Freedom Of Association?

[FredericBastiat]

jgraham,

My final and fitting send-off to you:

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

[jgraham]

Impudent snobbishness.

I think you really need to take a year-long course in "I'm not really as smart or as important as I think".  Lucky for you I have an opening.
<Cue myrkul or bitcoin2cash gainsaying>

I have convictions;

Well the quote is actually kind of putting down people with convictions.  So I'm glad you see how it applies to you.

we didn't talk about those.

Well you seemed to have a conviction that clearing the air with regard to a few, very simple questions of mine concerning things you said wasn't very important.  You seemed to talk about that one a lot.  Even when I was pretty good about answering your questions.  You were still pretty bad about answering even one of mine.  The only thing of yours I'm not interested in is detailing the "laws of man".  Partially because you won't define what you mean by that term and partially because if it by some miracle mirrors what I consider laws.   I've already noted that they are necessarily complicated and it's not really reasonable or fair to assume that I'm going to spend some large amount of time detailing something I never claimed to have in the first place.

Perhaps you saw an out and you took it?

You chose instead to argue colloquialisms.

Implied false dichotomy.  Yeah logic is a big friend of yours.
As I mentioned, without context it's pretty reasonable to start from a colloquial definition of terms.  From there you could have simply defined your terms.  However you seemed to want to rag on the idea that definitions I used were different from yours more than just telling me what you are talking about and getting on with things.

I didn't necessarily disagree with you. We didn't converse about things I'm interested in, so there was nothing to disagree with.

So the statement: "The fewer laws the better" we aren't in disagreement?  i.e. That the statement is probably so poorly defined as to be useless?
So the statement: "Fewer laws mean fewer loopholes" we aren't in disagreement?
So in thinking it fair and reasonable to provide definitions when asked.  We weren't in disagreement?
So in saying that I was "twisting" words.  We weren't in disagreement? (and just about every other invective)

Seems like there was a lot of disagreement to me.

You like to argue for argument sake.

Sorry, you actually don't know that.  You have no problem slapping unsubstantiated derogatory labels on people though.  That's pretty well supported by this thread.  That, is the cause of an awful lot of the argument in this thread.  You.

I saw no facts nor figures and your sources were few and far between given your penchant for wordiness.

It's a quote, not every element is going to apply.  However considering you are seemingly unable or unwilling to define what you are asking.  It's hard to get to the "facts and figures" part of the discussion.

I like logic, but I care less to find logic in your arguments about arguing.

I don't really know what specific portions of my posts you are referring to as "arguing about arguing".  If you did point out each place I'd suspect you'd just end up pointing out responses your various groundless accusations about me or some argument I've made.  

You've got nothing to offer, including your final send-off.

I didn't say it was my send off.  I said it was yours.  You were supposed to be out of here remember?

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

There once was a man from nantucket...

[FredericBastiat]

Wow! And we're done here. Not unexpected, of course.

[jgraham]

My final and fitting send-off to you:

Wow! And we're done here.

I'm sure at some point you will be.

Another good quote to summarize Freddy's approach:

"The problem with trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed"

Let's recap:

Freddy busts in with some argument from special definition.  "Racism is not a legal crime" (we have to presume here he means 'acts of racism' as I doubt there are many places where the belief that ethnic group X is inferior is illegal and if it is it's going to be difficult to enforce.  It's also clearly not what people are talking about).  Since acts of racism, printing pamphlets to promote the hate of ethnic group X is illegal or restricting employment on the same basis are illegal.   That's sufficient evidence that this definition of 'illegal' is different than the one people are using here. 

He is asked what "legal crime" entails.  Instead of defining it he re-lists examples and threatens the asker.

Now these could be a list of all possible "legal crimes" but when asked that the definition gets broadened to only include physical force.  The response here is that this doesn't include threat of violence which starts a whole list of questions he has trouble answering.  This also starts his argument about 'simple is better' (that is a low number of laws).

Two major points are brought up here,  one is that it's not at all clear how one counts laws (or loopholes as that term is introduced) - no argument or rationale is given just namecalling.  Nor is it clear how a lower number necessitates 'better' laws. An example is given of a law that seems less just than a group of laws.  These laws are called "not laws" (even though they parallel the laws a lot of people live under).   Then provides a kind of half-definition "Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder" so implying that restricting the kinds of weapons one can carry can't prevent injury.  However no argument is made as to why this might be true.  No response is given when this is highlighted.

Also the argument that complexity is required to model something complex is made...and missed by Freddy.  It's also at this point Freddy is kind of locked in to his belief about "simplicity" and since he can't fight the logic he's kind of reduced to attacking wording and slapping all sorts of labels on things.  Which of course make his situation worse, after all if someone calls an argument (or person) pedantic.  An introspective sort would like to see why they think that.

Freddy then just wants out so without addressing the issues he has brought up.  He wants to talk about some other poorly defined thing now and then acts all silly about it.

The bitcoin2cash comment about behavior being OCD-like.  From the DSM-IV: Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace; Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort

Admittedly nobody here seems to fit the diagnostic criteria but I assume that's not b2c's point.  Still given those two points, what is more OCD-like?  Someone who continues to focus on a particular set of points to some useful end OR someone who gives up when it becomes too hard and wants to switch to a different game.

Seriously though I don't really think these guys have a mental disease but rather it's just some silly face-saving nonsense.

[FredericBastiat]

jgraham,

Assuming you're going to attempt the following: (GIVEN)

Do a little brush-up on physics and try and work your way backwards to formulate a "reasonable" set of Laws for Man. Which is to say, measure every action another man makes with regards to his property and person and map that physically to how it affects another person's property (which it inevitably will intersect to some extent). If that force is measurable (tangible not ethereal) and unacceptable (not consensual) to that other person then he has reason to retaliate in a similar manner.

There are varying degrees of force that are applied to things or persons. For application of law to be equitable (assumption here), I would like to believe you could only respond in an approximately proportional way. Is this really so hard to understand?

I know illegal can be defined by anybody to mean anything, but then that would make the word utterly worthless in a orderly society (less violence in the broad sense), if it couldn't be defined in some physical and logical way. If it can be one thing and an opposing thing at the same time for different people in the same place at the same time or for similar circumstances, I'd think that would lead to chaos.

Anybody could be a bigot or a racist and physically harm no one if he merely thinks the thought. If however he physically acts on his thoughts, and harms another because of those thoughts, then we have physical violence. Punish the criminal act not the criminal thought. Physics deals in objective measures. Attitudes or emotions about specific actions or persons are subjective.

Example: Jack is admired (objective statement). Jack is admirable (subjective statement). Likewise; Jack's opinions make him a racist (subjective statement). Jack said he killed a man because he was not of the same race (objective statement). Is Jack a racist? I say this isn't knowable except to Jack; and even then the label may only be applicable to him. His personal righteousness or wickedness is his problem as long as it is not expressed outwardly. In this case he is a murderer.

Punish the objective act not the subjective opinion about the act.

With regards to physical threats, one can only make predictions. Those predictions are prone to subjectivity. If your entire case regarding the 'complexity' of law rests/hinges on making predictions about physical threats, I will concede that point. However, I question the prudence of anybody writing laws which would likely include preemptive force to prohibit actions not yet committed. There are one too many variables to consider, and each situation is unique, so why even try?

[FredericBastiat]

Then provides a kind of half-definition "Laws prevent injury, enslavement, and plunder" so implying that restricting the kinds of weapons one can carry can't prevent injury.  However no argument is made as to why this might be true.  No response is given when this is highlighted.

In response to the above statement: "restricting weapons cannot prevent injury." On the contrary, the very fact you're restricting them causes injury. What will happen is you will threaten or remove my ability to acquire (own) a "weapon" as opposed to the unjustifiable use against another (a legitimate claim). This force or threat of force causes injury in and of itself.

To wit, if I ignore your supposed "law" and acquire a weapon in opposition to your "law", your law gives you and yours the permission to punish me (inflict injury or enslavement) in an attempt to stop me. Law is force legalized (a simple distinction no doubt).

Restricting weapons causes injury. However, you intervening in a "fight" that uses a weapon to bring injury to another man and his property, could prevent injury. Simply speaking, you have no business in what physical characterstics my property has, for were that the case, property would cease to be property (exclusive ownership is not possible)

On the other hand, were you enterprising enough to acquire (and not thru theft/plunder) all of the materials to make said "weapons" then you could probably prevent injury. Have fun with that one though.

[ascent]

Restricting weapons causes injury.

Not necessarily. Your logic is terribly flawed.

1. Just because weapons are not restricted does not mean that all people will choose to have said weapons. Those who choose to not have a weapon are vulnerable to those who do have a weapon.

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

[myrkul]

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

Right, because in Israel, where every citizen is required to own a fully automatic weapon, rage killings happen daily. Oh, and don't forget the accidental discharges you hear about on the news. 

[ascent]

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

Right, because in Israel, where every citizen is required to own a fully automatic weapon, rage killings happen daily. Oh, and don't forget the accidental discharges you hear about on the news. 

Huh?

[myrkul]

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

Right, because in Israel, where every citizen is required to own a fully automatic weapon, rage killings happen daily. Oh, and don't forget the accidental discharges you hear about on the news. 

Huh?

It's called 'Refuting your point'.

[TheGer]

Those who choose to have a weapon are not vulnerable to those who do have a weapon.  The choice is yours.

"Those who choose to not have a weapon are vulnerable to those who do have a weapon"

[ascent]

It's called 'Refuting your point'.

Elaborate.

[myrkul]

It's called 'Refuting your point'.

Elaborate.

you say: "If everyone have gun, people shoot people on accident or because they get angry"

I say: "Everyone in Israel DO have gun, and people NOT shoot people on accident or because they get angry"

Simple enough for you?

[ascent]

Simple enough for you?

No. I asked you to elaborate.

[myrkul]

Simple enough for you?

No. I asked you to elaborate.

Oops.. Sorry, I forgot you're on my 'Troll: Do not talk to' list.

We really need an ignore feature.

[ascent]

Simple enough for you?

No. I asked you to elaborate.

Oops.. Sorry, I forgot you're on my 'Troll: Do not talk to' list.

We really need an ignore feature.

I'm waiting for you to elaborate on the claim you made about Israeli citizens.

[TheGer]

Simple enough for you?

No. I asked you to elaborate.

Oops.. Sorry, I forgot you're on my 'Troll: Do not talk to' list.

We really need an ignore feature.

I'm waiting for you to elaborate on the claim you made about Israeli citizens.

[GideonGono]

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.[44] During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes.[45] Up until September 2007, soldiers also received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.[46] In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons.

Think before you speak.

[ascent]

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.[44] During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes.[45] Up until September 2007, soldiers also received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.[46] In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons.

Think before you speak.

I suggest you think before you speak. In a libertarian society, there is no law that requires one to keep a firearm, nor is there a mandatory period in which an individual goes through training in the military. If there is no law to keep a firearm, then there is no cause for one such as yourself to dream that in your fabled libertarian society, all would choose to keep a firearm. Nor is there any reason for one such as yourself to fantasize that in fabled libertarian society, all would receive the training that one gets when enrolled in the military.

Remember, in your fantasies, your libertarian society is not Switzerland.

Think before you speak.

[TheGer]

It is obvious that you don't have a clue what real Liberty is, thus have no clue what a real Libertarian is, thus don't value Liberty at all, thus making you a sellout to Humanity.  Your blatherings therefore stem from nothing more than what is called a Peanut Gallery and should be treated as such.

2. If, contrary to point 1 above, everyone chooses to have a weapon, then the number of injuries due to accidents, twitchy fingers and rage would likely rise.

Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. Every male between the ages of 20 and 34 is considered a candidate for conscription into the military, and following a brief period of active duty will commonly be enrolled in the militia until age or an inability to serve ends his service obligation.[44] During their enrollment in the armed forces, these men are required to keep their government-issued selective fire combat rifles and semi-automatic handguns in their homes.[45] Up until September 2007, soldiers also received 50 rounds of government-issued ammunition in a sealed box for storage at home.[46] In addition to these official weapons, Swiss citizens are allowed to purchase surplus-to-inventory combat rifles, and shooting is a popular sport in all the Swiss cantons.

Think before you speak.

I suggest you think before you speak. In a libertarian society, there is no law that requires one to keep a firearm, nor is there a mandatory period in which an individual goes through training in the military. If there is no law to keep a firearm, then there is no cause for one such as yourself to dream that in your fabled libertarian society, all would choose to keep a firearm. Nor is there any reason for one such as yourself to fantasize that in fabled libertarian society, all would receive the training that one gets when enrolled in the military.

Remember, in your fantasies, your libertarian society is not Switzerland.

Think before you speak.