Legitimate Threats, Legitimate Demands

[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.