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

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here.

[Rassah]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

[myrkul]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here.

+1

[kokjo]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here.

okay. go over in the corner and cry, because im a bad person.

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

[kokjo]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here.

+1

and i could say the exact same thing about you. you wants to give people a destructive amount of freedom, no good man.

[myrkul]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here.

okay. go over in the corner and cry, because im a bad person.

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here.

okay. go over in the corner and cry, because im a bad person.

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

+10

[kokjo]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

if i lived in a NAP based society i would feel that a gun was pressed against my head, while telling me that violence and threat of violence is bad. and that is hypocritical.

the state is at least honest about their use of violence.

The opinions of crazed folk who want to commit violence and are only prevented from doing so by threat of force is of no value here.

+1

and i could say the exact same thing about you. you wants to give people a destructive amount of freedom, no good man.

Should we report you to your beloved state cops before you commit an act of violence?  After all, cops can't be everywhere, and when seconds count, cops are only minutes away.  You are a danger to your fellow human, and should be locked up, by your own admission.

PS.  The word "Freedom" is obviously alien to your sickened world view.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

LOL.  Who's crying in the corner now?

[Anon136]

There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

but its not at gunpoint.

if you are saying that the state forces me at gunpoint to pay my taxes. i can say that you at gunpoint is forcing me to respect NAP.
and they are therefor both equally bad.

yes he is telling you at gun point not to commit aggressive acts of violence against him. You really feel that this is not acceptable on the part of myrkul? You really dont believe that people have the right to use violence to defend themselves? I'm beginning to think you are a troll.

[myrkul]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

Argumentum ad hominem is insulting you as a means of argument. I'm not insulting you. I'm making an observation based on your previous statements. You're a bad person. An evil bastard. (The bastard part might be insult, I'm not certain of the marital state of your parents. You're definitely evil, though. Perhaps I should amend it to "evil asshole.")

[Anon136]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

Argumentum ad hominem is insulting you as a means of argument. I'm not insulting you. I'm making an observation based on your previous statements. You're a bad person. An evil bastard. (The bastard part might be insult, I'm not certain of the marital state of your parents. You're definitely evil, though. Perhaps I should amend it to "evil asshole.")

Evil people do not discuss ethics for its own sake. I don't think he is evil. Maybe a troll.

[myrkul]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

Argumentum ad hominem is insulting you as a means of argument. I'm not insulting you. I'm making an observation based on your previous statements. You're a bad person. An evil bastard. (The bastard part might be insult, I'm not certain of the marital state of your parents. You're definitely evil, though. Perhaps I should amend it to "evil asshole.")

Evil people do not discuss ethics for its own sake. I don't think he is evil. Maybe a troll.

Smart evil people don't. Because it reveals them for what they are. Intelligence is not an attribute I would ascribe to kokjo.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

Argumentum ad hominem is insulting you as a means of argument. I'm not insulting you. I'm making an observation based on your previous statements. You're a bad person. An evil bastard. (The bastard part might be insult, I'm not certain of the marital state of your parents. You're definitely evil, though. Perhaps I should amend it to "evil asshole.")

Evil people do not discuss ethics for its own sake. I don't think he is evil. Maybe a troll.

Tell that to Machiavelli (a man that I have a grudging respect for) or the Marquis du Sade.

[Anon136]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

Argumentum ad hominem is insulting you as a means of argument. I'm not insulting you. I'm making an observation based on your previous statements. You're a bad person. An evil bastard. (The bastard part might be insult, I'm not certain of the marital state of your parents. You're definitely evil, though. Perhaps I should amend it to "evil asshole.")

Evil people do not discuss ethics for its own sake. I don't think he is evil. Maybe a troll.

Smart evil people don't. Because it reveals them for what they are. Intelligence is not an attribute I would ascribe to kokjo.

no i just mean evil people are sociopath. For this reason they are unlikely to garner any gratification from discussing ethics for its own sake.

They may discuss ethics with you as a means to achieving a self gratifying end, but not because they truly want to understand what is ethical and what is not.

Since it is not at all clear how kokjo might be using this discussion as a means to achieving a particular selfish end I have to assume he is legitimately interested in the discussion. Which says to me that hes definitely a character and probably a little dim but not evil.

[myrkul]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

Argumentum ad hominem is insulting you as a means of argument. I'm not insulting you. I'm making an observation based on your previous statements. You're a bad person. An evil bastard. (The bastard part might be insult, I'm not certain of the marital state of your parents. You're definitely evil, though. Perhaps I should amend it to "evil asshole.")

Evil people do not discuss ethics for its own sake. I don't think he is evil. Maybe a troll.

Smart evil people don't. Because it reveals them for what they are. Intelligence is not an attribute I would ascribe to kokjo.

no i just mean evil people are sociopath. For this reason they are unlikely to garner any gratification from discussing ethics for its own sake.

They may discuss ethics with you as a means to achieving a self gratifying end, but not because they truly want to understand what is ethical and what is not.

Since it is not at all clear how kokjo might be using this discussion as a means to achieving a particular selfish end I have to assume he is legitimately interested in the discussion. Which says to me that hes definitely a character and probably a little dim but not evil.

You said it yourself. He's a troll. He's doing it for the lulz.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

No, nobody's going to be crying in a corner. Except maybe you. Because you are a bad person, and you should feel bad about that, you evil, parasitic, lazy, immoral bastard.

you too.

(im soon gona hit the ignore button, nothing constructive is coming from you going ad hominem)

Argumentum ad hominem is insulting you as a means of argument. I'm not insulting you. I'm making an observation based on your previous statements. You're a bad person. An evil bastard. (The bastard part might be insult, I'm not certain of the marital state of your parents. You're definitely evil, though. Perhaps I should amend it to "evil asshole.")

Evil people do not discuss ethics for its own sake. I don't think he is evil. Maybe a troll.

Smart evil people don't. Because it reveals them for what they are. Intelligence is not an attribute I would ascribe to kokjo.

no i just mean evil people are sociopath. For this reason they are unlikely to garner any gratification from discussing ethics for its own sake.

They may discuss ethics with you as a means to achieving a self gratifying end, but not because they truly want to understand what is ethical and what is not.

Since it is not at all clear how kokjo might be using this discussion as a means to achieving a particular selfish end I have to assume he is legitimately interested in the discussion. Which says to me that hes definitely a character and probably a little dim but not evil.

Did you not read his sociopathic screed about how he would commit violence unless prevented by force?

Hmm, sociopath...socialist.  Food for thought.

[Rassah]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

The state is people. People are either honest, or they are not. Thus you will either be in a state of honest people, or in a NAP community of honest people. The end result regarding feeling threatened will be the same.

nope. the state are able to achieve a higher sense of honesty then the sum of its citizens.

Um, the state is the sum of its citizens. Unless it's a dictatorship. But we're arguing about democracy, right?

Democracy is as flawed as any central command/control system, and seems to naturally tend towards socialism, no?