Should Majorities Decide Everything?

[myrkul]

Hunterbunter, you're going to need to explain the logic behind your points if you want to continue our conversation, I don't think we're using the same reality as basis for our assumptions.

[1714804361]

1714804361

[1714804361]

1714804361

[Bitware]

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Species of life become extinct over time. Plain and simple fact of life. If nature selects a species for extinction, who are we to argue? Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off. IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

...unless you would prefer to contend with 500 ton prehistoric creatures using you as their main meal ticket.

I have no desire to increase my wealth. I have a desire to survive and flourish. Some have chosen to make a debt based fiat currency the only means by which that is possible... for now. So be it. It is need not desire.

No one has the right to force their will on another in an offensive manner, not under penalty of death should they resist or defend themselves, and especially not groups or collectives.

The reasons simply do not matter. All of your excuses, rationale and attempted justifications are a facade.

Why do you bring your libertarian mantras into a pontification regarding the science behind ecology? Your speculations about the subject only show your ignorance.

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Actually, it has its roots in the studies of island biogeography, as started by Edward O. Wilson and furthered by John Terborgh. Your notion of it as a control mechanism for wealth, etc. is in fact something that has been drilled into your head by whatever propaganda you're soaking up. I'm willing to educate you on this matter by citing white papers and academic material by scientists who couldn't give a shit about wealth. I will give you a severe education relentlessly until you are fully clear on that matter.

Species of life become extinct over time.

If you wish to discuss extinction rates, let's get into it. We can start with your usage of the term 'over time' and what that qualifies as, and how it differs with your historical understanding of it and how that compares with recent examples that you're justifying.

Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off.

Actually, if you want to discuss the meaning of artificial with regard to ecology, I can do that. After that future conversation, I think you will be severely corrected with regard to species extinction rates, and which was artificial, and which wasn't.

IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

Wow. You're a real expert, aren't you? Actually, it's very clear how uneducated you are. When you want to have a discussion about trophic cascades and ecosystem services, let me know. As it stands, breeding in captivity has nothing to do with the valid reasons for species preservation. The key term 'umbrella species' kind of flew right by you, didn't it?

Here's something I wrote a little while back. Read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

To get your way requires forcing your will on other people and stealing their land, wealth, and liberty.

There is no justification for that.

All one has to do is research the history of the people, families, businesses, and governments connected to the people putting out the global emergency agendas.

These are the worlds richest people (that we know of), the epitome of destruction and excess, telling the rest of us to live frugally.

Oh wait... its because they care about you and me... right?

[FirstAscent]

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Species of life become extinct over time. Plain and simple fact of life. If nature selects a species for extinction, who are we to argue? Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off. IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

...unless you would prefer to contend with 500 ton prehistoric creatures using you as their main meal ticket.

I have no desire to increase my wealth. I have a desire to survive and flourish. Some have chosen to make a debt based fiat currency the only means by which that is possible... for now. So be it. It is need not desire.

No one has the right to force their will on another in an offensive manner, not under penalty of death should they resist or defend themselves, and especially not groups or collectives.

The reasons simply do not matter. All of your excuses, rationale and attempted justifications are a facade.

Why do you bring your libertarian mantras into a pontification regarding the science behind ecology? Your speculations about the subject only show your ignorance.

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Actually, it has its roots in the studies of island biogeography, as started by Edward O. Wilson and furthered by John Terborgh. Your notion of it as a control mechanism for wealth, etc. is in fact something that has been drilled into your head by whatever propaganda you're soaking up. I'm willing to educate you on this matter by citing white papers and academic material by scientists who couldn't give a shit about wealth. I will give you a severe education relentlessly until you are fully clear on that matter.

Species of life become extinct over time.

If you wish to discuss extinction rates, let's get into it. We can start with your usage of the term 'over time' and what that qualifies as, and how it differs with your historical understanding of it and how that compares with recent examples that you're justifying.

Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off.

Actually, if you want to discuss the meaning of artificial with regard to ecology, I can do that. After that future conversation, I think you will be severely corrected with regard to species extinction rates, and which was artificial, and which wasn't.

IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

Wow. You're a real expert, aren't you? Actually, it's very clear how uneducated you are. When you want to have a discussion about trophic cascades and ecosystem services, let me know. As it stands, breeding in captivity has nothing to do with the valid reasons for species preservation. The key term 'umbrella species' kind of flew right by you, didn't it?

Here's something I wrote a little while back. Read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

To get your way requires forcing your will on other people and stealing their land, wealth, and liberty.

There is no justification for that.

All one has to do is research the history of the people, families, businesses, and governments connected to the people putting out the global emergency agendas.

These are the worlds richest people (that we know of), the epitome of destruction and excess, telling the rest of us to live frugally.

Oh wait... its because they care about you and me... right?

Ahh! So you resort back to your original simplified and unjustified claims when you realize the complex underlying scenarios are beyond the realm of your knowledge.

[FirstAscent]

If I were "coerced" not to damage the ecosystem, then I would have someone pointing a gun at my head forcing me not to do things. Instead, I have my rational expectation of being required to pay back any damages I've caused preventing me from taking actions which would cause damages.

Your statement is meaningless. Consider:

Your rational expectation to pay back damages factors in whether you think you can get away with it. If your neighbors look the other way, then the environment suffers. If they do not look the other way, then it must be some threat which coerces you to behave differently. In a regulated society, the threat that coerces is uniform and omnipresent. In your AnCap world, the threat is randomly applied.

[Bitware]

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Species of life become extinct over time. Plain and simple fact of life. If nature selects a species for extinction, who are we to argue? Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off. IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

...unless you would prefer to contend with 500 ton prehistoric creatures using you as their main meal ticket.

I have no desire to increase my wealth. I have a desire to survive and flourish. Some have chosen to make a debt based fiat currency the only means by which that is possible... for now. So be it. It is need not desire.

No one has the right to force their will on another in an offensive manner, not under penalty of death should they resist or defend themselves, and especially not groups or collectives.

The reasons simply do not matter. All of your excuses, rationale and attempted justifications are a facade.

Why do you bring your libertarian mantras into a pontification regarding the science behind ecology? Your speculations about the subject only show your ignorance.

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Actually, it has its roots in the studies of island biogeography, as started by Edward O. Wilson and furthered by John Terborgh. Your notion of it as a control mechanism for wealth, etc. is in fact something that has been drilled into your head by whatever propaganda you're soaking up. I'm willing to educate you on this matter by citing white papers and academic material by scientists who couldn't give a shit about wealth. I will give you a severe education relentlessly until you are fully clear on that matter.

Species of life become extinct over time.

If you wish to discuss extinction rates, let's get into it. We can start with your usage of the term 'over time' and what that qualifies as, and how it differs with your historical understanding of it and how that compares with recent examples that you're justifying.

Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off.

Actually, if you want to discuss the meaning of artificial with regard to ecology, I can do that. After that future conversation, I think you will be severely corrected with regard to species extinction rates, and which was artificial, and which wasn't.

IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

Wow. You're a real expert, aren't you? Actually, it's very clear how uneducated you are. When you want to have a discussion about trophic cascades and ecosystem services, let me know. As it stands, breeding in captivity has nothing to do with the valid reasons for species preservation. The key term 'umbrella species' kind of flew right by you, didn't it?

Here's something I wrote a little while back. Read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

To get your way requires forcing your will on other people and stealing their land, wealth, and liberty.

There is no justification for that.

All one has to do is research the history of the people, families, businesses, and governments connected to the people putting out the global emergency agendas.

These are the worlds richest people (that we know of), the epitome of destruction and excess, telling the rest of us to live frugally.

Oh wait... its because they care about you and me... right?

Ahh! So you resort back to your original simplified and unjustified claims when you realize the complex underlying scenarios are beyond the realm of your knowledge.

No. It is simple and it is justified. Its been discussed many times on this forum. You chose not to believe the evidence presented to you, and your "evidence" is insufficient to prove man is doing it. What you want is the Precautionary Rule where we are guilty until proven innocent.

Whats is beyond the realm of anyones knowledge is the supposition and conjecture you post and claim is fact because a couple scientists paid for by elites convinces politicians through the lobbying effors of foreign policy think tanks and intenational globalist organizations, that the average home/land owner is doing ANYTHING to harm this planet.

Bottom line, unless you own it, its none of your business unless you have proof it or its owner is hurting you.

And if you think man is hurting the earth go look at the ice and sediment core samples again to see the real NATURAL fluctuatiosn that have been going onb for millions of years (thats before man btw).

That said, Corporations are a different thing. They are Chartered by The State. They need regulation, restriction, and taxation. Not to mention they also need the status of a real human being removed, but thats another kettle of fish.

[FirstAscent]

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Species of life become extinct over time. Plain and simple fact of life. If nature selects a species for extinction, who are we to argue? Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off. IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

...unless you would prefer to contend with 500 ton prehistoric creatures using you as their main meal ticket.

I have no desire to increase my wealth. I have a desire to survive and flourish. Some have chosen to make a debt based fiat currency the only means by which that is possible... for now. So be it. It is need not desire.

No one has the right to force their will on another in an offensive manner, not under penalty of death should they resist or defend themselves, and especially not groups or collectives.

The reasons simply do not matter. All of your excuses, rationale and attempted justifications are a facade.

Why do you bring your libertarian mantras into a pontification regarding the science behind ecology? Your speculations about the subject only show your ignorance.

The endangered species act is a control mechanism and a wealth, land and resource grab.

Actually, it has its roots in the studies of island biogeography, as started by Edward O. Wilson and furthered by John Terborgh. Your notion of it as a control mechanism for wealth, etc. is in fact something that has been drilled into your head by whatever propaganda you're soaking up. I'm willing to educate you on this matter by citing white papers and academic material by scientists who couldn't give a shit about wealth. I will give you a severe education relentlessly until you are fully clear on that matter.

Species of life become extinct over time.

If you wish to discuss extinction rates, let's get into it. We can start with your usage of the term 'over time' and what that qualifies as, and how it differs with your historical understanding of it and how that compares with recent examples that you're justifying.

Its mad scientists artificially supporting a species of life that was meant to die off.

Actually, if you want to discuss the meaning of artificial with regard to ecology, I can do that. After that future conversation, I think you will be severely corrected with regard to species extinction rates, and which was artificial, and which wasn't.

IF the species is important enough to sustain human life or markedly improve it, someone will collect them and breed them voluntarily (you know like they do anyways before the government steps in wasting our money and driving roughshod over our citizens rights).

Wow. You're a real expert, aren't you? Actually, it's very clear how uneducated you are. When you want to have a discussion about trophic cascades and ecosystem services, let me know. As it stands, breeding in captivity has nothing to do with the valid reasons for species preservation. The key term 'umbrella species' kind of flew right by you, didn't it?

Here's something I wrote a little while back. Read it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

To get your way requires forcing your will on other people and stealing their land, wealth, and liberty.

There is no justification for that.

All one has to do is research the history of the people, families, businesses, and governments connected to the people putting out the global emergency agendas.

These are the worlds richest people (that we know of), the epitome of destruction and excess, telling the rest of us to live frugally.

Oh wait... its because they care about you and me... right?

Ahh! So you resort back to your original simplified and unjustified claims when you realize the complex underlying scenarios are beyond the realm of your knowledge.

No. It is simple and it is justified. Its been discussed many times on this forum. You chose not to believe the evidence presented to you, and your "evidence" is insufficient to prove man is doing it. What you want is the Precautionary Rule where we are guilty until proven innocent.

Whats is beyond the realm of anyones knowledge is the supposition and conjecture you post and claim is fact because a couple scientists paid for by elites convinces politicians through the lobbying effors of foreign policy think tanks and intenational globalist organizations, that the average home/land owner is doing ANYTHING to harm this planet.

Bottom line, unless you own it, its none of your business unless you have proof it or its owner is hurting you.

And if you think man is hurting the earth go look at the ice and sediment core samples again to see the real NATURAL fluctuatiosn that have been going onb for millions of years (thats before man btw).

That said, Corporations are a different thing. They are Chartered by The State. They need regulation, restriction, and taxation. Not to mention they also need the status of a real human being removed, but thats another kettle of fish.

Oh. You're a global warming denier. I didn't know.

[myrkul]

If I were "coerced" not to damage the ecosystem, then I would have someone pointing a gun at my head forcing me not to do things. Instead, I have my rational expectation of being required to pay back any damages I've caused preventing me from taking actions which would cause damages.

Your statement is meaningless. Consider:

Your rational expectation to pay back damages factors in whether you think you can get away with it. If your neighbors look the other way, then the environment suffers. If they do not look the other way, then it must be some threat which coerces you to behave differently. In a regulated society, the threat that coerces is uniform and omnipresent. In your AnCap world, the threat is randomly applied.

In a regulated society, people can sway a politician to not be regulated. It happens all the time. That is not an option in an AnCap society. If you have damaged someone's property, you either go to arbitration and pay restitution, or void your contract with the society, becoming an outlaw in the original sense of the word.

[FirstAscent]

If I were "coerced" not to damage the ecosystem, then I would have someone pointing a gun at my head forcing me not to do things. Instead, I have my rational expectation of being required to pay back any damages I've caused preventing me from taking actions which would cause damages.

Your statement is meaningless. Consider:

Your rational expectation to pay back damages factors in whether you think you can get away with it. If your neighbors look the other way, then the environment suffers. If they do not look the other way, then it must be some threat which coerces you to behave differently. In a regulated society, the threat that coerces is uniform and omnipresent. In your AnCap world, the threat is randomly applied.

In a regulated society, people can sway a politician to not be regulated. It happens all the time. That is not an option in an AnCap society. If you have damaged someone's property, you either go to arbitration and pay restitution, or void your contract with the society, becoming an outlaw in the original sense of the word.

We were talking about deforestation on your property. It certainly is an option in AnCap that nobody will do anything. We just went over this.

[myrkul]

If I were "coerced" not to damage the ecosystem, then I would have someone pointing a gun at my head forcing me not to do things. Instead, I have my rational expectation of being required to pay back any damages I've caused preventing me from taking actions which would cause damages.

Your statement is meaningless. Consider:

Your rational expectation to pay back damages factors in whether you think you can get away with it. If your neighbors look the other way, then the environment suffers. If they do not look the other way, then it must be some threat which coerces you to behave differently. In a regulated society, the threat that coerces is uniform and omnipresent. In your AnCap world, the threat is randomly applied.

In a regulated society, people can sway a politician to not be regulated. It happens all the time. That is not an option in an AnCap society. If you have damaged someone's property, you either go to arbitration and pay restitution, or void your contract with the society, becoming an outlaw in the original sense of the word.

We were talking about deforestation on your property. It certainly is an option in AnCap that nobody will do anything. We just went over this.

So, on one hand we have you arguing that consensus about deforestation being A-OK is inevitable, and on the other hand we have hunterbunter arguing that consensus is impossible about anything, even rape and murder.

I'm so confused! Who should I believe?

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason? Since murder has been illegal in every society ever, I'm going to wager that consensus on that is much more likely than deforestation being considered OK by everyone... especially since you yourself are arguing against it.

[FirstAscent]

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason?

Wasn't it you who was in support of defending the rights of the knife juggler aboard the inflatable raft in the middle of the sea surrounded by sharks while the majority wanted to subdue him and tie him up? Wasn't it you who gave credibility to the idea that the Colorado shooting was faked while the majority accepted it as real?

[myrkul]

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason?

Wasn't it you who was in support of defending the rights of the knife juggler aboard the inflatable raft in the middle of the sea surrounded by sharks while the majority wanted to subdue him and tie him up?

A skilled juggler is no danger to the boat. I'm humbled though, that you went that far back in my history. You must have some serious stalker-jones for me. If you're that in love with me, I could PM you my address.

[FirstAscent]

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason?

Wasn't it you who was in support of defending the rights of the knife juggler aboard the inflatable raft in the middle of the sea surrounded by sharks while the majority wanted to subdue him and tie him up?

A skilled juggler is no danger to the boat. I'm humbled though, that you went that far back in my history. You must have some serious stalker-jones for me. If you're that in love with me, I could PM you my address.

I know about it because I was one of the persons arguing against you. How could one forget the absurdity and stupidity of your position?

[myrkul]

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason?

Wasn't it you who was in support of defending the rights of the knife juggler aboard the inflatable raft in the middle of the sea surrounded by sharks while the majority wanted to subdue him and tie him up?

A skilled juggler is no danger to the boat. I'm humbled though, that you went that far back in my history. You must have some serious stalker-jones for me. If you're that in love with me, I could PM you my address.

I know about it because I was one of the persons arguing against you. How could one forget the absurdity and stupidity of your position?

...so you don't want my address?

[FirstAscent]

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason?

Wasn't it you who was in support of defending the rights of the knife juggler aboard the inflatable raft in the middle of the sea surrounded by sharks while the majority wanted to subdue him and tie him up?

A skilled juggler is no danger to the boat. I'm humbled though, that you went that far back in my history. You must have some serious stalker-jones for me. If you're that in love with me, I could PM you my address.

I know about it because I was one of the persons arguing against you. How could one forget the absurdity and stupidity of your position?

...so you don't want my address?

Definitely not. You're attempt at humor is odd. I suggest you watch one of my film recommendations instead as a substitute for your yearnings.

[myrkul]

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason?

Wasn't it you who was in support of defending the rights of the knife juggler aboard the inflatable raft in the middle of the sea surrounded by sharks while the majority wanted to subdue him and tie him up?

A skilled juggler is no danger to the boat. I'm humbled though, that you went that far back in my history. You must have some serious stalker-jones for me. If you're that in love with me, I could PM you my address.

I know about it because I was one of the persons arguing against you. How could one forget the absurdity and stupidity of your position?

...so you don't want my address?

Definitely not. You're attempt at humor is odd. I suggest you watch one of my film recommendations instead as a substitute for your yearnings.

Again, I don't trust your judgment. You've not shown yourself capable of enough rational thought for me to accept your recommendations in so much as my choice of dinner.

[FirstAscent]

I know. How about I listen to logic and reason?

Wasn't it you who was in support of defending the rights of the knife juggler aboard the inflatable raft in the middle of the sea surrounded by sharks while the majority wanted to subdue him and tie him up?

A skilled juggler is no danger to the boat. I'm humbled though, that you went that far back in my history. You must have some serious stalker-jones for me. If you're that in love with me, I could PM you my address.

I know about it because I was one of the persons arguing against you. How could one forget the absurdity and stupidity of your position?

...so you don't want my address?

Definitely not. You're attempt at humor is odd. I suggest you watch one of my film recommendations instead as a substitute for your yearnings.

Again, I don't trust your judgment. You've not shown yourself capable of enough rational thought for me to accept your recommendations in so much as my choice of dinner.

Not one to try a film revered as avant-garde existentialism or a morality play stylized as a noir? Transformers more your style?

[myrkul]

Bitware, the conversation's been over, time to lock the thread. FirstAscent's just using it to troll now.

[FirstAscent]

Bitware, the conversation's been over, time to lock the thread. FirstAscent's just using it to troll now.

A rather hypocritical statement.

[niko]

"Society" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual people.

"Individual" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual organs.

"Organ" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual tissues.

"Tissue" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual cells.

...

You can expand this trivial semantic discussion in either direction for as long as you please. There is nothing special or sacred about "an individual" and the associated perspective.

Now, the issue of "majority" implies that we segregate the system into arbitrary units so we can count them and let them cast the vote. In present-day democracies, these units are "individuals."  In other societies, it may be families. Also, we pretend to assign equal weight to the vote of each individual, but in reality we behave differently (for example, corporate money shapes political decisions of "representatives").

I'd like to stop pretending. Ultimately, the power decides everything, not the majority. The power of persuasion, of violence, of cunningness, of numbers, of sneakiness, of togetherness, of surprise - of any form, expressed at any hierachical level (cancerous tissue, immune cells, individuals, corporations, societies, bacteria, bee hives). It's a complex game, and we are part of it. You may try desperately to define rules (majority decides, the king decides, I decide) - but life will prove you a fool.

[myrkul]

"Society" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual people.

"Individual" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual organs.

"Organ" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual tissues.

"Tissue" is just a label we apply to the aggregate actions of individual cells.

And when our tissues, organs or cells start hurting other cells, organs or tissues, we call that "disease." We don't ask if those cells or organs are justified in doing so, we simply remove them.