Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 04:33:50 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Revolution ongoing in Europe?  (Read 7659 times)
DATA COMMANDER
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:04:43 PM
 #81

My point is that libertarians are not against all initiations of force.

Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
1480955630
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480955630

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480955630
Reply with quote  #2

1480955630
Report to moderator
1480955630
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480955630

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480955630
Reply with quote  #2

1480955630
Report to moderator
1480955630
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480955630

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480955630
Reply with quote  #2

1480955630
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480955630
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480955630

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480955630
Reply with quote  #2

1480955630
Report to moderator
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:10:12 PM
 #82

My point is that libertarians are not against all initiations of force.

Really?  How does your post make this point?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
DATA COMMANDER
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:11:45 PM
 #83

My point is that libertarians are not against all initiations of force.

Really?  How does your post make this point?

Are you serious?

Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:16:46 PM
 #84

My point is that libertarians are not against all initiations of force.

Really?  How does your post make this point?

Are you serious?

Yes.  I'm seriously asking how your strawman situation supports your claim that libs are not against all initiations of force.  This may or may not be true for any given lib, but lets leave that aside for a moment and examine your contrived situation.  If someone steals my coat from the coatrack at a resturant, how does that affect my views on initiation of force?  He initiated force, after all, because I was denied use of my own property.  I'm not likely to be terriblely concerned about the theft of a coat, beyond the inconvience of the moment, but my freedom to decide to give my coat away or not was denied me by someone else.  Was it not?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
BCEmporium
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:24:53 PM
 #85

So, creighto,

You conceive the essence of "economic violence".

As it is "economic violence" to get your coat, it may be also "economic violence" to use own wealth as a weapon... There's no "high ground" or "sanctuary" of ownership, a thing just belongs to you as long as you can keep it that way, when you can't... well... appeal to morality wouldn't probably help much.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:28:15 PM
 #86

So, creighto,

You conceive the essence of "economic violence".

As it is "economic violence" to get your coat, it may be also "economic violence" to use own wealth as a weapon... There's no "high ground" or "sanctuary" of ownership, a thing just belongs to you as long as you can keep it that way, when you can't... well... appeal to morality wouldn't probably help much.

I can conceive it, this doesn't mean that I agree with your interpretations of it.  There is an implicit agreement between myself and the restraunt owner, that he agrees that I own what I arrived with (so long as there is no credible claim otherwise) and thus, by agreeing to take responsibility for my property, is partially responsible for defending it against theft or destruction.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
DATA COMMANDER
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:29:32 PM
 #87

Quote from: creighto
He initiated force, after all, because I was denied use of my own property.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that libertarians have redefined words. You were denied the use of your coat, but not by force. Theft and robbery are not synonymous.

Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:33:52 PM
 #88

Quote from: creighto
He initiated force, after all, because I was denied use of my own property.

This is what I'm talking about when I say that libertarians have redefined words. You were denied the use of your coat, but not by force. Theft and robbery are not synonymous.

I was denied my coat by deception, but it would have required the use of force if the deception had failed.  Otherwise, why bother to sneaksteal?  If the person is entitiled to my coat because I'm not wearing it, what does it matter if I know that he is stealing it?  It's because theft is still the act that initiates the force.  Initiation of force is not the same as the use of force.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
BCEmporium
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:47:26 PM
 #89

I can conceive it, this doesn't mean that I agree with your interpretations of it.  There is an implicit agreement between myself and the restraunt owner, that he agrees that I own what I arrived with (so long as there is no credible claim otherwise) and thus, by agreeing to take responsibility for my property, is partially responsible for defending it against theft or destruction.

I wasn't referring to "keep of ownership" above this specific hypothesis but in abstract.
But back on that hypothesis: Say you're rich and lack... some respect... so that coat has diamond-made letters saying  "F**k all niggers" sew to it. This would bend the initiation of force to your side... even if you "own it" and was "damn expensive". "Violence" is not linear.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 07, 2011, 11:49:29 PM
 #90

I can conceive it, this doesn't mean that I agree with your interpretations of it.  There is an implicit agreement between myself and the restraunt owner, that he agrees that I own what I arrived with (so long as there is no credible claim otherwise) and thus, by agreeing to take responsibility for my property, is partially responsible for defending it against theft or destruction.

I wasn't referring to "keep of ownership" above this specific hypothesis but in abstract.
But back on that hypothesis: Say you're rich and lack... some respect... so that coat has diamond-made letters saying  "F**k all niggers" sew to it. This would bend the initiation of force to your side... even if you "own it" and was "damn expensive". "Violence" is not linear.

So?  Freedom of speech means that the government can come after me for what I say, but that does not mean that I won't have to deal with those other citizens that I tend to offend.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
BCEmporium
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 08, 2011, 12:05:17 AM
 #91

No, nothing to do with governments, but insulting can be considered also an initiator of violence.
The whole point is that there's always violence... no matter what. Trying to be rational and avoid it seams the best thing to do, but have an organized force (police) to deal with it is still a need.
DATA COMMANDER
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 08, 2011, 12:14:38 AM
 #92

Quote from: creighto
I was denied my coat by deception...

False.

Quote from: creighto
...but it would have required the use of force if the deception had failed.

Speculation. If the "deception" had failed, perhaps the thief would have run away. You can't assume that he would have robbed you.

Quote from: creighto
Otherwise, why bother to sneaksteal?

Because I like coats, but I don't want to physically harm you?

Quote from: creighto
It's because theft is still the act that initiates the force.

You are confusing theft with robbery.

Quote from: creighto
Initiation of force is not the same as the use of force.

Huh?

Quote from: Wikipedia
The initiation of force is the start, or beginning, of the use of physical and/or legal coercion, violence, or restraint.

I walked into the restaurant, headed for the coat room as if I had a reason to be there, grabbed your coat, and walked out of the restaurant. When, exactly, did the "physical and/or legal coercion, violence or restraint" start or begin?


Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!