The Myth of Compromise

[Hawker]

...snip...

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy.

How immature are you?  Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long.  The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence.

All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief one.

If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land.

All I am saying is that you need to grow up.  The court may award the entire plot to one of the claimants and the other will have to pay legal costs for both sides.  Just because the court does that does not mean the loser was wrong to bring the case.  Its perfectly normal for honest people to have honest disagreements and to use courts to settle them.

What's sickening is your idea that one of these honest people should kill the other.

[1714100801]

1714100801

[1714100801]

1714100801

[1714100801]

1714100801

[ALPHA.]

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol

When the Bolsheviks continued to cease her family's businesses and degrade their rights, they sure did.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...

What will the court do? Split the land in half? The rightful land owner will only lose in that case. He will lose the right to land that was rightfully his. Evil will triumph and the fraudster will be able to steal land. If the rightful owner or other property enforcer shoots the fraudster, only good wins.

Of course in your dream world, the guy who gets killed is the "bad" guy.

How immature are you?  Go to a court and you will see honest people with disagreements about who really owns a property or a shareholding all day long.  The very reason courts exist is that 2 honest men can both have a legitimate claim to the same property and impartial judgement is preferable to violence.

All I am saying is that if the court splits the land in half and steals from a person who by principle believes he has a rightful claim to all of the land, there was no compromise. The landowner lost. The thief one.

If by some chance they are both entitled to portions of the land, then there is no compromise either. The rightful landowners will have control of their land.

All I am saying is that you need to grow up.  The court may award the entire plot to one of the claimants and the other will have to pay legal costs for both sides.  Just because the court does that does not mean the loser was wrong to bring the case.  Its perfectly normal for honest people to have honest disagreements and to use courts to settle them.

What's sickening is your idea that one of these honest people should kill the other.

If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution that is based on force after all.

[cbeast]

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol

When Bolsheviks continued to cease her family's businesses and degrade their rights, they sure did.

Mexico is a lovely climate. So is Italy. There are dozens of other countries she could have chosen. America just happens to be the land of opportunists.

[ALPHA.]

No, this scenario is an ad hominem to the main argument at hand.

She was forced to pay into it. Any reasonable person would take back what was stolen from them.

Nobody forced her to leave Russia and move to socialist America. lol

When Bolsheviks continued to cease her family's businesses and degrade their rights, they sure did.

Mexico is a lovely climate. So is Italy. There are dozens of other countries she could have chosen. America just happens to be the land of opportunists.

They all force her to pay for "a public good". Moot point.

[Hawker]

...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.

You are being wilfully blind.  Honest people have disagreements.  That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you.  

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.

You are being wilfully blind.  Honest people have disagreements.  That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you.  

If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself. There cannot be a compromise because for me to compromise will be to sacrifice my birthright.

Again, you cannot compromise when it comes to rights or you will have none at all.

[Hawker]

...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.

You are being wilfully blind.  Honest people have disagreements.  That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you.  

If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself.

So you are back to saying that all compromise is a question of "food vs poison" ? 

Since that has already being dealt with, why not read the replies that came earlier and thus save us all repeating ourselves.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51375.msg612356#msg612356

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
If the people are honest, there is no need for compromise. If one is rightfully entitled to something and the other is not, there cannot be compromise either. That is the argument at hand. A murder probably won't be needed to accomplish what is right but the threat of force as a utility is inevitable. The court is an institution is based on force after all.

You are being wilfully blind.  Honest people have disagreements.  That's life and if you really imagine that being honest means that anyone who disagrees with you is a crook, you have a sad life ahead of you.  

If somebody believes they have the right to my labor and my property, I will not be "compromising". They may honestly believe they are in the right to steal but I will stand by ownership over myself.

So you are back to saying that all compromise is a question of "food vs poison" ?  

Yes, yes it is when it comes to questions of principles and morality. It may work elsewhere.

[cbeast]

Back to circular reasoning. Back to the ignore bin until the next incarnation.

[ALPHA.]

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefathers. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

[Hawker]

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you.  He also promised it to your sister. 

Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister?

Can you see how stupid a worldview that is? 

[ALPHA.]

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you.  He also promised it to your sister.  

Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister?

Can you see how stupid a worldview that is?  

Nobody is in the right here. The father lied. My sister and I sharing the land is a compromise. We both get what we are entitled. There was no sacrifice.

I stand by all of my contentions.

[Hawker]

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you.  He also promised it to your sister.  

Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister?

Can you see how stupid a worldview that is?  

Nobody is in the right here. The father lied. My sister and I sharing the land is a compromise. We both get what we are entitled.

I stand by all of my contentions.

Actually that's a compromise.  You started with an inheritance you were promised and agreed to share it rather than kill your sister.

Welcome to the real world.  You will find the same logic applies to things like land ownership, security deposits on leases and the correct level of taxation.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/us/politics/voters-defeat-many-gop-sponsored-measures.html?hp

There are several examples here of situations where about 50% of the population have to endure laws they disagree with but prefer that to killing the other 50%.

[ALPHA.]

I want Whataburger but Linda wants McDonalds. I compromise and go to McDonalds because it will still satisfy me. We are both happy and nobody truly sacrificed. That is a true compromise.

I want my land that has been passed down to me by my forefather's. The government wants part of it for its whims. I sacrifice a part of my land for nothing of value in return. That is not a compromise. That is a total loss for me since one cannot compromise on their right to property.

See the difference?

Your father didn't make a will but before he died he promised the land to you.  He also promised it to your sister.  

Are you seriously saying that compromise is bad and that you will kill your sister?

Can you see how stupid a worldview that is?  

Nobody is in the right here. The father lied. My sister and I sharing the land is a compromise. We both get what we are entitled.

I stand by all of my contentions.

Actually that's a compromise.  You started with an inheritance you were promised and agreed to share it rather than kill your sister.

Welcome to the real world.  You will find the same logic applies to things like land ownership, security deposits on leases (really I've spent years arguing with tenants over the damn things) and the correct level of taxation.  

Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.

The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.

The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.

You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad.  That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...

Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.

The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.

You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad.  That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right.

No, it isn't. It was never truly mine to begin with. The claim was based on fraudulent premises. In truth, it belongs to me and my sister.

Now, if my sister were truly trying to steal my land, I would just give it to her; not out of sacrifice but out of the value she brings me. That is an exchange of value; not sacrifice.

[ALPHA.]

In summary, I believe a compromise cannot have sacrifice nor loss for either party. Such dealings only result in one winning over the other.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Yes, it is a compromise as I said. It was a settlement of differences and not principles. Everybody ended up with the value they are entitled in the end.

The same logic does not apply to property rights. That requires sacrifice and loss.

You gave up the right to inherit your land, promised to you by your Dad.  That is the sacrifice and loss of a property right.

No, it isn't. It was never truly mine to begin with. The claim was based on fraudulent premises. In truth, it belongs to me and my sister.

Now, if my sister were truly trying to steal my land, I would just give it to her; not out of sacrifice but out of the value she brings me. That is an exchange of value; not sacrifice.

The problem with your logic is you invented the fraud part.

As I said before, honest people do have disagreements and the alternative to violence is compromise. 

[ALPHA.]

The father committed fraud by telling two they owned the same thing. That is not an invention but the truth. The only way to enforce property rights is aggression in any case. Persuasion is a voluntary transaction. It will not prevent evil from committing its deed.