracy entitles you to use violence against me. You are against democracy because you personally want to be in a position to use violence. Let me make this perfectly clear: I am against Democracy because is it war waged with ballots, and the side with the most votes is authorizing violence against the side with the fewer votes simply because there are more of them. It's might makes right, plain and simple. You posted in support of cryptoanarchist when he threatened to strangle me. You have never made clear just how violent you plan to get yourself. What are we looking at here? Kneecapping, necklacing, house burnt down? Just how violent do you feel entitled to be? Depends on how much you resisted being removed from my presence. Most likely, just a toss out on your ear. I'm sure you're familiar with being tossed out of an establishment. Of course, If you continued to press the issue, I would be forced to conclude that advocating violence by proxy was not enough, and you were graduating to doing violence to me yourself. |
|
|
|
The A choice is identical to your C No it isn't. 1. Even if you assume risk=0 (a poor assumption, if you're looking to model the real world), spreading it out allows weekly instead of monthly income. Easier to budget for. 2. Given that risk ≠ 0, it would be wise for me to spread that risk among as many people as possible. 3. Even if risk = 0 (again, a poor assumption) spreading it out allows for fluctuations due to one person paying off early. Since there are many others, my income is more or less steady, even if people do pay off early. In fact, this makes people paying off early into a good thing, because now all that capital is back in my account, ready to be loaned out again, and I still have the income from everyone else. If I had only one borrower, his paying back early would indeed trigger a scramble to get that money back out and earning me income again. If, instead, I have dozens, one of them paying back early amounts to a nice bonus this week, and maybe a little less this time next month, assuming I can't get it loaned back out. Hi myrkul. Not quite sure what your list intends to show, so i'll simply answer it point by point: 1. Yes, zero risk is a terrible assumption. My guess was that you, as the lender, would be the last to ask for risk. But as you like, have at it. And weekly payments to boot, if you find monthly installments difficult to budget If you'd like even more realism (salaries for hired thugs, fire & life insurance), just ask!* *Historically, moneylenders enjoyed a close & personal relationship with the communities they served, see: [Angry Mob With Torches & Pitchforks]2. Of course. See: [Angry Mob] above. 3. No matter how you twist it, if loans are repaid early, there will be (time > 0) during which some of your money is not earning. Not sure about the second sentence. Some of your borrowers are now bringing you gifts? [Angry Mob]? If I have >4 borrowers, I can arrange their monthly payments so that I get weekly income. That way, I don't have all my money coming in on the same day every month. Given that risk >0, it would be wise to make sure that the risk of all my money being defaulted on is as low as possible. Thus, as many people as possible. And yes, If people pay early, there will be some time where some of my money isn't earning. But again, the more people I have loaned to, the less that will be when it happens. And, if they're paying the loan off early, they're bringing in more than I had planned for. Thus, the "bonus." |
|
|
|
...snip...
The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.
And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip... You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent. Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands. You want to remove the state's monopoly on violence so that you can personally use violence. And the reason you want to use violence against me is that I believe in democracy and you regard all democrats as sociopaths. Quit twisting my words, you sociopath. I want to remove the State's monopoly on violence so that the entity enforcing my rights isn't violating them itself. Not all Democrats are sociopaths, just the ones that know and understand that they are authorizing the use of violence against peaceful people, and support it anyway. Like yourself. |
|
|
|
Round Four: Players: 8 Maximum societal points: 64 Maximum individual points: 12 0 Rassah <--> Foxpup 3 Trade
Kill
2 Elwar <--> Cameltoemcgee 2 Trade
trade!  2 FCTaiChi <--> FenixRD 2 trade
Trading with FCTaiChi.
1 wdmw <--> Ekaros 1 (sorry, killing twice doesn't get double points) Kill...
Kill, I fear him!
(Apparently, since you tried to kill him twice) Kill
Societal total points: 56 Point totals: Foxpup: 9 FCTaiChi: 8 Elwar: 8 wdmw: 8 Ekaros: 7 FenixRD: 6 Rassah: 6 Cameltoemcgee: 4 Round 5 Roster: Viscera <--> Ekaros wdmw <--> Elwar Cameltoemcgee <--> myrkul Foxpup <--> FenixRD FCTaiChi <--> Rassah Have fun! |
|
|
|
...snip...
The difference here is that I have quotes of you saying you will use violence against me.
And I have quotes of you saying that you support and will pay for the use of violence against me. ...snip... You claim the right to use violence if I speak my mind. So I have to choose between my freedom of speech and your freedom to use violence to silence dissent. Not to silence dissent. To remove from my presence someone who has threatened me. With violence by proxy, to be sure, but you've since revealed that without someone having a monopoly on the use of force to enforce people's rights, you would consider murder "legal," so my response with violence to remove you from my presence has only become more justified. You are a dangerous sociopath, and merely associating with you in a stateless society would put me at danger of violent death at your hands. |
|
|
|
I'm matched up with Ekaros. Is he on the naughty list?
I suppose you could check yourself, but FenixRD has thoughtfully counted things up for you: So, in order to "pay off the marker" on you [Ekaros] (you personally, based on your current "ethics balance"), you must allow your partner to choose Kill whilst you choose Trade, TWICE. Once this occurs, you will be eligible for the same protections the alliance offers to its members, should you so choose.
|
|
|
|
how do you raid a mall kiosk?
Well, you know how those shopkeepers terrorists are. You need 5, maybe 6 dozen fully-armed and armored troops. |
|
|
|
I consider it unethical to pay for food. Good luck with that. Well, this is a person who considers a locked dumpster a "waste." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
