Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands

[NghtRppr]

Here are the conditions for legitimate threats.

• If I have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to threaten to do X.
• If I don't have the right to do X then it is illegitimate for me to threaten to do X.

Here are some examples. I have the right to leave the room. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to threaten to leave the room. I have the right to hang up on you. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to threaten to hang up on you. I don't have the right to kill you. Therefore, it is illegitimate for me to threaten to kill you. I don't have the right to torture you. Therefore, it is illegitimate for me to threaten to torture you.

It seems simple so far but now for a real test.

I have the right to allow you to starve. I have the right to not give you my money. Therefore? It is legitimate for me to threaten to allow you to starve. It is legitimate for me to threaten to not give you my money.

What demands can I make? Here are the conditions for legitimate demands.

• If you have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to demand that you do X.
• If you don't have the right to do X then it is illegitimate for me to demand that you do X.

You have the right to kill yourself. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to demand that you kill yourself. You don't have the right to kill someone else. Therefore, it is illegitimate for me to demand that you kill someone else.

So please, stop acting as if threatening to allow you to starve is the same as threatening to kill you. Those are not the same kinds of threats at all. They both will result in your death but one is legitimate and the other is not. I can legitimately threaten anything I have the right to do. I can legitimately demand anything you have the right to do. I have the right to allow you to starve. You have the right to work. If I threaten to allow you to starve unless you work, it's legitimate. Work or starve.

[1714248742]

1714248742

[1714248742]

1714248742

[1714248742]

1714248742

[brocktice]

For the sake of discussion, I agree that your conclusions follow from your premises. However, how do you determine what are really your rights and mine?

[NghtRppr]

For the sake of discussion, I agree that your conclusions follow from your premises. However, how do you determine what are really your rights and mine?

That's far beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's keep this focused on arguing about whether or not I can threaten to do what I have the right to do, or demand you to do what you have the right to do.

[sje397]

How do you define 'legitimate'? How do you define 'demand'?

It might result in a lot more friendly discussion if you were to use e.g. the word 'promise' instead of 'threaten'. Changing the language like that should get you towards the language of contracts, and ease access to the large body of knowledge that exists in that field.

[NghtRppr]

How do you define 'legitimate'? How do you define 'demand'?

I would assume like most other people. Are you unfamiliar with those words?

[AyeYo]

You're turning into Atlas, leaving steaming shit piles all around the board but never coming back when people confront you with tough questions.

[NghtRppr]

never coming back

Which is why I had the last post before you made that idiotic claim? I also can't help but notice that your recent replies to me have been nothing but whiny little bitch comments that don't even touch upon the issues.

[AyeYo]

You could have responded to the criticism here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38341.0 before crapping on us with another shitty thread.

[Hawker]

You have the right to kill yourself. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to demand that you kill yourself.

You are a very strange person.

[NghtRppr]

You could have responded to the criticism here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38341.0 before crapping on us with another shitty thread.

There was no criticism. Just a bunch of people agreeing with me and the usual trolls. If you want to quote something in that thread that you thing I should respond to then go for it but right now you're just trying to be an insulting little douche as usual.

You are a very strange person.

You're a piece of shit troll.

[TheGer]

You have the right to give your last $10 in the world away to strangers.  Is it legitimate when I demand that you do so?  

There's no moral, ethical, or legal reason you should feel inclined to do so because I told you to, hence your argument is flawed because it is not a legitimate demand(moral, ethical, legal).


"If you have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to demand that you do X."

_________

Here is another take on this.

The right to Free Speech granted under the Constitution grants us the right to say what we like.  This is legitimate.  Therefore I can make any demand or say anything I want, thus negating your assumption on what's legitimate and what's not.

[NghtRppr]

You have the right to give your last $10 in the world away to strangers.  Is it legitimate when I demand that you do so?

Just because I demand something doesn't mean you have to meet my demand. So, yes, it is legitimate for you to demand that I give my last $10 away to strangers.

The right to Free Speech granted under the Constitution grants us the right to say what we like.

Also, this discussion isn't an argument about how our legal system is but rather about how it should be. The Constitution is irrelevant. Slavery was once legal until the Constitution was amended but it was never legitimate.

On a personal note, I would like to thank you for actually addressing the arguments and not insulting me. I wish everyone on these forums that disagrees with me was respectful like you.

[ansible adams]

For the sake of discussion, I agree that your conclusions follow from your premises. However, how do you determine what are really your rights and mine?

That's far beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's keep this focused on arguing about whether or not I can threaten to do what I have the right to do, or demand you to do what you have the right to do.

This is like a Catholic offering to debate the nature of the Holy Trinity while saying that the question of evidence for God's existence is "far beyond the scope of this discussion." Your faulty conclusions follow logically from your flawed premises. Well played, Thomas Aquinas.

[NghtRppr]

Your faulty conclusions follow logically from your flawed premises.

The only relevant conclusion in this discussion is: if I can legitimately do X, I can legitimately threaten to do X. Everything else is beyond the scope of this discussion and incidental.

If I don't draw the line somewhere, we can argue endlessly about everything. I'm sorry if you feel slighted but if you want to start a debate on whether or not it's legitimate for me to allow you to starve, then start it, in a separate thread. However, since you clearly agree that if I can legitimately do X, I can legitimately threaten to do X, I'm satisfied. Whether or not I can legitimately do X is beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm sorry if you are incapable of understanding that.

[Hawker]

Your faulty conclusions follow logically from your flawed premises.

The only relevant conclusion in this discussion is: if I can legitimately do X, I can legitimately threaten to do X. Everything else is beyond the scope of this discussion and incidental.

If I don't draw the line somewhere, we can argue endlessly about everything. I'm sorry if you feel slighted but if you want to start a debate on whether or not it's legitimate for me to allow you to starve, then start it, in a separate thread. However, since you clearly agree that if I can legitimately do X, I can legitimately threaten to do X, I'm satisfied. Whether or not I can legitimately do X is beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm sorry if you are incapable of understanding that.

Posting that you want to make threats to do stuff you are entitled to and that you want to be able to demand people kill themselves is just bizarre.  Have you considered talking to someone in real life about whatever it is that is getting you in this state?

[Denicen]

Let us say that you have more food than you can eat, and your surplus food will rot if it is not given away. Is it legitimate for you to deny the starving man food in that situation?

[NghtRppr]

Posting that you want to make threats to do stuff you are entitled to and that you want to be able to demand people kill themselves is just bizarre.  Have you considered talking to someone in real life about whatever it is that is getting you in this state?

Oh I get it. You're one of those idiots that can't tell the difference between arguing that one should be able to do something and arguing that one wants to or should do something. I think people should be able to do heroin but I personally wouldn't want to do it and I would urge everyone not to do it at all. You really need to work on that.

[TheGer]

Saying "Just because I demand something doesn't mean you have to meet my demand" undermines your original post.  The implication of Legitimacy is that it has "Validity" or "common Sense" or some other logical reason for existing.

The fact that you argue the point by saying "you don't have to meet my demand" removes the basis for Legitimacy or Illegitimacy from the from this conversation as the above statement makes either redundant.

"Just because I demand something doesn't mean you have to meet my demand. So, yes, it is legitimate for you to demand that I give my last $10 away to strangers."

_____

Sorry but Free Speech granted under the Constitution IS how our legal system should be.

"Quote from: TheGer on Today at 03:55:03 pm
The right to Free Speech granted under the Constitution grants us the right to say what we like.

Also, this discussion isn't an argument about how our legal system is but rather about how it should be. "

[Hawker]

Posting that you want to make threats to do stuff you are entitled to and that you want to be able to demand people kill themselves is just bizarre.  Have you considered talking to someone in real life about whatever it is that is getting you in this state?

Oh I get it. You're one of those idiots that can't tell the difference between arguing that one should be able to do something and arguing that one wants to or should do something. I think people should be able to do heroin but I personally wouldn't want to do it and I would urge everyone not to do it at all. You really need to work on that.

"You have the right to kill yourself. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to demand that you kill yourself. "

Thats your original quote.  Be honest with yourself - thats kinda weird. 

EDIT: for the sake of clarity, I am not criticising you.  Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

[NghtRppr]

Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.

[Hawker]

Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.

So your OP was not serious?

Honestly, I'm not trolling.  Your OP is very odd.  Whatever vision you want to promote, talk about demanding people kill themselves and insisting its your right and talk of threats only makes you look strange and undermines your argument.

/peace out

[NghtRppr]

Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.

So your OP was not serious?

Honestly, I'm not trolling.  Your OP is very odd.  Whatever vision you want to promote, talk about demanding people kill themselves and insisting its your right and talk of threats only makes you look strange and undermines your argument.

/peace out

Well then you really don't understand how philosophers work. We like to talk about edge and extreme cases because they inform us about the general and middle cases.

[The Script]

Here are the conditions for legitimate threats.

• If I have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to threaten to do X.
• If I don't have the right to do X then it is illegitimate for me to threaten to do X.

Here are some examples. I have the right to leave the room. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to threaten to leave the room. I have the right to hang up on you. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to threaten to hang up on you. I don't have the right to kill you. Therefore, it is illegitimate for me to threaten to kill you. I don't have the right to torture you. Therefore, it is illegitimate for me to threaten to torture you.

It seems simple so far but now for a real test.

I have the right to allow you to starve. I have the right to not give you my money. Therefore? It is legitimate for me to threaten to allow you to starve. It is legitimate for me to threaten to not give you my money.

What demands can I make? Here are the conditions for legitimate demands.

• If you have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to demand that you do X.
• If you don't have the right to do X then it is illegitimate for me to demand that you do X.

You have the right to kill yourself. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to demand that you kill yourself. You don't have the right to kill someone else. Therefore, it is illegitimate for me to demand that you kill someone else.

So please, stop acting as if threatening to allow you to starve is the same as threatening to kill you. Those are not the same kinds of threats at all. They both will result in your death but one is legitimate and the other is not. I can legitimately threaten anything I have the right to do. I can legitimately demand anything you have the right to do. I have the right to allow you to starve. You have the right to work. If I threaten to allow you to starve unless you work, it's legitimate. Work or starve.

I agree that this all follows logically from your premises with the understanding that "demand" does not mean the individual has to comply.  It's a strong request.  I think another word would be better suited here, but I understand the point.  I would like to note, however, that it is not so much your right to allow someone to starve as your right to withhold your property (food) from them.  In consequence and effect, it is one and the same thing, but the right derives from your right to control your own property rather than your right to allow human suffering.  Thoughts?

[NghtRppr]

I agree that this all follows logically from your premises with the understanding that "demand" does not mean the individual has to comply.

I never understood "demand" to mean that, such as when workers go on strike because they demand better wages or working conditions.

Thoughts?

I'm not concerned from where a right to do X is derived. My only point is, if I have can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. If anyone disagrees with that, let me know. Everything else is off-topic.

[AyeYo]

Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.

So your OP was not serious?

Honestly, I'm not trolling.  Your OP is very odd.  Whatever vision you want to promote, talk about demanding people kill themselves and insisting its your right and talk of threats only makes you look strange and undermines your argument.

/peace out

Well then you really don't understand how philosophers work. We like to talk about edge and extreme cases because they inform us about the general and middle cases.

And how does this inform you about "general" and "middle" cases?

[NghtRppr]

Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.

So your OP was not serious?

Honestly, I'm not trolling.  Your OP is very odd.  Whatever vision you want to promote, talk about demanding people kill themselves and insisting its your right and talk of threats only makes you look strange and undermines your argument.

/peace out

Well then you really don't understand how philosophers work. We like to talk about edge and extreme cases because they inform us about the general and middle cases.

And how does this inform you about "general" and "middle" cases?

What's true for the controversial cases is true for the uncontroversial cases. If I can convince you that I should have a mile, I can easily convince you that I should have an inch.

[AyeYo]

Your original post still makes absolutely no sense.  You need to articulate your point better, because extreme examples are useless if no one understands wtf point you're even trying to make.

[NghtRppr]

Your original post still makes absolutely no sense.  You need to articulate your point better, because extreme examples are useless if no one understands wtf point you're even trying to make.

Everyone else seems to understand me. I'll do that when a non-troll makes the same request.

[Hawker]

I agree that this all follows logically from your premises with the understanding that "demand" does not mean the individual has to comply.

I never understood "demand" to mean that, such as when workers go on strike because they demand better wages or working conditions.

Thoughts?

I'm not concerned from where a right to do X is derived. My only point is, if I have can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. If anyone disagrees with that, let me know. Everything else is off-topic.

So you made a thread about threats and demands to illustrate your grasp of logic?  Your logic is correct.  Congratulations.  Beyond being logically correct, is there a point?  After all, no-one will disagree with your logic but many will disagree with your definition of "legitimate." 

[Karmicads]

I understand. It's a bit like the Colosseum scene in Life Of Brian:

JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
 
REG: Agreed. Francis?
 
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
 
STAN: Or woman.
 
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
 
STAN: Or herself.
 
FRANCIS: Or herself.
 
REG: Agreed.
 
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
 
STAN: Or sister.
 
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
 
REG: I think you'd finished.
 
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
 
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
 
STAN: Or woman.
 
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
 
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
 
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
 
STAN: I want to be one.
 
REG: What?
 
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
 
REG: What?!
 
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
 
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
 
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
 
REG: You want to have babies?!
 
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
 
REG: But... you can't have babies.
 
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
 
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! -- Where's the fetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
 
LORETTA: [crying]
 
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
 
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
 
REG: What's the point?
 
FRANCIS: What?
 
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
 
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
 
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Sometimes I think this place is so much like the Peoples Font of Judea.

Solidarity brothers... er... and sisters.

[AyeYo]

I agree that this all follows logically from your premises with the understanding that "demand" does not mean the individual has to comply.

I never understood "demand" to mean that, such as when workers go on strike because they demand better wages or working conditions.

Thoughts?

I'm not concerned from where a right to do X is derived. My only point is, if I have can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. If anyone disagrees with that, let me know. Everything else is off-topic.

So you made a thread about threats and demands to illustrate your grasp of logic?  Your logic is correct.  Congratulations.  Beyond being logically correct, is there a point?  After all, no-one will disagree with your logic but many will disagree with your definition of "legitimate." 

Exactly this.

[deuxmill]

For the sake of discussion, I agree that your conclusions follow from your premises. However, how do you determine what are really your rights and mine?

That's far beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's keep this focused on arguing about whether or not I can threaten to do what I have the right to do, or demand you to do what you have the right to do.

Yes you can threaten as much as you want. but you can't demand me to do what i have the right/need/want/like to do.

I actually don't give a fuck about threat , threatening is just words and doesn't damage. If someone threatens to Kill you , doesn't mean he will actually do it. To be accused of attempt of murder you actually have to take action to fulfill the murder. So in my view is OK even to threaten.

I have the right to live but you can't demand me to live.
I have the right to work but you can't demand me to work.
I have the right to vote but you can't demand me to vote.
You don't have the right to kill me , but you can threaten me as much as you want , you should be watched but not penalized for threatening.
A country becomes nuclear , it can threaten to use the Nukes , but there shouldn't be a action against that country only if it uses it's Nukes. NO PREEMPTIVE STRIKES.

[NghtRppr]

After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...

Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?

[AyeYo]

After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...

Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?

Right, at least under your moronic logic.  The real world is less black/white.

[NghtRppr]

After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...

Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?

Right, at least under your moronic logic.  The real world is less black/white.

Oh, so you disagree with my logic? Alright well I guess Hawker was wrong then. Someone will disagree with my logic.

[Hawker]

After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...

Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?

In this country, blackmail is legitimate if the subject matter is true.  There are press agents like Max Clifford who make a very good living getting "kiss'n'tell" stories, approaching the rich individual involved and for a handsome fee selling them the exclusive right to the story.

Legitimate doesn't mean its OK.  Most people are torn between a prurient desire to know celebrity gossip and a moral repulsion at the way the stories are sourced. 

If the story is false, that's another matter but I doubt you are claiming its legitimate to lie about people for profit.

Out of curiosity, why do you care?  Has someone tried to stop you talking about some "dirty little secret?"  Do tell...

[NghtRppr]

In this country, blackmail is legitimate if the subject matter is true.

You might want to read 18 U.S.C. § 873.

Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Legitimate doesn't mean its OK.

Legitimate means I can't use violence to stop you. It's legitimate to call your grandmother a cunt but it's definitely not something you should do.

[AyeYo]

After all, no-one will disagree with your logic...

Cool, then you recognize the legitimacy of blackmail? I can legitimately tell people your dirty little secret. That's free speech. So then I can legitimately threaten to tell people your dirty little secret unless you pay me $1,000 every month. Right?

Right, at least under your moronic logic.  The real world is less black/white.

Oh, so you disagree with my logic? Alright well I guess Hawker was wrong then. Someone will disagree with my logic.

As previously stated, your logic by itself is pointless unless you make some kind of point with it.  What's legitimate or not doesn't matter in the real world.  What matters in the real world is what's prudent.

[NghtRppr]

What's legitimate or not doesn't matter in the real world.

You're an idiot. Please stop talking to me.

[AyeYo]

What's legitimate or not doesn't matter in the real world.

You're an idiot. Please stop talking to me.

Typical.

Once again you miss the irony you bring on yourself.  How can you call yourself a philosopher, but be afraid of getting into depth and gray areas of any issue.

[Hawker]

In this country, blackmail is legitimate if the subject matter is true.

You might want to read 18 U.S.C. § 873.

Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Legitimate doesn't mean its OK.

Legitimate means I can't use violence to stop you. It's legitimate to call your grandmother a cunt but it's definitely not something you should do.

Now you are drifting back into crazy talk.  What's this weird obsession with threats and violence?  The is a website - consider going to a bar and jumping the line at a pool table if you want violence.  While posting here, consider making a logical point.

[NghtRppr]

What's this weird obsession with threats and violence?

Cut the bullshit. This is the politics and society section. One of the things we talk about is laws i.e. what should be legal. If something is illegal then you will be stopped, with violence if necessary. I'm sorry if you don't understand that but quit trying to attack me personally and stick to the arguments.

[AyeYo]

When do you tell us wtf your point is?

How does this ridiculous and irrelevant demand that people kill themselves relate to real-world issues?

[jgraham]

Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.

So your OP was not serious?

Honestly, I'm not trolling.  Your OP is very odd.  Whatever vision you want to promote, talk about demanding people kill themselves and insisting its your right and talk of threats only makes you look strange and undermines your argument.

/peace out

Well then you really don't understand how philosophers work. We...

How do you define 'legitimate'? How do you define 'demand'?

I would assume like most other people. Are you unfamiliar with those words?

Everyone else seems to understand me. I'll do that when a non-troll makes the same request.

The digression into "how Philosophers work" is puerile enough but considering that philosophers tend to make a point of defining terms, often exceptionally precise ones.  There is some pretty significant irony here.

* If I have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to threaten to do X.

Is this whole statement an assertion or are you claiming that "legitimate to threaten" follows from "right to do"?

If the later then it's may not be true but it will depend exactly what "legitimate", "right" and "threaten" means.  For example you might have the right to believe that some race should be destroyed but, at least where I live you can not legally verbalize it.  So it's at least conceivable that to threatening to become this kind of person is, at least on paper illegal.

If the former then I feel like I've walked in on a circle-jerk.

[Denicen]

Let us say that you have more food than you can eat, and your surplus food will rot if it is not given away. Is it legitimate for you to deny the starving man food in that situation?

I'm still curious about this.

[Hawker]

Let us say that you have more food than you can eat, and your surplus food will rot if it is not given away. Is it legitimate for you to deny the starving man food in that situation?

I'm still curious about this.

Legitimate but not decent.  Its like when you see someone drowning; you are under no legal obligation to help but if you can safely rescue the person, its a good thing to do.

[Hawker]

What's this weird obsession with threats and violence?

Cut the bullshit. This is the politics and society section. One of the things we talk about is laws i.e. what should be legal. If something is illegal then you will be stopped, with violence if necessary. I'm sorry if you don't understand that but quit trying to attack me personally and stick to the arguments.

Not attacking you.  Just stay on the same planet as the rest of us.  All this talk about demand, threats, violence and wanting people to die is bizarre.  One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws. 

Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make? 

[NghtRppr]

One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws.

I haven't threatened anyone. You're either trolling or you're stupid. For your sake, I hope you're trolling.

Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make?

I guess you really are stupid. I've said it several times. My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. Do you need it translated into another language? Do you want some pictures to go with it? What will help penetrate that thick skull of yours?

[Hawker]

One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws.

I haven't threatened anyone. You're either trolling or you're stupid. For your sake, I hope you're trolling.

Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make?

I guess you really are stupid. I've said it several times. My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. Do you need it translated into another language? Do you want some pictures to go with it? What will help penetrate that thick skull of yours?

You are an angry little fellow aren't you.  If your entire point and the reason you are on about violence, threats, demanding people die, etc is " My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X" then I would like to make a few points of my own.

2 + 2 = 4.  Bears do shit in the woods.  The Pope is, in fact, a Catholic. 

If you have any other blindingly obvious truths you want to share with us, please let us know.

[NghtRppr]

You are an angry little fellow aren't you.

I'm not angry at all. Why do you think that? Just because I insult you after being insulted by you? You seem to have no problem insulting me so why can't I insult you back? That's a rhetorical question by the way. Don't bother answering it because I don't care.

Anyways, I'm glad you agree with me, whether or not you consider it obvious doesn't interest me. You are dismissed now.

[Hawker]

You are an angry little fellow aren't you.

I'm not angry at all. Why do you think that? Just because I insult you after being insulted by you? You seem to have no problem insulting me so why can't I insult you back? That's a rhetorical question by the way. Don't bother answering it because I don't care.

Anyways, I'm glad you agree with me, whether or not you consider it obvious doesn't interest me. You are dismissed now.

That isn't how the Internet works.  Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

[deuxmill]

Let us say that you have more food than you can eat, and your surplus food will rot if it is not given away. Is it legitimate for you to deny the starving man food in that situation?

I'm still curious about this.

Yes. It should be legal. Although I believe you should be murdered and the food taken by the starving even if it's illegal. Then he should face the consequences of doing something illegal.

[NghtRppr]

Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

Sour grapes.

"I'm right but it was obvious so who cares. "

I do agree that it's obvious, to me at least. However, the fact that I have to keep arguing this point when it comes to minimum wage, taxes, etc, seems to suggest it isn't obvious to everyone. Just get over it and move along if you already knew this.

[Hawker]

Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

Sour grapes.

"I'm right but it was obvious so who cares. "

I do agree that it's obvious, to me at least. However, the fact that I have to keep arguing this point when it comes to minimum wage, taxes, etc, seems to suggest it isn't obvious to everyone. Just get over it and move along if you already knew this.

Again, someone who disagrees with you will disagree about whether its right to have a minimum wage or low taxes or whatever.  No-one will concede in a debate that your position is legitimate, therefore they have to agree with you.  For example, you can legitimately argue that the minimum wage is a restriction of your freedom to do what you want with your own money on your own property.  Not everyone will agree with you and those who disagree may also have legitimate positions.

[AyeYo]

Looking forward to seeing an intelligent post from you with something a little less obvious.

Sour grapes.

"I'm right but it was obvious so who cares. "

I do agree that it's obvious, to me at least. However, the fact that I have to keep arguing this point when it comes to minimum wage, taxes, etc, seems to suggest it isn't obvious to everyone. Just get over it and move along if you already knew this.

This...

When do you tell us wtf your point is?

How does this ridiculous and irrelevant demand that people kill themselves relate to real-world issues?

If you can do X, then I can demand that you do X... doesn't mean a goddamn thing.  It's logically correct, yes, but that means nothing.

If the sky is green, then it's not blue.  That's logically correct too, but it's irrelevant in the real world.




As Hawker just explained, the fact that your point is logical within the bounds of your own reasoning doesn't mean that it automatically is THE universal truth and everyone must accept it.

As I said already, in the real world, what is prudent is more important that what is legitimate.  That is where the argument matters, not this captain obvious bullshit.  If you want to argue "minimum wage, taxes, etc." then make threads for each of those subjects, because they deserve their own thread.  Your black/white generalization based on your own reasoning does not magically make you win all arguments on all issues.

[NghtRppr]

As I said already, in the real world, what is prudent is more important that what is legitimate.

In your opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that consistently applying principles actually matters most of all.

[AyeYo]

As I said already, in the real world, what is prudent is more important that what is legitimate.

In your opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that consistently applying principles actually matters most of all.

I just explained why your "principle" doesn't mean a damn thing.  


If a feather weighed 1,000lbs., then it would be heavier than a cubic inch of lead.

If gravity didn't exist, then I would be able to float.

If my Civic ran 11's, then it'd be faster than a Viper.



All logically correctly, but totally irrelevant in the real world.



Additionally, you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it.  You have not proved your statements of what is "legitimate".

Furthermore, you have not even bothered to discuss what constitutes a "right".


This is why I keep saying you MAKE A POINT, so that we can discuss your SPECIFIC point.  This generalization you keep making is meaningless.

[FredericBastiat]

Demands and threats seem like close cousins, but maybe an example might make sense of things.

Example 1:
I write on a piece of paper stating that I demand that you kill yourself and then mail it to you. I live on the other side of the planet. This demand would appear to be legitimate, but only so because the immediacy of the threat, if there is any, is not particularly apparent.

Example 2:
I stand inches away from your face and demand that you kill yourself. Hmm... well that appears to be a different animal altogether. The circumstances are not the same. The threat is very apparent and could be perceived (misinterpreted violent intentions??) to be very real if not imminent (your impending doom).

I would like to assume you have an inherent right to defend yourself against such threats of violence, or appearances thereto if necessary. What's the goal? What's your end-game? You can use different words in numerous contexts and mean many different things.

In the end, applying violence requires much effort, but threatening violence does not, and achieves much in the way of achieving some means to an end. That end typically is to extricate your property from you and transfer it to the "manipulator" -via perceived threats of violence and coercion.

If the outcome achieves some deviant end, then it matters little the use of the words themselves. Perhaps demand should be substituted for profusely and energetically, but politely, ask. That way we don't confuse acts of potential violence for hyperactive requests.

[NghtRppr]

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

[AyeYo]

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

You have not presented an argument for it.

[Hawker]

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

[jgraham]

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

Hmm....did we move to the term "demand" now?  I tend to avoid checking this board on weekends.

  Well if by "demand" we mean a specific sense of the word where authority to ask and the persons duty to perform is already implied.  Then of course bitcoin2cash is correct but that's trivial and means that his claim in the "mile -> inch" department isn't as strong as he would think (maybe that's what you are getting at and you are getting entertained by the fact that bitcoin2cash is missing it? ).

  However if we go back to using "threat" which does not imply authority to ask or the duty to perform.   Then we need to fall on to definitions of some of the other terms (which I brought up earlier ).   For example, if "legitimate" means or contains the term "legal" (in some reasonable jurisdiction).  Then there appears to be a whole class of "rights to do" for which one has no "right to threaten".   That would be set where the "right to think" is legally in conflict with the "right to express".  i.e. It could be argued that bitcoin2cash has the "right" to contemplate my death - even plan it mentally in detail -  however there are a lot of contexts where s/he is absolutely restricted from expressing that because it would be difficult to distinguish.  Can you imagine telling a shopkeeper?  "If you don't give me a refund I'll start thinking about ways to kill you!"

So outside of the case which you have identified I think we can call bitcoin2cash's point disproved.

I hope that I have contributed - in an albeit humble way - to elevating the intellectual content of this board.  Which you have, quite rightly noticed is lacking. 

[NghtRppr]

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

It says "especially with authority". It doesn't say "only with authority".

[Hawker]

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

It says "especially with authority". It doesn't say "only with authority".

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

[NghtRppr]

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

I don't know if English is your first language but a "demand" implies something slightly different than a "request". When a bunch of workers go on strike, they make "demands" not "requests". Simply making a request implies timidness and that being told "no" is slightly more satisfactory than would be the case if an outright demand were made. However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

[Hawker]

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

I don't know if English is your first language but a "demand" implies something slightly different than a "request". When a bunch of workers go on strike, they make "demands" not "requests". Simply making a request implies timidness and that being told "no" is slightly more satisfactory than would be the case if an outright demand were made. However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

So you would forcefully and insistently request that someone goes for a walk.  Fine. 

[AyeYo]

So by demand you mean ask without authority or simply ask.  Why not say ask then?

I don't know if English is your first language but a "demand" implies something slightly different than a "request". When a bunch of workers go on strike, they make "demands" not "requests". Simply making a request implies timidness and that being told "no" is slightly more satisfactory than would be the case if an outright demand were made. However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

That still leaves you using that word you find so magical: force.  That brings us right back to this...

you have done nothing to prove the idea that simply because I have a right to do something, you have a right to demand that I do it

So you disagree with that?

Of course he does.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demand

a : an act of demanding or asking especially with authority <a demand for obedience> b : something claimed as due <a list of demands>

He has the right to go for a walk.  You don't have authority to tell him to walk and you have no valid claim on his walking rights.  So you can't demand it.

Hmm....did we move to the term "demand" now?  I tend to avoid checking this board on weekends.

  Well if by "demand" we mean a specific sense of the word where authority to ask and the persons duty to perform is already implied.  Then of course bitcoin2cash is correct but that's trivial and means that his claim in the "mile -> inch" department isn't as strong as he would think (maybe that's what you are getting at and you are getting entertained by the fact that bitcoin2cash is missing it? ).

  However if we go back to using "threat" which does not imply authority to ask or the duty to perform.   Then we need to fall on to definitions of some of the other terms (which I brought up earlier ).   For example, if "legitimate" means or contains the term "legal" (in some reasonable jurisdiction).  Then there appears to be a whole class of "rights to do" for which one has no "right to threaten".   That would be set where the "right to think" is legally in conflict with the "right to express".  i.e. It could be argued that bitcoin2cash has the "right" to contemplate my death - even plan it mentally in detail -  however there are a lot of contexts where s/he is absolutely restricted from expressing that because it would be difficult to distinguish.  Can you imagine telling a shopkeeper?  "If you don't give me a refund I'll start thinking about ways to kill you!"

So outside of the case which you have identified I think we can call bitcoin2cash's point disproved.

I hope that I have contributed - in an albeit humble way - to elevating the intellectual content of this board.  Which you have, quite rightly noticed is lacking. 

[NghtRppr]

That still leaves you using that word you find so magical: force.

I said forceful, as in tone, not force. Fail.

[AyeYo]

Well let's see what forceful means...

force·ful
 adj \ˈfȯrs-fəl\


 : possessing or filled with force : effective <a forceful argument>

Hmm.... so what is "force" in this context?

3

: violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing

 

Ah, we have arrived at your other magical word: violence.



So you're saying that if I have a right to do something, you have a right to violently compel me to do it.


And what is your supporting argument for this?

[NghtRppr]

So you're saying that if I have a right to do something, you have a right to violently compel me to do it.

No, I'm not. You're an idiot. Consider yourself ignored.

[FirstAscent]

What demands can I make? Here are the conditions for legitimate demands.

• If you have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to demand that you do X.
• If you don't have the right to do X then it is illegitimate for me to demand that you do X.

Let's take a moment and substitute some real world terms into your assertion. For example:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to demand that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

I personally wouldn't make the original assertion, but you have, therefore we can conclude that you would deem it fair that the government demands that you pay taxes.

Further on, you state:

However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

By substituting the term demand with your clarified meaning of it, we can conclude that you believe the following to be acceptable, fair and reasonable:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

Now that we have a fair synopsis of the point that you are trying to make in this thread (admittedly, we were all at a bit of a loss as to what you meant), we can see how absurd and inconsistently you choose to apply your philosophy to life.

[jgraham]

What demands can I make? Here are the conditions for legitimate demands.

• If you have the right to do X then it is legitimate for me to demand that you do X.
• If you don't have the right to do X then it is illegitimate for me to demand that you do X.

Let's take a moment and substitute some real world terms into your assertion. For example:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to demand that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

I personally wouldn't make the original assertion, but you have, therefore we can conclude that you would deem it fair that the government demands that you pay taxes.

Further on, you state:

However, I would accept the substitution of "demand" as a "forceful and insistent request" if that will help you understand my point better.

By substituting the term demand with your clarified meaning of it, we can conclude that you believe the following to be acceptable, fair and reasonable:

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

Now that we have a fair synopsis of the point that you are trying to make in this thread (admittedly, we were all at a bit of a loss as to what you meant), we can see how absurd and inconsistently you choose to apply your philosophy to life.

Even my exceptionally limited understanding of bitcoin2cash's tiny, bigoted and oft times violent mind I'd say that what he probably meant was something along the lines of "If person X has the right to do Y therefore person X has the right to threaten to do Y".   I think he gave some examples about leaving the room and such.

However I would maintain that in my above form Bitcoin2cash's statement, unless s/he provides further definition as to what "has the right to threaten" means is already disproved.  As there are a number of things where the thought of which is acceptable but the expression of which is not.  i.e. It is legal (and to some extent acceptable) for Bitcoin2cash to contemplate the ways he could murder a shopkeeper for not giving a refund.  However it is generally not acceptable for him to threaten that.  i.e. "If you don't give me a refund I will start thinking about ways to murder you" is probably indistinguishable (by people and the courts) as a death threat.

I agree though we all shrug our shoulders as to why bitcoin2cash thinks his statement is so profound.  Which probably inflates his already too large ego on this subject.

[NghtRppr]

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

You don't understand. They can send a strongly worded letter. That's all.

"Pay us now. All of it. Without fail."

Forceful doesn't mean they can say "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply." You are focusing on the legitimacy of demands but failing to keep in mind the legitimacy of threats. Other people can't legitimately initiate violence against me therefore they can't legitimately threaten to initiate violence against me.

[Hawker]

You have the right to pay a portion of your income to the government. Therefore, it is legitimate for the government to make a "forceful and insistent request" that you pay a portion of your income to the government.

You don't understand. They can send a strongly worded letter. That's all.

"Pay us now. All of it. Without fail."

Forceful doesn't mean they can say "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply." You are focusing on the legitimacy of demands but failing to keep in mind the legitimacy of threats. Other people can't legitimately initiate violence against me therefore they can't legitimately threaten to initiate violence against me.

You see, the difference is that Government really can make a demand for taxes and can legitimately imprison you if you refuse to pay.  Not a forceful request - a demand.  It comes with a letter saying "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply."

That's why your original post is wrong headed.  You used the word "demand" when you meant "forceful request." 

[NghtRppr]

You used the word "demand" when you meant "forceful request."

de·mand [dih-mand, -mahnd]
verb (used with object)

2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/demand

That's how I'm using "demand". If you don't like it then you'll just have to get over it.

[Hawker]

"You have the right to kill yourself. Therefore, it is legitimate for me to demand that you kill yourself."

Your "demand" is simply "asking".  The taxman's demand is that and a lot more.  I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

[NghtRppr]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

[Hawker]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

I'll stop first then - we seem to have reached agreement

[NghtRppr]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

I'll stop first then - we seem to have reached agreement

Yes, we agree that your arguments over definitions are puerile. You know what I mean. I've made it abundantly clear.

[jgraham]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

I already commented on that...well that you were being puerile anyway.

I completely don't get why you and everyone wants to play dictionary word games.

I realize that you call yourself a philosopher and by virtue of that you should know this but often Logicians and Philosophers need to talk about something in a very restricted way.  Often that's the only way they can "get work done".  Since it's very difficult to talk about everything a word connotes*  So you construct a definition.

For example the first line in Aristotle's De Interpretatione (in Latin considering how people here like to fling it around like so much monkey poop) is as follows: First we must define the terms 'noun' and 'verb', then the terms 'denial' and 'affirmation', then 'proposition' and 'sentence.'  He goes on to define these terms. 

I'd submit that it doesn't matter how one defines their term as long as they disclose what the definition is.  Bitcoin2cash can define his terms any way s/he wants.  S/he can say that "demand" means "violently" or "not violent" or "fruit bat".   Now sure that gives him/her the opportunity to use a uncommon definition but it doesn't really matter.  Because that will in turn restrict what conclusions s/he draws.

i.e. I want to argue that pool hopping is unethical.   So I'll define the term "pool" to mean "a place where it is unethical to hop"**.  Now this, of course makes it easy to produce a syllogism which is valid but it hugely restricts the applicability of the argument.  In this case the only pools which are unethical to hop are the ones for which it is unethical to hop.  Which is what we call "begging the question" - the arguer has assumed her conclusion.

The only place where using the dictionary makes any sense is to show that a person is using a term in an uncommon sense in which case the arguer should provide a definition.  Attempting to use the dictionary to pretend that their definition isn't valid*** is silly.  Lots of words can refer to concepts not found in the dictionary.  Not only that but the arguer can just create a new word as a referent to his/her idea.

I feel like I should start a thread called: "How to argue" because while people like bitcoin2cash, JoelKatz, FredreicBAsshat,BCEmporium are all borderline crazy.   Their crazy might be shut down more quickly if the root of their argument could be identified and killed.  Instead of spending a lot of time on peripheral matters.

Apologies if that was preachy.

*_{A good example of this is my conversation with JoelKatz about pollution.  Joel was barely able to say anything about what was or was not pollution which might be due to his belief that he had no useful definition of his term 'pollution' or 'optimum'.  It's of course possible that Joel was being strategic i.e. he believed that by exposing his definition that would allow me to attack his argument (which would be correct).}
**_{Interestingly enough I suspect that if JoelKatz would ever decide to actually define his terms about this.  His argument would probably break down similarly.}
***_{I think bitcoin2cash did this exact thing in one of our first discussions.}

[NghtRppr]

The only way I'll remove you from ignore is if you promise to stop calling me names. In other words, welcome to permanent ignore.

[FirstAscent]

Forceful doesn't mean they can say "We'll send thugs in uniforms to kidnap you if you don't comply." You are focusing on the legitimacy of demands but failing to keep in mind the legitimacy of threats. Other people can't legitimately initiate violence against me therefore they can't legitimately threaten to initiate violence against me.

Are you familiar with the concept of a homeowner's association and the association dues that are payable by its residents? I'm sure you are. I'm more than willing to have an in depth discussion with you about it. Feel free to start a thread on it, or we can discuss it here, but it could derail the thread.

[jgraham]

The only way I'll remove you from ignore is if you promise to stop calling me names. In other words, welcome to permanent ignore.

I think, as is fast becoming your character.  You overstate your importance.  I suspect most people do.

Out of curiosity. Which names?  Small minded? Puerile? Violent?  Bigoted? Oh wait...you won't say.

See on one hand if I had some reasonably well-defined criteria for determining what would be "name calling" in your particular world-view.  Then I'd consider it but of course that would mean that you would have to have an adult discussion which to me - means not having to deal with the prima donna attitude of threatening to go take your ball and go home whenever you don't like my phrasing.  Of course if you could do that...

Instead you offer me something that no responsible person could accept.  I haven't the slightest idea (other than the exceptionally mild, almost child-like cajole "jerky") what you consider "name calling") so I suspect you know that someone who has some degree of integrity isn't going to agree to something if it's unclear if they can follow through.   So this seems just a way to avoid arguments you find uncomfortable.  After all, you clearly have no problem calling other people names - at least things I consider names.  Perhaps "idiot" is not name calling to you.  If so then you'll love my next point.

So what if those things I mentioned above are not simple invective but actual demonstrable facets of your personality?  What if I could show an example from your own text for each and every one.  Several examples in fact?

Not interested?  Didn't think so.

Hey I fully respect your right to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears.  Heck throw yourself on the ground and thrash around if you want to complete the image but perhaps this isn't about name calling.  Perhaps it's about uncomfortable truths?

But hey, it's obvious you read my posts and I get to respond to your posts without having to deal with your poor understanding of logic* and your hyper-inflated sense of self.   So either way works for me.

I'm glad we had this talk.   (Yeah, I know you read me!)

*_{Such as saying that you'll ONLY take me off ignore if I stop calling you names.  For which, you would have to take me off ignore (or something equivalent like view the page while not logged in.  Hopefully you're not that crazy.}

[jgraham]

I wonder why you chose the word when the meaning you meant is so removed from its common usage.

It's the second definition in the dictionary. It's not removed from common usage at all. I've already used an extremely common example, workers going on strike until their demands are met. I really can't see the point of arguing about this. It's puerile.

I'll stop first then - we seem to have reached agreement

Yes, we agree that your arguments over definitions are puerile. You know what I mean. I've made it abundantly clear.

Oooh classy!

[FirstAscent]

never coming back

Which is why I had the last post before you made that idiotic claim? I also can't help but notice that your recent replies to me have been nothing but whiny little bitch comments that don't even touch upon the issues.

[FirstAscent]

You could have responded to the criticism here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38341.0 before crapping on us with another shitty thread.

There was no criticism. Just a bunch of people agreeing with me and the usual trolls. If you want to quote something in that thread that you thing I should respond to then go for it but right now you're just trying to be an insulting little douche as usual.

You are a very strange person.

You're a piece of shit troll.

[FirstAscent]

Posting that you want to make threats to do stuff you are entitled to and that you want to be able to demand people kill themselves is just bizarre.  Have you considered talking to someone in real life about whatever it is that is getting you in this state?

Oh I get it. You're one of those idiots that can't tell the difference between arguing that one should be able to do something and arguing that one wants to or should do something. I think people should be able to do heroin but I personally wouldn't want to do it and I would urge everyone not to do it at all. You really need to work on that.

[FirstAscent]

Its obvious you have something troubling you and I wonder if you considered turning the computer off for a bit and finding someone who you can talk to and get things in perspective.

You're either trolling or you take posts made on a discussion forum way too seriously. Either way, stop.

[FirstAscent]

Your original post still makes absolutely no sense.  You need to articulate your point better, because extreme examples are useless if no one understands wtf point you're even trying to make.

Everyone else seems to understand me. I'll do that when a non-troll makes the same request.

[FirstAscent]

What's legitimate or not doesn't matter in the real world.

You're an idiot. Please stop talking to me.

[FirstAscent]

One day you are all libertarian - next day you are threatening violence against people who break your countries laws.

I haven't threatened anyone. You're either trolling or you're stupid. For your sake, I hope you're trolling.

Anyway, since you say this is a philosophical discussion, can you give us a clue what philosophical point you wanted to make?

I guess you really are stupid. I've said it several times. My point is, if I can legitimately do X then I can legitimately threaten to do X. Do you need it translated into another language? Do you want some pictures to go with it? What will help penetrate that thick skull of yours?

[FirstAscent]

So you're saying that if I have a right to do something, you have a right to violently compel me to do it.

No, I'm not. You're an idiot. Consider yourself ignored.

[NghtRppr]

Are you familiar with the concept of a homeowner's association and the association dues that are payable by its residents?

You mean those things that you have to voluntarily enter into or they won't sell you the home? Yes, that's a contract which should be enforced.

As for your quotes of my comments. I was simply giving that user the same treatment I was given in order to show them how it feels. He's constantly abusive so I see no reason not to show him the same disrespect. After seeing it changed nothing, I'm just going to start ignoring these people. Talk with me long enough without insulting me and see if I insult you, then your point will be made. These quotes taken out of context prove nothing.

[Hawker]

Are you familiar with the concept of a homeowner's association and the association dues that are payable by its residents?

You mean those things that you have to voluntarily enter into or they won't sell you the home? Yes, that's a contract which should be enforced.

As for your quotes of my comments. I was simply giving that user the same treatment I was given in order to show them how it feels. He's constantly abusive so I see no reason not to show him the same disrespect. After seeing it changed nothing, I'm just going to start ignoring these people. Talk with me long enough without insulting me and see if I insult you, then your point will be made. These quotes taken out of context prove nothing.

Not voluntarily.  If you inherit the property, you are still governed by the home-owners association. 

[FirstAscent]

Are you familiar with the concept of a homeowner's association and the association dues that are payable by its residents?

You mean those things that you have to voluntarily enter into or they won't sell you the home? Yes, that's a contract which should be enforced.

A homeowner's association exists to ensure benefit to all residents by maintaining a set of rules, usually having to do with the following:

• The appearance of one's house and yard
• The allowed modifications one can make to the house
• Security
• Landscaping and maintenance of land in and around the neighborhood, but not the property of any single homeowner
• Safety, especially for children

Homeowner associations are not governmental organizations, but private operations put in place by the developer of the tract. However, it is a classic example of micro governance at work. The association dues are basically the analogue of taxes, and the services rendered are the analogue of public services. The homeowners can vote on new regulations.

If homeowners are not happy with the situation, they can organize, vote, or leave. Again, this is like government. What it is decidedly not like is a decentralized idealistic libertarian society. The point is, organized tax collecting institutions which collect a fee to render a prescribed set of services to a population are generally inevitable and will arise from any society, even your libertarian society.

[jgraham]

Talk with me long enough without insulting me and see if I insult you, then your point will be made.

jgraham is a loudmouthed douche that tries to make up with posturing what he lacks in intelligence and he'll never convince me that stealing is justifiable and doesn't require restitution in kind

Out of curiosity.  I went back though my posts and found this.  It's interesting that there is no real use of invective directed at our beloved bitcoin2cash from me (except for the term "jerky" for which an apology was offered and accepted).  Unless.  Unless again we aren't talking about insults but criticism.  Which is sort of the point. 

QED baby.

[NghtRppr]

If homeowners are not happy with the situation, they can organize, vote, or leave. Again, this is like government.

That's because they entered into the situation by agreeing to a contract. The builder owns the land and therefore gets to set the terms of whoever moves there. That kind of private ownership is exactly not like the government which claims to set rules on property that I own.

What it is decidedly not like is a decentralized idealistic libertarian society.

It is though. It's a private owner dictating the rules of his own property. That's perfectly compatible with libertarianism which is why libertarianism wouldn't be utter chaos.

The point is, organized tax collecting institutions which collect a fee to render a prescribed set of services to a population are generally inevitable and will arise from any society, even your libertarian society.

I'm not against paying fees. I'm against being physically forced to do so against my will. If I don't like the rules a builder lays down, then I don't have to buy it. It's his land so he gets to do what he wants with it. Knocking on my door, of a house I own, and demanding I pay a fee is completely different.

[FirstAscent]

If homeowners are not happy with the situation, they can organize, vote, or leave. Again, this is like government.

That's because they entered into the situation by agreeing to a contract. The builder owns the land and therefore gets to set the terms of whoever moves there. That kind of private ownership is exactly not like the government which claims to set rules on property that I own.

That is what immigrants do when they land on US soil and apply for US citizenship (or another nation). The US owned the land hundreds of years ago, and slowly granted property rights to citizens, and those citizens knew full well the laws of the nation. It is exactly like the homeowner's association.

What it is decidedly not like is a decentralized idealistic libertarian society.

It is though. It's a private owner dictating the rules of his own property. That's perfectly compatible with libertarianism which is why libertarianism wouldn't be utter chaos.

No, it isn't. When you buy a house and there is a homeowner's association, you're the owner of the house, but the homeowner's association was setup by the former owner of the land your house resides on - the developer. The homeowner's association is dictating to you rules you must abide by and fees you must pay, even though you own the house, and possibly the land. In the case of a condo, you don't own the land. Either way, it's a mixed scenario in which the original owner of the land (developer or nation) is stipulating to you rules you must abide by and fees you must pay to insure the well being of the community.

The point is, organized tax collecting institutions which collect a fee to render a prescribed set of services to a population are generally inevitable and will arise from any society, even your libertarian society.

I'm not against paying fees. I'm against being physically forced to do so against my will. If I don't like the rules a builder lays down, then I don't have to buy it. It's his land so he gets to do what he wants with it. Knocking on my door, of a house I own, and demanding I pay a fee is completely different.

The homeowner's association essentially knocks on your door every month and demands a fee, even though you own the land and house. If you don't like it, move. If you don't like the nation you live in, move.

Not voluntarily.  If you inherit the property, you are still governed by the home-owners association.

The owner of the property voluntarily entered into it. The fact you inherit something with conditions is irrelevant. The rightful owner entered into the contract. If you don't like it, that's too bad. It wasn't your house at the time the decision was made. If you don't like it then you don't have to accept the gift. If that's your only argument you must know that's pretty weak.

It's not a weak argument. If you were born into a nation with a set of preexisting rules, then as you say, too bad.

[NghtRppr]

That is what immigrants do when they land on US soil and apply for US citizenship (or another nation). The US owned the land hundreds of years ago, and slowly granted property rights to citizens, and those citizens knew full well the laws of the nation. It is exactly like the homeowner's association analogy.

You have to homestead land to own it. You can't just say "I own all the land". However, I was born here, not immigrated so that wouldn't even apply to me.

When you buy a house and there is a homeowner's association, you're the owner of the house, but the homeowner's association was setup by the former owner of the land your house resides on - the developer.

No, you can't buy the house unless you sign the contract first. You aren't the owner UNLESS you agree to the rules. It's not the same at all.

The homeowner's association essentially knocks on your door every month and demands a fee, even though you own the land and house.

You have to agree before you own it.

[FirstAscent]

You have to agree before you own it.

Hawker already pointed out to you that you might inherit the property. If you don't agree to it, then I suppose you can sell. The same situation applies to citizenship. You either apply for citizenship and agree to it, or you inherit it by birth. If the former, you're the one agreeing. If the latter, you can opt out and leave, exactly as in the inheritance situation.

Defend the homeowner's association all you want - by doing so, you are implicitly defending taxation.

[AyeYo]

You have to agree before you own it.

Hawker already pointed out to you that you might inherit the property. If you don't agree to it, then I suppose you can sell. The same situation applies to citizenship. You either apply for citizenship and agree to it, or you inherit it by birth. If the former, you're the one agreeing. If the latter, you can opt out and leave, exactly as in the inheritance situation.

Defend the homeowner's association all you want - by doing so, you are implicitly defending taxation.

Owned him.

[NghtRppr]

inherit the property

Property.

apply for citizenship and agree to it, or you inherit it by birth

Not property.

Big difference.

Defend the homeowner's association all you want - by doing so, you are implicitly defending taxation.

A builder can do what he wants with his land because he owns it. The government does not own the entire country so cannot.

[FirstAscent]

inherit the property

Property.

apply for citizenship and agree to it, or you inherit it by birth

Not property.

Big difference.

Defend the homeowner's association all you want - by doing so, you are implicitly defending taxation.

A builder can do what he wants with his land because he owns it. The government does not own the entire country so cannot.

Irrelevant.

What are you not understanding? I'll summarize:

An organization requires you to pay a fee on a regular basis based on your footprint within the boundaries of a geographical region in which you live and which provides services to you and your fellow residents within that geographical region. You may or may not agree in totality with the efficiency or results of all those services. You can try and change things through meetings, votes, etc. In the end, if you are dissatisfied and don't care to pay those fees anymore, you will have to move.

Now, am I talking about a homeowner's association, or a government? To be honest, I can't tell.

[NghtRppr]

An organization requires you You voluntarily agree to pay a fee on a regular basis based on your footprint within the boundaries of a geographical region in which you live and which provides services to you and your fellow residents within that geographical region. You may or may not agree in totality with the efficiency or results of all those services. You can try and change things through meetings, votes, etc. In the end, if you are dissatisfied and don't care to pay those fees anymore, you will have to move.

Still talking about government? No.

[FirstAscent]

An organization requires you You voluntarily agree to pay a fee on a regular basis based on your footprint within the boundaries of a geographical region in which you live and which provides services to you and your fellow residents within that geographical region. You may or may not agree in totality with the efficiency or results of all those services. You can try and change things through meetings, votes, etc. In the end, if you are dissatisfied and don't care to pay those fees anymore, you will have to move.

Still talking about government? No.

My interpretation is more accurate. Your payment of the fee to the homeowner's association is not voluntary, unless you opt to not reside within the geographical boundaries of their domain.

[The Script]

An organization requires you You voluntarily agree to pay a fee on a regular basis based on your footprint within the boundaries of a geographical region in which you live and which provides services to you and your fellow residents within that geographical region. You may or may not agree in totality with the efficiency or results of all those services. You can try and change things through meetings, votes, etc. In the end, if you are dissatisfied and don't care to pay those fees anymore, you will have to move.

Still talking about government? No.

My interpretation is more accurate. Your payment of the fee to the homeowner's association is not voluntary, unless you opt to not reside within the geographical boundaries of their domain.

For me the legitimacy would depend on the terms of the contract I signed when I bought the property. If I voluntarily buy property within a homeowners association and sign a contract saying I will abide by the decisions of the council, senate, leadership, whatever, then it is legitimate and I cannot complain. Only leave. If I already own the property and my neighbors form a homeowners association and THEN try to force me to abide by their decisions, it is illegitimate.

With government I have signed no contract and so am not legitimately bound to any set of rules. I submit because of fear of reprisal. This is a big difference.

[NghtRppr]

My interpretation is more accurate. Your payment of the fee to the homeowner's association is not voluntary, unless you opt to not reside within the geographical boundaries of their domain.

That's why it's voluntary. They owned the property.

I actually own a home and I am a member of an HOA. It's rather restrictive. My mailbox has to be a certain color. My front door has to be a certain color. I can't have window A/C units. My grass can't be above a certain height. I can't have yard sales, etc. However, before I bought the home I was told that if I didn't join the HOA, I wouldn't be allowed to buy it. I could have just said no, but I didn't.

Imagine a different scenario. There was no HOA when I bought the house and no mention of any future plans. I bought the house without any conditions. Now, one day there is a knock on my door and someone says "You're now a member of the new HOA. If you don't like it, move."

Historically, that's more accurate of the government. Do you know the history of the states? A few people moved into an area. They homesteaded some land. Eventually, a small group of people declared that that area was a state. The owner of the land wasn't consulted. The vote wasn't unanimous. One day, an agent of the state shows up to a farm. The exchange went something like this...

Agent: Hey, there. We're starting a new state.
Farmer: That's great to hear! I'm a good neighbor and I look forward to trading with you. Good luck!
Agent: No, you don't understand. You're part of this state now and you have to pay taxes.
Farmer: What?! I didn't agree to this! This is armed robbery! You're no better than a thief!
Agent: Well, you can always move.
Farmer: Move?! I've owned this land for generations. Why should I move? This is my land.
Agent: Not anymore.

[FirstAscent]

With government I have signed no contract and so am not legitimately bound to any set of rules. I submit because of fear of reprisal. This is a big difference.

By opting to not leave the nation upon, say reaching the age of 18, are you not agreeing to an implicit contract by virtue of your residence and use of its services?

Here's an example for you: let's say you were born in my household. Even better, let's say you are my child and were born in my household, and I demand payment from you to continue to live there. You counter by stating that you own your own bedroom because you bought it from me. That's fine, I say - you own the space inside the walls, but that doesn't really mean you can act with impunity and not pay me a fee to continue to live there.

You are free to leave.

Basically, you're over interpreting the concept of land ownership to mean that you can operate your own sovereign domain within another sovereign domain. Life does not really work like that - unless you're the Catholic Church and your host is Italy.

[FirstAscent]

Imagine a different scenario. There was no HOA when I bought the house and no mention of any future plans. I bought the house without any conditions. Now, one day there is a knock on my door and someone says "You're now a member of the new HOA. If you don't like it, move."

Tell me, do you fantasize all the time that you are that farmer? Do you fantasize that you were here before the US government? Or wait - maybe I have it wrong! Let me guess - that home you own, the one with the HOA - you've owned it for several centuries.

You see, you aren't that farmer. When you bought your house, not only did you enter into an agreement with the HOA, you decided to continue to be a US citizen and resident of the US in addition to being a resident of the HOA. And you decided to continue to pay your taxes, instead of moving out of the country.

[NghtRppr]

By opting to not leave the nation upon, say reaching the age of 18, are you not agreeing to an implicit contract by virtue of your residence and use of its services?

No, because that would assume that the government owns everything. 

Here's an example for you: let's say you were born in my household. Even better, let's say you are my child and were born in my household, and I demand payment from you to continue to live there. You counter by stating that you own your own bedroom because you bought it from me. That's fine, I say - you own the space inside the walls, but that doesn't really mean you can act with impunity and not pay me a fee to continue to live there.

You are free to leave.

Basically, you're over interpreting the concept of land ownership to mean that you can operate your own sovereign domain within another sovereign domain. Life does not really work like that - unless you're the Catholic Church and your host is Italy.

Again, you're assuming that the government owns everything. I'm not living in Uncle Sam's house.

Tell me, do you fantasize all the time that you are that farmer? Do you fantasize that you were here before the US government? Or wait - maybe I have it wrong! Let me guess - that home you own, the one with the HOA - you've owned it for several centuries.

Don't get personal. I don't have any such fantasies nor did I imply I was that farmer. It was meant to illustrate the facts of history.

You see, you aren't that farmer. When you bought your house, not only did you enter into an agreement with the HOA, you decided to continue to be a US citizen and resident of the US in addition to being a resident of the HOA. And you decided to continue to pay your taxes, instead of moving out of the country.

By continuing to live in your house instead of leaving the country you are agreeing to follow my rules? No, because I don't own your property. The government doesn't own mine.

[FirstAscent]

Again, you're assuming that the government owns everything. I'm not living in Uncle Sam's house.

...

No, because I don't own your property. The government doesn't own mine.

You keep saying things like this. You seem to have this notion that having title to some land means that you have immunity from the rest of the Universe while within the boundaries of your property line. You have this sense that a property deed (which is a piece of paper and perhaps a digital record on file in a county recorder's office) confers upon you some fundamental physical law.

That is where you are wrong. Land ownership is nothing more than a social contract that does not necessarily give you the complete set of rights that you believe it does. To put it bluntly, the neurons inside your head have one interpretation of what it means to own property in the United States, and the neurons inside other people's heads quite possibly all have slightly different interpretations of it. Your best bet is to see what the neurons inside a judge's head believe.

Also, I'd be curious to know how deep you believe your land ownership goes. Assuming your parcel of land is square, do you naively believe your ownership is an inverted pyramid with its apex at the center of the Earth?

The point is, you don't really know what land ownership is. You only think you do, based on your ideal interpretation of it.

[The Script]

With government I have signed no contract and so am not legitimately bound to any set of rules. I submit because of fear of reprisal. This is a big difference.

By opting to not leave the nation upon, say reaching the age of 18, are you not agreeing to an implicit contract by virtue of your residence and use of its services?

It would depend on what defines a contract.  I don't consider vague, implicit contracts that are never explicitly stated or signed to be valid.  Do you?

Here's an example for you: let's say you were born in my household. Even better, let's say you are my child and were born in my household, and I demand payment from you to continue to live there. You counter by stating that you own your own bedroom because you bought it from me. That's fine, I say - you own the space inside the walls, but that doesn't really mean you can act with impunity and not pay me a fee to continue to live there.

You are free to leave.

Basically, you're over interpreting the concept of land ownership to mean that you can operate your own sovereign domain within another sovereign domain. Life does not really work like that - unless you're the Catholic Church and your host is Italy.

The question is, does the government own all the land in it's geographic "domain"?

[FirstAscent]

The question is, does the government own all the land in it's geographic "domain"?

In general, you could say it does. At its discretion, it can assign a property deed to you that will grant you certain rights to the land, and you can reassign that property deed to another and receive payment in doing so. As I was telling bitcoin2cash, you are mistaken if you believe land ownership means quite as much as you think it does.

Here's a thought experiment for you. Assume that land ownership means that you own the surface dirt of your property to a depth of fifty feet. Now, when you stand upon your property's dirt, you are standing on something that you own. However, your physical self is occupying the space above the dirt, and thus residing in the atmosphere of the host nation. By doing so, you are occupying their space, and subject to their laws.

It's irrelevant whether the above thought experiment is actually true or not. The point is, it serves to illustrate that land ownership is not exactly what you think it is.

[NghtRppr]

Also, I'd be curious to know how deep you believe your land ownership goes. Assuming your parcel of land is square, do you naively believe your ownership is an inverted pyramid with its apex at the center of the Earth?

No. That's known as the ad coelum doctrine. I own what I homestead. I haven't been to the center of the Earth. You can tunnel below my property and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't damage my land i.e. you can't cause me to cave in.

Humans create governments and grant governments authority, not the other way around. Property existed before government. Government is based on consent of the governed.

[FirstAscent]

Humans create governments and grant governments authority, not the other way around.

Correct! And in your fabled libertarian society, the citizens will band together and organize and create laws and build a government and agree to be taxed, sooner or later - just like you've agreed to be taxed by your HOA.

Property existed before government.

Incorrect. Land existed before government. Property (meaning land which is owned) didn't exist until there was collective recognition of property lines, and enforcement of ownership, which implies a lot of things, such as laws, rules, defense, social contracts, etc. In the specific instance of your ownership of property in the United States, it is not what you believe it should be, but what the federal and local governments have decided it is. You can cry a river the rest of your life that it isn't working the way you think it should, but there is no magical book which states that your interpretation is "The Interpretation".

[Hawker]

Also, I'd be curious to know how deep you believe your land ownership goes. Assuming your parcel of land is square, do you naively believe your ownership is an inverted pyramid with its apex at the center of the Earth?

No. That's known as the ad coelum doctrine. I own what I homestead. I haven't been to the center of the Earth. You can tunnel below my property and do whatever you want as long as it doesn't damage my land i.e. you can't cause me to cave in.

Humans create governments and grant governments authority, not the other way around. Property existed before government. Government is based on consent of the governed.

Thats wrong.  There has never been a society without some form of government and the very concept of property is a social construct.

[AyeYo]

"Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt."
Benjamin Franklin


"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat and other little Acquisitions absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public Convention. Hence, the public has the rights of regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it."
Benjamin Franklin

[jgraham]

Humans create governments and grant governments authority, not the other way around.

Correct! And in your fabled libertarian society, the citizens will band together and organize and create laws and build a government and agree to be taxed, sooner or later - just like you've agreed to be taxed by your HOA.

...and some people born into this society will be under some contracts that they never agreed to.   The simple and obvious paradox that separates the sane Libertarians (utilitarians) from the insane (bitcoin2cash, et. al.)

It's easy to see:

Wealthy person becomes landowner of your property.   They are perfectly in their rights to take away privileges you have on your property.  Like the ability to leave (as I can own roads now) or get a home elsewhere.  You have children,  your children have signed no contract with wealthy person.  Ergo they are trespassing.  Oh, hey there are some pretty strict clauses of about trespassing in those contracts.  Now landowner owns your children as well*.

The typical brain-dead response is:  "Nobody would agree to a contract where this was possible." - Which is completely incorrect.  Probably everyone on this board agrees to contracts that limit liability for the use of a product, which restrict your usage of land, and that are subject to change without notice.   People in different social settings have signed contracts to work at a place for the rest of their lives.  People even appear to capable of signing contracts for lives beyond their current one...and pay for the privileged to be released.

So even assuming they ignore all that evidence.  They fail to see the other side of the coin.  If granting privileges to someone and all their kids and their kids kids, ad infinitum is by their own definition valuable.    How would they prevent a tiered system (rights 'haves' and 'have nots') when there is scarcity on the resource? (i.e. land).

*Now certainly someone could argue that:  Trespassers haven't agreed to your contracts so they don't need to obey.  Which I assume everyone can figure out why that's silly.  They could also argue that trespassing is something where punishments can't be determined by the landowner (i.e. the government can say that this constitutes a penalty no more than $50 which would be an  unwaiveable right).  However there are two responses to this:  i) The land owner *can* hold the parent partially responsible and essentially either put them under so much duress - all spelled out in the contract - that they are coerced into giving the landowner whatever rights they have over their child.  ii) The child can not move from that spot without constantly trespassing - for which the landowner will eventually own them. (Government would have to grant another unwaiveable right)   iii) Any of these interventions by government are really telling me what I can do with my land.  Which I thought I had complete rights over.

[NghtRppr]

the citizens will band together and organize and create laws and build a government and agree to be taxed, sooner or later

The part in bold is key. You need to realize that I want all human interactions to be voluntary. If people voluntarily come together and create a government and economic system, that's exactly what I want. It could be capitalism, communism, syndicalism, whatever. The key is that it's voluntary. If you think that a system that exists exactly like the current one but with the added feature that it's voluntary is a failure of my goals then you clearly don't understand my goals.

which implies a lot of things, such as laws, rules, defense, social contracts, etc

I wasn't clear about what kind of government I'm against since, strictly speaking, even a chess club has a government. As I mentioned above, I'm not against governments that are voluntary. I'm not against the chess club voting on a president and passing rules, etc. I'm against government that's forced upon some people against their will, aka states.

You can cry a river the rest of your life that it isn't working the way you think it should, but there is no magical book which states that your interpretation is "The Interpretation".

If you keep descending into this hostile and rude kind of language, you will find yourself being ignored. I've been nothing but polite to you so I expect the same courtesy. There's no reason why we can't debate this in a calm manner. Nothing we say here is going to make much difference. The stakes are as low as they can be. If you don't have the patience for this then don't bother talking to me.

There is a nice way to put what you said. You're claiming that my views are only opinions, not facts. I agree with that. There's what is known as the is-ought gap. There's no fact about whether or not you should engage me in debate or simply shoot me in the head to get what you want. However, once you agree to certain ground rules, it logically follows that taxation and other forms of involuntary interactions aren't legitimate. I can prove to you that stealing is wrong but once you agree that it is, you have to abandon taxation.

[AyeYo]

the citizens will band together and organize and create laws and build a government and agree to be taxed, sooner or later

The part in bold is key. You need to realize that I want all human interactions to be voluntary. If people voluntarily come together and create a government and economic system, that's exactly what I want. It could be capitalism, communism, syndicalism, whatever. The key is that it's voluntary. If you think that a system that exists exactly like the current one but with the added feature that it's voluntary is a failure of my goals then you clearly don't understand my goals.

The current system IS voluntary.  You can leave any time you wish.  No one is forcing you to stay.  If you don't like paying the taxes, are unhappy with the services, or just want a change of scenery, you're free to go.

[NghtRppr]

AyeYo, I can't see what you say because you are on ignore. I assume it's something sarcastic or insulting. If you want to waste your time talking to someone that doesn't read what you write, carry on.

[FirstAscent]

The current system IS voluntary.  You can leave any time you wish.  No one is forcing you to stay.  If you don't like paying the taxes, are unhappy with the services, or just want a change of scenery, you're free to go.

It's tough for him to swallow that truth. It's much more fun for him to think of himself as a rebel and an independent thinker.

EDIT: bitcoin2cash, now you can see what he said, as I quoted it for you.

[NghtRppr]

EDIT: bitcoin2cash, now you can see what he said, as I quoted it for you.

Now you're ignored. Congratulations.

[FirstAscent]

Now you're ignored. Congratulations.

I guess your beliefs are safer if nobody disagrees with you.

[jgraham]

There is a nice way to put what you said. You're claiming that my views are only opinions, not facts. I agree with that. There's what is known as the is-ought gap. There's no fact about whether or not you should engage me in debate or simply shoot me in the head to get what you want. However, once you agree to certain ground rules, it logically follows that taxation and other forms of involuntary interactions aren't legitimate.

Kind of sugar coating the truth.  The set of rules which force the conclusion that "taxation is wrong" includes the rule "taxation is wrong".  The problem,  isn't finding a set of premises which force some conclusion.  It's getting a set of premises which are mutually agreed on which force a conclusion.

I can prove to you that stealing is wrong but once you agree that it is, you have to abandon taxation.

Let's see if I can tell you bitcoin2cash's argument.   Well obviously it's going to head toward taxation === stealing.

Which will of course require the definition of "stealing".   Let's take a stab at that - maybe something like. Stealing is taking something which doesn't belong to you?   Which of course brings us to the definition of the term "belong".  Which is, as others have mentioned outside of crazy religious ideas is purely a social construct.  Ok now we have a problem.  Since it's a social construct it's the result of what people agree to however clearly not everyone can have a completely different idea as to what ownership is.  Clearly everyone's ideas of this are not the same.  bitcoin2cash has to believe that 'belong' means any and all rights are his/hers.  Except the right to harm (in various ways) other people or their property and he has to believe that every other persons beliefs are incorrect.  Now again this belief probably can't be proved.  I'm sure s/he will call it "axiomatic".  So this belief has to be irrational.  

What did I used to say about bitcoin2cash - that all s/hes doing is wrapping is presuppositions in his definitions?  Also known as begging the question.

Now you're ignored. Congratulations.

I guess your beliefs are safer if nobody disagrees with you.

I think this clarifies our points.   Despite much fanfare how the ignore-athon is about curbing insults.   That is the use of invective.    It's actually about wanting to shut out ideas you don't like.   Let me be clear that bitcoin2cash has every right, in my book to avoid talking about things he is uncomfortable talking about - however he has no right to lie about why he's doing it.