|
I have not scammed nor stolen from anybody. These men have no valid say on my character.
|
|
|
|
|
In summary, I believe a compromise cannot have sacrifice nor loss for either party. Such dealings only result in one winning over the other.
|
|
|
|
...snip...
Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.
The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.
You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad. That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right. No, it isn't. It was never truly mine to begin with. The claim was based on fraudulent premises. In truth, it belongs to me and my sister. Now, if my sister were truly trying to steal my land, I would just give it to her; not out of sacrifice but out of the value she brings me. That is an exchange of value; not sacrifice. |
|
|
|
I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.
I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.
See the difference?
Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister. Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister? Can you see how stupid a worldview that is? The father lied. My sister and I sharing the land is a compromise. We both get what we are entitled. I stand by all of my contentions. Actually that's a compromise. You started with an inheritance you were promised and agreed to share it rather than kill your sister. Welcome to the real world. You will find the same logic applies to things like land ownership, security deposits on leases (really I've spent years arguing with tenants over the damn things) and the correct level of taxation. Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end. The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss. |
|
|
|
I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.
I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.
See the difference?
Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you. He also promised it to your sister. Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister? Can you see how stupid a worldview that is? Nobody is in the right here. The father lied. My sister and I sharing the land is a compromise. We both get what we are entitled. There was no sacrifice. I stand by all of my contentions. |
|
|
|
|
I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.
I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefathers. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.
See the difference?
|
|
|
|
...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.
You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you. If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself. So you are back to saying that all compromise is a question of "food vs poison" ? Yes, yes it is when it comes to questions of principles and morality. It may work elsewhere. |
|
|
|
...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.
You are being wilfully blind. Honest people have disagreements. That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you. If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself. There cannot be a compromise because for me to compromise will be to sacrifice my birthright. Again, you cannot compromise when it comes to rights or you will have none at all. |
|
|
|
No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.
She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.
Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol When Bolsheviks continued to cease her family's businesses and degrade their rights, they sure did. Mexico is a lovely climate. So is Italy. There are dozens of other countries she could have chosen. America just happens to be the land of opportunists. They all force her to pay for "a public good". Moot point. |
|
|
|
...snip...
What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.
Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy. How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence. All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief one. If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land. All I am saying is that you need to grow up. The court may award the entire plot to one of the claimants and the other will have to pay legal costs for both sides. Just because the court does that does not mean the loser was wrong to bring the case. Its perfectly normal for honest people to have honest disagreements and to use courts to settle them. What's sickening is your idea that one of these honest people should kill the other. If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution that is based on force after all. |
|
|
|
No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.
She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.
Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol When the Bolsheviks continued to cease her family's businesses and degrade their rights, they sure did. |
|
|
|
from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htmIn December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,
"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area." This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all. Ad hominem. Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned that would of been better spent in a savings account. Calling a psychopathic killer a "Superman" is sociopathic. I don't see how that can be construed as ad hominem. Ayn Rand accepting public assistance because "she paid into it" makes her a hypocrite for saying things like "America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes." No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand. She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them. Also:  |
|
|
|
...snip...
What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.
Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy. How immature are you? Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long. The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence. All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief won. If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land. |
|
|
|
from http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htmIn December of 1927, Hickman, nineteen years old, showed up at a Los Angeles public school and managed to get custody of a twelve-year-old girl, Marian (sometimes Marion) Parker. He was able to convince Marian's teacher that the girl's father, a well-known banker, had been seriously injured in a car accident and that the girl had to go to the hospital immediately. The story was a lie. Hickman disappeared with Marian, and over the next few days Mr. and Mrs. Parker received a series of ransom notes. The notes were cruel and taunting and were sometimes signed "Death" or "Fate." The sum of $1,500 was demanded for the child's safe release. (Hickman needed this sum, he later claimed, because he wanted to go to Bible college!) The father raised the payment in gold certificates and delivered it to Hickman. As told by the article "Fate, Death and the Fox" in crimelibrary.com,
"At the rendezvous, Mr. Parker handed over the money to a young man who was waiting for him in a parked car. When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area." This was Ayn Rand's hero and model "Superman." He was dragged whimpering and whining to his execution much like Ayn Rand herself taking Social Security and Medicare as she faced her death. Cowards all. Ad hominem. Also, Rand paid into Social Security all her life. She was only taking back value she had already earned, that would of been better spent in a savings account. |
|
|
|
Written like a true sociopath.
So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison? Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and morals leads to disaster. Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster. How so? If you are on land that you believe you own and someone else believes is rightfully theirs, the choices are compromise (go to court) or violence (get a gun). What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins. |
|
|
|
I am not questioning there are elites unscrupulously earning wealth through government force. I am only saying the 1% in the tax code aren't the people we want to hold accountable.
Read the article I linked please. And then you will see why people angry about those issues want to occupy Wall Street. As I said, I don't agree with them but I don't see the need to fictionalise their anger either. I did. I understand the whole paradigm. It has nothing to do with this thread. People are arguing against the "1%". I just want to refute that specifically. If you don't believe such a contention exists, so be it. |
|
|
|
Written like a true sociopath.
So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison? Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and morals leads to disaster. Whereas refusing to compromise leads to violence and disaster. How so? |
|
|
|
Written like a true sociopath.
So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison? That's a sophomoric fallacy. From Wikipedia "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes)." There are no shades of grey between solving a situation with theft and solving it without theft at all. To go in the middle results in somebody having their value stolen. There will be violence if one end gets their way. This is about compromises dealing with values and principles. They simple do not exist. |
|
|
|
|
I am not questioning there are elites unscrupulously earning wealth through government force and the central banking cartel. I am only saying the 1% in the tax code aren't the people we want to hold accountable.
|
|
|
|
Written like a true sociopath.
So how do you handle a compromise between food and poison? Its a false choice. Rynd argues that since compromise between food and poison results in death, all other compromises are equally disastrous. Of course that is not true. I can agree to meet someone at 2.30 instead of 3 as a compromise and be none the worse off. She did not argue that all. She only argued the compromise based on principles and values leads to disaster. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
