|
myrkul
|
 |
July 08, 2012, 08:23:02 PM |
|
Wasting time on changing the subject is wasting time. This is directly on-subject. Answer me with one word. If I refuse to purchase your product, am I damaging you? YES or NO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1003
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:23:30 PM |
|
..snip...
That is the difference between a statist and an anarchist. You think people have to be forced to be charitable because you, yourself, are not.
Others are, and that is why even without a government mandate, a hospital will tend to those that are truly in a life or death emergency. I have no problem shouldering Stan's emergency at the hospital. Not if his life depended on it.
...snip...
So the hospital has a legal obligation to treat Stoner Stan. And you and I have to pay for that. You are happy to do so. Hurray - you are a lovely person! I'm not - fuck Stoner Stan's liberty the free-loading bastard buys insurance or he goes to jail. If he can afford drugs, then I can't see why I must pay for his health care. You're creating a strawman with "So the hospital has a legal obligation to treat Stoner Stan". We went over this - only in emergencies. The hospital wasn't legally required to treat me, either. |
I'm grumpy!!
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:32:11 PM |
|
...snip...
You're creating a strawman with "So the hospital has a legal obligation to treat Stoner Stan". We went over this - only in emergencies. The hospital wasn't legally required to treat me, either.
Lets be clear. If Stan is told to die quietly in a gutter or if Stan's EMERGENCY treatment is not funded by the hospital or the state, that's fine. Then you, cryptoanarchist, should not have an obligation to buy health insurance or to have it provided through the tax system. I think you and I are 100% agreed on that. But, if the cost of Stoner Stan's care is picked up by the hospital's decent patients or by the taxpayer, then he has to be obliged to pay for health insurance or a tax penalty. Exactly why you think Stoner Stan should get EMERGENCY treatment free beats me but don't dare ask me to subsidise his drug taking. |
|
|
|
|
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1003
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:34:02 PM |
|
...snip...
You're creating a strawman with "So the hospital has a legal obligation to treat Stoner Stan". We went over this - only in emergencies. The hospital wasn't legally required to treat me, either.
Lets be clear. If Stan is told to die quietly in a gutter or if Stan's EMERGENCY treatment is not funded by the hospital or the state, that's fine. Then you, cryptoanarchist, should not have an obligation to buy health insurance or to have it provided through the tax system. I think you and I are 100% agreed on that. But, if the cost of Stoner Stan's care is picked up by the hospital's decent patients or by the taxpayer, then he has to be obliged to pay for health insurance or a tax penalty. Exactly why you think Stoner Stan should get EMERGENCY treatment free beats me but don't dare ask me to subsidise his drug taking. This is so convoluted and full of logical fallacy I'm not going to bother. The irony is that you started with "Let's be clear" |
I'm grumpy!!
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:35:45 PM |
|
Yo, H, Can I get an answer on this? Wasting time on changing the subject is wasting time. This is directly on-subject. Answer me with one word. If I refuse to purchase your product, am I damaging you? YES or NO. |
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:37:13 PM |
|
...snip...
This is so convoluted and full of logical fallacy I'm not going to bother. The irony is that you started with "Let's be clear"
Good. As long as I am not on the hook for free-loaders, I am happy. If I do have to pay for them, then its a brutal infringement of my property rights. |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:44:18 PM |
|
Yo, H, Can I get an answer on this? Wasting time on changing the subject is wasting time. This is directly on-subject. Answer me with one word. If I refuse to purchase your product, am I damaging you? YES or NO. Nope - cheating in computer games is off topic. If you want to make a point, do so and please stay on topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:46:42 PM |
|
Nope - cheating in computer games is off topic. If you want to make a point, do so and please stay on topic.
Fine. If I refuse to buy at Wal-Mart, am I damaging Wal-Mart? Again, answer yes or no. |
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:51:01 PM |
|
Nope - cheating in computer games is off topic. If you want to make a point, do so and please stay on topic.
Fine. If I refuse to buy at Wal-Mart, am I damaging Wal-Mart? Again, answer yes or no. There is the world of difference between an little old lady prevents a development that benefits 2 million people and a little old lady who shops at ASDA as opposed to M&S. You are pretending to be stupid and asking stupid questions. Why? And why do you think I want to discuss her retail preferences? |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:54:16 PM |
|
Nope - cheating in computer games is off topic. If you want to make a point, do so and please stay on topic.
Fine. If I refuse to buy at Wal-Mart, am I damaging Wal-Mart? Again, answer yes or no. There is the world of difference between an little old lady prevents a development that benefits 2 million people and a little old lady who shops at ASDA as opposed to M&S. No, Only scale. You cannot profit at my expense without my permission. Period. End of story. |
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 08, 2012, 08:59:44 PM |
|
Binary questions for people who pretend to be stupid, a pretense which does not allow for admission of wrongness.
It's a beautiful haiku, but I'm not sure I follow your meaning. |
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:03:26 PM |
|
Nope - cheating in computer games is off topic. If you want to make a point, do so and please stay on topic.
Fine. If I refuse to buy at Wal-Mart, am I damaging Wal-Mart? Again, answer yes or no. There is the world of difference between an little old lady prevents a development that benefits 2 million people and a little old lady who shops at ASDA as opposed to M&S. No, Only scale. You cannot profit at my expense without my permission. Period. End of story. Wrong. Any arbitrator will take into account all the economic impacts and will likely decide that the little old lady is being a greedy bitch. Anyway, lets stop. You have convinced me that in a NAP based society, all the stuff we have now will still work even if we change vocabulary. That includes conscription and eminent domain. I know you don't agree but that isn't really important for now as there is no NAP based society. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:06:56 PM |
|
Nope - cheating in computer games is off topic. If you want to make a point, do so and please stay on topic.
Fine. If I refuse to buy at Wal-Mart, am I damaging Wal-Mart? Again, answer yes or no. There is the world of difference between an little old lady prevents a development that benefits 2 million people and a little old lady who shops at ASDA as opposed to M&S. No, Only scale. You cannot profit at my expense without my permission. Period. End of story. Wrong. Any arbitrator will take into account all the economic impacts and decide that the little old lady is being a greedy bitch. No, you said it yourself: The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:11:39 PM |
|
..snip... No, you said it yourself: The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.
The use of any property includes increasing its value.. Interfere with that and you are a threat to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:12:50 PM |
|
..snip... No, you said it yourself: The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.
The use of any property includes increasing its value.. Interfere with that and you are a threat to me. But I am not interfering with you building a road on your land, only on mine. If I want to keep my land at the same value, I can. |
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:17:39 PM |
|
..snip... No, you said it yourself: The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.
The use of any property includes increasing its value.. Interfere with that and you are a threat to me. But I am not interfering with you building a road on your land, only on mine. If I want to keep my land at the same value, I can. Why are you telling me this? Its nonsense; the arbitrator will throw it out. There is no way an arbitrator will allow 1 person to block 2 million people if the increase in the value of the properties of the 2 million exceeds the loss to the one person by even 1 cent. And, if you are the one person, you will pay the arbitration fees. |
|
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:19:36 PM |
|
This mob rule that you advocate winning arbitration, Hawker, is fundamentally inconsistent with NAP.
|
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:20:55 PM |
|
This mob rule that you advocate winning arbitration, Hawker, is fundamentally inconsistent with NAP.
Hmm. Sorry but you have not understood the NAP. Look it up - you have no right to interfere with my property. Read this: http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdfIt makes all these things clear. |
|
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3052
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:21:49 PM |
|
This mob rule that you advocate winning arbitration, Hawker, is fundamentally inconsistent with NAP.
Hmm. Sorry but you have not understood the NAP. Look it up - you have no right to interfere with my property. Exactly. You have no right to interfere with my property. Take and fuck off. |
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 08, 2012, 09:23:01 PM |
|
Why are you telling me this? Its nonsense; the arbitrator will throw it out. There is no way an arbitrator will allow 1 person to block 2 million people if the increase in the value of the properties of the 2 million exceeds the loss to the one person by even 1 cent.
And, if you are the one person, you will pay the arbitration fees.
Well, that's a lovely theory, but remember: The basis of arbitration is that you can't interfere with my use of my property without my consent.
And if I do not consent to your interference with my continued use of my property, you're stuffed, and the arbitrator will tell you so. |
|
|
|
|
Poll
