Fornit, I really would appreciate it if you ceased to abuse the English language. Use the shift and apostrophe (') keys, if you please, it makes your writing that much more readable, and you look more intelligent than a 6th grader.
thank's for the advice. Which you promptly ignored. The proper way to write that, which will not set your reader's teeth on edge is: "Thanks for the advice." no wonder you quote poe's law every 5 minutes. i have seen solid blocks of concrete that were better sarcasm detectors than you. Then you don't know what logic is. Not surprising, since you can't write above a kindergarten level.
maybe you can help me with that. i am looking for a word, pretty long one. sounds a bit like "at homie, man?" Well, if you seek to prevent someone's death by gunfire, perhaps they should have the tools to defend themselves? And if you say you judge actions, why then are you judging failure to act? If a paralyzed man does not jump into the river to pull the drowning man out, does that make his lack of action evil? My code of conduct is not "arbitrary," it is logically constructed, internally consistent, and fair. If you would like an explanation of this code of conduct, You can find it here. I've included the link to the audiobook rather than the pdf in case your reading comprehension is on par with your writing skills. dude, you just quote stuff, period. if you are able to build any rational argument for yourself, i have yet to witness that. fortunately it seems you ran out of text to quote. if all property belonged to society and can be rented by contract, where is the coercion? if it makes you feel better, imagine the government as an entity that was everywhere first, did the mixing and now offers you contracts just like any private person  Except that it wasn't, didn't, and doesn't. and where is the coercion again? I don't even know what you're talking about here. Again, It's not surprising that you would come up with a poor example, considering how poorly you write.
maybe next time i quote one instead. i hope your german is good. Except it doesn't work. It forces people to deal with, employ, and work for, people they don't like.
The funny thing is, The right to freedom of association is explicitly spelled out (Article 20.1): "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association." while this "right to equal treatment" is only implied (Article 23.1): "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." You'll note, also, that the lower numbered rights are more basic, and thus trump the higher numbered rights.
you serious? a) article 20 doesnt say that. at all. b) you play top trumps with ethics? i play article 2. hand me your all your cards! And if you think you mean Article 7, "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." you're mistaken, because that protects against people saying something like "you're black, so you don't have X right." Which is interesting, since that is essentially what you are saying. You are denying people their right to freedom of association simply because you think they should associate with the people they choose not to associate with.
so let the blacks sit in the back of the bus again because the bus driver/owner doesnt want to associate with them? |
|
|
|
Fornit, I really would appreciate it if you ceased to abuse the English language. Use the shift and apostrophe (') keys, if you please, it makes your writing that much more readable, and you look more intelligent than a 6th grader.
thank's for the advice. /sigh... You continue to argue patently false things, which if you had actually read the articles I linked, you would know were false. The definition of the "whole work-mixing-thingy" (Homesteading principle) was first stated by John Locke: Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. still can't agree that there is any logic in that. it sure sounds nice though. And property rights do not allow for someone to render one's right to life meaningless. What you must understand that your right to life is not actually a right to anything. Rather, it is a right to be free from being killed. A right to not be murdered. Nothing more, nothing less. You are not entitled to the property of another person. Ever.
you state that as if it were some eternal law i just have to think about long enough to understand. it's not that i not understand, i just don't concur with it. i do not care if somebody dies by starvation or gunfire. i also do not care if you pushed somebody in the river or just didn't feel obligated to pull him out. dead is dead. i judge actions by their outcome and not by fact that you can say that, by some arbitrary code of conduct, you haven't done anything "wrong". Communism is not evil because it "doesn't fit libertarian dogma," but because it kills people. it requires coercion to force people to "share" their property and the results of their labor.
if all property belonged to society and can be rented by contract, where is the coercion? if it makes you feel better, imagine the government as an entity that was everywhere first, did the mixing and now offers you contracts just like any private person Oh but it does. If you remove or reduce the ability for someone to defend themselves, you are damaging their ability to protect their own right to life. I find it interesting that you both consider that one has a right to other's property, and that they should not be able to defend themselves or their property. That would rationally label you as a criminal. And my argument is not theoretical. It's backed up by hard facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crimewell, you can report me to the thought police. your standard for what you consider "hard facts" is pretty low. i can't imagine what kind of desperation caused you to link to that guy btw. i skimmed over hthis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Women.27s_suffrage_and_government_growth and had a hard time not to eat my cat out of sheer amusement. forgive me if i can't subcribe to your reality. where i live you can send a naked teenage girl to get you a burger and pay with a gold bar at 3am. except you can't sell burgers at 3am and the girl probably had a hard time avoiding getting arrested for indecent behaviour by one of the many bored police officers idling between settling noise complaints and showing people the way ok, a little over the top. but still, consider that societies can work differently from what you experience in your country. Tsk... You didn't answer me. I'll ask again. Why do you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with?
because it works. as i said outcome > rules. in this case, a very diffuse freedom < protection against the very common reality of racism, sexism, religious fanatism, exploitation, de facto censorship and so forth. |
|
|
|
I see you didn't read the article, nor any of the sources.
i did. i just dont agree. Sovereign-minded individuals usually assert a right of private property external to the body, reasoning that if a person owns themselves, they own their actions, including those that create or improve resources. Therefore, they own their own labour and the fruits thereof. While the land itself is not created by one's labor, by " mixing one's labor with it," land can be claimed - homesteaded - for one's own use. And indeed, you are correct, that access to farm-able land and water cannot be denied, but that requirement goes both ways. You cannot deny someone their land, and since they have prior claim, their right to that land trumps yours. You're welcome to buy it from them, if you can offer a price they'll accept, but otherwise you'll have to find other land, or offer your labor to someone in order to get your food. I've cut out the "apple tree" response, below, since it's best answered here. I may have planted that apple tree, or merely cared for it. But yes, it boils down to "I saw it first," or rather, I labored on it first. yeah, except nothing of that can be deducted from self-ownership. its a very artificial, theoretically unsound construct on top of it. its unsound, because it effectively allows for those with farmland/water/etc to render the right to life of those without that meaningsless whenever they please. its also impractical, because there is no good definition of the whole work-mixing-thingy, making it an i-touch-i-own rule, allowing you to claim ridiculous amounts of land and resources with little to no effort. a communistic approach is much more sound regarding self-ownership: no one can own land, society can give you land temporarily and demand that you share some part of the fruits of your labor on that land with the society. its a much more logical and practical solution to making self-ownership and right to life work together without any coercion. of course, it doesnt fit liberitarian dogma, so it evil  Defending oneself with a knife from someone with a gun is a notoriously poor decision... and there's a reason that firearms surpassed other ranged weaponry. The fact remains that if you make something illegal, by definition the only people with it will be criminals.
that still doesnt effect your right to life. countries with stricter fire arm regulations have much less homicides with firearms, despite the all those better-armed criminals. your argument is purely theoretical. Re-read again the part that I've bolded. Maybe then you'll understand what I said.
I'd like to know, however, why you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with.
i understand you well enough. you have no problem with rights on paper as long as you dont have to do jack shit to honor them. personally, the right for a woman to walk a street without a burka is more important to me than the rights of the muslim that owns the street. freedom of speech is more important to me than the rights of the owners of schools or "public" places. the right to equal payment for equal work is more important than the right of a factory owner to exploit desparate people. free education is more important to me than your wish not to share anything ever with society. theres really nothing absolutist about that. i just prefer to live in a totally different society than you. |
|
|
|
Self-ownership. In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that "100 percent self-ownership" is the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person - a "universal ethic" - and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man. there a a lot of rights that cannot be deducted from self-ownership. for example, i cant really see how you can deduct property rights from self-ownership. specifically the right to own land and natural resources seems problematic, since both arent part of the result of your labor and are limited in supply, so that ownership might very well interfere with other peoples right to life. one could very well argue that access to the means to sustain ones life through your own labor follows directly from the right to life, and therefore access to farmable land and water cannot be denied. Except that by banning one type of weapon you - by definition - ensure that only criminals have that weapon. And self defense also includes that against those who set themselves as your protectors, as evinced by the second story posted in this thread.
having no fire arms doesnt really stop you from defending yourself. its just less effective. still much more effective than planting crops without land btw Again, self-ownership. If I own myself, and you own yourself, By what rationale do you claim part of me (or the result of my labor) as yours, or I claim part of you or your labor as mine?
by what right did you claim the land and resources you worked with as your own? you saw that apple tree first? unless you grow apples from your own body i dont see how you can fully claim anything except yourself as your own. Do I? Until I hit Article 25, I found almost nothing to disagree with (except those things which assumed a State), and after, I found little to disagree with. In specific, Article 25, and 26. Read it yourself, and see which ones impose obligations not to restrict or compel behavior, rather than imposing obligations to do so: https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtmlmany of those rights require an institution that promotes them or obligates others to follow them. for example all rights that guarantee equal treatment arent worth much when everybody can choose freely what kind of people he doesnt employ, doesnt trade with or doesnt give access to his infrastructure, or at least charge more. |
|
|
|
Well, the agreement was brief.
A rational investigation can, and will, discover what rights are inherent in the human condition.
for a rational investigation you still need some kind of axiom to start with. what should that universally accepted axiom be? Most are rights from. For instance, the right to be free from murder (usually called the right to life). Some rights "Hang off of" these deeper rights, for instance, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms require and are required by, the right to life.
self-defense obviously is. the right to bear arms is not. a society could ban arms alltogether, or some kinds of it. or the society could just say it recognizes your right to life but its duty to protect your fellow citizens from you is considered more important than your improved capabilities of self-defense. The rational test is whether or not a proposed "right" imposes a positive obligation on another person. For instance, let us say we wanted to enshrine the right to food in the constitution of our new nation, rationalizing that you need food to live, and the right to life therefore requires a right to food. "A right to food" imposes a positive obligation on others to feed you. Clearly, that doesn't work. If we were to put that right into our constitution, you would be required to feed anyone who asked, even to the detriment of your own family. So that's a no-go.
how is that rational? from what do you deduct the right to be free from any obligation? btw: you realize that you disagree with pretty much all social rights from the universal declaration of human rights? just wondering why, if those absolute rights are so rational and easy to recognize, your set of rights is so very different from the most commonly accepted one... |
|
|
|
|
naja, vielleicht nochmal mit nahrungsmitteln versuchen, die auch irgendwer essen will. irgendwelchen superfettigen wurstkram kann man vielliecht auf dem csu-parteitag bringen, aber trendfressi für nerds ist das nicht wirklich.
|
|
|
|
Our founding documents NEVER gave us any rights.
The founding documents RECOGNIZED only SOME of what were, at the time, our most recognized and honored pre-existing rights by Birth/God/Creator... for being born onto this land.
even if there were rights given by something or someone even before a society exists, people would never agree on what those rights are. there is no universal moral compass all humans share or rights that are recognized universally all over the world and through history. effectively, rights are given by societies to people. those rights differ and often the groups they are given to also differ. some societies grant rights to every human being, others dont even grant all of their own citizens the same rights. usually some of those rights are protected by law, others only manifest in social pressure. sometimes societies are unified in their perception of rights, sometimes not. sometimes this perception changes over time and previously highly accept laws start to feel like coercion. in my opinion, assuming too many absolute rights a priori is a sure way to never understand your fellow men, or live with them. if you have the oppurtunity to found your very own country, that might be ok. otherwise you might consider the possibility that rights are not right or wrong but just a consent, often a least common denominator of people with very different opinions. |
|
|
|
|
i think this could have great value for bitcoin, since they have lots of timber and the best javelin throwers in the world.
(also good education, high per capita income, a thriving it sector, free press and stuff)
|
|
|
|
Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people. It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is. yeah, awesome to live in country where you have to... |
|
|
|
and while we are at it: its probably a coincidence that this is one of the few articles that fails to mention he waited in that chair for 15 minutes for the burglars to come out of the basement and said he had hoped the other guys would climb up the stairs, too.
as far as ethics go: self-defense my ass... Right... waiting until the intruder makes his intent clear certainly removes all question of it being self-defense.  Might want to look up "castle doctrine." yeah, i know that one. it basically says if you have the option to a) walk away or b) kill somebody do whatever the fuck you want. and thats exactly what old guy did. whatever the fuck he wanted. yay celebrations! our hero! i think i am just missing the connection to both self-defense and ethics... |
|
|
|
|
and while we are at it: its probably a coincidence that this is one of the few articles that fails to mention he waited in that chair for 15 minutes for the burglars to come out of the basement and said he had hoped the other guys would climb up the stairs, too.
as far as ethics go: self-defense my ass...
|
|
|
|
i bought the yubikey. the transaction was quick and smooth, couldnt be better. would do business again  |
|
|
|
- And by extension, cruelty to animals
in general, i consider how you threat the ones that are not able to exercise their rights themselves a benchmark of a civilized society. besides children that can be prisoners or anyone who has, for whatever reason, temporarily or permanently, diminished responsibility. |
|
|
|
The point is, after someone has forced their way into your home, are you prepared to deal with the consequences of not defending yourself with deadly force? Are you willing to risk your families' lives hoping the guy is only a robber? By the time you find out, it may already be too late.
I'm not a mind reader. If someone forced their way into my home, my first priority is the protection of my family. I have no idea whether the individual who forced his way into my home is there to steal my coffee mug or rape and kill my family.
What do you suggest? Discussion? "Hello sir, are you here to kill me and my loved ones, or just take my stuff?"
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the need for leniency against someone who is willing to force their way into someone's home.
No, I would not kill someone over a TV, or microwave oven. But I have no way of knowing why someone just forced their way into my home, so I'm not taking any chances.
he shot to kill the moment he saw the burglar. he didnt take a second to determine if the guy was armed. he didnt fire a warning shot or try to incapacitate him. afterwards he knew there was likely someone dying in his basement and didnt even bother to call the police. how exactly is that still self defense? and even in a case of self defense, killing an ordinary burglar isnt something to celebrate. its not like he just stopped hannibal lecter... |
|
|
|
|
but it does raise the question how you handle childrens rights when the parents can change the set of laws whenever they please.
|
|
|
|
If I lived near this man I would have already been there to shake his hand and buy him a beer.
be careful to shake his hand very gently though... That threat of death is a powerful motivator to stay straight.
Death is also a great corrections tool. He certainly will never do it again.
you ever wondered why all those socialist european countries without capital punishment and much harsher rules regarding the slaying of your fellow citizens have so much lower crime rates? (to put a number to that, the usa has around 7 times the per capita prison population of europe) Violent criminals need to die, especially those with the bravado to break into someone elses home.
There is nothing immoral about a killing in defense, who means you harm.
defense of what? your life, your house, your favorite coffee cup? for me, the list of things valuable enough to kill for is rather short. for you, obviously not. i also rather live in a country that doesnt behead you for a parking violation. |
|
|
|
what exactly do you applaud? from what i gather from the linked articles, it was very likely an intentional killing solely for the protection of his property. he didnt determine if the robber was armed nor did he give any warning before shooting to kill. since he was 92y old one can argue in his defense that his options are very limited and anything but the most radical reaction might have endangered himself. if however, that is not the case, killing someone to prevent a moderately severe crime, is immoral imho, especially if you have less radical options, like wound or apprehend the criminal. at best its acceptable, but certainly nothing to compliment somebody on or be thrilled about. after all, its still a situation where someone got killed. |
|
|
|
@klaus
Seeder kann zugegeben manchmal schon ganz schön penetrant sein und ich kann gut verstehen, dass man als Leser durchaus dazu neigt, seine Postings mal zu überlesen, weils eben sehr oft eine Wiederholung seiner Visionen ist.
Andererseits langweilen mich Leute wie du weitaus mehr, die eigentlich keine wirklichen Visionen haben und die die Welt so hinnehmen wie sie ist mit all den Stärken und Schwächen. Da hab ich es lieber, wenn Jemand teils krasse Visionen hat und sich dies zum Ziel macht.
Leute wie Seeder werden häufig belächelt, so wie Karl-Marx, Diesel, Otto und Konsorten für ihre Innovationen und Erfindungen gerne belächelt worden. Am Ende jeder größeren Veränderung sowie Innovation stehen eben teils extreme Visionen und verrückte und vor allem sture Menschen wie vielleicht auch Seeder es ist.
Man denke nur mal an Karl-Marx, der seine Familie, seinen Wohlstand, seine Gesundheit mit seinen Visionen zerrüttet hat und als alter sturer Narr abgetan wurde. Am Ende aber sind viele seiner Erkenntnisse die heutige Realität. Aber wenn die Rede von Karl-Marx ist, so denken da viele Menschen an Marxismus und deren "negative" Folgen. Dass Marx den Marxismus zu Lebzeiten sogar selbst abgelehnt hatte, ebenso wie den Kommunismus, wissen nur die Wenigsten.
seeder hat aber keine innovationen oder erfindungen, sondern bloss substanzloses rumgeblubber. da gibts ja noch nicht mal irgendeine aussage, über die man nun ernsthaft diskutieren könnte. dafür ist das, was er so von sich gibt viel zu konfus und inhaltsleer. |
|
|
|
|
das forum heißt ja auch spekulation und ich spekuliere jetzt einfach mal, daß cheffe auch schon über alle berge ist. oder zumindest 3/4 aller berge...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
