Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 10:12:07 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What is your opinion of the Maximum role of Government in society?
Absolute: Government should control all services and prices. - 4 (4.7%)
Moderate: the Government should control some services, and not others (explain) - 23 (26.7%)
Minimal: The Government should limit itself to courts and military. - 32 (37.2%)
None: All services and goods should be provided privately (or collectively). - 27 (31.4%)
Total Voters: 85

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Maximum role of Government?  (Read 23138 times)
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 09:46:39 PM
 #261

If you happen to own the raft you're free to endanger everybody's life for your own amusement? Even if we ended up there unwilling?

Teenage males are allowed to endanger everyone's life for their own amusement? Lock them up!

If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so?

No, we just have a difference in opinion. We can either debate it until one of us changes our minds or you can commit violence on me or my property and then we go from there.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481451127
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451127

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451127
Reply with quote  #2

1481451127
Report to moderator
1481451127
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481451127

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481451127
Reply with quote  #2

1481451127
Report to moderator
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 09:55:08 PM
 #262

You always have a choice. Sometimes it's a shit choice (Take your chances on the raft, or drown when the boat sinks) but it's still a choice, and you made it.

Wasn't your argument the other way when it came to you go live somewhere else? You couldn't leave and go live in Somalia, Afghanistan or try seasteading to find your libertarian paradise. Isn't you staying put one of those "shit choice"s for you?

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 09:57:25 PM
 #263

This shit gets funnier and more contradictory by the second.  I'm not even going to bother slogging through the mess to point it all out though.  These two guys have proven that they are not interested in (or are completely incapable of) real debate.  I don't mind debating fools, but I will not waste time debating intellectually dishonest fools who, when finally cornered, resort to, "NO, YOU!" like a small child would.  That's not productive for anyone and the debate goes absolutely no where.  Why bother giving myself carpal tunnel to tread water in a neverending loop of dishonest debate?

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2011, 10:00:48 PM
 #264

Yes, and the NAP is defined by "you". If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so? The NNNAP says that you can use coercion when your life is in danger.

If your life is actually in danger, it's not coercion. That's called 'self defense'. If you only think your life is in danger, then you're wrong.

Let's use a more realistic example. The speeding car.

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

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
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:03:05 PM
 #265

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your example is as retarded as you are.  Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2011, 10:04:12 PM
 #266

This shit gets funnier and more contradictory by the second.  I'm not even going to bother slogging through the mess to point it all out though.  These two guys have proven that they are not interested in (or are completely incapable of) real debate.  I don't mind debating fools, but I will not waste time debating intellectually dishonest fools who, when finally cornered, resort to, "NO, YOU!" like a small child would.  That's not productive for anyone and the debate goes absolutely no where.  Why bother giving myself carpal tunnel to tread water in a neverending loop of dishonest debate?

Troll Elsewhere.

Or, you're welcome to answer this question to get an answer to why Coercion is wrong, couched in your very on moral framework you might even say, custom written just for you:

Why is Murder Wrong?

If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.

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
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2011, 10:06:04 PM
 #267

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

Never said it wasn't, just that reacting to crime is better than punishing those who haven't yet done a thing.

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
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:07:16 PM
 #268


If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.


If you're unwilling to jump off a cliff, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate and are just trolling.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:09:28 PM
 #269

Yes, and the NAP is defined by "you". If I write a No-Non-Necessary-Agression-Principle that says that the NAP is wrong in certain circumstances, does that make it so? The NNNAP says that you can use coercion when your life is in danger.

If your life is actually in danger, it's not coercion. That's called 'self defense'. If you only think your life is in danger, then you're wrong.

Let's use a more realistic example. The speeding car.

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

How do I know if my life is in danger? In the example with the juggler I'm not allowed to do anything until he punctures the raft and we're all shark bait.

Your car example then. Yes, perspective is a funny thing.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your example by yourself. I don't even think you need a hint.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:10:04 PM
 #270

You might argue that a car speeding on the highway endangers everyone else (in fact, that's the justification for the speed limit laws). But what if the driver is Mario Andretti? Then, it might be argued that all the slow cars are endangering him, by acting as obstacles to his driving.

Your system is reactionary, just admit it and move on.

Never said it wasn't, just that reacting to crime is better than punishing those who haven't yet done a thing.


And still you have not justified that statement.  You still still still have not explained WHY IT IS BETTER to allow a person's risky actions to cost many others their money, possessions, or even lives.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2011, 10:14:11 PM
 #271


If you can't answer this, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate, and are just trolling.


If you're unwilling to jump off a cliff, I'll have to assume you're not willing to enter into a debate and are just trolling.

I'll let you answer this one:

Just defend your statement and stop deflecting.

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
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:16:35 PM
 #272

Teenage males are allowed to endanger everyone's life for their own amusement? Lock them up!

No, we just have a difference in opinion. We can either debate it until one of us changes our minds or you can commit violence on me or my property and then we go from there.
We've put restrictions on what teenagers are allowed to do, to prevent them from screwing up other peoples lives. I think that's a better solution than waiting for them to do something bad and then punish them.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that your NAP isn't worth more than my NNNAP. It's just a set of rules, and "it's wrong because the NAP says so" doesn't make it so.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2011, 10:21:30 PM
 #273

Your car example then. Yes, perspective is a funny thing.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your example by yourself. I don't even think you need a hint.

You're right, Mario Andretti is far to skilled to run into the other drivers. There's no need to penalize them for his good.

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
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:35:49 PM
 #274

DUI is an excellent example as well.  In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving.  Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.  Only drunk crashing would be illegal.  After the guy with the 0.20 BAC runs the red light and kills your girlfriend, THEN you might be able to sue him.  Unfortunately, no size settlement will ever bring her back, but a DUI checkpoint or an alert cop that snagged him for his "victimless crime" of DUI could have prevented her death.


PLEASE justify that worldview for me.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:38:23 PM
 #275

In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving.  Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.

Only on roads that allow it, which would be absolutely no roads or very few. Would you go to a bar that allowed someone to stab you? Then why would you drive on a road that allowed drunks to smash into you?

Three common flaws of statists on these forums:

1. Extreme deficit in civility/maturity.
2. Terminal lack of imagination.
3. Inflated sense of entitlement.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:42:19 PM
 #276

In nutcase land, we wouldn't be able to stop drunk driving.  Driving while utterly blasted would be perfectly legal.

Only on roads that allow it


There aren't any roads that allow it now, but people DUI all the time.  The only thing that stops it is alert cops and DUI checkpoints.  Not allowing something is laughable, because unless there's force behind the rule, it's not a rule.  And since no one is allowed to initiate force or stop "victimless" crime, no one can do a damn thing to the drunk driver until AFTER he actually hurts someone.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:45:49 PM
 #277

There aren't any roads that allow it now, but people DUI all the time.  The only thing that stops it is alert cops and DUI checkpoints.  Not allowing something is laughable, because unless there's force behind the rule, it's not a rule.  And since no one is allowed to initiate force or stop "victimless" crime, no one can do a damn thing to the drunk driver until AFTER he actually hurts someone.

You don't even understand libertarianism. If you voluntarily agree to my enforcement, which will be a condition of driving on my road, then I can stop you, arrest you or anything else you agreed to. If you agree to let me beat you if I catch you speeding or driving while intoxicated, I can beat the hell out of you. Go read up on libertarianism because you can't even cogently disagree with something that you are ignorant of.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2011, 10:46:55 PM
 #278

PLEASE justify that worldview for me.

Private roads.

Your choice:
  • take the one that requires a breathalyzer test to get on,
  • take the one that has armed patrols,
  • or take the one that lets anybody on and drive however they want.

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
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 10:58:22 PM
 #279

Your car example then. Yes, perspective is a funny thing.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your example by yourself. I don't even think you need a hint.

You're right, Mario Andretti is far to skilled to run into the other drivers. There's no need to penalize them for his good.
You seem to have missed answering the other question I asked. An oversight I'm sure.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
indio007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
July 11, 2011, 11:05:10 PM
 #280

The problem you are all having is really a legal one.
Some people like the gov't statutory limited liability insurance schemes.
Others want strict and full liability for injuries IN FACT to people and property.




Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »
  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!