Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 03:08:25 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Join Civilization  (Read 1671 times)
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 02:42:01 AM
 #1

There are two ways we can interact with other people, civilized or uncivilized. The civilized way to interact with other people is to interact voluntarily, meaning, you don't initiate violence against other people or their property. The uncivilized way, the barbaric way, is to interact involuntarily, meaning, you initiate violence against other people or their property, for any reason. If you support statist governments then you support barbarism. You're uncivilized.

Taxation is involuntary. Being a citizen is involuntary because we can't secede. We can't part ways with the government and keep our property. That's a form of slavery, extortion or theft depending on circumstances but it's always at least one of those. We need to leave our barbaric past behind us and fully embrace civilization. Stop advocating initiatory violence and stop supporting institutions that commit initiatory violence. Join civilization.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481382505
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481382505

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481382505
Reply with quote  #2

1481382505
Report to moderator
1481382505
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481382505

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481382505
Reply with quote  #2

1481382505
Report to moderator
1481382505
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481382505

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481382505
Reply with quote  #2

1481382505
Report to moderator
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 03:10:11 AM
 #2

There are two ways we can interact with other people, civilized or uncivilized. The civilized way to interact with other people is to interact voluntarily, meaning, you don't initiate violence against other people or their property. The uncivilized way, the barbaric way, is to interact involuntarily, meaning, you initiate violence against other people or their property, for any reason. If you support statist governments then you support barbarism. You're uncivilized.

Taxation is involuntary. Being a citizen is involuntary because we can't secede. We can't part ways with the government and keep our property. That's a form of slavery, extortion or theft depending on circumstances but it's always at least one of those. We need to leave our barbaric past behind us and fully embrace civilization. Stop advocating initiatory violence and stop supporting institutions that commit initiatory violence. Join civilization.
+1

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

Open an exchange account at CampBX: options, lowest commissions, and best security
https://campbx.com/register.php?r=0Y7YxohTV0B
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2011, 03:21:15 AM
 #3

I Joined:
http://shiresociety.com/

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 03:31:54 AM
 #4

seems to me you've got that one reversed. i'll be happy when everyone is un-civilized again myself.
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 07:04:09 AM
 #5

"What do you think of Western Civilization?"

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
Sovereign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 09:56:47 AM
 #6

Glad to see the principle of voluntaryism gaining ground.

12uB1LSPrAqeEefLJTDfd6rKsu3KjiFBpa
bitrain
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 04:38:18 PM
 #7

Bitcoin smells like a great changes in this world...

bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2011, 01:22:10 AM
 #8

We can't part ways with the government and keep our property.

As a counter-point, what exactly makes you entitled to any "property" other than your flesh? The idea of ownership of anything is also an involuntary system which is imposed on us from birth, why should people be entitled to land and objects when these are just things which are (indirectly yet violently, by territorial pissings) taken from the natural world?
TheGer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490



View Profile
July 04, 2011, 07:06:08 AM
 #9

As a counter-point, why should people NOT be entitled to land and objects?  Do we tell a Lion he doesn't have rights to his pride?  Or that his territory doesn't belong to him?  If we could communicate such things to the Lion what would he do?  If we contested his point of view what would/could we do to show the Lion the error of his ways?

In both questions, the answer is a matter of enforcing ones will.  The Lion will kill to keep what's "his".  Will we kill the Lion to show him that it's not really "his" at all?  Does that make it ours?  It may as well right?

If we mearly say to ourselves from out all mighty oillars of wisdom that the Lion doesn't really own anything does that make it so? 

Ownership and property come from ones willingness and ability to enforce ones will upon the world to keep and control it, not some intellectual pandering claiming you have that right or not.




We can't part ways with the government and keep our property.

As a counter-point, what exactly makes you entitled to any "property" other than your flesh? The idea of ownership of anything is also an involuntary system which is imposed on us from birth, why should people be entitled to land and objects when these are just things which are (indirectly yet violently, by territorial pissings) taken from the natural world?
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 07:58:16 PM
 #10

what exactly makes you entitled to any "property" other than your flesh?

If I plow a field, plant a crop and harvest that crop then you come and take my harvest, that's stealing my labor. It's not much different from forcing me to do labor for you, aka slavery.
chickenado
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 172


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 09:45:18 PM
 #11

There are two ways we can interact with other people, civilized or uncivilized. The civilized way to interact with other people is to interact voluntarily, meaning, you don't initiate violence against other people or their property.

Statists will agree with you, except that their concept of property is more fuzzy than yours, for instance they will say that in some circumstances your property rights extend into other people's bodies and the other way around.
bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 10:10:40 PM
 #12

Quote
Ownership and property come from ones willingness and ability to enforce ones will upon the world to keep and control it, not some intellectual pandering claiming you have that right or not.
Exactly, ownership itself is based in violence or threat of violence. Claiming that you're more civilized than the next person because you don't agree with violence is hypocritical unless you are a pacifist nomad who rejects the notion of property.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 10:19:21 PM
 #13

Quote
Ownership and property come from ones willingness and ability to enforce ones will upon the world to keep and control it, not some intellectual pandering claiming you have that right or not.
Exactly, ownership itself is based in violence or threat of violence. Claiming that you're more civilized than the next person because you don't agree with violence is hypocritical unless you are a pacifist nomad who rejects the notion of property.

Awesome. Mind if I borrow a kidney?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 10:19:41 PM
 #14

Claiming that you're more civilized than the next person because you don't agree with violence is hypocritical unless you are a pacifist nomad who rejects the notion of property.

First of all, calling me a hypocrite is simply an ad hominem. Second, I never claimed violence per se is immoral. I'm perfectly fine with self-defense of person or property. I don't condone initiatory violence, however.
bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2011, 10:35:06 PM
 #15

Claiming that you're more civilized than the next person because you don't agree with violence is hypocritical unless you are a pacifist nomad who rejects the notion of property.

First of all, calling me a hypocrite is simply an ad hominem. Second, I never claimed violence per se is immoral. I'm perfectly fine with self-defense of person or property. I don't condone initiatory violence, however.
No, an ad hominem is a fallacy where the perpetrator uses an attack on the character of a person to deduce that they are wrong. In politics, it's foolish to suggest that anyone is right or wrong, there is no truth only opinion. I didn't even call you a hypocrite (an attack on your person), I commented on your statements (an attack on an idea).

In addition, your willingness to defend your property is the threat of initiatory violence toward anyone who rejects your philosophical stance on ownership.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 06, 2011, 01:18:48 AM
 #16

No, an ad hominem is a fallacy where the perpetrator uses an attack on the character of a person to deduce that they are wrong.

If you weren't implying that I'm wrong then what's the relevance of accusing me of being a hypocrite? Ideas don't engage in hypocrisy. People do. Hypocrisy is the act of claiming to hold a belief or value that one does not truly hold. So how can an idea even be hypocritical? That's a rhetorical question. I don't really care to discuss that. Just stick to trying to prove my statements to be either logically inconsistent or factually incorrect.

In addition, your willingness to defend your property is the threat of initiatory violence toward anyone who rejects your philosophical stance on ownership.

What am I to conclude from this? Am I to conclude that therefore their philosophical stance overrules my own? What exactly is your point?
bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 07, 2011, 12:52:48 AM
 #17

If you weren't implying that I'm wrong then what's the relevance of accusing me of being a hypocrite?
You're missing the point. "bitcoin2cash rapes babies therefore his statement is false" is an ad-hominem.


What am I to conclude from this? Am I to conclude that therefore their philosophical stance overrules my own? What exactly is your point?

By your own measurement of being civilized, assuming that being civilized is a good thing, yes. I make no judgement myself because I don't give a shit either way, but you're the one accusing people of barbarism based on the criteria of initiating violence.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 01:12:52 AM
 #18

Am I to conclude that therefore their philosophical stance overrules my own?

By your own measurement of being civilized, assuming that being civilized is a good thing, yes.

Why? Why doesn't my philosophical stance overrule theirs?
bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 07, 2011, 01:27:04 AM
 #19

Why? Why doesn't my philosophical stance overrule theirs?

In whose eyes? Philosophical stances are all just opinion.
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 07, 2011, 01:44:41 AM
 #20

Philosophical stances are all just opinion.

Yes, it's just an opinion that murder, rape and theft are wrong. However, if you disagree with my opinion, why should I care?
Pages: [1] 2 »  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!