This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[myrkul]

You're right, Rassah, this is pointless. It's like arguing with Mr. Tumnus about whether or not lions can talk.

Please argue the point instead of casting Ad Hominems

Fine. Let's start with the absolute basics. If it were possible to arrange, would you say that a world where it is physically impossible to force someone to do something against their will would be ideal?

I think the answer to this is, "What if someone's will was the destruction of your property, while you were away so as not to force anything on you, and a bystander couldn't stop that someone since stopping them would be forcing them to do something against their will, which is to cause destruction"

Except that would be forcing me to come home to destroyed property. Perhaps it would be better for the sanity of all concerned if property doesn't get involved just yet.

[myrkul]

So mister blablabla, you dislike the libertarian concept of property. Libertarians believe in first appropriation by homesteading and transfer by voluntary exchange. What alternative criteria would you use?

Perhaps you do not believe in property at all. To this i say how do you reconcile the situation where two different people desire to posses the same unique object. lets say its a painting and two different people each want that painting on their mantle. How do we decide who gets it?

Why don't you do the thought experiment yourself? You're obviously just trying to muddy the issue with a separate agenda of rejecting intellectual property concepts and showing people how wonderfully everyone gets along without them. An-Cap supporters seriously need some practise in thinking these sorts of things through.

Read it again, genius. We're talking about a particular physical object. This is not IP. If anyone is trying to muddy the waters, it is you.

[myrkul]

So mister blablabla, you dislike the libertarian concept of property. Libertarians believe in first appropriation by homesteading and transfer by voluntary exchange. What alternative criteria would you use?

Perhaps you do not believe in property at all. To this i say how do you reconcile the situation where two different people desire to posses the same unique object. lets say its a painting and two different people each want that painting on their mantle. How do we decide who gets it?

Why don't you do the thought experiment yourself? You're obviously just trying to muddy the issue with a separate agenda of rejecting intellectual property concepts and showing people how wonderfully everyone gets along without them. An-Cap supporters seriously need some practise in thinking these sorts of things through.

Read it again, genius. We're talking about a particular physical object. This is not IP. If anyone is trying to muddy the waters, it is you.

Fuck you, I've had enough of this thread and your arrogant An-Cap preaching. Good bye.

If I have learned anything of debate, it is that when one side resorts to profanity in lieu of an argument, they are conceding defeat. I graciously accept your surrender. Have a nice day.

[myrkul]

Say there's a piece of forested land surrounding an Indian tribal village. The tribe lives under a theocracy. The forest belongs to their 'god'. They use the forest for hunting for food, and they rely on it for preventing floods during the rainy season.

An Anarcho-Capitalist doesn't believe in any of that theocracy crap. Since the tribe doesn't 'own' the forest, he thinks he can legitimately "homestead" it. I.e.: harvest the trees, divide the land into arbitrary blocks on a map, and sell them to developers. So he brings in the chainsaws -- oh no! The Indians are brutally attacking his workers for no reason! Obviously they are very aggressive and evil...

As for the tribe, The AnCap would see their communal possession and use as de facto ownership, via original appropriation (ie, they've already homesteaded it), even if they're just "caretakers" for their "god". As such, they'd leave the forest be, since it's already occupied land, they can't homestead it. Original appropriation kinda requires that you're the original appropriator.

[Rassah]

Read it again, genius. We're talking about a particular physical object. This is not IP. If anyone is trying to muddy the waters, it is you.

Fuck you, I've had enough of this thread and your arrogant An-Cap preaching. Good bye.

If I have learned anything of debate, it is that when one side resorts to profanity in lieu of an argument, they are conceding defeat. I graciously accept your surrender. Have a nice day.

Actually, you fired the first shot with your "genius" comment, so whatever, you smug asshole. If you want to 'win' by default, then you're conceding that you have failed to defend An-Cap in debate. I'm just sick of debating your illogical bullshit -- you never have any new material, it's always the same old bullshit that got debunked last week or last month.

I love how you keep slinging this "illogical bullshit" accusations, while still failing to grasp the fact that you can't change definitions of words on a whim just to win arguments. 

[myrkul]

Read it again, genius. We're talking about a particular physical object. This is not IP. If anyone is trying to muddy the waters, it is you.

Fuck you, I've had enough of this thread and your arrogant An-Cap preaching. Good bye.

If I have learned anything of debate, it is that when one side resorts to profanity in lieu of an argument, they are conceding defeat. I graciously accept your surrender. Have a nice day.

Actually, you fired the first shot with your "genius" comment, so whatever, you smug asshole.

See if I ever pay you a compliment again. Sheesh.

[Mike Christ]

So now I'm curious: can empathy be taught, or must someone be equipped with it from day one?  Is it an emotion, or a principle?  Must we choose to be empathetic, or do we not have a choice but to be empathetic/unempathetic?

[Ekaros]

So now I'm curious: can empathy be taught, or must someone be equipped with it from day one?  Is it an emotion, or a principle?  Must we choose to be empathetic, or do we not have a choice but to be empathetic/unempathetic?

I think that there is certain minority of people who are evil, then there is large majority who are neutral, don't care or are easily led. And then we have small small minority who are truly  good.

And usually this evil minority gains most power and can use  the majority and as such everyone loses.

[hawkeye]

So now I'm curious: can empathy be taught, or must someone be equipped with it from day one?  Is it an emotion, or a principle?  Must we choose to be empathetic, or do we not have a choice but to be empathetic/unempathetic?

There's a small minority of people who are incapable of it.

But in general, there are a lot of miserable people in society and they more often than not tend to get into positions where they can make other people's lives miserable.  Misery loves company.

If you are a happy person who generally enjoys life why would you make other people's lives difficult?  If there is someone who is making your life difficult, it is because they are unhappy with their own life and consciously or unconsciously think that making people less happy than them will make them happy.  It never does but they never stop trying.

[Rassah]

So now I'm curious: can empathy be taught, or must someone be equipped with it from day one?  Is it an emotion, or a principle?  Must we choose to be empathetic, or do we not have a choice but to be empathetic/unempathetic?

I would say biology and evolution would answer your question. Look at the interactions of social species (of which we are one), such as wolves, and through our own history. Despite living in packs and being tribal, with brutal fights against other packs over food and territories, there's a lot of social support and empathy among social creatures. I think it's the lack of empathy that gets taught.

[kokjo]

So now I'm curious: can empathy be taught, or must someone be equipped with it from day one?  Is it an emotion, or a principle?  Must we choose to be empathetic, or do we not have a choice but to be empathetic/unempathetic?

empathy is the ability to feel or share what others feel, and react on it. it can not be taught.
sympathy is that ability to see what other feels, and react on it. it can be taught(does the person smile? yes: the person is happy. no: the person is unhappy).

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

[myrkul]

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

So what does that say about you?

[kokjo]

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

So what does that say about you?

I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait.

But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either.

[myrkul]

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

So what does that say about you?

I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait.

But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either.

You've yet to express any guilt over your parasitic actions yet.

[kokjo]

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

So what does that say about you?

I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait.

But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either.

You've yet to express any guilt over your parasitic actions yet.

thats because i(and most of the society around me) don't see them as parasitic.

[myrkul]

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

So what does that say about you?

I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait.

But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either.

You've yet to express any guilt over your parasitic actions yet.

thats because i(and most of the society around me) don't see them as parasitic.

So, you're delusional, instead of psychotic? That doesn't improve your case much.

[kokjo]

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

So what does that say about you?

I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait.

But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either.

You've yet to express any guilt over your parasitic actions yet.

thats because i(and most of the society around me) don't see them as parasitic.

So, you're delusional, instead of psychotic? That doesn't improve your case much.

first, psychotic is not the same as psychopathic, go look it up.

and who are you to say that im delusional? you believe that a large society can exist without a state. dream on dude.

[myrkul]

whatever you react on empathy/sympathy is you own choice, but failure to react on it is psychopathic.

So what does that say about you?

I only fail at empathy, i can still see what people are feeling(after alot of training and hard work) and react on that. but yes, i have a psychopathic trait.

But there are alot more to psychopaths then just the lack of empathy, they can't feel guilt either.

You've yet to express any guilt over your parasitic actions yet.

thats because i(and most of the society around me) don't see them as parasitic.

So, you're delusional, instead of psychotic? That doesn't improve your case much.

first, psychotic is not the same as psychopathic, go look it up.

My apologies, delusional instead of psycopathic. Still doesn't improve your case much.

and who are you to say that im delusional? you believe that a large society can exist without a state. dream on dude.

Society is required before you can have a state, ergo of course it can exist without one. In fact, a State is a parasitic entity, itself. A rather devious one, as it takes over processes that the society would normally be able to handle itself.

[kokjo]

and who are you to say that im delusional? you believe that a large society can exist without a state. dream on dude.

Society is required before you can have a state, ergo of course it can exist without one. In fact, a State is a parasitic entity, itself. A rather devious one, as it takes over processes that the society would normally be able to handle itself.

can you read dude? is it more clear to you what i wrote now?

[myrkul]

and who are you to say that im delusional? you believe that a large society can exist without a state. dream on dude.

Society is required before you can have a state, ergo of course it can exist without one. In fact, a State is a parasitic entity, itself. A rather devious one, as it takes over processes that the society would normally be able to handle itself.

can you read dude? is it more clear to you what i wrote now?

What does the size of the society have to do with it?